1905-06-20

Mr. FOSTER.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior to be kind enough to bring down the instructions sent to Judge Myers, for the holding of an investigation into the half-breed scrip business.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The Order in Council containing the instructions will be brought down at once.



PRINTING BUREAU.

Mr. SPROULE.: We have had a good deal of trouble this session with regard to getting out speeches at the Printing Bureau. Not only is there considerable delay, but in many cases it seems impossible to get the speeches printed at all. Nor are the orders given executed in their turn. Frequently, so we are informed those given later are given precedence over those given


Mr. OLIVER.: early, and on this side of the House the impression prevails that hon. members on the government side are given the advantage in this respect. A good while ago an order was sent to the Bureau to publish a speech of mine on the Autonomy Bill, accompanied by a request to state what it would cost. The reply came stating the cost and shortly after I understood the order was given. After waiting for a considerable time for the speech I had inquiry made again, but could not find out whether the order had been received or not. However, it was arranged that the speech should be published according to the prices fixed by the Bureau. After waiting some weeks they sent a speech which was not at all the one ordered, but a mere side speech, not directly on the question at all, and the publication of which would not cost one-quarter that of the other. At the time the order was sent the type was not distributed, but it has since been distributed, and to publish this speech now would require the whole thing to be set up again, and it probably could not be got out before the session is over. I think it is high time that the attention of parliament was drawn to these things. Somebody must be in fault ; somebody must be responsible for this careless and unbusinesslike management.


Wilfrid Laurier: WTith whom did my hon. friend correspond ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With the chief whip's clerk directly to the King's Printer.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am very much surprised at this charge, because I know Mr. Dawson to be a most careful, painstaking officer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think it was the King's Printer himself, but some others under him. All I can say is that, after waiting for weeks, a speech was sent which was not at all the one ordered.


Wilfrid Laurier: I know Mr. Dawson to be a very painstaking and careful officer, and if his attention be called to the matter he must have some good explanation. Something should be done to prevent a recurrence of such errors.



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On section 12,-distribution of seats-
Wilfrid Laurier: I beg to move that the schedules which were laid on the table some time ago, and which are printed and to be found on page 7 of the last printed Bill, be now adopted. I do not know whether my hon. friends opposite want a
7725	JU-tfE 20, 1905	7726
discussion on the general arrangement of the schedule or to take them up one by one.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: The rumour is general that the government proposed to submit this to a commission of judges.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are so many rumours to which my hon. friend, with his newspaper and otherwise, gives credit, that I take them all with a grain of salt, and that is the safest course to follow. My attention was called to this question by mv hon. friend the leader of the opposition, who asked whether it would not be advisable to leave the preparation of the schedules to the judges. I expressed no opinion then, but thought that it would be far .preferable that we should have them presented to the House. I think they will be found, on the whole, eminently satisfactory and that there will be no necessity to refer them to the judges. Some exception may be taken here and there, but if there be differences of opinion, I am confident they will not be such that they cannot be reconciled in this very chamber. The schedules have been gone into with very great care, and, as far as I can see, taking the geographical condition and population and the condition of things generally, they could not be much improved, if at all.


George Eulas Foster: 
Wilfrid Laurier: There were many things to be considered in the preparation of the schedule for the distribution of seats. First of all, we had to consider the existing conditions. There is a legislature to-day in the Territories which are to be covered by those two provinces, and there are thirty-five constituencies in the two provinces-twenty in Saskatchewan and fifteen in Alberta.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps the First Minister will confine himself now to the province of Alberta.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. We give twenty-five constituencies to each of the two provinces. Therefore it was obvious from the first that we had to provide for ten more constituencies in Alberta. The next guiding principle was the population, the object being to equalize as much as possible the existing population among these twenty-five constituencies. However, it is not possible, in a new country like this, to consider the question of population alone. Geographical conditions also have to be considered. To iilus-| trate, population is more thickly settled along the lines of railway than it is in the outlying districts to the north and perhaps also to the south. Therefore it was not possible to apply the same degree of geographical extension in all the constituencies. Some had to be large and some small. But the prime object was as far as possible to give equality of numbers in the different electoral districts.


George Eulas Foster: How equality of numbers ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Taking the unit of population. My hon. friend who will speak after me will give more particulars than I can give on this point. I confine myself at present only to the more salient points. Then there are some far outlying districts which are new and in which the population may be below the unit of representation, but which must be represented. In these cases we have to chose between two things-either annexing them to other districts, or giving them separate representation. I admit at once that the suggestion that would at once occur to one's mind under some circumstances would be to join such districts to existing districts, but you have this difficulty to contend with, that the distances are so great in that country that you might make a district of such magnitude that it would be impossible for any human being to cover it within any reasonable time. It is to be expected, when an election takes place, that candidates should visit the different sections of their constituencies and put themselves into communication with their electors; but if these sparsely settled

districts in the north were joined to some of the existing districts, these constituencies would be so large that it would he physically impossible for any man to cover them, no matter what effort he applied to the task. Under such circumstances, it was necessary to form one or two districts in which the population is below the unit of representation, but which are far above the average in regard to territory. This applies chiefly to the district of Athabaska. All the other districts are, I believe, fairly well covered by the unit of representation. These are the salient principles which have actuated us- first of all, the existing condition of things. The present constituencies are the basis we have endeavoured to take. Some of them have been reproduced absolutely; others have been cut in two ; others have been differently arranged.
Mr. FOSTER, Will my right hon. friend inform me howr many have been kept absolutely as they are now ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that I can at this moment. This information will come more regularly from those who are more familiar than I am with the country. That was the first consideration, at all events

the existing representation. The next was the population to be represented, and the next was the geographical distribution of the population. These are the three principles which we have had in mind, and I do not think it is possible to have any other guides.


George Eulas Foster: What population was taken for each of these provinces, and what was the unit ? Was it made by dividing twenty-five into the population ? '


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. My hon. friend who follows me will give all this information.


William Findlay Maclean: The right hon. gentleman has not told us what political considerations influenced him. He has mentioned three principles only. Then we are to gather that no political considerations entered into the matter ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The only political consideration is justice and fair-play.


William Findlay Maclean: If the right hon. gentleman will realize that, I have no doubt this clause will get through in a very short time. But that is the point that is to be dealt with, and I hope that will be elucidated.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman, if he comes with an open mind, will be satisfied before we get through.


George Eulas Foster: Then I think we will have to ask somebody else. If the shortness of my right hon. friend's speech measures the amount of his information we will have to | forgive him, but we must have the informa-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
tion. I suppose some other member of the government will be prepared to give us the information.


Frank Oliver: For the province of Alberta the census was taken in 1901, and therefore had become an unreliable basis of information, because there has since been a large increase of population. It was therefore thought better to take as a basis the actual vote polled on the 3rd of November last. There were practically 20,000 votes polled in the new province of Alberta, exclusive of the district of Athabaska, and that would give a unit of 800 votes to each constituency, as you take in or do not take in the part of the country in which no vote was taken, as it was not represented.


William Findlay Maclean: What does the Minister of the Interior estimate the popu-ation of the new province to be now, roughly V


Frank Oliver: The estimated population is 250,000, but there is no reliable data.


George Eulas Foster: I cannot conceive that this is all the information we are to get. We might just as well move that this committee rise if we are not to be given more information than this. Do ministers think they are going to come down with an important thing like this, and that they are going into it without any explanation of the whole basis, and how they have arrived at the basis. The Prime Minister evidently knew nothing about it. Is the Minister of the Interior going to make the same confession ? I may tell him straight that he will not get anywhere with his Bill until he makes the most ample and full explanation of the basis, the way in which he has applied the principles, and showed to us that it is fair and reasonable.


Frank Oliver: The map has been before the House for four or five weeks, the schedule has been before the House for four or five weeks. I have stated to the House the basis upon which the representation was made, and if that is not satisfactory I assume it is for the hon. gentleman to say wherein it is not satisfactory. I would say to him that while there is no effort on the part of members from the west supporting the government in any way to trespass upon this House, they are here, however, in support of their rights and of their dignity as members, and do not altogether accept the arrogant manner in which hon. gentlemen opposite seek to bulldoze members from the west on this subject.


George Eulas Foster: Now, my right hon. friend will never get anywhere by attempting to bring up an argument of bulldozing and the like of that. Have we or have we not the right to a thorough and complete explanation of the way this distribution has been arrived at ? If we have, the sooner the minister is taught to give up his small bit of

politics, charging bulldozing and motives, the sooner he will become a more useful member of the cabinet than he bids fair to become by adopting this tone of debate. I have never, while I was a member of the government, attempted to bring a matter like this before parliament and do it in three or four words.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is altogether too hasty in his conclusions. I am sorry to say that my portfolio has not come in containing my papers, as otherwise I would have been prepared to show the number of votes cast in each constituency at the last election, and how many were cast in the proposed constituencies. In the meantime I will endeavour to give some information to the committee. The hon. gentleman has asked me what are the constituencies which are to remain as they have been. Well, first of all the constituency of Medicine Hat is about the same as it was before. Medicine Hat was in the district of Saskatchewan, now the greater portion of it is in the district of Alberta. It is larger by a few miles. The constituency Cardston is just the same as it has been. Lethbridge is exactly the same as it was before. Macleod is divided into two, as it was one of the largest districts in the Northwest Territories. So we have now the constituencies of Macleod and Pincher. High River is the same as it was before^ exactly the same. Banff is a little larger than it was. Calgary, the limits are now confined to the city, whereas before it comprised a portion of the country district. Then on the west of Calgary is Rosebud. The boundaries of Gleichen are not the same.


George Eulas Foster: What was the former constituency out of which Gleichen is made ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think a new one is made out of West Calgary, by the name of Innisfail. Out of 'these two constituencies of East and West Calgary we have made three, Rosebud, Gleichen and the city of Calgary. I have explained to my hon. friend that Banff is a little extended. A part of West and East Calgary has been added to Banff so as to equalize the population. Innisfail remains almost the same. There is a small change which is made in Innisfail, a small portion of the constituency being added to Red Deer.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of Lacombe. The new constituency of Lacombe is restricted from its present territorial limits. The constituency of Poaioka is placed between Lacombe and Wetaskiwin and takes in jjart of Saskatchewan and Lacombe. Wetakiwin has also been restricted and part of it is given to Leduc which also forms part of Strathcona and part of which also was added to the new district of Vermilion.


George Eulas Foster: Wetaskiwin is formed out of part of the old constituency of Wetaskiwin.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, Wetaskiwin is restricted between Ponoka on the south and Leduc on the north.


George Eulas Foster: There was a territory


Wilfrid Laurier: There was a territory called Saskatchewan. There is one yet.


George Eulas Foster: The present AVetaskiwin is taken out of that ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, it is restricted from its former limits and part of the territory within its former limits is given to Lacombe, part to Ponoka and part to Leduc.


William Findlay Maclean: It is also divided from north to south.


Wilfrid Laurier: The new constituency of Leduc is formed of a part of Wetaskiwin and part of Strathcona. Vermilion is also a new constituency made up of part of Wetaskiwin, part of Strathcona, part of Victoria and part of the added territory which was formerly a part of the Saskatchewan district. Strathcona now is very much restricted. Strathcona, as my hon. friend knows, abuts upon the Saskatchewan river. There is a pretty large population there and the constituency is restricted.


George Eulas Foster: Strathcona I did not get.


Wilfrid Laurier: Strathcona is verv much restricted from its former limits. It abuts upon the Saskatchewan river and it is now restricted between Sturgeon, Edmonton, Leduc and Vermilion. The city of Edmonton is made into an electoral district.


George Eulas Foster: Where was it before ?


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: What will be the length of Innisfail ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Innisfail will be the whole length of the province from the Rocky Mountains to the constituency of Medicine Hat. Red Deer, a new constituency, is made up of part of Lacombe and part of Innisfail. The present constituency of Lacombe is restricted and part of it goes into Ponoka.


George Eulas Foster: That is formed from the old constituency of


Wilfrid Laurier: In the district of Edmonton. It was a very large district comprising' the city of Edmonton, the large district known as Edmonton, part of Sturgeon and part of what is now called Stony Plain.


George Eulas Foster: It takes in more than the city of Edmonton ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, it takes in the city of Edmonton alone, but as it was formerly it was a very large district. It was formed of the city of Edmonton, what
7^31

is now Stony Plain and part of what is now Sturgeon and St. Albert. Stony Plain is a new constituency between the Rocky Mountains and the different constituencies which I have named, that is Red Deer, Lacoimbe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin. Leduc and Strathcona. All that very large section of territory between the Rocky Mountains, the western limit of the province, and the different constituencies I have named, is now made into the constituency of Stony Plain. There is a new constituency of Sturgeon. It is confined between the city of Edmonton and the constituency of Saskatchewan, the district of Athabaska and St. Albert on the west. It comprised part of Edmonton and what is now Victoria. Saskatchewan is a new district comprised chiefly of part of Victoria and the new part of the Saskatchewan district which has been annexed to the province of Alberta. There is a new district called St. Albert. It was a constituency before, but it is not so large a constituency now. All these make a total of twenty-three constituencies.


George Eulas Foster: Twenty-two, I have.


Wilfrid Laurier: Twenty-three it must be. I will recapitulate-Medicine Hat, Cardston, Lethbridge, Macleod. Pin-cher, High River, Calgary City, Banff, Gleichen, Rosebud, Innisfail, Red River, La-combe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin, Leduc, Strathcona, Edmonton City, Stony Plain, Vermilion, Sturgeon, Saskatchewan, and St. Albert. That makes 23. These are the 23 constituencies in the old district of Alberta in which is included two constituencies which were formerly in Saskatchewan ; that is to say part of 'V ermilion,, Saskatchewan, and Medicine Hat. With regard to Athabaska, we have given two constituencies to Athabaska, and the reason is this: There is tow a small population, not a very large population in Athabaska. I would remind my hon. friend that there is a wide difference between the western part of Athabaska and the eastern part. The eastern part ; that is to say the part which is north of Saskatchewan has not yet been settled. There may be a few hunters and a few Indians, but there is no settled population there, whereas in the western part of Athabaska there are settlers now going up on the Peace river which is a good fertile district, in which population is increasing, in which there is agriculture, in which there are to-day two grist mills. Then you have the river Athabaska district which is the Jme of travel from the north to the south and in which there are several small establishments. It has been hinted, I think by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) that these two districts were not entitled to two representatives. I grant at once that perhaps they are a little below tue unit but I invite the criticism of my hon. friend from Calgary as to the reasons why we gave two representatives. They Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
are these. If we only gave one representative to the district of Athabaska which is comprised within the province of Alberta, it would be absolutely physically impossible for any man to cover that district within the time of the election-the distances are too great, the difficulties of communication are too serious, and therefore these people would have to remain practically unrepresented; they could not have the advantage of seeing their member and their member could not see them, and for these reasons -we have thought it would not only not be right, but it would not be just and fair that these people should not have the advantage of representation. I will give to my hon. friend the division of the different constituencies I have just named.


George Eulas Foster: Is my right hon. friend going to give me the census population or the voting population ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Both. In the present constituency of Cardston the votes polled at the last election were 645 and the 1901 census population, 3,203.


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend is now speaking of the census population ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Has any endeavour been made to get the present population ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
Mr. FOSTER, Will that be given as well ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not familiar with that, but it will be given by my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver). We have endeavoured to get at the present population by different data such as the number of post offices, entries of homesteads, and such data as is in our possession and which we thought would be more correct than guess work.


George Eulas Foster: Are you giving the number of votes polled or the number of voters ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The number of votes polled.


George Eulas Foster: Why do you give that instead of the number of names on the voters' lists ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have the number of names on the voters' lists, but it is not in my possession at the present moment.


George Eulas Foster: The only reason why you would take the votes at all is as an' indication as to an estimate of the population. If you give the votes polled you could come to no conclusion as to the population, because various causes might prevent the registered voters polling their votes.


Wilfrid Laurier: I propose to give both during the discussion.


George Eulas Foster: 1 understood the Minister of the Interior to say that the number of voters on the lists was taken as a basis of the redistribution ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We took our information not only from one source but from several, first the census of 1901; next, the number of votes registered ; next, the number of votes polled ; next, the number of post offices ; next the number of entries for homesteads ; next, the number of school districts. At present I will give the number of votes polled and the census population of 1901.


George Eulas Foster: That is all right, but I want an answer to tl}is question. Was this distribution founded on the number of voters who are qualified to vote or the number who actually voted ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The relative number of votes cast to the total number of voters registered would be about the same in all the constituencies. If we have the number of votes polled we would know about the number of votes registered. However I will give all the information later on.
Census
Votes population,
Present constituency.	polled.	1901.Card&ton	.. .. 645	3,203Lethbridge	.. .. 826	2,838Macleod	3,403Pincher	.... 1,108	1.969Gleiclien	.. .. 785	2,101Calgary (present	city)	.. .. 1,999	4,865Rosebud	.... 732	1,036Hisrh River	.. .. 1.021	2,472Banff	.. .. 720	3,634Innisfail	.. .. 828	3,379Red Deer	.... 843	2,009Vermilion	.. .. 763	1.795Lacombe	.... 881	2,565Ponoka	.... 764	2,775Wetaskiwin	.... 857	3,720Ledue	.... 697	3,450Strathcona	4,248Stonv Plain	.. .. 589	2,398Edmonton	.... 1,342	2,626Saskatchewan.. .	.. .. 1,168	6,544Sturgeon	.... 782	3,272St. Albert	.... 754	3,005Medicine Hat.. .	.. .. 1,159	3,144Total	.. .. 20,962


George Eulas Foster: I	notice that in	the case
of Rosebud the population was apparently only 300 more than the vote polled.


Wilfrid Laurier: Rosebud is upon the line where immigration has gone since 1901. The population in 1901 was 1,036, and a great increase in population is shown since, jin the two constituencies of the north, Peace river and Athabaska, there was no vote the last time. The districts were not organized. The population by the census of 1901 was, for the constituency of Peace River 1,724, and for the constituency of Athabaska, 1,676.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Are there special enumeration districts in Athabaska, or was the census given for the whole of the district? The Minister of the Interior may know. I was under the impression there was one census for the whole district of Athabaska.


Frank Oliver: I am not aware from the department here, but residing in Edmonton at the time I know that a census was taken by the census commissioner throughout the district of Athabaska and the north country. That is to say, it was not an estimate; it was an actual census taken by a visitation from the census commissioner to the people throughout the district. I think in the census of 1901, the district of Athabaska will appear in separate enumeration districts. There will be a number of districts corresponding with the polling subdivisions that were in existence at the date of the election in 1900.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. In the district of Athabaska, if my recollection is right, there is no special enumeration district. That is in the census of 1901 the numbers are given for the whole of the districts ; it is not divided up into polling subdivisions as in Alberta and the other provisional districts.


Frank Oliver: There certainly were no polling subdivisions in the country, but the people are in settlements here and there through the country.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: Are they set out in the census?


Frank Oliver: I have every reason to believe so. I cannot imagine any other way of giving the census.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Where did they get this information from?


Frank Oliver: From the Census Department. I did not see the books myself, but my information is that this is a transcript from the records of the Census Department giving the population by localities.


Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN, Would the minister tell us how much of that population of Athabaska are Indian and how much white?


Frank Oliver: This population is given as white and half-breed, exclusive of the Indians.
Mr r. TALBOT. I have here Magurn's Parliamentary Guide, which gives the population of Athabaska district in 1903 as 6,615. I suppose that includes Indians as well as the half-breeds and whites.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: That is what is given in the census of 1901 for the whole district.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is only for half-breeds and whites.


George Eulas Foster: From what sources are these figures of population obtained, through the Census Department ? Was the department informed of the limits of these districts and asked to give the populations for these districts?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: And they made the calculation and gave the figures ?


Frank Oliver: A map was prepared showing the local constituencies and the Census Department was asked to take that map, compare it with their returns and give us the result, the number of people in each constituency.


George Eulas Foster: And the minister has that statement from the Census Department?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister bring that down as one of the items?


Frank Oliver: I will bring it.


George Eulas Foster: That is, I suppose where you would look for it, to make them responsible for the accuracy of it ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
Medicine Hat. Oardston.. .. Lethbridge.. .
Macleod	
Pincher	
High River.. .
Banff	
Calgary city..
Gieichen	
Rosebud	
Innisfail....
Red Deer.. .. Lacombe.. ..
Ponoka	
Wetaskiwin.. ,
Leduc	
Vermilion.. .. Strathcona.. . Edmonton city Stony Plain..
No. of votes. .. 1,624 ..	933
.. 1,691 .-	976
.. 1.622 .. 1,622 ..	922
..	2,653
.. 1,286 .. 1,187 .. 1,216 .. 1,198 ..	1,174
..	1,127
..	1,199
.. 1,078 .. 1,106 ..	1,278
.. 1,701 ..	766


George Eulas Foster: Why could not that name be changed ? It is a very bad name in the heart of an agricultural country.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are two names should be changed. Saskatchewan is another. If my hon. friend can suggest a better name than Stony Plain, I have no objection to adopt it.
Sturgeon	  1,088
St. Albert	 965
Saskatchewan	 1,382


George Eulas Foster: The ministers between them have given us two bases upon which they make the distribution, but the first minister spoke of five or six others. We should like to have these others.


Frank Oliver: The definite division of the constituencies is based on the vote actually polled on the 3rd November, as we believe that was the closest and most recent date upon which we could get information we could rely upon. The information with regard to post offices, homestead entries and other matters of that kind was arrived at in order to bear, not upon the question of division of constituencies, but on the question as to whether the bulk of the population was in one end of the country or the other. That information therefore would not have any direct bearing on the propriety of the actual division made, but would be merely corroborative evidence to show whether the trend of population was in this direction or that.
Mr. HA6GART. What is the dividing line ?


Frank Oliver: The dividing line generally accepted is practically the Red Deer river and the question whether the population was heavier north of that river.


George Eulas Foster: What did the homestead entries indicate ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I promised that I would give my hon. friend the number of votes registered. I got them from the clerk of the Crown of Chancery :


Wilfrid Laurier: Total,	 29,960
Mr. PERLEY'. I would like to understand the figures for Peace River and Atha-baska. Do they include Indians ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Mr. PERLEY.: In 1901, by the census, there were only 2,(537 half-breeds and whites and 262 unspecified there. Now we have the information that there is 3,400 of a population not including the half-breeds, in the half of Athabaska, whereas in the whole there were only 2,637 whites and half-breeds according to the last census.


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall have this point looked into. The only figures for which I am responsible are the population, the registered votes, and the polled votes. These I got from the officials in charge of the different books.


George Eulas Foster: You take the number of actual voters and you base your distribution on that. What do you multiply that by to get at the population ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not the way to look at it. Take the votes polled and the votes registered in each constituency, and the average is between 1,100 and 1,200.


George Eulas Foster: What is the total number of registered votes, the total number of votes cast, and the total population since 1902?


Wilfrid Laurier: The total number of registered votes is 29,950, the total

number of polled votes 20,902, and the total population 09,441.


William Findlay Maclean: And you estimate the population now at a quarter of a million?


Wilfrid Laurier: The probable population on the 1st of July is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of 250,000.


George Eulas Foster: Who estimates that ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Interior Department.


George Eulas Foster: How did the Interior Department get at that?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sure I do not know, except from the records of the population and the immigration.


William Findlay Maclean: By a divining rod.
might be said that one enumerator was a better figurer than another, and the fact that certain names were on the voters' list would be no evidence that the people were there, as it would be in the province of Ontario.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why were the names placed on the list by the enumerator ?


Frank Oliver: Different enumerators in different parts of the country would take a different view as to whether a mans name should be on the list or not. One man might be more strict in his interpretation of the law than another. It is a matter that is left entirely to the enumerator, and in the end enumeration makes no difference, because a voter may have his name put on the list at the last moment, and vote. So that the voters' list is not at ail the same sure guide to actual population in the west that it is here in the east.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it will not be disputed by bon. gentlemen on the other side of the House coming from the Northwest Territories, that the estimate made by the Interior Department of the population on the 1st of July in the two provinces to be in the neighbourhood of
500.000,	is fairly correct. When wo introduced the Bill we mentioned this estimate, and I do not know that it has been challenged.


William Findlay Maclean: That would be about 10,000 to each constituency.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Might I ask the Minister of the Interior if I understood him to make the statement that the constituencies were based on the number of the votes polled last November, not on the number of votes on the list? I would certainly consider that rather an unfair way to divide up that country.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Take, for instance, the number of votes polled in North Oxford the other day. There were in the neighbourhood of 1,200 more polled on June 13 than in November last. If the constituencies in the Northwest are based on any such vote as that, I do not think it is reasonable.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. member will look over the list, he will find that the difference will not be material in the result. A proportionate number of votes were not polled in each constituency. Perhaps the hon. member is not aware that the voters' list in the Territories is not made up as it is here. It is made up by enumeration immediately before the election ; and, as it is manhood suffrage, there is a good deal of latitude in the making up of the list, and it seems to us that if we want to give an unquestionable basis, the actual votes polled was the proper basis; because it


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the >asis is as fair as it can be. Let me call he attention of my hon. friend from North roronto to these facts. The population by he census of 1901 was 69,441. or let us ;ay in round numbers 70,000. That would live, if you divide the population by 23 con-jtituencies, a unit of a little over 3,000^ Tlie lumber of votes registered was 29.950. or :et us say in round numbers an oqa. By lividing that number by 23, you would get i unit of about 1.300. The number of votes polled was 20.961, or say in round numbers 21000 Dividing that by 23, you get a little over 900. So that on the whole I think that there is a fair correspondence between these figures, that no injustice has been done to anybody, and that the endeavour has been made to have as fair a division as was possible, especially if you consider the character of the population, which is sometimes in compact groups and sometimes very sparse.


Mr FOSTER.: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior a little more closely how they came to make the estimate of
250,000	population for each of these provinces. If it was a guess of course it would be no good at all ; and if it was worth trying to find out, there must have been some methods adopted. hat methods were adopted, and what did they sjiow. On the face of it, it would seem as if they were optimistic as to their estimate of the population. November, 1904, was not long agoand vou took as a basis of the population the registered vote. That gives you sav 30 000. That would make about eight to a family in order to bring up the population to 250,000. I doubt very much if that would be the average in the Northwest. There may be some large families there, but there are a great many bachelor establishments. It seems to me that that would tend to bring down the average rather than to raise it. I would not think that more

than the general average of five to a family could be applied with fairness to the Northwest.


Wilfrid Laurier: More.


George Eulas Foster: Just think about it for a moment. Go through the ranching district and through the agricultural country as well, and you will find many of what are called bachelor families-men without their wives, two brothers, a father and a son, or something of that kind. I do not know that you find, outside of the foreign population, any larger families amongst the stated families there than you find here ; and I am quite sure that the foreign population, while it totes up pretty large, would not overcome that disparity. If you take five, and multiply it by the voters' list of November, that would give you 150,000, and there is a great difference between 150,000 and 250,000. I do not know that it makes any particular difference whether you estimate it at the one figure or at the other, if you base it on the voting population of last year. But it forms the basis for a disappointment hereafter, if you make an estimate of 250,000 people, and find that there are 100,000 or more less than that number. I would like to know the basis on which the government came to that conclusion.


Frank Oliver: I am not able to say definitely by what process of calculation the the number of 250,000 wras arrived at, but I think it was something of this kind. I think the census shows approximately 170 -000 in the old district of Alberta five years ago. and of course the new province of Alberta takes in a considerable strip of territory besides, for which an addition is made.


George Eulas Foster: You have already given the population for the present Alberta as
..hf1' t,FITZPATKICK' 1 "ay say that w'hen the time came to draft the Bill it was necessary to make some estimate of the population, and I proceeded by taking as a basis for the whole Northwest Territories the census of 1901. I found that census gav e a population of about 165.000. Then to that I added the number of settlers that came into the country during the period intervening from the time the census was taken until the 1st of February last, and I tound that number to be 240,590, according mv. Pl,e returns of the Interior Department, ihe details wdll be found in Sessional Paper No. 9" of this session :
To which must be added the census population of 165,555, making a total estimated population on the 1st of February of 406,145, to which I added, supposing the Bill would come into effect on the 1st of July, an estimated increase from February to July 1st of 50,000, making & total population of 456,145 for the whole territory. These figures are taken from the Department of the Interior, and were certified to by the deputy minister.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know what we could exactly understand by persons actually settled. They could get out homestead entries, but homestead entries and settlement are two different things.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: I understand that, i obtained, for the purpose of the Bill, the area of lands patented for homesteads and a table showing the lands that remained and the number of settlers. It gave both the number of homestead entries and the num-j ber of settlers which were taken as actually : haying arrived and settled in the Northwest Territories, exclusive of Manitoba, within the area affected by our legislation. Then my own estimate of 50,000 was added on to that. I am informed by the gentleman who obtained these figures that they were given by Mr. Scott, who has charge of the administration of the immigration branch of the Interior Department.


Frank Oliver: The apparent discrepancy between the number of voters on the list and the estimated population may be accounted for in this way, that the names of foreign-born immigrants who have come in during the past three years, as having been road by the Minister of Justice, would not appear upon the voters' list, as they are not entitled to naturalization or to a place on the voters' list until they have been three years in the country. So for the last three years the immigration of foreign-born people is not accounted for in any degree by the number of voters on the list. I may say further that I have before me a statement of the number of homestead entries in the district of Alberta up to the 31st of March, 1905, amounting to 49,845. If it were taken for granted that each homestead represents a homesteader, and each homesteader a family, and each family the number of five, it would give a population of 250.000, not taking into account the cities.


William Findlay Maclean: The government have no distribution of this 250,000 over these constituencies.
Years
April 1, 1901, to July 1,1901	
Fiscal year, 1901-02	
1902-03.. ..	' " '
"	1903-04	 "
July 1, 1904, to February 1, 1905..
Total


George Eulas Foster: No. of settlers. .. 12,213 .. 44,070 .. 79,357 .. 75.043 .. 29,908
..240,590


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think any information is needed so far as the representation is concerned. A large proportion of the population have voted for some time.


George Eulas Foster: The post office data-if the minister will give us that.


Frank Oliver: We have not taken the information in regard to post offices for each constituency, we have taken it merely as between the two ends of the province, between the north and the south, divided on the line of township 38, as that seemed to bo the question that was in contention. We And that there are 110 post offices south of that line and 118 north of that line, not including those in the district of Athabaska. There are 139 school districts south of that line and 209 north of it. Of local improvement districts, there are 22 in the Dominion electoral district of Edmonton, 50 in the Dominion electoral district of Strathcona, 25 in the Dominion electoral district of Calgary and 7 in the Dominion electoral district of Alberta.


George Eulas Foster: X do not understand the pertinence of that local improvement section.


Mr OLIVER.: The local improvement district stands in the same position as a township municipality in Ontario.


George Eulas Foster: How does that bear on this matter ?


Frank Oliver: It indicates the density of population ; that is, where there are local improvement districts there are people in considerable numbers who are paying taxes for the improvement of their roads. Where there are no local improvement districts the inference is that the people are more scattered or less numerous, and that is the reason why they are not formed into these districts.


George Eulas Foster: On the south of the dividing line how many local improvement sections are there ? If we are going to have reference to that dividing line we want this information respecting it.


Frank Oliver: Forty south and 64 north.


George Eulas Foster: You say there are 139 school districts south and 269 north ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: How many schools ?


Frank Oliver: The number of schools would correspond with the number of districts.


George Eulas Foster: It might or it might not. If you have the schools let us have the school population.


Frank Oliver: We have not the school population.


George Eulas Foster: I do not see that the number of school districts gives you much to go upon.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the very basis.


George Eulas Foster: It is simply the absolute bare number of school districts.


Wilfrid Laurier: I assume there is one school in each school district.


George Eulas Foster: You might have a school district and no school.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not
assume that there are school districts and no schools. People organize themselves into school districts because there are no schools. No districts are organized until there are people and the best evidence that there is population in a locality is that they have organized school districts.


George Halsey Perley: There might be some schools with 5 children and some with 100. It is hardly fair to take the school districts alone. If we had the number of school children it would be something to go upon.


George Eulas Foster: We should not only have the number of schools but the number attending the schools.


Frank Oliver: Hon. gentlemen are not at all bound to accept this statement as a basis of calculation. They asked for it and we gave it. The school question is not under our control here and we are not able it the moment to lay our hands on the nformation that hon. members think neces-iary. But we give them what we have.


George Eulas Foster: The pertinence of that ies here that you are looking for some-ting to base your action upon and it seems hat you have based it simply upon the lumber of school districts. A fairer basis .vould be to get the number of schools and the number of children attending these schools in each district. Where will the lumber of school districts lead you unless you know whether there are o, 10 or 50 mildren attending a certain school ? You to get something which is of the value 11 you find the number of children attending the schools in the different districts but if this is all the information that_ the hon. minister has on the point, of course, we cannot cavil at him as far as making up his mind on such data is concerned ; only, the data might be broader-that is all.


William Findlay Maclean: Have we all the underlying principles now 1


Mr FOSTER.: We have the post office^ but again I might point out that the post office does not indicate much. You might have a post office where there are ten Rums and you might have a post office which would probably serve a large colony, him ply the number of post offices authorized is open to the same objection as the number of school districts and even more I know for instance that where there is a very small colony of five, or six, or eight farmers living a long way from a town the object of the department is, if possible, to give them a post office, but the number of people that the post office accommodates is very small whilst a town or

2,000 or 3,000 population has its post office. If you choose to take simply the number of post offices the one that serves a couple of thousand people counts just as much as the one which serves five or ten people. It is quite impossible to get at the population served by the post office, but the revenue is a thing you can get at.


Wilfrid Laurier: These are only approximate sources of information. We have given to the House the direct information we, have in the census, we have the absolute number of votes registered and we have the absolute number of votes polled. All these are accurate figures which cannot be disputed. In addition we have thought it advisable to look also for other information so as to get an idea of the actual population relatively between place and place, because, in this matter of distribution, the one principle that must guide us is that no injustice shall be done to one as compared with another. Well then, we have given the population and in confirmation of that we have given the number of poet offices. That goes for what it is worth. It is not absolute ; it is only approximate. The objections which my hon. friend has taken would be well founded if this was all the information we had to go upon. The same thing may be said in regard to the number of school districts.


George Eulas Foster: I am just trying to get at what the government went upon in making up their minds, because this is the only way we can judge of their conclusions. Were there any other source of information beside the population, the votes actually polled, the registered votes, the homestead entries, the post offices, the school districts and the local improvement districts ?


Frank Oliver: There are many others in confirmation but I think my hon. friend is in error in suggesting, as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has already said, that reliance was placed on the number of post offices or local improvement districts or upon anything except the actual number of votes polled because this is the actual basis of distribution. All the rest is in confirmation.


George Eulas Foster: Take the north line of township 38 as the division line of the Northwest council at the present day-what representation is there from the south and what from the north ?


Frank Oliver: Including Medicine Hat, there are 9 from the south and 6 from the north.
. Mr. FOSTER. Within this territory which is made up into 23 constituencies ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Mr.   I OSTER@: The other two constituencies were not represented before and two representatives are proposed to be given M. FOSTER.
to that district north-one to Peace river and the other to Athabaska ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: We have now heard what the government say are the underlying principles, and perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us if there was any political principle underlying the scheme. The right hon. gentleman referred to newspaper rumours, and I quote the following newspaper rumour from the Toronto ' Globe ' of yesterday :
Gossip is busy with the names of the men who will be officially identified with the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta from the date of their inception.
It goes on to say who are likely to be the lieutenant governors of the new provinces and then :
It is a little more difficult to figure who will be called as premiers of the two new provinces. Mr, Rutherford, member of the Northwest assembly, is spoken of among others as premier of Alberta, while in the case of Saskatchewan the names of Mr. Bulyea, the present Commissioner of Public Works for the Territories, and Mr. Walter Scott, M.P., are frequently heard. Both these latter gentlemen would be equal in every way to the demands of the office.
Has this distribution of constituencies had any relation to the selection of the two premiers. Gossip is busy with it. Perhaps no political considerations entered into the calculation, but if they did we should bave an explanation. In the old days when the constituencies were distributed, gentlemen of one political stripe sat down and carved up the country to suit themselves. Will the government tell us all the reasons that influenced them in laying out these constituencies.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend would not so lower the dignity of parliament as to intrude gossip as a basis of our deliberations. My hon. friend ought to be more solemn than that here. As to who shall be the premiers of the two new provinces ; that is the business of the lieutenant governors and not of%my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) or of myself.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Mr. Chairman I shall propose an amendment that this matter be referred to the judges who now reside in the province of Alberta, but before discussing the merits of that amendment I desire to call the attention of the blouse .to some of the figures which have been submitted by members of the government to-day. The information which we receive to-day, we on this side had asked for several months ago. When this Bill was introduced on the 21st of February it referred to 'the schedule,' thus showing the fixed determination of the government to divide the constituencies in this parliament. When the schedules were brought down a month ago, or two months
7745 JUNE 20, 1905 7746	
after we asked for them, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) asked for the number of voters in each local constituency and the number of votes polled, but notwithstanding that we have been waiting ever since for that information, it is only to-day that it is vouchsafed to the House. In its absence we have been obliged to make calculations for ourselves ; these calculations we have made very carefully and they are very far apart from the figures given to the House by the First Minister. When the schedules were introduced in this House the leader of the opposition stated that he had been advised by his friends from the west that the schedules were manifestly unfair, and it now devolves upon the hon. gentleman from Alberta (Mr. Herron) and upon myself, to assume the responsibility of having made this statement to the member for Carleton (Mr. R. L. Borden). I hope to be able to show, before I take my seat, that there are a considerable number of people in Southern and Central Alberta who have characterized this schedule as being unfair. The Prime Minister says that certain constituencies have been left entirely as they were while others have been divided, and in the case of the constituencies which have been left as they were the kernel of the whole thing is that they all lie in the southern part of that province ; not one constituency north of township 24 has been left as it was before, although they run up as high as township GO. That very fact should have been sufficient to put the First Minister on his guard, and to have caused him to suspect that there was some discrimination against the southern part of that country. The right hon. gentleman told us that Medicine Hat in the south had been left practically the same, but I desire to point out that at least 40 townships have been added to the old constituency of Medicine Hat. Nothwithstanding that there is an additional representation in that province of 10 members, the constituency of Medicine Hat has been enlarged by at least 40 townships of 6 miles square, indicating that instead of there being any development in that section of the country it probably has gone backwards. The right hon. gentleman told us that Cardston has been left untouched ; but is Cardston just the same to-day as it was when the Northwest assembly made it a constituency in 1902, or has there not been an influx of population into that constituency ? We are told that Lethbridge has been left just as it was ; has there been no development which required a change in Lethbridge? We are told that Macleod is divided in two, that High River is left practically the same, that Banff is added to, that Calgary is practically the same-the city of Calgary is given one representative, but it had two members in the old House, one for East Calgary and one for West Calgary. As I have said, I hope to be able to satisfy the Prime Minister that there are a considera-	able number of people in central and southern Alberta who are complaining bitterly of this division, and I can tell the right hon. gentleman further that those who complain include many of his own followers. I desire to refer now to an editorial which appeared in the Calgary * Albertan,' a strong supporter of the First Minister and his administration, and a paper which has probably the largest circulation of any Liberal daily paper in the western province. I read this editorial because it sets out the objections very clearly. It says : Tile announcement that the Dominion* government had completed the schedule ot constituencies for the province of Alberta and had decided upon thirteen seats north of Red Deer and twelve seats to the south is a bitter disappointment to the people of the south. The division is unfair, and cannot be defended. But the division, unjust as it is, is not as serious a matter as the method adopted by the government to arrive at the division. If the question of dividing the province had been left to an independent non-political body or even to a parliamentary committee composed of members of parliament who were personally uninterested in the division made, the people of the south would not have been aroused by the decision, even if we had only received eleven members south of the Red Deer line. We would have been disappointed, but would have felt that though beaten we had been beaten fairly and that though at a disadvantage we did not have a grievance. The present division is unfair, and the method adopted to decide upon the division is little short of iniquitous. .. , Let us look at the division. The north boundary of the riding of Red Deer is some miles north of township 38 which is half-way between Edmonton and Calgary. At present we have below that line the territorial ridings of Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Cardston, Macleod, High River, Banff, East Calgary, West Calgary, In-nisfail and a portion of Lacombe. That means eight and a part of another. To the north we have Edmonton, Strathcona, Wetaskiwm, Victoria, St. Albert and part of Lacombe. In other words the eight and a half ridings in the south are increased to twelve, and the five and a half in the north are increased to thirteen. , , . Besides this the population has been mcreas-ing more rapidly in the south than in the north since the present territorial divisions were created. . Let us take another example. In the Dominion House of Commons in the south district we have the ridings of Alberta, Calgary, a portion of West Assiniboia, and a very considerable portion of Strathcona. To the north we have Edmonton and the larger portion of Strathcona, and no more. Yet in the north we are to have thirteen ridings and in the south twelve ridings. The vote in the south district at the last election was very much larger than the vote in the north country, yet the greater representation is to be in the north. Let us take another injustice. The tprovmce of Alberta has a population of 250,000 people with a provincial representation of twenty-five, the unit of population being 10,000. Athabaska will have two representatives with a population of less than 5,000, and a white population of less than 1,000. That means that for legislative

purposes one white man from Athabaska has as much to say as twenty white men in Calgary. To meet this argument the man of the north will speak of the coming of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and will dilate upon the glowing prospects of the future. But we are dealing with the present now. The Grand Trunk Pacific will not come before the second election in Alberta, and by that time there will be a second division of seats. Then the Athabaska country could get the representation that its population entitled it to, and' in the meantime with one member, its interests would not suffer.
But much greater objection can be offered to the method adopted to arrive at the division. It means that the people of the south are not treated fairly, that being at a disadvantage they are punished for it, that the spirit of fair-play which has characterized the Ijiberal party which has in its hands the creation of these divisions, in this case is lacking. The people from the south have asked no favours in this struggle.
The article concludes by saying :
The result of the present policy will be deplorable. It means the lining up in battle array of north against the south. During the first few sessions of parliament, when the representatives should be intent upon the grave problems of legislation, they will be engaged in a local strife, and the effect of it will not be obliterated this generation.
That is from -a paper supporting this administration, and to-day on the next page it will be found supporting the present educational policy of the government in so far as it affects the Northwest Territories. There are a number of papers which support the First Minister criticising this, from Lethbridge, Macleod, Medicine Hat and I venture to say tha t papers from every place in the southern and central part of that province irrespective of politics are criticising this decision. What was the method adopted in arriving at this division ? From the Liberal press in that country it would appear and I am speaking subject to correction, that the work of dividing that country into 25 local constituencies was handed over to the hon. gentleman who represents Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and the hon. gentleman who represents Stratheona (Mr. P. Talbot) both from the northern part of that province. Fair as these gentlemen may be, they are tied down by local prejudices, they are the advocates of that upper part of the country, and yet we find them in the month of February admittedly cutting up that country into 25 local constituencies and, three months later bringing the schedule down to the House and stamping it with the judicial decision of the Minister of the Interior. I have sufficient information to know that the schedule which was prepared in the month of February by the hon. member from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and by the hon. member for Stratheona (Mr. P. Talbot), both from the north, is exactly the same schedule as has been annexed to clause 12 of this Bill with one or two alterations. The method, the idea is the same. The people of the south complain, and I think with some rea-
Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
son, that they have had no opportunity of stating their case, of being heard, and if I am stating what is not correct, if the member for Stratheona (Mr. Talbot) and the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) did not prepare these schedules and submit them to the government, then of course they will correct me, I hope before I proceed any further.


George Eulas Foster: You may proceed.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: The situation is this that we have two men from one portion of the province with a local feeling existing which has existed for some time past, to whom has been handed over the duty of dividing that province up into 25 local constituencies, and the very best evidence of the unfairness with which they discharge their duty has been pointed out by the First Minister by saying that every constituency that has been left the same is south of township 24. I may be wrong, but if they can point out a constituency north of that line, that has not been altered then they have the opportunity of doing so now, hut looking at the map the only constituencies they have left unaltered are the constituencies in the southern part of this province according to this distribution carved out by two members from the northern part of the province in the month of February. Why is this division unfair ? I would ask the First Minister to look at the map. On May 1st, 1902, that country was divided up into local constituencies by the legislative assembly at Regina. As has been stated there were 15 constituencies in Alberta, and as the Minister of the Interior has stated, nine of these constituencies were south of township 38 and 6 north. There has never been any complaint as to the fairness of that division. The member for Stratheona (Mr. P. Talbot) sat in the local assembly at Regina, and I venture to state that he will not say he ever raised liis voice objecting to that division at that time.


Mr. P. TALBOT.: I was not there when the division was made or I would have objected to it.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: You have been there since, but you have not objected.


Peter Talbot: Why should I ? It would not be of any use.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) sat in the House when the division was made, and I think he will bear me out when I say there has never been any objection made in reference to this division. Look at that division. In it you will find that there are only the portions of three ridings, or, to he correct, taking in Battleford and portions of four ridings going north of the city of Edmonton, a very small portion of the riding of Edmonton itself-the local riding which is shown in the blue-line,-the riding of St.

Albert and part of the riding of Victoria. There is also a very small part of the riding of Battleford out of the east which also extends north. Now south of the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, there were eight ridings: Medicine Hat, Cardston, Lethbridge, Macleod, High River, Banff, East Calgary and West Calgary. Grouped together you would not have three whole ridings north of the city of Edmonton, as divided by the Legislative Assembly in May 1902, while this distribution gives eight ridings north of Edmonton. As I pointed out before, there were eight ridings south of the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, whereas, now there are in all nine. They proceeded upon the assumption that conditions have so changed in that country that it is necessary to add five ridings north of Edmonton and only one riding south of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The eight ridings north of Edmonton now are Athabaska, Peace River, St. Albert, Sturgeon, Saskatchewan, Edmonton, Stony Plain and Vermilion. Take another example. Township 38, which the Minister of the Interior submits as a fair line to divide that country in two-under that distribution which has never been complained of, there were, he says, six ridings north and the nine ridings south of township 38, and it is proposed by this schedule to give only eleven and a fraction south of that township, and thirteen and a fraction north. That is there have been added to the northern country seven and a fraction and to the southern country only two and a fraction. That is taking the line of township 38 and working out this scheme about 60 miles further north. It does not matter which line you take, it works out the same way, showing there must have been the grossest discrimination gainst the southern country or else the southern country has stood practically still since the 1st May, 1902. Now the hon. member for Strath-cona (Mr. Talbot) says he was not in the Legislative Assembly when that division was made. Perhaps we will be able to give another example of a division which was made when hon. members now in this House for that country had seats here. Let us look at- the country as it is divided up for federal purposes. Let us look at the constituencies in this House. They are four in number : Edmonton, Strathcona, Calgary and Alberta. That division was made in this House, only a couple of years ago. When it was made the hon. gentlemen from the Territories at that time were all of the one shade of politics. They were all supporters of the right hon. the First Minister. Surely they would not have made a division which would have been unfair to any part of the country or have discriminated against the interests of the Liberal party. That division was made within the last two years, and I find that south of that same township 38 we have the constituency of Alberta-the whole of it-the whole of the constituency of Calgary, parts of the constituency of Strathcona and part of the constituency of West Assiniboia. That is those two whole constituencies and a considerable portion of two more only get eleven seats under this proposed redistribution, while the constituency of Edmonton and the balance of Strathcona, north of the township 38, get thirteen and a fraction. When that division was made, it is to be presumed that the hon. gentlemen then representing the Territories, and who have a seat in this House now, divided the country so that every class and interests would have equal representation. That is there is given to one and a part constituency in this House thirteen in the local house, with the addition of Athabaska and Peace River, and two entire federal ridings and a portion of two others are allowed only eleven. There is another evidence of gross discrimination against the southern country. They have turned the scheme of the Legislative Assembly of 1902 up side down and have done the same with the division made by this parliament two years ago. All that need be done to see that is to look at the map. Take another example. In the constituency of Strathcona there were 5,871 votes cast last November, and to this constituency is given seven and a fraction, or practically eight seats. In the constituency of Calgary, where 5,653 votes were cast, they only get five seats. Is that representation according to the vote ? The only justification possible for that division would be to show that the influx of population has been greatly to the north. I submit they cannot snow that because every evidence shows that the influx of population has been to the south and the greater development has been south of township 38. There will be in the local house 25 seats. Out of 23 of these votes were cast last November, and we have a correct tally of those 23, leaving out Athabaska and Peace River where no votes were cast. If we take the first 11 seats south from the International boundary and the 11, leaving out the constituency of Red Deer which is in the middle, and taking the 11 next north, it will be found that in the 11 south there voted 10,833 and in the 11 north there only voted 9,356, making a difference of 1,477 discrimination against the south.
If we take the voters on the list, we find that in the 11 southern ridings there are 15,567, while in the 11 northern ridings, leaving out Red Deer, Athabaska and Peace river, there are 13,345, or a difference of 2,222 in the votes on the list. Now, I have worked out every constituency ; I have taken the vote polled and the vote on the list, by polling sub-divisions ; and if hon. gentlemen think that in any case the figures are not correct, all they have to do is to ask for those of a particular riding or challenge them, and either admit that we are

right or show us where we are wrong, or intimate to us very quickly that no matter what we show they are prepared to go on and put this thing through roughshod over the wishes of the people of that country. Now, if we take the votes on the list, 2,222 more in the 11 southern ridings than in the 11 northern ridings, and multiply them by whatever figure you please-the figure usually taken is 5-you will observe that there is an additional population in the south of five times 2,222, which would be 11,110 more population in the south, which gets the smaller share of the representation. I want to point out another thing. The Minister of the Interior has stated that the surest guide is the vote that was polled, not the vote on the list. No doubt he considers that the surest guide, because it would result a little in his favour, and because, as I think I can point out, in the northern country in some polls a larger number of votes were cast than the number of names on the list, corroborating very strongly the suggestion that was made, that half-breeds came down from Athabaska and Saskatchewan to vote in the Edmonton riding. If any person examines the figures, he will find that in most of the northern ridings, where the foreign population predominates, a larger percentage of the vote was polled, showing the influence of the government official. If he looks at the ranching district, he will find that in some cases there was no vote polled at all, which is explained by the fact that an order issued by the Department of Agriculture last fall compelled all the ranchers south of township 34 to dip their cattle for the mange about the time of the election. The order expired on the 1st of November, but was extended for a week or ten days, and if they did not comply with the conditions their cattle would be sold or dipped and the cost charged to them. The result was that a very small vote was polled in the ranching country. The ranchers had to choose between saving their country and saving their cattle, and they preferred apparently to take the latter course. The argument that the influx of population has been to the north can, I think, be met by an examination of the homestead entries. The Minister of the Interior has intimated that township 38 Is a fair line. Well, we find that north of township 38 there is the land district of Edmonton and half of the land district of Red Deer, while south of township 38 there is the other half of the Red Deer land district, the agency of Calgary, the agency at Lethbridge and a very small portion of the land agency of Battleford ; but from the map issued on the 1st of January, 1905, showing the townships which are ready for settlement and those which are not, it will be seen that there is practically no settlement in that part, so that, in making up the calculation, I have left it out entirely. The thick settlement is in the Barr colony, which is east of the 104th meri-Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
dian. I have the voters' list, which will demonstrate that. I find that in 1902-3 there were 0,014 homestead entries north of township 38, equalling 48 per cent ; while south of township 38 there were 7,744 homestead entries, equalling 52 per cent. In 1904 there *were 3,327 entries north of township 38, equalling 40 per cent, and 5,284 south of township 38, equalling 00 per cent. The total for the three years wras 9,941, or 43 per cent north of township 38, and 13,028, or 56 per cent or 57 per cent, south of township 3S. If you take an increase of four persons, or three, or two-it does not matter, it is no discrimination against the north to do so-and multiply that by the difference in the homestead entries, you will find a difference in favour of the south of 12,34S people in the last three years ; and this Is only so far as the rural population is concerned. Yet south of that township only two and a fraction seats are added, while north of it seven and a fraction are added, turning the local divisions upside down in the very teeth of the homestead entries ; and this is called fair. Now, there are just two things that I want to point out while dealing with the homestead entries. The first is the point that was mentioned by the Minister of the Interior, that is, that the great majority of those people had no votes in the last election ; so that when you are carving up the country on the basis of the voters' list, you are discriminating against the south. The south is suffering more thereby on his own argument. Another point I wish to emphasize is that we have a condition of affairs in the south which they have not in the north. We have two large irrigation schemes there. The Canadian Pacific Railway irrigation block near Calgary contains 3,000,000 acres, of which there have been sold, although it has only recently been put on the market, over 400,000 acres. There is half a million acres now on the market. Down in the riding of Lethbridge you have the Great Northwestern Irrigation Company, with about a million and a half acres, cut up into 40-acre holdings. None of the results from these two large irrigation blocks appear in these figures giving the homestead entries, which would make a contrast in favour of the south in the matter of population which would be startling. They talk about the northern country, about cutting up this constituency to satisfy the northern country ; they will tell you that a population the grand prairie and Peace river districts will sustain. But that is only about 700,000 acres, hardly one-quarter of the Canadian Pacific Railway irrigation block at Calgary.
I want to point out that, as the hom. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has truly said, when you take homestead entries you do not always find actual settlers. And where would hon. gentlemen expect that the speculative homestead entries would be, in a country where two railways are being built, or down in a country which

is settled ? It is a matter of common knowledge that people will make homestead entries where they can get them, all along the proposed line of the Canadian Northern, and where the Grand Trunk Pacific is expected to pass. There are hon. gentlemen in this House, I know, who have made homestead entries in that country ; a man can reside in the province of Ontario and have his entry made any time after the 1st of September, and it is not necessary that he should see the land at all until the beginning of the following June. Then time runs on and no steps are taken to cancel the entry unless some one complains to the homestead inspector. So you will find speculative homestead entries where it is supposed railways are going to pass. So much for homestead entries.
If we take the land sales by the government it will be found that of the even or odd-numbered sections sold to actual settlers in the last three years, 54 per cent are south of line 38 per cent and 40 north. That is another indication of the trend of settlement. If we follow up the inquiry to the land office, let us take the moneys that have been received in cash and scrip at the different land offices, always remembering that you have in the southern part of the country half of the agency of Ked Deer. The figures for the year ending the 1st of June, 1904, are : Edmonton office,- $38,711 ; Red Deer, $16,392 ; Calgary, $56,741 ; Lethbridge, $86,046. In other words, 22 per cent of that was north of 38 and 78 per cent south. Is not that a fair indication of where settlement is going in that country? Let us take another example. Look at the receipts for land, timber and registry office fees, and see if they do not tell the same story, namely, that the influx of population and the development are mostly in the south. The receipts from 1891 to 1901 from land, timber and registry office fees, were : North of 38, $253,795, or 34 per cent ; south of 38, $538,516 or 66 per cent. For 1902-3, the receipts from the above sources were : North of 38, $174,417, or 34 per cent; south, $330,998, or 66 per cent. The receipts from the beginning to 1903, from all three sources were: North, $529,354, or 27 per cent; south, $1,429,182 or 73 per cent. Yet we are told that the division is fair as between the north and the south. If we adhered to the principle adopted by the legislative assembly, you would have fifteen seats south of 38 and ten north, or as nine to six-If you adhered to that principle, and as I have said, there has been no complaint made with regard to those constituencies in the local House.
Now, I have only been dealing with the rural population, but if we take the urban population from the very best sources of information we can get, we will find a greater influx of population, urban as well as rural, has been to the south. I have the figures here taken from Waghorn's 246
Guide for the month of February for every village, hamlet and town. I have them figured out with respect to the local constituencies, but in order to save time I will not give them in detail. If any constituency is questioned, I am prepared to give the urban population in each one. The result is that south of the line there is a urban population of 42,550 ; whilst to the north there is only 21,300, a difference of 21,150 or 75 per cent south and 25 per cent north.
I do not think that the strongest advocate of the northern country will contend that we have a larger urban population north than we have in the south. Now if you add these two together you find a total urban population of 63,750. As I understood the Minister of Justice some three or four weeks ago in this House, he said that he assumed the population of the province of Alberta was 173,000, instead of as now, 250,000. If he took the two together there were
500,000,	and an estimate had been made up which will be found in the ' Hansard,' that Alberta showed a population of 173,000. Now that tallies with the percentage of urban population shown in the census of 1901, as near as any person can get at the figures. But that is one of the reasons why I would like to see this whole matter referred to an independent commission where full and complete inquiries could be made, so that every locality would have an opportunity of being represented and stating its case. Proceeding on the figures suggested by the Minister of Justice, of 173,000, that leaves a balance of about 105,000 exclusive of Indians, of a rural population. The question arises, in what part of the country is the bulk of that rural population ? It is impossible to determine anything definite in regard to that. As I have pointed out, homestead entries are made up there in great numbers by people who have no idea of ever settling upon the land. But when we cannot get any accurate information, we have to do the next best thing we can. I have a map here which was prepared for the government two years ago, made up to the 1st of December, 1902.
On it are laid down in the proposed province of Alberta the townships that are largely settled and those that are sparsely settled. It would be interesting to have this map on the table of the House, and it is a marvel to me that an attempt is to be made to put this distribution through with such a lack of evidence before the House. This is a very important matter to the people of that western province. It may be considered a small or a light matter which can be put through down here by getting up and saying : We do not divide the constituencies up according to the vote but according to a combination of the vote and other sources of information furnished by our two friends from the north. The question should not be disposed of upon any such evidence as that. In the preparation of this map



I may say that information was obtained in regard to homestead entries, from the actual settlers, from the land oflices, from the Hudson Bay Company, from the Manitoba government. In connection with the Manitoba and North Western Land Grant tixe sales of school lands, from the Canadian Pacific Railway, from the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company and from the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company. It is as complete as anything of the kind could possibly be and on it are coloured in green the townships which are largely settled and in red those which are scattered. It has been brought up to date. When I say that I mean up to the first of the year, and I desire to point out to members of the House that I cannot see any object to be gained by pursuing this inquiry beyond tbe 1st January to any later date because an election will have to take place within six months from the date of the creation of these provinces and any foreigner coming into the country after the 1st of January would have no vote. Even a man coming from one of the older provinces would not be in these new provinces long enough to vote. On that map it will be found there are 325 thickly settled townships south of 38, and 239 sparsely settled.	North of 38 there are 218
thickly settled and 159 sparsely settled townships. What I desire to point out to the House is that all the figures I have given show that the distribution made by the legislative assembly on the 1st May, 1902, was absolutely fair, that the proportion was 9 to 6 and that if there has been any change since that date the change has been in favour of tbe south as tbe influx of population there has, of course, been greater. I will take these thickly settled townships and the scattered townships and try to determine where the bulk of the rural population is. That is a much more definite way of arriving at it than by any local improvement districts, I submit. If you take it that there are eight times the number of people in a thickly settled township as in a sparsely settled township your population will work out so as to show a rural population to be 105,501. While a calculation of that kind may result in certain local inaccuracies if you take it over the whole province you will find that it will equalize or balance. The result of it is, adding rural and urban population together, that there are, 102,831 people south of 38 and 00,021 north of 38. My right lion, friend the First Minister seems inclined to doubt this calculation, but I desire to be perfectly fair and to make myself clear, and perhaps I will be able to give him some more calculations which bear out tlie proportions I have arrived at and which he cannot doubt because they are returns from the government. The results therefore of tbe vote cast last fall of homestead entries, receipts at the land Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
offices and the increase in urban and rural population all go to show that the influx of population into that country has been to the south.' All these figures prove that the distribution should be now 15 seats south to 10 north. I am going to trouble the House for a moment in giving some further figures to verify what I have said, and I submit that whatever investigation you may make will bring you to the same conclusion as that which I have arrived. But, before I proceed to discuss that let me take up the basis of calculation adopted by tbe government-tbe schools. They say that there are 130 more schools north. What does that prove ? Twelve children can form a school. You will find schools more frequently in a country where the roads are bad. No person will contend for one minute that in the ridings to the north where they have a continuous agitation for better roads, they would bave the same number of schools if their roads were of the class that they have in the riding of Calgary. It simply proves nothing. Then, take the post offices. I have not been able to get a post office established in my constituency. We had the same difficulty with the hon. minister of the Interior when he represented that riding. We would plead with him for a post office but we could not get it. I might mention one that we desire to have established at Carbon. We could not get it. I can point out post offices in that northern country where the revenue is $60 and where it costs the government $1,500 a year to provide for them. The people in tlie neighbourhood of Carbon petitioned tbe minister time after time and they could not get their post office. Eventually it was got by sending the wife of a member of parliament to tlie bon. Postmaster General and telling him that she had two sons north of the Rosebud river and she could not hear from them more than once every two weeks. The result was that the post office was granted. The only post office that has been established in the Calgary district has been one that was asked for by the hon. member for Stratheona (Mr. Talbot). I have asked for several myself ; one of them I might mention at Strathmore. But, the postmistress at a neighbouring post office who is running a store discouraged any attempt on tbe part of any person to take trade away from her store, and this was the sort of evidence that the government adopted in coming to a conclusion in regard to the request for a post office at Strathmore. I submit that places might be pointed out in the northern part of the country where there are post offices and where there is not as much need of post offices as there is at Strathmore. Therefore, I ask : What does the number of post offices prove ? Then, they have told us that they have taken into consideration the local improvement districts. What does that prove ? It is simply optional with the people whether they

establish themselves into local improvement districts or not. Again, you have the question of roads. The people in the south for years have preferred to pay their taxes direct to the legislative assembly. It is in a ranching country. It differs largely from the north in that respect, and these taxes are paid into the legislative assembly in the hope of again being paid out for the inspection of stock and in other ways. The local improvement districts established in that country, I say, prove nothing.
Let us look at some further figures and we will discover where the bulk of population is and where the settlement is going. Take the receipts of the railway company north of township 38 and south of township 38 ; take them at Strathcona which would include Edmonton and you will see what part of the country has been increasing in the greatest ratio. At Strathcona, which includes all goods that go to Edmonton, the increase in 1904 over 1903 of goods received was 20 per cent, and of goods forwarded 10 per cent. On the McLeod branch which is in the southern part, the increase of 1904 over 1903, in goods received is 75 per cent, and in goods forwarded 30 per cent. These figures will be gone Into in detail before this discussion is over. The tonnage receipts and the passenger receipts tell the same story ; south of township 38 the passenger and tonnage receipts per mile are double what they are north of township 38. This indicates where the people are and where the business is being done. When the Prime Minister was speaking about the number of post offices, I wonder if he and his friends considered the revenue from these post offices. For instance, for the year ending June, 1904, the post office revenue in Calgary was $28,638, and in Edmonton $13,104. Take similar statistics all along the line south of the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and you will find the southern country has increased in far greater proportion than the north. I think it is a fair argument to say that you will usually find the most people around where you will find the most business being done, and on the 6th of February last, I moved for a return which was brought down showing the customs and inland revenue receipts at the different offices in the Territories for 10 years past. It will be necessary for me to mention only , the figures for the last three or four years. At' Edmonton, which includes Strathcona for this purpose, I find that the increase in customs receipts for 1903 over 1902 was about $25,000, while at Calgary the increase for the same period was over $50,000. At Medicine Hat which is in the south the increase tor 1902 over 1901 in customs revenue was about $22,000. At Lethbridge which is also in the south the customs receipts were in 1901, $21,710.19 ; in 1902, $28,105.73 ; in 1903, $36,930.20. From all sources the customs figures for the south 2461
show in the last few years a larger proportionate increase than in the north. The same story is told by the Inland Revenue1 returns. The recapitulation at the end of this return to the House shows the following :	Edmonton, (receipts) $103,034 ; Calgary, (receipts) $410,116; Lethbridge, (receipts) $42,162 ; McLeod, (receipts) $4,791. This shows in what part of the country the business is being done and where the people are going. Another fair argument is that in the part of the country where there are railways constructed you will usually find the greatest actual settlement. If we take township 38 as the dividing line again, it will be found that north of township 38 there are constructed only 150 miles of railway and part of that is but graded and not in operation. On the other hand south of township 38 there are 994 miles of railway in operation, so that I think it is a .fair argument to say that you will find the actual settlement greatest in that part of any country where there is the largest railway mileage. You will not find a sufficient population to give 13 or 14 representatives in a country where you have less than 150 miles of railway in operation. Even if you give them the benefit of their expectations, and if you build the Canadian Nrrthern from the longitude of Maple Creek to Edmonton for 200 miles and the Grand Trunk Pacific for 240 miles, and other proposed railways say 240 miles ; and add on the 150 miles alreadv constructed, the total mileage in the south will be only 830 miles. A comparison of the number of chartered banks north and south of township 38 will tell the same story: All the statistics simply corroborate the statement I have made, and prove that the division of that country on the lines laid down by the legislative assembly would be absolutely fair. Let us take these 11 seats south and 11 seats north for a further comparison. I am leaving out the constituencies of Athabaska, Peace River, and Red Deer which is in the middle and which can be added to either the north or the south. Put take the 11 seats south of township 38 and the 11 seats immediately north, and it will be found that there are required 1,415 names on the voters' lists for every constituency in the south, whereas in the north there are only required 1,114 names, showing a discrimination against the south of 201 voters for each constituency. I have stated to the Prime Minister that my figures do not agree with the figures he gave as to the number of votes cast and the number of voters names on the lists, and I will show where they vary. I have the figures worked out here according to the polling subdivisions, and I wish the right hon. gentleman would point to any constituency in which he thinks the vote is over estimated or under estimates In Medicine Hat the nuniDer of votes polled was 1,168 and the number of names on the list 1,650.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have ...159 as having voted ; there is a difference of 9.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. You have added 10 townships to Medicine Hat.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do vou take the constituency of Medicine Hat as" it was ?


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. No, as it is. I have marked the polling subdivisions in each polling constituency and gone through the matter very carefully, and I want the right hon. gentleman to point out wherein my figures are incorrect, or else to admit that they are right. I am prepared to hand over any constituency carved up into polling subdivisions with the vote cast.


Wilfrid Laurier: According to our figures which I got from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in a statement of ' the number of votes registered and polled on the 23rd of November, 1904, in the following proposed constituencies,' I find.
Medicine Hat, number on voters' lists, 1,624, polled, 1,159.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. In a return to this House, three months ago, we got the voters' lists. We have teen itrough them and have checked them as accurately as we could, and even picked out the names on each voters' list which would be in another polling subdivision, west or east of a certain range, and I propose to put my figures on ' Hansard ' and I wish to be show7n wherein any of them are wrong. This work was done by others besides myself who will follow me.


Wilfrid Laurier: What arejny hon. friend's figures for Medicine Hat ?


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. On the list 1,650 and polled 1,108.


Peter Talbot: Do your figures include spoiled ballots ?


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Spoiled ballots would not come out of the list.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a difference of nine votes.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The difference is probably accounted for by the fact that you have added to the old constituency of Medicine Hat 40 townships.


Wilfrid Laurier: I had added nothing. I got these figures from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and if they are wrong it is not my mistake.


Frank Oliver: It may be that in one case there have been counted only the votes that were counted and in the other case there may have been given the votes cast, including the spoiled ballots.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: There is a much larger discrepancy in the votes on the list from the figures given by the Prime Minister and the number as voted. If I am not Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
trespassing on the patience of the House I shall call out the constituencies wherein we vary.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eigut o'clock.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Before recess I was attempting to deal with the number of votes cast of the proposed local constituencies and the number of votes on the enumerators' lists. With regard to certain constituencies there is some difference between the figures submitted by the right hon. the First Minister and those submitted in the calculations made by hon. members on this side. I regret very much to have to trouble the House with these figures, but had this information been supplied us three weeks ago, as it should have been, I possibly then might have been able to point out where there was tiny error in the figures submitted by the First Minister or have been able to discover some discrepancy in our own calculations. But as a great deal of care was taken to find out the exact number of votes on the lists and the exact number polled, I propose to place upon ' Hansard ' the result of these calculations :
Names on the list. 1,660 851 1,236 1,121 1,678 1,260 2,682 1,189 1,528 1,017 1,325 1,095 1,068 1,182
1.063 1,416
1.063 1,291
748 1,689
No. Constituencies.	Votes.
1.	Medicine Hat	
1,1682.	Cardiston	
6213.	Lethbridge	
8584.	Ma'cleod	
7155.	Pincher	
1,1476.	Gleiehen	
7747.	Calgary city	
2,1848.	Rosebud	
7499.	High River	
97110.	Banff	
75011.	Innistail	
89612.	Red Deer	
r,os13.	Vermilion	
63214.	Lacom.be	
77815.	Ponoka	
79416.	Wetaskiwln	
83417.	Leduc	
87618.	Strathcona	
87219.	Stony Plain	
58420.	Edmonton	
1,340
I might say with regard to Edmonton that one of the polling divisions was missing in the list brought down as will be found in some of the other constituencies, but in that case we took a percentage of the total vote cast and allowed that much for the polling subdivision.
21.	Saskatchewan	
1,237	1,75722.	Sturgeon	
717	109S23.	St. Albert	
740	960
A calculation, I believe, will be made which will practically show that the figures as given us by the First Minister will re-

suit In proving our contention, namely, that undue representation has been given to the north and that the south has been discriminated against. As I pointed out, on the vote enumerated on the list, if you take the eleven seats from the international boundary, it will be found, totalling them up and comparing them with the eleven seats north after Red Deer, excepting Peace river and Athabaska, that there are over 200 more names on the lists for each of the eleven constituencies in the south than for the eleven in the north. As has been already pointed out, a large number of settlers who hav* gone in there the last three years have had no votes, the influx of settlement has been south, and the southern country suffers in comparison with the north by reason of the settlers not being there long enough to qualify and have their names put on the lists. As I have pointed out, in the calculation of homestead entries, the lands sold by the Great Northwestern Irrigation Company would not appear, and it is quite apparent to anybody who considers the matter at all that the influx of population has been largely to the south. I need only point out one instance in connection with that southern irrigation block, and that is that in the one town of Raymond-the hon. member for Alberta will bear me out in this-there was a population last fall of 2,500 people and yet less than 200 names appear on the enumerator's list. People who went in there a couple of years ago were not in the country a sufficient length of time to enable them to be placed upon the list.
Now, let us make some comparisons between the constituencies in the south and those in the north. Take, for example, the city of Calgary, with 2.184 votes polled, and cc mpare it with the city of Edmonton, with 1,340 votes polled, or 2,682 names on the list in Calgary as compared with only 1.689 in Edmdnton. The same representation is given to both. Compare the constituency of Fincher Creek, with 1,678 names on the list, with its coal mines at Frank. Blairmore and Coleman, and a ranching and farming country in the constituency, with Stony Plain, where there are only 74S names on the list. It the right hon. the First Minister will do me the honour of looking at the map published by the Department of the Interior on the 1st of January, 1905, he will find that in this proposed constituency of Stony Plain practically no townships are shown as surveyed and ready for permanent settlement. On this map I find this explanation ' Townships coloured buff are the townships for which township plans have been printed.' It will be apparent to any person who looks at that map that in this proposed constituency of Stony Plain there are practically no townships for which plans have been printed up to the 1st of January, 1905, which, I think, is very good evidence as to where the, permanent settlement is.
I venture to state that there is not in the constituency of Stony Plain a village or hamlet of 300 people. There is nothing there that requires special representation. If you look at the map you will observe how the constituencies of the south are permitted to run right across to the boundary of British Columbia ; and when we get up to township 38, we find that an additional constituency, Stony Plain, is added in this unsurveyed country, in which there is practically no permanent settlement. There is no reason why that constituency could not be represented, as it always has been, by parties living farther east or by one of the members for Edmonton. In that connection, I may say that I observe in the local papers that two, if not three, citizens of Edmonton have already been nominated for three constituencies in the north-Messrs. Cross and Boyle and another-showing that that section of the country could be properly looked after by a member residing at or near Edmonton.
'J ake the constituency of High River in the south, with 1,605 names on the list, and with the thriving villages of High River, Oko-toks, Nanton and Cayley, and with two banks chartered at High River and at Oko-toks, and compare that with St. Albert, with only 950 names on the list. What I have said with regard to the land not being surveyed in the constituency of Stouy Plain applies equally to the constituency of St. Albert, showing that there is a lack of permanent settlement there. Contrast Medicine Hat, in the south, with 1,640 names on the list, with Vermilion, with only 1,092 names on the list. In comparing these two constituencies I desire to point out that the old consituency of Medicine Hat has been enlarged by the addition of at least forty townships, for no reason presumably but that it is in the south ; because no person could contend that there has not been a considerable development and influx of population into that constituency since the distribution of seats by the local assembly in May, 1902. I have already pointed out that no additional representation is given in the constituencies of Cardston, Lethbridge or Medicine Hat, all of which happen to be in the southern part of the province ; that no parallel case has been pointed out in the north ; that then additional representation has been given all along the line, constituencies being cut in two when there has been absolutely no necessity for it. In giving the calculations which I read a few moments ago, I omitted the constituencies of Athabaska and Peace River, for no other reason than that there was no vote cast there in the last election. There has never been ah election there, and it was utterly impossible for anybody to make a calculation which would be at all authentic or definite. For that reason I prefer to take for the calculation those constituencies in which votes were cast last November, and in which voters' lists have been

prepared. But if we include iu tlie calculation the two northern constituencies, the contrast in favour of the south will be even more apparent. If we assume that each of the constituencies of Athabaska and Peace Kiver has a voting strength of 300, or 600 in all-and that, I think, is liberal, in view of the figures that have been submitted to this House, or that were annexed to the proposed schedule when it was sent to the hon. gentleman who leads this side of the House-the figures give Peace River a population of 800 and Athabaska 1,436, totalling 2,236. Divide that by five to ascertain the number of votes, or by any other figure you choose to select, and it will give a voting population for the two constituencies of 447. So, when I am allowing 300 for each constituency, I think I am within the mark when I say that it is a fair and liberal allowance. Now, take these constituencies in the south as having each a v'oting population of 300 and compare them with those in the north. Take all the constituencies of the north, and include Red Deer in tlie south. It matters not for the calculation in which part you place the constituency of Red Deer, as it is practically at township 38, the dividing line In the calculation which I have submitted. If we take the theoretical number of 100 as entitling each constituency to a seat, the figures will be as follows with regard to the number of names appearing on the list: Medicine Hat, 135 ; Cardston, 72 ; Lethbridge, 100 ; Macleod, 92 ; Pincher Creek, 137 ; Gleichen, 103 ; Calgary city, 219 ; Rosebud, 97 ; High River, 125 ;' Banff, 83 ; Innisfail, 108 ; Red Deer, 89 ; Vermilion, 87 ; Lacombe, 96 ; Ponoka, 87 ; W etaskiwin, 115 ; Leduc, 87 ; Strathcona, 105 ; Stony Plain, 61 ; Edmonton city, 138 ; Saskatchewan, 144 ; Sturgeon, 89 ; St. Albert, 78 ; Peace River, 35 ; Athabaska, 35. That is, out of the 12 southern constituencies 7 go over the 100 mark, and 10 out of the 13 north are under that figure. I work it out on that basis as catching the eye quicker than by setting out the figures as I have done with the 11 seats north and south.
Now let us deal with these two northern constituencies as they are, and perhaps answer some of the arguments advanced by the right hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. It would be interesting to have the area of each of these constituencies so as to be able to determine if it would be at all possible to get a vote in that vast territory; it would be interesting to know how far apart settlers are in the respective constituencies, wherever there are any. As I will point out in a few minutes, the mail service of once a month costs $1,500 to this country for a single post office, which serves the whole of that district of two constituencies, producing a revenue of $66 a year. Could we form any estimate of what it would cost to have an election in either of these constituencies, or would it be possible I Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
to hold an election ? There are no lines of communication. And wThat is it going to cost in this new province to elect these two members in each of these constituencies ? I venture the statement that for each one of them an election will cost the new province ten times as much as in any of the constituencies to the south. If any one was being hurt by not having two representatives, I would not for a moment urge that they should be deprived of two representatives. But let us look at the population according to the census of
1901.	It has been repeated over and over again in this House, that in the whole district of Athabaska there were only 241 white people. Now, we are not taking in the whole of Athabaska, we take in about 50 per eent; I am willing to say that it includes 70 per cent of the population. But I may point out now that for some reason or other, if I am correctly informed, representation is not given to Athabaska in the new province of Saskatchewan. That statement has been made to me, and I believe it is correct. Now if we take 70 per cent of that white population of 241 it would give us 160 people, and if we look at the census of 1901 we will find that in the whole province of Alberta there are two and a third times the number of people now, on the estimate of the Minister of Justice when he put it at 173,000, that there was when the census was taken in 1901. No man will argue in this House that there has been a greater influx of population, proportionately, into Athabaska than there has been into the other portions of Alberta. For a number of years back there has been no difficulty in getting settlement along the lines of railway construction ; therefore I think we are justified in assuming that the influx into Athabaska has been no greater proportionately, than into the rest of the province of Alberta. Therefore if I multiply 160 by two and oue-third it will'give a population of 400. Where have the additional half-breeds, if any, come from into Athabaska ? If they have gone in there from the northern part of Alberta, the northern part of Alberta would be depleted thereby. But has there been into that country the last two or three years any influx of settlement, either of white people or of half-breeds? Therefore, I say that the time is not ripe yet to give that district two representatives.
For the purpose of finding out just what population was there, as nearly as I could get at it, some days ago I placed a question on the order paper which, with the answer, will be found on page 7271 of ' Hansard
1.	When was the post office established at Lesser Slave Lake ?
The one post office in the whole of Athabaska according to the Post Office Guide.

2.	From what railway point are mails forwarded, what is the distance covered, and how often do these mails arrive ?
3.	What other post offices have been established in the Territory of Athabaska, and when were they first opened ?
4.	How many letters were received and despatched from Lesser Slave Lake during the last four years ?
5.	What was the revenue collected and the expense incurred in connection with the Lesser Slave Lake post office ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (for the Postmaster General) :: (f)	The said report and the said duplicate thereat shall be signed by the commissioners, or in case of a disagreement, by a majority ot them, and the report ot the majority ot the commissioners shall be the report of the commissioners.
(g)	The said report shall be published in the ' Canada Gazette,' and in the official gazette of the said province forthwith after the receipt thereof.
(h)	The commissioners may frame rules and orders for regulating the conduct of their proceedings and generally for carrying into effect the provisions thereof.
(i)	The letters patent appointing said commissioners shall confer upon them the power of summoning witnesses before them and of requiring such witnesses to give evidence on oath, orally or in writing, or on solemn affirmation (if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters) and to produce such documents and things as the commissioners may deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to inquire, and the commissioners shall have the same power and authority to enforce the attendance ot witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in the .Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories in civil cases.


Mr.   OJ@: IV'KIt. Tlie lion, member has certainly given us a deluge of statement in support of his plea that the part of the new province of Alberta south of township 30 should have fifteen representatives in the first legislature of the province as against ten iu the northern part, but X think he has given very little argument in support of his contention that this question should he referred to a commission of judges. It struck me that the whole argument we have heard in regard to this matter from the other side of the House was very strongly tinged with partisanship, that from beginning to end the argument was on partisanship, and I merely suggest that if the commission of judges were appointed and if it should be so unfortunate as fo agree with the schedule placed before tlie House I am afraid that tlie commissioners would not be free from accusations of partisanship from my hon. friends on the other side. They could hardly be expected to agree with his very remarkable contention that the situation demands fifteen representatives in the south as against ten in the north. I think that admission on his part is a sufficient evidenee as to his desire for a careful judicial decision and a sufficient answer to his assertion of non-partisanship.
In regard to liis complaint that my hon. friend from iStratlicona (Mr. P. Talbot) and myself have had more or less to do with the preparation of this map and schedule, I do not know that either my hon. friend or myself have any apologies to offer for having given such advice as we may have been able to give to the government in regard to this matter which certainly concerns the constituencies which we represent. I may say, further, that in tlie early part of the discussion on these Autonomy Bills there Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
was an offer made, I think I am safe to say, on the part of my hon. friend and myself, to meet our co-members from the southern part of the province to discuss this amicably, and arrive at a joint conclusion, hut we only needed to meet once to find out that our conclusions were as wide apart as the statements which my hon. friend has made in the House and the positions of my hon. friend from Strathcona and myself. In fact I am given to understand they absolutely refused to join in the discussion. However, be that as it may, we have no apologies to offer for having taken it upon ourselves in representing our constituencies-


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that I myself or Mr. Herron was ever asked to discuss electoral divisions with him?


Frank Oliver: To the best of my belief, yes.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. By whom?


Frank Oliver: By myself.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Did you ever ask me to discuss electoral divisions with you?


Frank Oliver: I cannot be sure, but I think so.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I do not think you can. I wish to emphatically deny that I was ever asked by you or any person else on the other side of the House to discuss electoral divisions.


Mr. LAKE.: I may say as far as I am personally concerned also that I was never approached on that subject by any member on the other side of the House with a suggestion to discuss this question.


Mr. HERRON.: I might say that the minister did ask me something in connection with the division of my district on one occasion. That was late in the evening and the following morning the Bill was laid before us.


Mr. SCOTT.: I would call to the recollection of my hon. friends on the other side of the House that we had a conference in which this matter came up in room 48, on one occasion and the proposal was made at that conference at which the members of the Northwest government as well as I think nearly all our hon. friends from the Northwest Territories who sit on that side of the House were present. The proposition was made by myself.


Richard Stuart Lake: I was not present on that occasion nor did I hear of it.


Thomas Walter Scott: Possibly the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) was not present. The member for Calgary was present with Mr. Haultain and Mr. Bulyea.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Do you intend to say that I was present when any mention

was made of dividing that country up into electoral divisions? I have given that statement an emphatic denial. 1 was at a meeting when the boundary was discussed, whether it should be the 4th meridian. We sat there until 9.30 waiting for the hon. member for Edmonton, the present Minister of the Interior. I left at 9.30 o'clock after we saw that the boundary between the two provinces could not be satisfactorily adjusted and I again desire to emphatically deny that the question of dividing that country into local constituencies was ever mentioned in my presence.


Thomas Walter Scott: I do not wish to impugn the veracity of my hon. friend from Calgary at all, but 1 make the statement that at that conference the proposition was put forward by myself in the shape of a formal motion that for each of the proposed provinces there should be a bi-party committee appointed from the representatives there present to deal with this matter of redistribution and our Conservative friends there immediately took the position that they would not take part.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Who were the Conservative friends who tooit that position that they would not take part.
Mi-. SCOTT. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) makes the emphatic statement that he was not present and heard no such suggestion at all.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I would like to have the name.


Thomas Walter Scott: I distinctly recollect that Mr. Haultain was present, and I think my hon. friend from Alberta was also there.


John Herron: I state most emphatically I was not.


Mr.   HAKE@: And I also state most emphatically that I was not present.


Frank Oliver: At any rate we assume responsibility for having advised the government in this matter. We do not say that the government has taken our advice, but we take the responsibility of having advised it, and I think we would have been doing considerably less than our duty to our constituents if we had not done so. But I am not aware it was any part of our responsibility to ask members opposite to take part with us. They have their responsibility as we have ours, and perhaps they will say that we refused their offer to consult with regard to this matter. If they do not, then they must take the responsibility, just as well as we, of there having been no general discussion. We have no more responsibility in that respect than they. But what has been said here by the hon. mem-mer for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) makes it quite evident that a joint discussion would have been absolutely useless. The contention he put before the House
made impossible that any agreement should be reached.


William Findlay Maclean: Why ?


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend will be patient, I shall try to explain why. The first position taken by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) is that the distribution of seats which was made by the local assembly after the election of 1902 was a proper basis of representation. He takes the ground that because the Northwest assembly made that distribution, it therefore must be right-a distribution which gave eight seats south of this township line of township 39 and six seats north.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Did you not say 9 to 6 this afternoon ?


Frank Oliver: I was speaking of the old district of Alberta. I am speaking now of the new province of Alberta to which we gave nine seats in the south to six in the north. But the Northwest assembly gave the old province of Alberta eight seats on the south to six in the north. In the votes that were polled on the 3rd November last, the six northern seats polled 9,817 against 9,666 polled in the eight southern seats. The hon. member takes that proportion of seats as a fair basis of representation, and I leave his argument to the House for its consideration. We say that it is not a fair basis.


Mr. BARKER.: His argument was the very opposite.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member will pardon me for using my own ears. Starting out with the supposition that the southern country was entitled to eight representatives and the northern only to_ six, he then builds an argument which satisfies himself but which has no basis in fact. It is the simplest thing in the world to arrive at any result by eliminating anything you do not want and adding anything you do. By following this operation, my hon. friend arrived at the absurd calculation that there are 50,000 people north of the line and 150, 000 south of it, or figures to that effect.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I proceeded on the assumption of the Minister of Justice that there was a population of 173,000 there and made my calculation accordingly.


Frank Oliver: My understanding of my hon. friend's argument was Jhat by this method he reached the conclusion that there are about one-third as many people noith of this line as there are south. Take any standard you please which has any basis in fact, and you will see how absurd is that conclusion, and consequently must be the premises from which it was drawn.


Samuel Barker: He said nothing of the kind.
Mr). OLIVER,. Take for instance his suggestion that because customs receipts

in the southern half are greater than in the northern half, its population must be greater and the southern half must be entitled to greater representation. On the same basis of calculation, the city of Montreal would be entitled to greater representation than all the rest of the province of Quebec. A similar argument he used with regard to the receipts of the land offices and the receipts from timber and other dues. Well, the amount of receipts indicate the amount of trade and the wealth of the country ; and no one disputes that in this southern country, with its nine hundred miles of railway and its investment of capital for many years, there is a greater aggregation of wealth than in the northern part with only one hundred miles of railway in operation.' But it does not follow that the northern part shall be disfranchised because its people have not as much money in the bank or because the customs receipts or the land office receipts are Jess. It is the people who vote and not their money. Winnipeg has more customs receipts and handles, I suppose, more business than all the rest of Manitoba, yet it has only one representative. It has 100,000 of a population approximately, which I presume, is twice as many as any other constituency in that province, but still it has only one representative. The statements of the hon. gentleman may possibly be correct, but they have no bearing on the question. The question is as to the number of people who are to have representation ; aud when my hon. friend leaves that question and gives us a lot of very interesting statistics to show how the country in the south has progressed, lie does not thereby strengthen his ease.
My hon. friend has suggested that because great irrigation works are going on in the vicinity of Calgary, there must be a large population there. But he knows that these irrigation works were undertaken because there was no population to speak of in that country, because it was not a country suitable for a large population. As a matter of fact, this great district, in which these irrigation works are situated, and which has something like 200 miles of railway, passed a vote at the last election of about 700 or 800 votes. Because a country has 900 miles of railway, he says it must contain a large aggregation of people, but here is a district with 200 miles of railway which only cast 700 or 800 votes. Tiie extension of railways is not an evidence of population, and everybody knows a great part of southern Alberta- while it is a most desirable country, a country in which men have become wealthy- is not suitable for a dense population. It in a ranching country, the population of winch must largely be in the town-a prosperous, if you like, population but not a dense population. In regard to the considerations upon which the distribution before Mr. OLIVER.
the House is made, it has been stated already that the vote cast at the last Dominion election was accepted as the basis of population. That was accepted because it was the most recent, definite, unquestioned and unquestionable statement that could be obtained. There was nothing more recent that would be absolutely authoritative. My hon. friend complains that the number of votes on the list was not considered instead of the number of votes cast. That might alter the conditions slightly, but not materially ; but everybody will admit that prepared as our voters' lists are in the west, there may be some question as to the reliability of the list but there is no question as to the reliability of the votes when the ballots are in the box.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the voters were not there 1


William Findlay Maclean: Dead men vote.


Frank Oliver: Not there. That is in Centre Toronto.


Some hon. MEMBERS: In South York.


Frank Oliver: The votes actually polled are taken as something definite, reliable, unquestioned, recent. Then we must necessarily take the areas of country affected. My hon. friend does not desire to consider area at all ; but the purpose of representation is to forward the general interests, and the general interests include the development of unoccupied country. That is the great interest which we in this Dominion parliament have to serve, and that is what the provincial legislature must serve in administering the local affairs of that country.
' f is the undeveloped area that is our source of wealth, and the policy or principle that would exclude area from representation is certainly detrimental to the well-being of the country. We are prepared to take issue with the hon. gentleman on that point. The third consideration is the prospective de-' eiopment of the province. The first legislature will sit presumably for a term of four years, and where immediate development is assured on a large scale, development which must in the nature of things eventuate before the end of the legislative term, that development should certainly be taken into consideration. And so, when my hon. friend says that there should be consideration of the 900 miles of railroad existing in Southern Alberta, so we say there should be consideration of the 700 or 800 miles to be constructed in northern Alberta within the next two years-certainly within the life of the first legislature. There is under construction during the present year some 275 miles of railroad in northern Alberta, north of township 38. The results in the way of settlement from the construction of those 275 miles through a strictly agricultural country cannot be estimated in figures less than tens of thousands, and any scheme of representation that would not give

some consideration to that development, v'hich is not merely in prospect but is as-sifred, would certainly fall far short of meeting the fair and reasonable requirements of the country. I will not dispute with the hon. gentleman as to the figures which he read of the votes in each constituency. It matters very little whether it Is a few more or a few less ; the general result is about the same. The question at issue is not between several constituencies, but between northern Alberta and southern Alberta. Now, the vote cast at the Dominion election in the province of Alberta, not including the district of Athabaska, amounted to practically 21,000, giving 12 constituencies in the south, including Red Deer, although part of it is north of the line mentioned. That is, 11,400 votes in the 12 southern constituencies as against 9,553 votes in the 11 northern constituencies, a difference of 1,853 votes, exclusive of the district of Athabaska. Now, we say that the greater area of the northern part of the old district of Alberta, to which is added the area of the district of Athabaska, and the prospective increase of population resulting from the construction of 275 miles of railroad during the present year and the balance of 700 miles of railroad within the next four years, are certainly ample justification


Samuel Barker: Is the hon. gentleman calculating for a distribution of seats four years hence ?


Frank Oliver: No ; I am calculating for n distribution of seats this year which will stand for four years. We believe that the allowance of 1,800 votes for the difference between 69,000 square miles in the soutii and 211,000 square miles in the north, with the increase of railway facilities, is certainly not taking any undue advantage. On the contrary, we consider that the country to the south is receiving everything that it can reasonably claim, or that is claimed by sound argument, from the statement my hon. friend has made here to-day.


Samuel Barker: I would ask the hon. gentleman if he is not overlooking the fact that he is providing for an election that must be held within six months, and not four years hence.


Frank Oliver: 1 am aware of that fact; but I am aware also that the representatives to be elected will in all probability be elected again four years hence, and that therefore we are entitled in all fairness to consider the conditions as they will exist four years hence, as when a distribution was made of seats in the Northwest Territories, allowance was made for a prospective increase of population. What was right then is right now. My hon. friend has found a great deal of fault with the representation of the district of Athabaska, it is going to cost money to represent it. Now this new province of Alberta lies immediately alongside the province of British Columbia. It is very little inferior to British Columbia in area, or, we believe, in value, and we believe that not the least valuable part of the district of Alberta is that part now called the western part of the district of Athabaska. The northern line of the new province of Alberta is identical with that of the province of British Columbia. But there is no part of British Columbia that is not represented in this House, and the isolated parties of miners in the northern part of British Columbia, far north of the Peace river on our side of the mountains, are secured in their right to representation both in the local house and in this parliament.' There is a member representing that part of British Columbia lying immediately across the mountains from the Peace river, which is just as inaccessible, just as difficult to reach, and having very little less population if any than the proposed district of the Peace river. My hon. friend has the easiest way in the world of arriving at his conclusions ; by the elimination of what he does not wish to see, and by exaggerating what he does wish to see, he can produce any result he wishes. So when he does not want to give that northern country the representation to which it is by area, and population, and possibilities and prospect eutitled, he simply ignores it, and says it can either go without representation, or it can be represented by somebody who does not know any more about it than he shows he knows himself, if we are to judge from his arguments.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Does the hon. gentleman contend that whilst the northern country is going ahead the southern country will stand still ?


Frank Oliver: Surely not. My hon. friend has rather been led into that suggestion reversed, but I have not. We admit the progress and success of the southern country. It certainly has gone ahead marvellously, and is entitled to all consideration. But that is no reason why the progress of the northern country, the greater possibilities of the northern country, because of its greater area if for no other reason, should therefore be ignored. I was rather struck by the easy way in which my hon. friend disposed of a certain constituency to which he particularly objected, the proposed constituency of Stony Plain. He spoke at some length of the papulation of the constituency of Oardston. Now the constituency of Card-ston I know probably as well as he does and Cardston only gave 640 odd votes at the last election, while the district of Stony Plain gave a little over 600 votes. But he proceeds at once to eliminate the constituency of Stony Plain by producing a map which he says shows there are no surveyed lands within that constituency. Now the Department of the Interior may have made an error, and may not have shown the surveys that , have been made there, but I can assure him that

the constituency of Stony Plain, as it lies on the map, contains 10 organized school districts which arc conducted year in and year out, a nil most of those school buildings are quite equal to any in any country locality in eastern or western Canada. There is no part of Manitoba or of the Northwest Territories that is more closely settled than the settled portion of this particular district of Stony Plain, and there is no part more successful in its farming operations. But my hon. friend, by the scratch of a pen, absolutely wipes it out of existence. He says that the district of Atbabaska might be just as well represented by some one who lived somewhere else. Now if that argument of my hon. friend is to prevail, I suppose by the same reasoning some of the constituencies of Ontario and Quebec might be wiped out of existence because they are represented by non-residents, by gentlemen who live in Montreal and Quebec, or in Toronto. But the people of Stony Plain do not recognize that they are off the map, for they have been busy in selecting a resident candidate to represent them locally. My hon. friend mentioned some names as having some connection with this particular constituency. These gentlemen have no connection with it, and that only shows that my hon. friend is not careful in the arguments he puts before the House to support his contention.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. X did not state that a resident of Edmonton was nominated tor Stony Plain, I said for some constituency in the north, it may be Atliabaska or Peace River, for aught X know.


Frank Oliver: I understood him to say that Mr. Boyle had been or was going to be nominated.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I said Mr. Boyle and Mr. Cross bad been nominated in Edmonton to represent northern constituencies, and I thought that a third party had also been nominated-three men resident in the city of Edmonton are already nominated to represent three northern constituencies.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that. I do not know that any of them are nominated to represent three northern constituencies. The only constituencies I have knowledge of are those of Stony Plain and St. Albert, and in most cases I am given to understand that local men are in the field for those constituencies.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Has not Mr. Boyle been nominated ?


Frank Oliver: Not that I am aware of. However, when an bon. member has given the House such a deluge of information, it is not unfair that when I come to speak of a subject with which I am acquainted and he is not, I should state to the House that he lias been somewhat astray in his conclusions; at any rate, that he has not shown that care i Mr. OLIVER.
in the presentation of his facts that was due to the House in dealing with so important a subject. I do not know that it is necessary to discuss in further detail the differences between the two ends of the district of Alberta. But my hon. friend 1ms laid very much stress upon certain conditions which, lie says, point to a large population in one part and small population in the other, and perhaps it may be right also to allude to some of these same matters. When he finds more post offices in the north than in the south he says that is no evidence of population ; it is only evidence that the Postmaster General has favoured that end of the country, and he proceeds to tell us of a certain town in his own constituency where the Postmaster General granted a" post office simply because a lady asked him. If anything could be easier than that, I do not know what it is. I think, having regard to the action of the Postmaster General in granting post offices in bis constituency, it is not fair of him to allege that the1 northern country has been favoured to a greater extent than the part where he says the population is, particularly when fie tells us that in this great district of Atliabaska, with an area greater than that of all the rest of the province of Alberta, the Postmaster General has only seen fit to grant one post office in three years. He can have liis argument that way if fie likes. Either the Postmaster General is stingy with post offices or fie is liberal with post offices. If fie is stingy with post offices, then northern Alberta lias not got more than it is entitled to in proportion to the rest of the country ; and if fie is liberal with post offices, then surely the south is advantaged more than the unfortunate district of Atliabaska is. As a matter of fact, the question of the number of post offices has only an indirect bearing on the question. The district of Atbabaska is traversed by two great rivers-the Atbabaska and the Peace. I think my hon. friend said there was no travel in the country. These two rivers are navigated by lines of steamboats. There are plying on the waters of the Atliabaska river within the proposed district of Atbabaska four river steamers, one belonging to the Hudson Bay Company, one belonging to the firm of Cornwall & Woods, one belonging to the Roman Catholic mission and one belonging to the firm of Hislop & Nagle. On the Peace river they have three steamers, a large one and a small one belonging to the Hudson Bay Company and a small one belonging to the Roman Catholic mission. My hon. friend has undertaken to belittle the resources and people of the Peace river country. There is a purely agricultural settlement; I will go so far as to say a more purely agricultural settlement than any existing in his constituency of Calgary, situated on the lower Peace river at Port Vermilion, in latitude 57.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I may point tout to the hon. minister that the returns show



tliat the constituency of Calgary yields more per acre than the constituency of Edmonton, and yet he says it is not a grain country.*


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to argue as between Calgary and Edmonton, hut I merely say again, as I know his constituency, 1 tiiink, certainly as well as he does, that the settlement of Vermilion, on the Peace river, is a settlement in which the people depend more entirely upon the results of the cultivation of the ground than does any settlement in the constituency which he represents. That is not saying anything as to the respective values of the two sections. 1 merely say that it is a strictly agricultural settlement situated on the lower Peace river, that there is a roller process flour mill run by steam, lighted by electricity, turning out flour for the northern trade equal to any that is produced in any part of the district of Alberta.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. If you will refer to your own paper of January 10th, the Edmonton [DOT] Bulletin,' you will And the condition of the country fairly stated there. They were not looking for representation then ; they were looking for an experimental farm ; and you will find on page 6 of the Edmonton ' Bulletin,' which is owned and published by the hon. gentleman, I believe, the following :
T. W. Lines 'brought up ithe matter of an experimental farm and wanted the government and the sitting members for Edmonton and Strathcona memorialized on the subject. Two years out of ten the mill of the company which he represented had been forced to shut down owing to a lack of grain free from frost. The local wheat millers were occasionally in the same position and had to import wheat. Our potatoes could not be sold in the Kootenay district. These things were due to the lack of information, &c.
So that when you are looking for an experimental farm and when you are looking tor representation, your stories do not tally.


Frank Oliver: I was speaking of the Vermilion district, on the Peace river, and not of the Edmonton district. The hon. gentleman apparently does not like the facts I have given him and is endeavouring to direct attention somewhere else. We will discuss the question in regard to Edmonton later on if the hon. gentleman wishes, but a i. the present moment we are discussing the question of Vermilion, and I repeat that there is a roller process flour mill operating with the product of the settlement and supplying the trade of that country, which is not second in appointments or results to any mill in the district of Alberta.


Mr. INGRAM.: What is the output ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot tell you what the output is. The capacity is about fifty barrels a day.


Andrew B. Ingram: About seventy-five barrels a year, according to the statement made.


Frank Oliver: Well, that's all right. I think, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that the absurdity of the statement made by the hon. member is a sufficient answer to it. The idea that a steam mill would be taken by a company such as the Hudson Bay Company to that remote part of the world, and then only have a capacity of seventy-five barrels a year is sufficiently absurd to stamp at its proper value this or any other statement that the hon. gentleman makes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman say that the mill that is referred to in this report is the mill that he is referring to now ?	.


Frank Oliver: I could not say, I am sure. I am not responsible for that report.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is the report issued by the government, and the government's statement is the statement I have made. If it is not correct, it is not my fault; it is the fault of the government.


Frank Oliver: I had occasion to challenge a great many of the statements made by the gentleman who produced that report.


Andrew B. Ingram: And you got the worst of it.


Frank Oliver: As a matter of fact, there was no effort made to establish his statements, either in the House or in the committee.


Samuel Barker: You answered my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) that it was the Edmonton mill and not the Vermilion one.


Frank Oliver: Well, I did not intend to answer him in that way. In regard to experimental farms, may I suggest to my hon. friend from Calgary that there have' been applications, and very proper applications, before the Department of Agriculture to my knowledge ever since 1896 for the establishment of an experimental farm either in or contiguous to the district which he represents, and I do not think it is any discredit to the district that it should be so. The experimental farm at Indian Head is situated in a farming district, than which there is no better on this continent. And why is it any discredit to the agricultural capabilities of either the Edmonton or the Peace river district that the people there should be anxious for the establishment of an experimental farm ? My hon. friend (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) is driven to hard straits in support of his contention as to representation when he sees fit to attempt to discredit the agricultural capabilities of a country that is not subject to be discredited by the source from which the attempt comes.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Your paper discredited it. I did not.


Frank Oliver: There is no discredit in stating facts, and there is nobody who is

acquainted with agriculture in this country or in any other who would suggest that farming operations are always a success ; certainly no person who is aequanted with the conditions in any part of the Northwest Territories, not excepting the Indian Head district, to say nothing of the Calgary or Alberta districts. But this is not the argument which the hon. member is putting before the House. It has the evidence of unfair intent; an intent to prejudice the mind of the House and the country against a fair and square case. The gentlemen who put forward the contention that the representation of Alberta as it was in the local assembly was a proper representation, have established their position fairly well before the House. When eight constituencies only cast the vote of six constituencies, that is sufficient evidence as to the fairness of the distribution that was made on that occasion, I see that my friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron) is becoming uneasy to get into this game.


John Herron: You are very much mistaken ; I am trying to keep out of it.


Frank Oliver: I expect that in thunderous tones he will soon follow the argument of his friend from Calgary, and also declaim against the unfairness of this distribution, and possibly take his stand upon the fairness of the local distribution of 1902. I find, on looking at the distribution of 1902-that distribution which by the way was arrived at without a commission of judges, and of course was entirely without any partisan bias-that distribution gives the Macleod district which cast a vote of 1,700 or 1,800 at the last election, one representative, while it gives two representatives to the adjoining districts of Cardston and Lethbridge which together did not give as large a vote. Now, we may not have made a division absolutely to the line of a hair's breadth, but we certainly have made a distribution which shines by comparison with that made by our friends of the local assembly in 1902, if the case of the district of Macleod is to be considered. The district of Macleod has had to wait for this distribution in order to get justice.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Were these votes you mention, cast before the distribution of 1902.


Frank Oliver: No ; last fall.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Do you know what was the vote before the distribution of 1902?
OLIVER. There was no vote cast at the election of 1902 ; it was by acclamation I believe.
^I'\M g MCCARTHY. How could they tell then?


Frank Oliver: They had the census to go upon.


Frank Oliver: 


John Herron: There was an election held in 1902 in the Macleod district.


Peter Talbot: I think the hon. member is wrong.


John Herron: I am not.


Peter Talbot: I think Mr. Haultaiu was elected by acclamation.


John Herron: He was not. He ran against a man named Harris and that man lost his deposit.


Mr. HENDERSON.: It was pretty near an acclamation.


Frank Oliver: The census was taken in 1901, and the distribution of 1902 was made immediately after the census.- If I have been able to get the figures correctly, I find that if we take the census as a basis, the whole of the new province of Alberta south of the north line of township 8 has a population of 33,040, as against a population of 30,398 north of township 38. If we had taken the census in making this distribution, I submit we would have been justified, but we did not take the census because it was not the latest available information. We took the latest figures available and we arrived at the result now before the House. I submit that the contention as to an undue preponderance of representation to the north country which according to the census has a population of 36,398 as against a population of 33,040 in the south country, does not carry with it the imputation of unfairness. Taking the census, taking all the facts, taking the comparative areas, taking the railroad construction now in progress and the further railroad construction in prospect, there has been an eminently fair and an entirely satisfactory distribution of seats in the province of Alberta. It is too bad that the same percentage of undue advantage that was held by the southern country under the distribution of the local assembly, has not been continued. My hon. friend (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) has stated frankly to the House that he thinks it should be, and the statement of his views in that regard is sufficient to convince the House as to the fairness with which he approaches this subject.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Do my figures correspond with the local distribution?
-Mr. OLIVER. I presume they do.


Mr.   M.@: iS. MCCARTHY. Where is the unfairness?


Frank Oliver: The unfairness is that eight districts in the south have only as many votes as six districts in the north. We have taken the votes as cast either in the south or in the north as the first basis of calculation, then we have considered the area and we have considered the railroad prospects, and we have given them repre-

sentation accordingly. The assumption that the distribution made in 1902 was a good distribution bears its own condemnation on its face. As to homestead entries, when the hon. gentleman (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) thinks the homestead entries are in his favour he accepts them, but if he thinks they are against him he rejects them as a basis of calculation. I have inquired in the department and 1 find that in the country lying north of the district of Medicine Hat and west of the 4th principal meridian-the part principally occupied by the present district of Vermilion-in which my hon. friend suggests that there is practically no population, the records of the department show 6,000 homestead entries from the 4th meridian to range 18 and from township 38 to township 70. That is the part of the country which the hon. gentleman suggests is not entitled to representation at all. *


William Findlay Maclean: What new constituency is that in ?


Frank Oliver: Vermilion, the greater part of it. That constituency is on the line of the Canadian Northern Railway part of which was graded last fall, the balance of which is being graded now, the iron on which will be laid this fall and any person who understands anything about the pro-, gress of settlement in that country and knows the character of that country, every foot of it a good agricultural country, will know that in the nature of things there must have been a very large entry of homesteaders along that line of railroad.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Is that all farming country ?


Frank Oliver: All farming country, every foot of it.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Because I have a report here of Mr. Jackson who sits in that House, which does not bear out that statement.


Frank Oliver: I am not particular about Mr. Jackson's report; I am particular about the fact that people are homesteading along the line in hundreds and thousands.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Actual settlers ? How do you know' that V


Frank Oliver: By the reports of people who travel up and down the line in the course of their business and by the returns of the land office. My hon. friend will have to accept some facts bearing against his case even although they are unpleasant. I will leave it to this committee or to any member of the House if it is a possibility that a railway shall be under construction through a good agricultural country and that that country shall not receive a very large accession of population because of that construction. That is an actual fact and there is no gainsaying it. I do not 247
know what Mr. Jackson has reported in regard to that country but my hon. friend must know, or he would know if he had lived in the west a little longer than he has, that there are many parts of his own district and many parts of the adjoining .district of Alberta which five, six or seven years agt>
nobody would have reported as being suited for farming, but these are lands that are to-day cultivated and producing abundant crops so that a report made some years ago in regard to any part of the country is subject to revision. It is not a question of report, however, it is a question of actual fact, the settlement upon the land.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The report I refer to was in 1903, not some years ago.


Frank Oliver: That is some years ago. Let me draw attention to a matter which was alluded to by the Prime Minister. The district of Rosebud which is a little north of Calgary and in the hon. member's district cast a vote of 732 at the last Dominion elections, and in the census that district is credited with the population of 1,036. That district at the time the census was taken was not considered by the incoming people as suitable for agriculture, but the hon. member knows and we all know that that district to-day is the home of a very large population, and that the vote actually cast is not a fair index of the total number of people. What has occurred there has occurred in other parts of the country ; because the hon. member has not seen it, because he has not been told it, it does not follow that it is not so. It is a fact that our country has been growing in all its parts and not only in this or that part. In reference to the southern part of the country I have some figures here that I think may bear upon the. question. One part of the country is valuable for one reason and another part for another reason. The southern country is valuable primarily as a ranching country, and secondarily as a farming country. A ranching country, in the nature of things, is not suited to dense settlement as is a farming country; that goes without saying and I suppose my hon. friend will not contend to the contrary. Since my hon. friend has been digging into the records of the department I may also, and I notice that south of Red Deer there are under grazing lands in that country one and a half million acres of land and that there have been applied for in .the department five and a half million acres of land suitable for grazing and thereby not supposedly suitable for farming.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Are you granting them ?


Frank Oliver: That is another question.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: That is what I would like to know.


Frank Oliver: I shall tell that later.


Mr.   M.@: 6. MCCARTHY. Do not postpone it too long.


Frank Oliver: I shall not be long ; we do not keep you waiting long. The evidence that the southern country of which my hon. friend properly speaks highly has received a large accession of population in recent years is not subject, and in the nature of things cannot be subject, to that density of population which the purely agricultural Saskatchewan valley is subject to. That is something that cannot be gainsaid and when we consider this matter we are bound to consider it in the light of facts and not of imagination.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What portion of the country do you mean by the Saskatchewan valley, the mere valley of the river or what ? You can throw a cat across the river.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend forgets that he is not speaking in a court just now.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I want to know.


Frank Oliver: He does not need to ask to know that when you speak of the valley you speak of the drainage. It is not of the river, not of the mere bed in which the river flows that you speak in that way.
In regard to the points at which there are settlements in the districts of Athabaska and Peace River, I wish to inform my hon. friend that there are settlements in the proposed district of Athabaska at Slave Lake, Whitefish Lake, Waluseau, Calling Lake, Grand Rapids, Mehumay, Red River, Chey-boyan, Fond du Lac, Smith's Landing, in Peace River at Sturgeon Lake, Grand Puine, Spirit River, Quinegan, Peace River, Crossing, Wolverine Point, Hayward, Vermilion, Little Red River.
As has already been said by the premier it is absolutely impossible for any man adequately to represent or intelligently secure the representation of these two districts. It is possible for two men to do so. The two rivers offer means of communication. They represent two diverse interests. Along the Athabaska the country is not supposed to be agricultural ; it is a mineral, timber and fur-bearing and fishing country, it has a larger population at the present time. The Peace River is a country of great agricultural possibilities and of great agricultural prospects and looking to the develop-of that northern country it would be most manifestly unfair that the representation of the agricultural Peace River country should be placed at the disposal of the vote of the Athabaska river country. If we are going to do the fair and reasonable thing by this province, we must give representation according to the interests to the affected, according to the development to be secured and to ignore the possibilities and the necessities of that immense area of country on the argument put forward by Mr. OLIVER.
my hon. friend, because there is only one post office, because it would cost some money to hold the elections there, because the representation can be made just as well by somebody who knows nothing about it as by somebody who does-I say these I think are not arguments that will appeal to this committee or to the House. I think we have made a representation that will appeal to the fair-minded people of Alberta as giving representation according to population and according to the diversity of interest and the area and progress of the province. The contention that an injustice has been done I submit has not been made out before the House. I submit it cannot be made out, and as I said in the beginning it would certainly be a very fortunate body of judges who would give a- decision favourable to a proposal now before the House and escape criticism as active partisans by hon. gentlemen when their position had been ignored.


Mr. AMES.: As one of those members who have been, with the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy), working out calculations from the figures which have formed the basis of this discussion, I desire to contribute my views to this debate on somewhat the same lines. I do not profess to have as intimate a knowledge of the country as has my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, but on the other hand I am not altogether iii ignorance of our great west, having on several occasions visited the provinces in question. Deeming it of the greatest importance that this House, in defining the electoral divisions for the new provinces should act with absolute fairness, and being firmly convinced that the proposition of the government is not an absolutely fair one, I wish to point out in what respects I consider it wanting.
We are about to form a new province, we are about to create a local government for that province, and it is essential that we should provide for a fair representation of the popular will in this new legislature we are about to call into being. It is for this ostensible object that the government has submitted the schedule we are now discussing ; and in criticising the schedules and the method of their preparation, the opposition are acting strictly within their duty. We propose what we believe to be a much fairer method. We on this side demand that this question be left to a commission of judges, who shall arrange the boundaries of the constituencies, and we do this in the belief that thereby the people will be satisfied and the ends of justice achieved. As I have said, the opposition criticise, in the first place, the method by which this schedule was prepared and submitted to this House. We have the plan, we have the schedule, but there is no official authorization of any kind. We do not know whence it came, as far as that is indicated by anything on the face of it at

least It bears the stamp of no commission, of no official investigation ; it is simply-given to us, and we are told to take it as we will. But if report be true, that schedule was prepared several months ago. If we are to believe current rumour, it was incubated in room 48 of this House, it emanated from under the hands of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Talbot) at that time, and it comes to this House-as they themselves acknowledge-the product of their ingenuity.


Frank Oliver: Will my hon. friend allow me to correct him ? I did not say that it comes to the House as a product of our ingenuity. I said that we gave advice to the government and were responsible for the advice we gave, but I did not say that it was followed.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will my hon. friend point out in what respect that advice was departed from ?


Frank Oliver: I do not see why I should. We are here supporting the Bill and there is no need why we should go behind it.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Will you point out wherein your advice in any particular was not accepted by the government 1


Frank Oliver: That is not any part of my duty.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Is the Bill in any particular different from the one originally prepared ?


Frank Oliver: I am not here to answer questions of that nature. I am supporting the Bill as it stands, and am responsible for the advice I gave with regard to it.


Herbert Brown Ames: I take it that the Minister of the Interior will not entirely deny the soft impeachment that he was largely, if not wholly, instrumental with his colleague from Strathcona in the preparation of this schedule, and that the government, having the greatest consideration for the knowledge and sense of justice of himself and his colli ague, accepted their recommendations almost entirely. We may take that for granted. We would like also to know whether any one else was consulted in the preparation of this schedule and to what extent. We have heard that the premier of the Northwest Territories (Mr. Haultain) was present at a meeting, but we do not know that his advice was accepted to any extent. We would also like to know if the advice of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) and the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy), which might have been given if asked for, was requested by the hon. minister. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) seems to have been asked with regard to his own corner of the province, whether he was satisfied, the night before the schedule was submitted to the 2474
House. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) seems to have been left altogether out of the deliberation, although be has shown us he has some knowledge of the conditions obtaining in the west and would therefore be one whose opinion should be ot some value. It would be interesting to know also whether the local members of the constituencies-'the 14 or 15 which fall within the new province-were consulted, or whether their constituencies are to be carved out without their co-operation in any way. We also should know whether any opportunity was given for interested parties to be heard, whether delegations were invited, or any opportunity given those who may have felt agrieved in the matter to make their views known. It would appear that this schedule had been prepared without that wide opportunity having been given interested parties which we might expect in such a delicate matter. In fact it is evident that the hon. the Minister of the Interior, somewhat like Moses of old, has come down with his tables of stone and asks us to accept them as though carved by divine power, and as though they were too sacred to be altered in the least jot or tittle by any profan-e hand. I only hope 'that before the debate is through, the Minister of the Interior will follow the precedent of the law giver of old and find it advisable to dash his tables of stone to the ground and get new ones.
iBut the opposition have been invited by the Prime Minister to point out wherein they think the government are not acting wisely in the words which he uttered at the opening of this debate. On the 8th May, 1905, the right hon. gentleman said : I believe it is the intention of the government to give substantial justice to all parties concerned. Let ns then start on that basis. The First Minister has expressed, not only his own desire, but no doubt the desire also of his colleagues, to do justice in this redistribution ; and therefore in the hope that, if we show that injustice is done, he will be the first to remedy it, we shall continue the discussion.
It is not an easy task to divide a province into electoral divisions. Certainly it is not an easy task to do so justly, although we n ight almost imagine from 1he extent of the injustice in this schedule that it bad been an easy task. The government, in clause 12 of the Bill, have given us two of the factors which they have evidently taken into consideration in dealing with this matter, namely, that the electoral divisions shall be defined with due regard to the distribution of population and existing local divisions, which we take to mean the divisions in the Northwest legislature at present. But there are other factors which should be taken mto consideration in making distribution. There are the physical features of the country. It is inadvisable that a mountain range, for example, should separate two parts of a constituenncy, or that an unfordable river should cut it in twain, and it is equally inad-

visable to divide a town so that a part falls in one constituency and a part in another, and so that the citizens shall be compelled to go many miles north for registration in one case and many miles south in the other.
It is necessary also to consider means of communication ; for it is advisable that as far as possible the same line of communication should serve those who are found in the same constituency. It also follows that where there are no means of communication and where it is unlikely that there will be any for many years to come, one should think twice before endeavouring to establish constituencies, knowing the grave difficulties that must necessarily follow. Then, it is necessary to consider the representation of interests. We find many and varied interests in this rich province of Alberta-the ranching and the farming, the urban and the rural, the mining, the irrigation, the fur trading, and so on. In these interests there are large sums of money invested, and an effort should be made to see that each of these interests isj represented in the new House by some one who is permitted and able to speak for it. And it must not altogether be lost sight of that there are immense amounts of capital in some of the old constituencies, which are to some extent entitled to representation; for certainly investments will form a large portion of the consideration of the new House, and a territory sparsely populated, or practically not populated at all, can hardly have the same interest in the legislation as can a constituency in which large capital is invested. Then, ethnological conditions need to be considered. It is inadvisable to submerge a portion of the population which is to some extent homogeneous. It is advisable that they should be so placed so as to have representation by one of themselves. All these are considerations that have to be taken into account when dealing with the distribution of the representation of a province. We are not inclined to place the same stress on more area that the hon. Minister of Interior does. Vacant land does not contribute to the revenue of a country nor supply votes, aud we fall to see how we are justified in the present case in anticipating, in the rosy manner in which the hon. Minister of the Interior has done, the possible filling up at some future date of this northern country. The hon. minister has argued that such representation should be given in the new legislature because of the development that is about to take place in that northern country. Well, I submit that the legislature which w-ill be elected by the people of Alberta will be thoroughly competent to deal with measures for the development of that northern country, whether it has a representative or not. Surely, if there be matters which require the attention of the local legislature, they will be dealt with in the regular way. The


Herbert Brown Ames: lion, minister has also drawn attention to the British Columbia analogy, and has spoken of that portion of British Columbia "which lies north and east of the Rocky Mountains. Possibly the hon. minister does not remember that the hon. member who sits in this House for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. D. Ross) has a constituency which is bounded on the south by the American boundary line and on the north by the Yukon, and yet, when he canvasses for votes, he does not go higher than 100 or 125 miles north of the Thompson river, nor does he attempt to canvass or give representation to that part of Yale-Cariboo which lies north and east of the Rocky Mountains. The people of British Columbia take the sensible course of attaching this unorganized territory to an organized territory ; and if the hon. Minister of the Interior would arrange to have the unorganized territory of Peace River attached to St. Albert and the unorganized territory of Athabaska attached to Sturgeon, the two western of these districts forming one constituency lying east of the Rocky Mountains, and the others fc rining one further to the east of these-


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. gentleman contend that northern British Columbia is not represented directly in the legislature ?


Herbert Brown Ames: I was speaking of the representative of Yale-Cariboo in this House.


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. gentleman include in his remarks the representation in the local legislature of British Columbia?'


Herbert Brown Ames: I would ask the hon. member whether the portion of British Columbia that lies east and north of the Rocky Mountains has a representative of its own in the provincial House?


Frank Oliver: It forms part, I believe, of the electoral district of Cassiar.


Herbert Brown Ames: And I will ask another question; Is there any attempt made to organize or get any vote for that portion of British Columbia lying north and east of the Rocky Mountains?


Frank Oliver: I could not tell you that.


Herbert Brown Ames: None whatever. For local purposes it may be attached to Cassiar, but no attempt is made to organize it for electoral purposes.
Now, the hon. minister has spoken of the prospective increase, and on that basis has attempted to give us reasons why there should be seven constituencies north of the North Saskatchewan river, where there were only three before.
I think we shall have at the outset to say plainly that we are dealing with present conditions and not discounting the future. It may be a popular amusement in Edmonton to decide what town lots will be worth ten years from now ; but at the present moment we are dealing with facts and fig-

ures as we find them, and this is the reason why: because clause 12 of this Bill reads: ' Until the said legislature otherwise provides.' Now, the hon. minister knows perfectly well that within six months after the passage of this Bill the people of Alberta will be called upon to choose their first legislature. He knows that that legislature will be chosen on the conditions as they are to-day, or rather as they were last year, because the later comers cannot vote. He knows, therefore, that the powers given by this Bill will be exhausted with that first act of the first legislature, and from that time forward will be null and void; because there is before this House a Bill which states that in the month of June, in the year 1906, there will be a census of the population of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba taken by the Minister of Agriculture. Now, it is perfectly well known that this legislature is to be chosen upon existing conditions, and that one of the first acts of this legislature, after the census of 1900 becomes public, will be if necessary, to carry out a distribution of seats. He knows that hereafter the newly created legislature will be the sole authority to divide the province of Alberta for local electoral purposes. Six months from this time the powers given in this Bill will practically cease' to exist, consequently this prospective increase is a matter we have no right to discuss. Then, the minister tells us that one railroad is coming in this year, that another is coming in two years, and another in three years. We have to deal with actual facts as they are, and hence discounting the future is not pertinent to the discussion.
Now, I think I have shown that there are a great many, different considerations which have to be weighed when a province is about to be divided into constituencies, and I think we shall realize as a House that we are not adapted for dealing with questions of that character. With all due deference to the knowledge and good intentions of the members of this House, I submit that a division of that character is one that should be made by an independent judicial body which has some knowledge of local conditions. There are 215 members of this House. How many of these have ever been in Alberta or know anything about the local conditions there? Here we have a very important measure affecting the interests of probably 200.000 people. Is there any bar provided before which these people can come and be heard and make their grievances known ? This is a matter which should be given the fullest possible discussion, and the people vitally interested should be given an opportunity to be heard. But no such opportunity is now given them. Further than that, with all due deference to parliament, I do not think it can be characterized as a wholly non-partisan body.
I do not think the members of this House are likely to approach this question having absolutely divested themselves of political bias. This Bill has been presented in a very simple way. One man fathers it, his views are imposed upon the cabinet, the cabinet having accepted them, force them upon the party, and the party having a majority in parliament forces it upon the country. That is one-man-rule in a matter so important as this which relates to the future of 200,000 people. Now I submit that is not the manner in which a question of this importance should be dealt with. We desire to have a commission appointed of men of wide knowledge and of legal training, men who have given their lives to weighing judicial questions, and are prepared to deal with them in an impartial way, men before whom these people interested can come and plead their cause ; and when that tribunal has been provided we of the opposition are perfctly willing to accept without a murmur the finding, whatever it may be. The minister has intimated that his finding would pass a board of judges. If it passes a board of judges, there will be nothing further said. But I am very much mistaken if there are three judges in any province of the Dominion who would uccep t after hearing all the evidence, the schedule which the minister has submitted.
There is another point which comes out in this discussion. We' have seen statements made and challenged, figures offered and refuted. Where are we ? Who is right? Who has counted these figures correctly ? Simply the majority. They may be wrong, it is possible for a majority to be wrong. But if there were a commission of judges to weigh the statements of all parties which might be submitted to them, who would be in a position to examine witnesses and documents, and be able to obtain full information, they would then decide where the truth lay, and would act accordingly.
Now I want to submit some evidence to prove that commissions have been tried elsewhere and have proved most successful. We, as a part of the British Empire, cannot do badly in following some of our sister colonies in their manner of dealing with questions of this character. We have been accustomed especially to look to Australia for experiments relating to the ballot law, and all things electoral. We have taken our ballot system from that country. Now suppose we consult them relating to legislation of this kind. 'Some twenty years ago, in New Zealand, it was decided that the fairest possible way to distribute constituencies was to leave it to a commission. In 1892 New South Wales followed the example of New Zealand, and at that time the Hon. R. E. O'Connor, who introduced a government measure, thus spoke of the way in which the system had worked in New Zealand :
The principle of the schedule of electorates is open to very great objection, and the principle

which we have adopted is one that has been working very satisfactorily in New Zealand for some time. That is this : three commissioners are appointed who are members of the civil service. They are in no way under political control. They make the subdivision of the electorates. . . . These commissioners have the power of fixing the electorates in that way, and they divide the country into 125 electorates returning 125 members.
In consequence of* the success of New Zealand, the government of New South Wales presented a Bill in 1S92, which was duly passed, and that is the method now in operation in New South Wales. It may be worth while to indicate some of the main lines on which the distribution of New South Wales is carried out. I will make a few citations from the Act 56 Vic, 1892-3, No. 38, of the statutes of New South Wales.
Within thirty days from the passing.of this Act, and thereafter when any distribution of electoral districts shall become necessary under the provisions of this Act, the government shall, by commission under the great seal, appoint three persons, each of whom shall be qualified as an elector in and for some electoral district of New South Wales, according to the law in force at the time of the appointment, to be commissioners for the purposes of this parliament and to be called ' the electoral district commissioners.' The persons so to be appointed shall be chosen by the government from persons then holding soqie office in the public service of New South Wales. And the names of the persons so appointed, and of all persons hereafter appointed as such commissioners, shall be published in the * Gazette.'
It shall be the duty of the commissioners, and they are hereby directed, to distribute New South Wales into electoral districts for the purposes of this Act, within three months after the passing of this Act, and thereafter, within three months after the results of every census of the population of New South Wales shall have been ascertained and reported to the Colonial Secretary, which the government statistician is hereby required to do as early as possible after such census shall have been taken, and such distribution shall take effect when approved by resolution of the legislative assembly.
Now that is the way in which the distribution was made, and you will see upon what they base it.
The total number of members to be elected to serve in the assembly shall be 125. The quota of electors for the purposes of this Act shall be ascertained in the following manner- for the purposes of the first distribution, the quota shall he ascertained by dividing by 125 the total number of persons enrolled on the electoral rolls. . . . And the quota for every subsequent distribution shall be ascertained by dividing by 125 the total number of electors on the rolls in force for the time being.
Two very important principles therefore are carried out in this Bill. After they have found the total number of persons enrolled on the list and divided it by the total number of constituencies, and having established the quota, then they make their boundaries.


Herbert Brown Ames: Now, the people of Alberta, (if we can judge at all from wliat we read in the newspapers from the west, and particularly from these proposed provinces), the people of Alberta had somewhat got the idea that they	were going	to have a commissionwhich would delimit these constituencies, and	it	is not	difficult to show	byquotations from some of the papers that this	is	what the	local desire calls	for.Also we can readily prove, from the same sources,	that the	people of Alberta	aregrievously disappointed with the action of the government in this respect. I wish to submit a few of the figures which show why the people of Alberta are disappointed. I have not made my calculations in quite the same way ,as my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) has made his, but they are made, I think, with equal care and effort, and I may say that they are the work of many weeks on the part of the members upon this side of the House. We have not relied on any officials. We have made our own calculations we have checked and rechecked, and I think our schedule will stand the test. We have made independent calculations, which I do not think can be in -any way broken down. In the fiyst place, 1 want to reiterate vwhat I have already said, that we are not discounting the future. We are dealing with things as they are ; consequently, the figures which we should look for are the figures as they exist. What is the extent and character of this country that we are called upon to deal with ? Here we have a stretch of territory, 3(50 miles of which is settled, because there is practically no settlement, as there is no survey, beyond township 60. We have this district extending from the 4th meridian to the Rocky mountains, which is populated as far north as 360 miles from the border. This section of country was by parliament.	3 Edwsird VII., chapter
60, divided, in 1903, into four constituencies.
Obviously the division could not have been unfair for the Liberals because at that time that section of the country was represented by four Liberals in this House. The dividing line of these four constituencies was township 34, and Calgary and Alberta are south of township 34 and Stratli-cona and Edmonton north. The schedule that has been submitted by the Minister of Interior gives fourteen and a half members in the local house north of 34 and ten and a half members south of 34, while we claim that the natural division would be to give the same number north and south. I want first to submit estimates that are based upon population, and I am of course compelled to resort to figures which are furnished by local authorities and which if they be challenged by the government w is the duty of the government to show are incorrect. In the ' Northern Albertan,' a Liberal paper published in Calgary, on the 11th of May, 1905, there is Mr. AMES.
an attempt to give the population of the constituencies according to the so called Oliver schedule. We find that the ten constituencies which lie south of township 34, viz. : Cardston, Pincher, Maeleod, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, High River, Calgary (city), Gleichen, Banff and Rosebud, have a population of 120,000. In the 14 constituencies north of line 34 : Red Deer, Lacombe, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin, Leduc, Strathcona, Vermilion, Saskatchewan. Sturgeon. St. Albert, Peace River, Athabaska, and Edmonton (city), there is a population of 100,300. If we take the new constituency of Innis-fail out of the calculation because It lies north and south of township 34, we would have 120,000 south and 100,300 north, and Innisfail in the middle with 10,000, would give 230,300 in all which is what the ' Northern Albertan ' calculates the present population to be. If we consider Innisfail as a neutral constituency then we have 52 per cent of the population south of it and 43* per cent of the population north, and yet it is proposed to give 14 members to the north and 10 members to the south. If you take the total population of these constituencies as estimated by the 'Northern Albertan' at 230,300 you find that the average for each constituency is 9,212. I would like to know where the fairness comes in when 120,000 popie in the south get 10 representatives and 100 000 in the north have 14 representatives ?
There is another calculation of population which appears in the Medicine Hat ' Times ' of tlie 2.3rd of May, 1905, whicii apparently has been prepared with great care because every figure is carried out to the end. Here again we have the 24 constituencies ; here again we have Innisfail laid aside for the moment because it is on the boundary line, and the ten constituencies on the south are given a population of 89,834, while the 14 constituencies on the north are given a population of 75,590. It is proposed here to give 14 representatives to 75,590 people and 10 representatives to 89,834 people. Is that fair play ? This calculation gives the total 1 opulation including Innisfail at 172,853. I want to ask, as one searching for information, why should it require 9,000 people in the south to have a representative, when
5.400	people in the north are thought good enough to have a member. I do not know the country very well, but is there such a difference between the calibre of tlie people of the north and the people of the south that it takes 9,000 people in the south to have one representative while it only takes
5.400	people in the north to have a representative?	,


Frank Oliver: Does the hon.. gentleman want an answer ?


Herbert Brown Ames: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Because such a large number of the 9,000 are imaginary people.


Herbert Brown Ames: You will have to settle that with the Medicine Hat 'Times.' Let us

take another calculation : let us take up j the calculation of the number of names on the lists. I think that is admitted to be the most obviously fair method of making a division ; it has been so considered in New Zealand, it has been so considered in New South Wales, it has been so considered in the Transvaal, it has been so considered in the territories of the American union.
I never heard before, and I do not think any member of this House ever heard before, of an estimate based on the number of votes cast, because it can be easily seen that the number will vary greatly on account of circumstances peculiar to each constituency. We find altogether that there were about 30,000 names on the voters' lists and the quota is 1,222. Therefore the country should be so divided that each constituency would contain 1,222 names upon its voters' lists. We find that the ten southern constituencies have 14,242 names on their lists, but the 14 northern constituencies-taking it for granted that Peace River and Athabaska by a superhuman effort might produce 300 each-have 15,040 names on their voters' lists. In other words the quota being 1,222 the average of each constituency in the south is 1,424 and the average in the north is 1.074. Might 1 ask, why it requires 350 more names on the list of a southern constituency to have a representative, than it does in a northern constituency.


David Henderson: Because it is not imaginary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Because they want to keep the capital in the north.


Herbert Brown Ames: This afternoon figures were brought down by the Prime Minister which did not exactly tally with ours but which were not essentially different. I have taken the government figures in order to make a calculation and I find that in the south we have 10 constituencies with a total of 14,057 voters or an average in each constituency of 1,465, while we have in the 13 northern constituencies 15,271 voters or an average in each constituency of 1,174. The quota is 1,300. Why does it require 1,465 voters in the south for one member while 1,174 is sufficient in the north ? We on this side of the House found it necessary to make our own calculation,: and we found it necessary for two reasons. First, because we desired to become familiar with the facts ourselves, and secondly because we felt there could not be all the possible confidence in the world placed upon the figures as given by the government. Now let me show you an instance which confirms our suspicions. On the 14th of June, I asked in the House, how many names of qualified voters appeared on each of the lists used November 3, 1904, for the electoral districts of Alberta, Calgary, Strathcona and Edmonton, and the Prime Minister replied: that in Alberta,
there were 3,473. It was a little difficult to credit that statement, because in that election Mr. Herron received 1,755 votes, Mr. McKenzie, 1.677, 41 were rejected and 39 spoiled, making the total number of votes cast in the election 3,512. And yet the Prime Minister says that there were only 3,473 names upon the list. If that is the way computations are made we find it necessary to make independent calculations.
We now come to the matter of the votes erst. I find that in the same ten southern constituencies 9,796 votes were cast or an average of 979, but that in the 12 northern ccnstieucies 9,867 were polled or an average of 822. 895 is the mean for 23 constituencies. Why should it be necessary in the south to have 157 more electors than the mean when it is permitted to have 73 less than the mean in the north V The Minister of the Interior has attempted to defend this method of division by the number of votes cast. Of all the methods, that is the one which will come uearest fc- justifying his proposed schedule and for that reason I suppose it lias been selected. but it is so obviously unfair to the south that I think it is advisable we should make this matter also patent to the House. You have only to look at some percentages to see the difference between the number of names on the list and the number of votes cast. For example, the High River constituency which is largely devoted to ranching only polled 63 per cent, and Macleod, another ranching constituency. 64 per cent of the names on the list. Stony Plain of which we have heard, managed to get in 78 per cent, and St. Albert succeeded in polling 77 per cent of its vote. There are some very peculiar features about this which make it still more apparent why this basis of calculation was used. In the northern part they not only voted the whole list but more. In Cracow, a name which shows that it is largely inhabited, by Poles who helped to swell the hon. gentleman's majority, there were 113 names on the list and 100 cast. In Sallman, 19 were cast and there are 17 on the list. In Kensington 82 were cast and 52 on the list. In Wetaskiwin there were 282 cast and 266 on tile list, in Rosenthal, 52 cast and 44 or: the list ; at Stony Plain Schoolhouse, 50 cast and. 47 on the list ; East Saskatchewan, 230 cast and 221 on the list. Poll 22, St. Albert cast 206 votes, although there were only 193 on the list. 1 can readily see under these circumstances why it should be deemed advisable for the minister to attempt to defend his schedule by considering the number of votes cast, but unfortunately the people of the south apparently had overlooked the fact that a distribution was coming. The minister has mentioned Cardston, which had a small vote in the south. If I understand, this is a Liberal constituency surrounded by several of another character, and there might be danger in the event of Cardston being enlarged that it would no

longer remain Liberal and consequently it is left untouched.
It is sometimes maintained that cities should not be entitled to the same representation as rural constituencies. We are always subjected to such treatment in Montreal and are not given representation in any way commensurate with our population, and so if in this particular case we should deduct from the figures given us in the Medicine Hat ' Times,' the figures for the cities of Calgary and Alberta which as I understand, may be overlooked for the purposes of an estimate, we find that the nine southern constituencies contained, 79,334 or an average of 8,815, We would consider Innisfail again as neutral and would deduct Edmonton from the north which would give 13 constituencies with a population of 67.590 or an average of 5,199. Might I ask why a rural constituency in the south requires an average of 8,815 in order to have a representative while a rural constituency in the north has a representation for every 5,199 ? Why require 3,616 more in the south than in the north ?
A great deal of time has been spent to-night in discussing the relative rapidity with which the north and the south are filling, and the homestead entries are taken as affording the best basis of comparison. It is not advisable to take the homestead entries of the last 20 years. We have a, better test of population in the various distributions, so it is only necessary to take the homestead entries for the last two years or parts thereof. It is easy to make this calculation because the present district of Alberta is almost entirely covered by the Lethbridge, Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton agencies. A very small portion of Battleford is west of the fourth, but on the other hand a considerable portion of Medicine Hat as we know is also west of principal meridian 4. It is very easy therefore, for us to calculate the returns of the Calgary and Lethbridge offices which are found south of township 34, and compare them with the returns of the Red Deer office which are north of 34. We find that in 1903-4 for the southern part, Lethbridge and Calgary, there were 4.386 homestead entries; in the northern part 3,815, a total of 8,201, of which 53J per cent lie in the south and 464 per cent in the! north. In 1903-4, as judged by the homestead entries, the south increased much more rapidly than the north. The minister spoke of the homestead entries being brought down to the 31st of March, 1905. We will bring them to this date. That adds nine months to the previous calculation. That gives you for the last 21 months for the south 7.277, and, for the north 6,978. Consequently the two southern agencies in the list during the last 21 months have had more entries passed through them than the two northern agencies. Reference has been made to Battle-ford. Some large figures have been given Mr. AMES.
in connection with it, and the other day a return was brought down in this House which stated that up the 23rd of January, 1905, there had been 2,847 homestead entries for the Battleford part. If the populations all told were fairly equal when the parliamentary distribution into four constituencies was made, and when the distribution into local constituencies was made, more especially the former, and if as we see by the homestead entries the population during the last 21 months has been flowing in greater numbers into the southern than into the northern portion why do we now give 104 members below and 14| above township 34 ? The hon. member speaks of the prospective increase when the railways come in. Yes, but I would repeat that the first election must take place within six months of the passage of this Act, and after that first election has taken place there will be no more need of this schedule for any subsequent election. What may happen after the present year does not affect the situation in any shape or form.
When the hon. minister begins to speak of offsets, it is perfectly fair for my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) to speak of the irrigation scheme of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is to bring
3,000,000 acres under	occupation-twothirds for ranching and one-third for farming. Surely the population that will enter upon that 1,000,000 acres will be quite an offset to anything that may come in along the Great Northern Railway ; and the fact that in the next few years there may be 700 or 800 miles of railway through that northern country has nothing to do with the case, because we must base our first distribution on things as they are and not as they may be in the future.
There is another test I would like to apply. That is the test of the local Northwest Territories constituencies of to-day. This division, which gives to the present territory of Alberta, fifteen members, was made by tiie local Houes in 1902. We have been taught to consider the local House of that day as a non-partisan body. It was so at that time at least. We do not know that politics entered into consideration in this case ; and although we have diligently searched, we have been unable to find that any serious exception was taken to the distribution then made. That gave nine seats south of township 38 and six north of the same. You propose to increase the nine to twelve and the six to thirteen. You add one-third to the south and more than double the representation of the north.
I think I have pointed out what reasons the people of Alberta have for being dissatisfied with the schedule before this House. Perhaps you imagine. Sir. that the people of Alberta are not giving this matter their attention. Well, you have only to read the papers from all parts of southern Al-

berta, and you -will find plenty of evidence, that they are very much worked up over the injustice that they consider is being done them. On the 8th May the schedule was brought to this House. Within two weeks there were protests from the Liberals and Conservatives in Calgary. There were protests from Raymond on the south to Red Deer on the north, a distance of 200 miles; from Medicine Hat to Pincher Creek, east and west, a distance of 150 miles. There were protests from 30,000 miles of tem'torv occupied by 130,000 people. For -the information of the House, let me read a few of those protests because I think they are pertinent to the discussion. The Calgary ' Herald ' on May 11, says :
Every citizen, north and south, understands that the only excuse for this atrocious injustice is the determination of the allied interests to place the seat of government in the centre of the European half-breed population.
That shows that the feeling in Calgary was pretty strong over the matter. Here is what is said by the Calgary ' Daily Herald ' on the 13th May :
In the history of Canada no greater political outrage has been perpetrated than that of which the above map tells the story. Nobody in the south wants to harm Edmonton or any other part of the north. Ail we seek is fair-play, and we have grave reason to protest against the grossly unfair way in which the federal government proposes to hive a lot of small constituencies around Edmonton, and leave important, populous and prosperous communities in the south and centre with outrageously inadequate representation.
This editorial was reproduced and endorsed by the Red Deer ' News ' of May 23, 1905. The 'Weekly Albertan' of May 11, 1905, published in Calgary, and a Liberal paper says :
The announcement, that the Dominion government had completed the schedule of constituencies for the province of Alberta, and had decided upon thirteen seats north of Red Deer and twelve seats to the south is a bitter disappointment to the people of the south.
The division is unfair and cannot be defended. But the division, unjust as it is, is not as serious a matter as the method adopted by the government to arrive at the division. If the question of dividing the province had been left to an independent non-political body, or even to a parliamentary committee, composed of members of parliament who were personally uninterested in the division made, the people of the south would not have been aroused by the decision, even if we had only received eleven members south of the Red Deer line. We would have been disappointed, but would have felt that though beaten we had been beaten fairly, and that though at a disadvantage we did not have a grievance.
The present division is unfair, and the method adopted to decide upon the division is little short of iniquitous.
The population from the south have asked no favours in this struggle.. They first requested a non-competitive point for the temporary capital. They were unable to get that. They were willing to concede that much to their Edmonton opponents, looking upon it as a tribute from the party to party supporters, granted because it was not considered that it would very materially affect the ultimate result ok the capital fight.
But much greater objections can be offered to the method .adopted to arrive at the division. It means that the people of the south are not treated fairly, that being at a disadvantage they are punished for it, that the spirit of fair-play, which has characterized the Liberal party, which has in its hands the creation of these divisions, in this case is lacking.
Then the people of Calgary asked that the division of the constituencies be made by an impartial body. That was a wise, fair, just and unselfish request. Can any .person point to a single defect in such a method of division ? It is absolutely fair and just.
The result of the present policy will be deplorable. It means the lining up in battle array of north against the south.
That comes from one of the strongest Liberal papers in the province of Alberta. The next editorial in that paper is one in support of the government on other matters. The article I have just read was also reproduced and endorsed by the Mae-leod ' Gazette ' on May 18, 1905. and by other papers throughout Alberta. The ' Albertan ' of the 25th May, again says :
Whatever the administration at Ottawa may decide upon in connection with the division of Alberta constituencies, if will not be the fault of the local Liberals if some other method of dividing the constituencies is not adopted. The Calgary Liberals have been using every effort possible to induce the administration to have the original suggestion, that of leaving the task to an independent tribunal, adopted. The Liberals have prepared a full statement of the case, and have presented it to the administration in the most forceful manner.
Might I ask whether these representatives have been received and whether the Prime Minister will be good enough to lay this document on the table of the House ?
The Raymond ' Chronicle,' far to the south, says:
This distribution of seats is felt to be unfair, as it had been tacitly agreed that the dividing would be left to an impartial commission, and taken out of the reach of a possible gerrymander.
Then follows in the same paper an editorial expression of satisfaction with the government on the educational question, thus showing it to be a paper sympathetic to the government. Xu the Lethbridge [DOT] News ' of Thursday, May 18th, I find the following expression of opinion :
The dividing of Alberta into electoral constituencies has been accomplished, and it amounts to nothing less than a gerrymander. The government's work in this case is certainly of a very coarse variety. It is a well-known fact that there is a keen rivalry between Calgary and Edmonton for capital honours, and that the issue largely depends upon whether or not a majority of the members of the first

7807
legislature come from constituencies north or south of 'the town of Red Deer. It is the general opinion that if the ' representation by population ' principle were applied, the south would win hands down, and the capital would go to Calgary. That this opinion was also shared by those supporting Edmonton's claim is proven by the fact that they have been the first who tried to get the question settled at Ottawa without reference to the people's wishes. That the government should practically grant their unjust request and pursue the unprecedented course of turning the whole matter over to the Minister of the Interior seems an unwarranted proceeding even under ordinary circumstances. But when it is remembered that the head of that department is an interested party, It assumes a decidely ' raw ' aspect. We believe the government should have left this whole matter to a judicial committee, to be dealt with impartially on its merits, when justice would have been done. We must confess a keen disappointment in Mr. Oliver, who though elevated to a very high position seems to narrow in the calibre to rise to the dignity of his national field, but keeps on boosting for the village of Edmonton.
The Lethbridge * News,' of the 25th of May, 1905, says :
This is not a question of capitals, nor axes, nor pulls, but it is simply a question of justice. Every man who knows anything about Alberta, knows that an injustice has been done the south, and whether or not we resent it depends largely upon whether or not we are men. *
That does not come from Calgary ; that comes from Lethbridge. Again, the Macleod ' Gazette,' of the 11th of May, 1905, says :
That the division of Alberta constituencies is unfair cannot be denied, and is being protested against by both Liberals and Conservatives alike.
An analysis of the schedule is difficult until the full report comes in. It covers sixteen pages, and evidently it is a very elaborate scheme for the practical disfranchisement of a majority of the citizens of Alberta.
We can see no excuse for this division unless the desire is to disfranchise the south and place the seat of government in the midst of an anti-Protestant and foreign element.
Here is an article from the ' Rocky Mountain Echo..' of Fincher Creek, another district entirely apart from Calgary and from its influence :
In another column will be found the schedule of the local electoral districts for the province of Alberta that is to be submitted to the House at Ottawa and incorporated in the Autonomy Bill. Those who read it, whether Liberal or Conservative, will be surprised and indignant at the manner in which the divisions have been made, and will be disgusted at the gerrymander by which our new province is forced to begin its career, with its citizens unfairly and unequally represented.
It is indeed a disgraceful thing, disgraceful both to the men who made the divisions, and the country, and the people that allow such wrongs to be perpetrated.
Then the ' Echo ' proceeds to read the Calgary Herald,' the Conservative paper.


Herbert Brown Ames: a lecture for its attitude on the school question, showing ag'ain that it is out of the months of the government's own friends that these strong words proceed. Here again is something from the Calgary ' Albertan,' of May IS, 1905, referring to the town of Olds :
The meeting very strongly protested against the division as at present proposed, and moved that a committee of two Liberals and two Conservatives be appointed to draw up a resolution to that effect, one copy to be sent to the Minister of the Interior and to our member at Ottawa.
So I might go on ; hut I think I have read enough to show the spirit in which this schedule has been received by the people of southern Alberta. I have quoted newspapers from Medicine Hat on the east to Pinclier Creek on the-west, distant from one another 200 miles ; and from Raymond on the south to Red Deer on the north, about 150 miles apart. There is a territory 30,000 miles in extent, with a population of probably 130,000, and in that whole territory, which comprises the half of Alberta, discontent prevails to-day over tbe government schedule which lies on the table. I have just one more word to say. I think that I have shown that when the government put into the Bill these words,
[DOT] having due regard to the distribution of population and existing local divisions,' they put in something that was not true. There has not been due regard paid to population, and existing local divisions have been absolutely ignored. And the dangerous part of it is that tlie people of Alberta know and deeply feel the injustice that is being placed on the southern half of the population.
Now, I want to submit this question to this House in, as near as I can, an .absolutely impartial spirit. You are about to create a new province ; you are about to give to that new province a legislature which will be called upon to enact laws for the government of that province. That legislature, when it first meets, will undoubtedly have much important business which will require its immediate attention. If that legislature is elected under that schedule, do you suppose that it will he able to give to that business its closest attention? If the legislature is elected on that schedule, it will be composed of men a large majority of whom at least will be burning with resentment at the wrong done to them, and will endeavour to right that wrong. Is it wise _ for this House to launch the new province under such auspices as that? Is it wise to throw apples of discord into the midst of this new legislative body, and practically damn it at the commencement of its career with a quarrel which it will take years to settle? Why does the government endeavour to so juggle the cards that the north will have an advantage over the south in the selection of the capital ? Why does it put a

portion of the people under a sense of injustice, determined on revenge and upon getting even if they can? Are these beneficent auspices under which to launch these new provinces? It would seem as though this new parliament had already all the trouble that it would care for in connection with these Autonomy Bills. It would appear as though some of the questions in connection with them have already been settled with a great deal of difficulty. Then why do we gratuitously undertake to bring in and impose -upon this new legislature a question which will certainly lead to trouble in the future? It seems to me that the government should carefully consider all the facts and figures which have been laid before them by this side of the House. I do not believe that the Prime Minister appreciates the real situation as the figures reveal it, and I have great hopes that when the government understand what is being done, they will consent to the naming of an impartial commission, which will certainly be the most satisfactory method of dealing with this matter.
Mr. 11 AG G ART. I do not intend to take part in the debate at this late hour. I merely wish to point out that this clause is the most peculiar one that I have ever seen. I do not see the Minister of Justice here. Perhaps the First Minister will explain it :
Until the said legislature otherwise provides, the legislative assembly shall be composed of twenty-five members, to be elected to represent the electoral divisions defined in schedule ' B ' to this Act, having due regard to the distribution of population and existing local divisions.
Why is this limitation inserted, ' having due regard to the distribution of population and existing local divisions'? Do you intend to give the courts the power to say whether this is done or not? You have an enacting clause and a schedule which provides for the delimitation of the boundaries of the different constituencies, and then you add these words as if you were not sure that your schedule was all right.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not for my part see any necessity for these words. They are simply a statement of what we are doing. I look on the words as surplusage. I contend that this schedule is prepared with due regard to the distribution of population and existing local divisions.


Samuel Barker: It is a good sentence misplaced.


Wilfrid Laurier: Only it is not appreciated in the south, but is appreciated in the north.
Progress reported.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 182) to incorporate the Sterling Bank of Canada.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 183) respecting a certain patent of the Metal Volatilization Company.-Mr. McCool.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 21, 1905.