1905-06-21

Mr. DESJARDINS asked :: 1.	Has the government received from any dairy association a request for the classification of dairy products, for exportation ?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to bring in, during this session or the next session, a Bill for the obligatory classification of dairy products, and of butter and cheese especially ?
3.	Will the government institute a classification of three kinds instead of two ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	At a conference of the dairy instructors and experts held under the auspices of the dairying division of the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa, in November of 1903, the following resolution in favour of three grades of butter and cheese was passed :
Whereas cheese and butter are now almost universally classed as ' finest * and * under finest ' when purchased from the factories, making practically only two grades, be it .resolved that it would tend to improve the quality of both products if there were at least three grades recognized.
Since then Mr. Ruddick, Dairy Commls- * sioner, has devoted a great deal of time to this matter, and quite recently has formulated a new classification and standards of quality to - be observed by the official referee of butter and cheese at Montreal in giving his certificates as to the quality of cheese aud creamery butter which he is asked to examine. This new classification embraces three grades for cheese and three grades for creamery butter, namely, 1st grade, 2nd grade and 3rd grade. The Dairy Commissioner has no power to enforce this new clasification, except in so far as it applies to the work of the official referee ; but it has already been adopted by a number of the cheese and butter boards ; and it is hoped that in time all the selling of

cheese and butter will be done on the basis of this classification.


BONUS FOR FARMER IMMIGRANTS.
Mr. MONK asked :: .
1.	Does the government pay any bonus for farmer immigrants to this country ?
2.	To whom is said bonus paid, and what is the amount paid ?
3.	How much has been paid under the above head during the past year ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 
Mr. FISHER.: 


INDIAN RESERVES AT DONOASTER, COUNTY OF TERREBONNE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DESJARDINS-by Mr. Demers-asked :
1.	Is it the intention of the government to abolish the Indian reserve at Doncaster, in the county of Terrebonne ?
2.	If so, will the government, before long, for the purchase of the said reserve, enter into correspondence with the different chiefs of the Indian tribes, who are the owners of those lands ?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	No. The government cannot abolish the reserve without the consent of the Indians, who have declined to surrender.
2.	Covered by answer to first question.



PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. D. W. BOLE (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to correct a statement made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on Monday last. I regret that the hon. gentleman is not in his place ; hut. as l am leaving the city to-day. I shall not have another opportunity of making my statement. I would also like to say that I was present when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) was delivering his speech, but did not put tbe interpretation on bis words that I find in ' Hansard.' I refer to ' Hansard,' page 7932 :
Mr. Chaffey, on April 15, was determined to have his rights, and charged fraud and worse, but on the 26th Mr. Bole intervened and asked that proceedings be stayed until he could come to Ottawa. He then, being in Winnipeg on May 22, after negotiations and correspondence, brings down an assignment of all of Chaffey s rights, claims and interest to Macdonald.
I wish to say that I brought no assignment ; I entered into no negotiations whatever with regard to a settlement between the parties, and had nothing to do with a settlement between the parties. As the minister has promised an investigation, I will Yot say anything with regard to the merits of the case.



CONDITION OF COMMONS CHAMBER.

Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).: I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Public Works if it is not possible to get some more fresh air into this chamber. I see that the temperature here is about 75. In rooms 16 and 6 it is about 65 degrees or 10 degrees more here than in any other room in the House. It ought to be possible to take off sections of these windows and let them remain that way. In any event some plan should be acted upon in order to get more fresh air into this chamber for at present the heat is simply unendurable.


Mr. FIELDING.: I will call the attention of the minister to my hon. friend's sugges-

tion. He will be here in a day or two, and then everything will be right.



MONTREAL, HIGHLAND CADET CORPS.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask my bon. friend the Minister of Militia if he intends doing anything for the Highland Cadet corps of Montreal. The matter calls for no discussion, but 1 shall read to the House a portion of a letter sent to me in connection with this matter :
Now the militia estimates are before the House, I think it advisable to draw your attention to the fact that that fine little corps the Highland Cadets of this city are likely to disband, through want of support and encouragement. Allow me to give you a brief outline of their career, in as few words as possible, for your information :
(al The corps was organized in 1389 by Major Fred. Lydon-then and for some years afterwards adjutant of the 5th Royal Scots-under whom they have ever since been and are to-day.
(b) They hold the Duke of Connaught's flag, having won it on June 5th, 1897, in competition with the Mount St. Louis Cadet corps.
(e) They have never had government assistance, and their work, as you can well understand has been uphill work in every sense of the word, and X think Major Lydon deserves the highest credit for keeping the corps up to the great efficiency it is in to-day in face of strong obstacles.
(d)	The corps has at various times been on a visit, at its own expense, to Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, Niagara Falls, Ogdensburg, New York, Portland, Maine, and other places.
(e)	I myself, representing the Montreal ' Herald ' as special correspondent, accompanied them to Portland, Maine, in 1903, and can hear testimony to their great efficiency and good behaviour there and to the grand reception given them during their three days stay in that city.
(f)	They have been inspected by various Governor Generals, also by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, from whom they got great praise, as well as by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, when here as Duke of Cornwall, &c., to whom they acted as a guard of honour.
In face of all this and the fact that this little corps has supplied upwards of 600 recruits in all to city corps, besides a large number-altogether out of proportion to the size of the corps-to the South African campaign a few years back, Major Lydon has expended some $2,000 out of his own pocket to keep up his corps. Is this right let me ask you ? Besides they have had private subscriptions, which alone have helped to partially sustain the corps, from Lord Strath-cona, the late Colin McArthur and others. Now they contemplate a trip to New York city on 30th June to spend Dominion Day and 4th of July, and go in their shabby uniforms, and upon their return will disband at once unless they get some assistance from government or elsewhere, and as you are a Montrealer and must know the corps, that must plead for me in asking you to get a promise from the Minister of Militia in the House that something will be done-and done quickly-to keep up and help this fine little corps to keep alive. It would be a shame and disgrace should they be allowed to die through want of the necessary assistance. In a speech at the opening of the headquarters
of the First Cadet Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers last week, the Prince of Wales stated :
That during his visit to the colonies he found the cadet movement further advanced than in this country (England). He favoured it, not with a view of militarizing the population, but to give training, discipline and to make those who took part in it of use should their services ever be needed.
Lord Roberts on Empire Day made a speech in w'hich he said :
I am perfectly satisfied that it is essential for this country (England) that every able-bodied man should be able to use a rifle. If you would teach men how to shoot, you must begin with the boys. For that reason we want rifle clubs in all the schools, and assistance can be given to the schools by neighbouring rifle clubs allowing them the use of their ranges.
I am sure two such high authorities are sufficient to make the government decide to sustain this grand little corps, the Highland Cadets, and I am sure your attention having been drawn to the state of coma they are in, I can, as an old militia officer of many years standing, claim your all-powerful help in striving to get the necessary help for this corps.
It is unnecessary for me to add anything to this communication except to say that 1 cordially trust my hon. friend the Minister of Militia will see that the request is given his most favourable attention.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: In reply I may say that this matter has already been brought to my attention, and that I have had some correspondence with citizens of Montreal and particularly Major Lydon himself with regard to it. Not long ago the secretary of the department wrote a letter in which he said :
The minister regrets he is unable to consider the claims of the Highland Cadeit corps for assistance, apart from the claims of other cadet corps. The whole question of assistance will be considered by the minister and the Militia Council at an early date.
In the Militia Act of' last year there are these clauses referring to cadet corps :
Section 65. The minister may-
(a)	Authorize boys over 12 years of age, who are attending school, to be formed into school cadet corps ;
(b)	Authorize boys over 14 years of age and under 18 years of age, to he formed into senior cadet corps ;
(c)	Authorize senior cadet corps, or any portion thereof, to be attached to any portion of the active militia for the purposes of drill and training.
Section 66. All cadet corps shall be subject to the authority and under the orders of the dis * trict officer commanding.
Section 67. Cadet corps shall be drilled and trained as prescribed, and may be furnished with arms, ammunition and equipment, under conditions prescribed.
So that the powers of the department are limited under the Act, and if any special treatment is to be accorded to the cadets mentioned it would be necessary to take a special vote. It would be more convenient to thresh out this question when tne militia estimates are up, and I shall then have a

statement to make with reference to it. I may say however that the department recognizes the very valuable work which this and other cadet corps have done for the militia in Canada.


Mr. INGRAM.: Would the hon. minister give us then the amount of ammunition supplied the different cadet corps as well ?


Mr. T. S. SPROULE.: Having had an opportunity twice of seeing the Montreal Cadet corps when they were in Ottawa, and as most of them were stationed at the hotel where I was residing, I could not help but notice the splendid physique of the boys and the manly, dignified, courteous and intelligent way in [DOT]which they conducted themselves when here, as well as the soldierly appearance they presented. I may say the same of the officers who had control over it. I thought they were the most splendid lot of boys I ever saw, and boys who will no doubt give a good account of themselves in the future. Admiring them as much as 1 do, I would like to have the Minister of Militia if possible make an exception in favour of this corps and give them the assistance required to prevent their being dissolved. In this he would be doing a good thing for the country, and not only reflect credit on himself but also on that splendid corps which we should take every means to keep alive.


Mr. A. ZIMMERMAN.: The order passed by the Dominion government has been taken advantage of in the province of Ontario to a very great extent. In the city of Hamilton we have an exceedingly fine cadet corps which has been attached to the 13th regiment. The Ontario government have contributed $150 towards their uniforms and the Dominion government have supplied them with rifles. In so far as their drill is concerned I question whe-there there is a regiment in Canada that can drill any better than these boys can. They are a fine manly lot of boys and they will make first-class officers for the militia. The measure attaching these cadet corps to the regiments is one of the wisest that the department has passed. It has given great encouragement to the boys and we take great pride in them. I may say I was in Toronto some time ago


Mr. SPEAKER.: There is really no motion before the House.


Adam Zimmerman: I may say I was in Toronto some few days ago and I saw some 6,000 cadets turn out. They really made a magnificent showing and I believe that_ in the near future the measure attaching our cadet corps to the regular militia is going to improve our militia to a tremendous extent.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: One great advantage m perpetuating


Frederick William Borden: 


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If hon. members desire to prolong the discussion there will have to be something before the House.


Samuel Hughes: I am speaking on the Orders of the Day.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Do not discuss it but call attention to it.


Samuel Hughes: I was going to speak of the Highland cadet corps in Montreal and I will conclude with a motion. The Highland Cadet corps is an historic institution in Montreal and if the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence could see his way clear to encourage it in any way it would be an advantage to the force generally. I would be sorry to see that corps allow-ed to go down. Undoubtedly the expense of a corps of this kind is very abnormal because of the uniform. It is largely sustained by subscriptions and I think the bon. minister should take some steps to bring this senior cadet corps into a more active existence than it has at the present time by giving it the support of the department. This corps furnishes a great many men to the regiments in Montreal, especially the Royal Scots, and a very large number of the men in the Royal Scots who enlisted to go to South Africa were boys who had been trained in this Highland cadet corps. I wish to add my testimony 'to the value of this corps. I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion negatived.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH JAPAN.

Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER.: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to ask the bon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) if he has forgotten to bring down the treaty in connectiou *with Japan. I noticed that in a late communication from our agent in Japan he cites special instances of where products from Canada are charged two and three times as much duty and sometimes more than those from other countries, thus making it absolutely impossible, it would seem, to carry on trade in these products with Japan. He points out very strongly how detrimental it is to Canadian trade. I spoke of the difficulty about three weeks ago and the hon. minister said that he would bring down the treaty or make a statement as to the way and in what particulars it was considered that the adoption or adherence to the treaty by Canada would be prejudicial. Here are actual prejudicial effects in commerce. What are the supposed difficulties or prospective troubles we may anticipate providing we do adhere to the treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: My bon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) who has a more intimate personal acquaintance with that question has 6een giving the matter attention and will be able to make
7S17

a statement on the subject, or he will bring down the papers at an early day. He has been looking into the matter since the former discussion.



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-
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that there is to be no reply at all to the statements which were made by members last night ? Has the government concluded to keep silence ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that we adjourned yesterday because of the request of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) who intimated that several hon. gentlemen intended to speak upon the question.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: We waited to see what further arguments would be advanced before making a reply.


George Eulas Foster: Does my right hon. friend think nothing has been brought up by my two hon. friends who spoke yesterday afternoon, my hon. friend, from Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) and my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Arnes), which requires an answer?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I think that anything that has been brought up can be met very successfully, but we thought that more arguments were coming from the other side and that we would wait and hear these arguments.


George Eulas Foster: With all deference to my right hon. friend, I think it would tax himself and perhaps some of his supporters to answer what has already been given, and it might make it altogether too burdensome if others were to speak on this matter before the arguments which have already been advanced have been answered.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I do not agree with my hon. friend on that. I do not think any argument has been advanced which will require any great effort to answer.


Samuel Hughes: It was not my privilege to hear the very eloquent explanations which appear to have been given yesterday, but I have glanced over ' Hansard ' and I fail to find that very lucid explanation that one would naturally expect in relation to the establishment of Peace River and Athabaska. I cannot say that I have been convinced by anything that was brought forward in the House yesterday.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: We do not expect to be able to do that.


Samuel Hughes: I cannot say that I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is convinced and I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is not convinced by the arguments advanced in reference to Peace River and Athabaska. I would be very pleased, if the hon. Minister of the Interior has any additional data, to hear him.


George Eulas Foster: WTell, if there is none I have other questions to ask. In the first place, there were three different statements given as to the population of Athabaska and Peace River. Although this is a small matter and in the opinion of my right hon. friend is not worth while taking notice of probably, yet I think that when two ministers of the Crown and two lay members of the House make statements in reference to the population all which differ from each other we ought to have an authoritative statement. Is the minister able to give us an authoritative statement as to the white, the half-breed and the Indian population of the Peace river?


Mr. OLIVER.: I expect that information from the Census Department shortly and I will present it to the House.


George Eulas Foster: That is an instructive comment. This Bill has been before the House for two or three months, and when we come to ask the most elementary question with reference to two constituencies, the minister tells us that up to the present time he has not the information.


Frank Oliver: I said no such thing. Yesterday I gave the information from the Census Bureau with regard to this matter; the hon. gentleman questioned the information I gave; I sent it to the Census Department to have it verified, and as soon as I get the benefit of the verification he will have it.


George Eulas Foster: Is the House to be delayed now because the minister has not been diligent enough to get the information which presumably he could get in an hour's time if he asked for it ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) is trying to magnify a very simple little difficulty. Yesterday the population of Athabaska was given as follows: Peace River, 1,724; Athabaska, 1,676.


George Eulas Foster: What are those ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: As I understood whites and half-breeds, exclusive of Indians. These figures were questioned and immediately the Minister of the Interior gave orders to have them verified, as there was a discrepancy between them and the figures quoted by the hon. member for Ar; genteuil (Mr. Perley). It has not been possible to have the information returned yet.



Is there anything unusual in that or is there any cause for an insinuation ? It happens often that a discrepancy in figures can be explained, and this explanation will probably be had in a few minutes.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: In the statement annexed to the schedule which was sent to the leader of the opposition there is the following foot note :
Total population of census of 1901 in the two following constituencies, part of the district of Athabaska : Peace River, 800 ; Athabaska, 1,130.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: There is nothing very extraordinary in that. Probably these are the figures in 1901. I gave the figures which were furnished to me, and I assume them to be the population to-day.


Mr.   POSTER@: Does the right hon. gentleman say the figares he gave are the population to-day or the population of the census ?


Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.: I thought it was the population of the census but probably I am in error.


George Eulas Foster: Then, after the quotation from the document, my right hon. friend has to come down from his high horse and to acknowledge now that what he told the House yesterday was not a fact. Yesterday he said that the figures 1,724 and 1,676 respectively, was the population at present, but now he revises himself and gives adhesion to the figures which are written down and to which, of course, he must adhere.


Wilfrid Laurier: What did I sav yesterday V


George Eulas Foster: Yesterday the Impression the right hon. gentleman gave was that these were the populations at the present time.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: What did I say to-day which is not according to that?


George Eulas Foster: I understood my hon. friend (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) to say that the figures which he read were the populations as given in the foot note sent over to the leader of the opposition.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: From the
census ? Is that any contradiction of what I say to-day?


George Eulas Foster: Were the figures which the right hon. gentleman gave yesterday the actual population ? How does he lmow the actual population to-day, and what means were taken to get it ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I said my impression was that the figures were for tlie population at present. I cannot carry these things in my mind from day to day; 1 received the information some time ago from the Census Department, and I sent it to the hon. the leader of the opposition. Subsequently other figures were placed in Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
my hand, which I gave yesterday, and my impression is that these figures are the population to-day. As, however, these figures have been challenged, we have taken the precaution to have them verified in the Census Bureau, and as soon as the figures c-ome here I will give the exact information.


George Eulas Foster: So that after three months and some days, we may possibly now get at one of the most elementary sources of information necessary for discussing the basis of redistribution. Yesterday the Minister of the. Interior promised to bring down bis statement of populations from the Census Department. The populations he gave yesterday were, he said, prepared in the Census Department and signed and sent to him with a map, which be promised to bring down. Is that ready ?


Frank Oliver: I did not understand tlie question in that way, and I regret that I have not given that order, but I will give it.


George Eulas Foster: That is another sample of Ethelred the Unready. I quote from ' Hansard ' :


Frank Oliver: A map was prepared showing the local constituencies and the census department was asked to take that map, compare it with the 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: Would the minister bring that down as one of the items ?


Frank Oliver: I will bring it.
Of course, twenty-four hours is not long, but after three months and a half and nearing the end of the session, twenty-four hours might have been sufficient to get that statement into the hands of the minister.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I think I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) now. There is the map there on tlie table, and be apparently is not satisfied with the information which he received from the department, but wants to have the identical document signed by the census officer.


George Eulas Foster: Exactly.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Exactly; I understand what he means now.


George Eulas Foster: We should have the details.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Oh, no; there is more than that; the hon. gentleman must not take refuge in that; he wants to compare whether or not the figures are correct.


George Eulas Foster: And there is no better reason for that than these tergiversations we have had an example of to-day and yesterday.


Andrew B. Ingram: I listened very carefully to the statement made yesterday by the First Minister as well as to the statement made by the Minister of the Interior. I

have also listened to the statements made by the hon. member for Calgary (Hr. M. S. McCarthy) and the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Ames), and I am bound to say that no hon. gentleman can read the statements of those four hon. gentlemen and come to any other conclusion than that the figures given on the two sides are as far apart as Australia is from Canada. And yet the right hon. First Minister tells us that he wants to listen to other arguments from this side of the House before he answers the arguments advanced yesterday. If the right hon. gentleman wishes to shorten the debate on this question, the best plan he can adopt is to answer early in the debate the statements made by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House in order that other hon. gentlemen may not find it necessary to prepare themselves to prolong the debate. Surely the government ought to be ready to point out to the opposition in what respect the statements made by the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. member for St. Antoine are wrong. That can be done if the government is right; but any one reading the statements of the four hon. gentlemen who spoke cannot come to any other conclusion than that they) derive, their information from entirely different sources ; therefore it is necessary that some explanation should be made by the government. This is an important question ; and the idea of the government coming down with these two important measures, and having only the meagre statements made by the right hon. the First Minister and the hon. Minister of the Interior, is something I have not noticed in this House before on a serious question of this kind. In the case of our general distribution, we had more satisfaction than this. We are treated in a contemptible manner by the government on this question, and I am surprised at the course taken by the right hon. the First Minister on this occasion.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: The surprise of my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), who is generally fair, is my own surprise. I am very much astonished at the surprise he manifests. When he says that there is a serious discrepancy between the figures furnished by the government and those furnished by my hon. friend from St. Antoine, I take direct issue with him. I say there is no serious difference at all between the figures furnished to the House by myself and my colleague of the Interior ai#d those furnished by the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. member for St. Antoine. This is a very plain statement; let us verify it. I said yesterday that we based our information upon the number of votes recorded at the last Dominion election, the number of votes registered for the same, and the figures of population in the census of 1901. These were three, not all, of the sources of information upon which we proceeded. The number of votes re-248*
corded, as I obtained it from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, was 20,962. These figures- were not disputed. According to the statement given to me by my hon. friend from Calgary, for which I acknowledge his courtesy, the number of votes recorded in the last- election in the different constituencies of Alberta, with the exception of Peace River and Atkabaska, is put at 20,700, a difference of 262. Is there any very serious discrepancy there ? With regard to the number of votes registered in those constituencies, the figure I gave was 29,950, while the figure given to me by my hon. friend from Calgary was 30,077, a difference of 127. The addition in the one case was made by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery from the books of the votation furnished to him; the same books were furnished to the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and they made their own addition ; yet the results correspond, with only the small discrepancies I have mentioned. Another source of information is the population according to the census of 1901. ~ I gave the population for these various constituencies at 69,441. Up to the present moment I have not seen these figures challenged. Therefore, I say there is no differeuce or dispute as to the figures on which we base our division. I shall have further remarks to make on this subject, but for the moment I simply call the attention of my hon. friend from East Elgin to the fact that practically there is no difference between the figures given on one side and on the other.


Andrew B. Ingram: My right hon. friend has been good enough to state the difference between the figures given by himself of the number of votes polled and the figures given by my hon. friend from Calgary. But the figures in regard to the number of post offices, the number of homestead entries and the number of school districts, have not yet been explained.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I want to keep to the discrepancy which my hon. friend alleged. He said we had given false information, which had been disputed. I ,said we had not. There is no discrepancy -whatever. There are other sources of information. We proceeded to make up our minds also on the basis of the number of school districts, the number of post offices and the number of improvement districts. I have not seen the statements or the accuracy of the figures disputed ; different conclusions have been drawn from them, that may be and I will come to discuss that directly. At the present moment I want to say-and I want this fact clearly put before the House- that so far as the figures brought down are concerned, there has been no dispute between the members on the two sides of the House. We have drawn conclusions from different sources. For instance, I said yesterday and repeat to-day one source of information which we took in order to arrive
7S23

at the conclusion to which we arrived, was the number of post offices and the number of school-houses. The reliability of such information was questioned ; it was claimed that it did not give a fair, accurate statement of the population, and as another source of information the member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) quoted figures of the trade of the north and soutli and also the number of chartered banks which had offices in the north and south. From such sources of information he was led to his own conclusion, but I repeat again that so far as the information we have given to the House is concerned, it has not been disputed.


Andrew B. Ingram: The right hon. gentleman draws his conclusions from the number of votes polled. The Minister of the Interior claimed that that is a proper source from which to make the delimitation. Evidently that view is supported by the First Minister. The statement made by the member for Calgary (Mr. M S. McCarthy) is that owing to certain difficulties amongst the ranchers in the southern part of Alberta at the time of the general election of November 3, 1904, many men engaged in ranching were obliged by reason of an order issued by the government to absent themselves from the polling divisions at which they would have a right to vote and by reason of this thus absenting themselves the number of votes polled in the south was less than it ought to have been or otherwise would have been, bad it not been for the order issued by the government. But, on the other hand, in the north we have the statement made that more votes were polled than were on the voters' lists. Therefore the northern part of Alberta derives a greater benefit from calculating from the number of votes polled, by reason of the fact that more ballots found their way into the boxes than there were names on the voters' lists in the north while the percentage of votes cast in relation to the number on the list in the south was less than it should be, as I have said by reason of the men having to be absent to obey the order of the government or lose their cattle. Is that a correct statement of fact ? If it is then If you take the number of votes polled you are not doing a proper thing for the south as against the north. That is unfair if that statement is true and I have not beard it contradicted.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I do not dispute the statements which the hon. member has made ; I know nothing about it. There would be something in the argument if the source of information and the only basis which we had before ns in coming to the conclusion had been the recorded vote. When my hon. friend says there have been more votes cast than were on the lists that may he but there is nothing illegal in that.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is true all the same.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: 


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: These men were entitled to vote all the same ; it is perfectly lawful, and we therefore took the number of votes recorded. It may be that in the south as alleged some ranchers did not record their votes. That could not be a large number, I do not know the reason but I am prepared to look into the question from a broader point of view than that. It seems to me that is a small way ot looking at it. I am willing to give to the hon. gentleman the benefit of everything there is in those figures which I have quoted. I have taken these figures and they tell against us in some instances and against the hon. gentleman in some instances ; we have to take them as they are and to come to the best conclusion with such information as we have. I stated yesterday at the opening of the discussion that we took as the basis of the distribution which we made, the condition of things existing at the present time, the number of seats assigned to the province of Alberta in the present legislature of the Territory which amounts to 16. First of all we had to increase that by 10, we had to give to Alberta 10 more seats than there are to-day in the legislature of the Northwest Territories within the limits of Alberta. How are we to come to that conclusion ? We come to that conclusion upon information derived from three sources which we submit to the House to be challenged. We take first the number of votes recorded. We do not say to the House that this is the only thing we should take into consideration ; we say that is one thing which ought to be taken into consideration but not alone. AVe take next the number of votes registered ; we do not say that is the only thing to be taken, that is only one of many things on which we should form our judgment. Then we take the census of 1901. That is the best thing of all. If we had a census for 1905 we would not have to consider the number of recorded votes nor the number of registered votes, nor the number of .post offices, school districts or improvement districts ; we would take only the census for 1905. But we have no census of 1905 and therefore we have to make up our minds as to what is the actual population at the present time. We know that the population at the present time is double what it was in 1901, and we have to make our calculation accordingly. But though the population has doubled, I think it is only a fair suggestion that we must find a wealth of information in the census of 1901. AVe say moreover that we think this is something to go on, not the number of post offices, school districts and improvement districts. I will try to deal with the question as fairly as I can and give to the hon. gentlemen the benefit of these figures wherever they tell in their favour, and I shall ask them to give us the benefit whenever they tell on our side. I followed the speech of my hon. friend from

Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) with great attention yesterday. He made a very earnest speech from his point of view, but, when we have simmered the underlying thought of the speech of more than two hours which he made yesterday-and if 1 say two hours it Is not by way of reproach ; he had a task to perform on behalf of his constituents, and I do not blame him, quite the contrary-but the underlying thought which you find in every line, every word and every syllable of that speech is that this objection is taken to the distribution which we have placed upon the table of the House from one point of view only ; not because the constituencies are unfair towards each other, not because there is an unfair advantage given to one over the other, but simply because there is not in the south the number of seats which ought to go to the south. That is my hon. friend's point.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Hear, hear.


Mr.   M.@: iS. McCarthy. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) was the first to suggest the north and south division by proposing township 38 as the dividing line.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I believe it was neither the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) nor my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) who first suggested that division. It was suggested, if I may say so, from other quarters. Some time ago, -when the question of the selection of the capital was brought to my attention, I was asked to take Red Deer, as a point midway between north and south. This is an idea that is running in the minds of my hon. friend and others. He is but re-echoing that which is in other minds. But, for my part, I am sorry that any matter of so great moment should be looked at in so narrow a way. Again I repeat, the divisions should be as warranted by population.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I see I have properly interpreted it. My hon. friend has taken the division of Red Deer, townsmp 38 as the point of division between the north and south. There are 23 divisions in old Alberta according to our new plan of distribution. Eleven are north of Red Deer, and 11 are south of Red Deer, and the point mT hon. friend has made was that there should be 15 south of Red Deer and 10 north of Red Deer, that is including Red Deer. Let us see whether there is anything to justify that or not. First of all I am very, very sorry that in a matter of this kind it should be reduced simply to a point of argument whether or not the seats should be put in the north or the south. For my own part I discard all that ; I do not consider whether they are to be in the north or the south ; they are to be placed wherever the population warrants it. That is the onlj argument, I think.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Is that accept ed ? I am more than delighted to hear it is accepted, and if it is there should be no more discussion.


Mr LAKE.: I understand the minister to mean that there should be a fair distribution of population between the different seats .


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: That is what I mean.


Mr. LAKE.: How much margin would the Prime Minister allow ? There must be always a certain margin, would he say o per cent or 10 per cent.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I do not know what my hon. friend means by 10 per cent. I am willing that he should take all the comfort he can out of the figures I am going to place before him. He wants the division between the north and the south apparently a sort of Mason and Dixon's line, in the Northwest.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Very good. Now, let us look at the figures. Take first the number of votes recorded in the eleven constituencies south of Red Deer and in the other constituencies north of Red Deer. On this point there is no serious discrepancy in the figures as given to me.


Andrew B. Ingram: How about Athabaska and Peace River ? How do they come in ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I will come to that-I am speaking now of the old constituencies. The eleven constituencies south of Red Deer are :	Cardston, Lethbridge,
Macleod, Pineher, Gleichen, Calgary, Rosebud, High River, Banff, Innisfail and Medicine Hat. The number of votes recorded in these constituencies in the last Dominion election numbered 10,566, or an average of about 960 votes to each electoral division. The eleven constituencies north of Red Deer are the following :	Vermilion, Laeombe,
Ponoka, Wetaskiwin, Leduc, Stratlicona, Stony Plain, and Edmonton. In these constituencies the number of votes recorded was 9,553. This is almost 1,000 less than in the other group and makes an average of about 867 votes for each constituency, or almost 100 less. * So, I give that at once to my hon. friend (Mr. Lake). Now, when we take the number of registered votes we find in the eleven divisions south of Red Deer there were 15,895 registered votes, an average of 1,444 for each constituency, in the constituency north of Red Deer, the number of votes registered was 12,863, or an average of 11,696. The total population of the eleven constituencies south of Red Deer, according to the census of 1901 was 31,034, an average of 2,821 for each constituency. The eleven constituencies north of Red Deer had a population of 36,398, an average of 3 308-in that respect a decided advantage to the north. So, it will be seen that, while on the votes polled, the advantage is, as I have stated, in favour of the south, when

you come to the population which, after all, is the great test, the advantage is with the north.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Does that include Indians ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I do not know. But the Indians would be either included or excluded in both cases, so that, for purposes of comparison, there would be no advantage either way. Now, there are more post offices in the north than in the south. According to the figures placed in my hands there were 140 post offices in the north and 125 in the south, making a difference of 15. I may be told that this is not material to the issue. I do not pretend that it is absolutely material, but it should be given its due weight.
'Mir. INGRAM. The Prime Minister's figures with regard to the post offices do not agree with those of the Minister of the Interior.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to be sure about those post offices. Do I understand that the number south of Red Deer is 140 ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I thought my bon. friend would put this question and that his own friends would be sorry. The number does not compare at all ; it is altogether in favour of the south, because the south is better adapted to the production of cattle and not so well adapted for the production of cereals and other agricultural products. If my hon. friend wants to give votes to cattle, let him do so ; but if he wants to give votes to men, he will have to give the p rep ond era nee to the north. Where-ever you find a great many cattle, you do not find many men. The south is peculiarly a ranching and grazing country, and consequently has more cattle and less population than the north. I do not take the cattle into account, because they are not a fair indication of the population, whereas agricultural products are. All these things go to show that there are more people in the north than in the south.


Mr. HERRON.: What year is the right hon. gentleman giving the statistics for ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I will give the figures exactly as I have them. In the district of Edmonton there are 60 post offices and in Strathcona of 95-a total of 155. In the district of Calgary there are 54, in the
district of Alberta 46, Medicine Hat 10_a
total of 110. Taking 15 from Strathcona and adding them to the south, I get 140 for the north and 125 for the south.


George Eulas Foster: Either the right hon gentleman confuses the north and south or I


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: 
Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: 


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: 1903.


John Herron: Have you the yield per acre ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I am sorry to say I have not.


John Herron: I have It here.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: 
Mr. AMES.: The right hon. gentleman has referred to the county of Saguenay. Is it not a fact that when additional territory was annexed to the province of Quebec, that territory was united to the county of Saguenay, although it was almost double its size ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: There was this difference, that in that part of the country, which was declared to be a part of the province of Quebec, there is not a soul to be represented.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are there not people all along Hamilton inlet V


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I do not think there are, except Hudson Bay people ; hut the hon. gentleman knows that the people ir Hamilton inlet are transients who come from Newfoundland, which is not a part of this Dominion.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the right hon. gentleman say that there is absolutely no population in the eastern half of Athabaska ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I understand there is not. If he can show that there are people in eastern Athabaska as there are in * the northwestern part, they should be given representation.	[DOT]


Herbert Brown Ames: According to the statistics given us, the two constituencies that are to be formed in western Athabaska do not take up the entire population of Athabaska, so that there must be some residue in eastern Athabaska. If you are to form a constituency for 300 in Peace River and another 300 in western Athabaska, when you get down to as small a number as that, does not the same reasoning apply to eastern Athabaska ? Why should this part be attached to Alberta and not to the province of Saskatchewan ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Because, according to my information, there aie no people represented in eastern Athabaska.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who represents Mackenzie and the other territories in this House ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Nobody.


Andrew B. Ingram: How do Athabaska and Peace River compare in area with Edmonton as regards representation in this House ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I could not inform my hon. friend oif-band, but I am satisfied they are two or three times the size
of the constituency of Edmonton. Does he mean the constituency of Edmonton ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, for Dominion purposes.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: There is no constituency of Edmonton, except the city of Edmonton.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am speaking of the constituency of Edmonton for Dominion purposes.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: My hon. friend from the west will be able to answer that better than I could.
Ml-. M. S. McCarthy. In regard to your estimate of post offices a considerable portion of the constituencies of Edmonton, Strathcona and Calgary is east of the 4th meridian. Are the post offices east of the 4th meridian included in your calculations ? I understand you mean the electoral districts as they are constituted in this House.


Mr. P. TALBOT.: No. I think that calculation was made on the basis of the proposed province of Alberta. The district of Alberta that is represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Herron) contains 40 post offices, Medicine Hat district which is to be milled to Alberta, 10, and the Calgary district, 54.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What do you call the Calgary district ?


Peter Talbot: The district represented by you.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Calgary, Strathcona and Edmonton district are east of the 4th meridian.


Peter Talbot: These are only in the proposed province. Edmonton district contains 00 and the Strathcona district contains 95. Then, there are some 15 m the constituency of Strathcona that are south of Red Deer and will consequently have to he added to the south.


Mr FOSTER.: May I ask the right hon. gentleman how the figures which be has read to us to-day are made up ? Are they made up by any department which is responsible for them ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: The figures I gave in regard to the votes recorded and in regard to the votes polled I got from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The figures in regard to the population are taken From the census of 1901. The other figures which I gave about the grain grown and the post offices were given to me by my hon. friend from Strathcona (Mr. Talbot).


Mr FOSTER.: If my right hon. friend will look at page 8012 of yesterday's 'Hansard ' there is an explanation I would like to ask of him. AVhat I am trying to get at is the basis upon which the distribution has been made. Yesterday, in the discussion the hon. Minister of the Interior wa*


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: 
Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The statement I made yesterday was that the local distribution of 1902 was 9 in the south and 6 in the north. I said that on that basis there should be 15 in the south and 10 in the north. I did not make the statement, or if I did I did not intend to make the statement that the division should be as 15 to 10 ac-' cording to the census of 1901. But the figures show that since the distribution of tl?e local house in May, 1902 the influx of population had been south. That was my intention ? Then, as to the census the population has more than doubled since 1901 and as I understand the right hon. leader of the government admits that there are considerably more voters-I did not catch the exact hgures-and a considerably greater number of names on the list south than there are north. The census being practicallv five years old it would be a manifestly unfair guide to take.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: If we bad a census in 1905, we would rely on it and there would be no necessity -to look at these other facts. But we know there is an increased population since the census and how are we to proceed. The hon. gentleman says that upon the basis of the

distribution in 1902, there ought to he ten In the south and five in the north. I say that is not a correct contention. It may be a basis but you cannot depend on it alone; you must take other things into account. Taking it together -with the recorded votes, and taking it with the census, I have come to the conclusion that the distribution which has been made is fair to the south and to the north. I believe that distribution should warrant the approbation of everybody and I challenge the criticism of my hon. friend. If you take these figures which canimt be disputed, it shows that the distribution is fair.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. It would be unfair to the south if based on the vote cast and unfair if based on the votes on the list; but you prefer to adopt a census which is five years old.
Sir WILFRID LAURIE R You cannot take one thing alone; you have to consider a series of things and considering these we have come to the conclusion that the dis-* tribution is fair.


George Eulas Foster: There is not an agreement between the First Minister and the Minister of the Interior


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: As to what?


George Eulas Foster: As to the basis upon which the distribution has been made. Their statements are as far apart as the poles. The Minister of the Interior said that while you might look at the registered vote as a matter of curiosity and may be as a little aid; that while you might take the population of 1901 as a matter of curiosity, as a guide it was worthless, that while you might take the number of post offices you simply did it because information was asked for and it might show a certain trend of population ; that while you might take the improvement districts; taking all these together when you had done that you absolutely throw them away as far as a determining factor was concerned, and you took one thing and one thing only, and that was the actual number of votes polled. The Minister of the Interior said :
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 ito 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 hearing 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.
There cannot be a more clear-cut statement than that made by the bon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) wbo in conjunction with one other gentleman from the west is said to be the father of this schedule, to have brought it down ready made and fresh from the mill; to have got the imprint of the Minister of the Interior upon it and got it into the Bill. If any one ought to know the child it should be the father ; if anybody has a right to speak definitely upon this it should be the Minister of the Interior. In view of that statement of the minister, all this airy talk afbout the number of post offices, agricultural productions, homestead entries and the like is simply stuffing and padding. According to the Minister of the Interior the basis upon which you have cut out these twenty-five constituencies is the actual vote polled in each district except two where there was no poll. That was stated not only once by the Minister of the Interior, but reiterated. At another time yesterday he said :
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 isaid, 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.
There Is the basis of your distribution, and the distribution was made on this basis before any attempt was made to get information to buttress it up. I venture to state, see whether it will be contradicted, that that schedule of distribution as it is now was practically finished before the government had before it any information as to improvement districts, as to the number of school-houses, as to agricultural products, and these other things about which they have been talking. The Minister of the Interior contends that that is the actual basis, that, the other is for confirmation, and when the matter came to the point of discussion and you had to sustain your position you look around for these other things. What reliance can the First Minister place upon the number of post offices in the north as compared with the number of post offices in the south to show why there should be a certain number of constituencies in the one and a certain number in the other ? Will the number of post offices be any index to population ? There is one post office in Calgary and there is one post office serving a district in Stony Plain ; but is that very fact any indication that one place has a larger population than the other. If you took the revenue of these post offices, if you could know the letters received and sent or the number of people actually served by each post office, then you might have an index to the population, but the ministers say they have not that information and they did not attempt to prepare it in answer to questions put. I put it to the Prime Minister as a

man of common sense: what reliance can be placed upon the argument which because there are so many post offices north of a certain line and so many south, that therefore these indicates the population in one as compared with the other. .My right hon. friend can talk from now until doomsday about the number of post offices, but the more he talks the more he will show the weakness of his case. And as to the number of schools. Will the Prime Minister say that the immber of schools north of the line and the number of schools south of the line .is any indication of the population north or the population south ? What are the practical facts ? A district which can muster no more than ten children organizes itself into a school district and erects a school-house. Another district which is thickly populated, which has fifty children, organizes itself into a school district, and erects its school-house. According to my right hon. friend's argument, one school-house counts as much as another; but the population of the district represented by ten children would be thirty or forty, perhaps much less, while the population of the other district would be five or six times as much.
Now, what reliance can be placed on a mere recapitulation of school-houses as an index to the poulation north or south V It would have been an argument pertinent and confirmatory if my right hon. friend had given the school population north of the line and the school population south of the line, because in either ease it would bear a fairly equal proportion to the adult population or the population of adults and children. In no other way is it worth a thought as an argument. Take again the improvement districts. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) yesterday showed very clearly the case from that point of view. In certain districts of the country, where the roads are poor, where the circumstances make it necessary that the people shall put their shoulders together and their pockets together in order to get fair roads for themselves, they are mqj-e apt to have improvement districts. But leaving aside the citation of particulars, how can you argue that because in the north there are so many improvement districts and in the south so many, therefore you have a basis from which you can deduce a greater or.a less population for the one part than for the other ? These are three of the considerations upon which you say you rest your distribution. The Minister of the Interior says he does not rest the division on these things. He is not driven by his assertion to argue an absurdity. The right hon. the First Minister is driven to argue an absurdity, and the absurdity is by making it appear that mere numbers of school-houses, numbers of post offices and numbers of improvement districts are any indication at all of the population. You can take anything Mr. FOSTER.
else. My right hon. friend has cited the agricultural products. Does he think these are an index of the population ? Does he think they are the same index of population in the Northwest that they are in the eastern provinces ? In the eastern provinces', the grain-growing areas on the farms are restricted to a few acres comparatively, whereas in the Northwest one man may have a grain area of one square mile or two square miles or a half square mile, with all the concomitants of agricultural machinery, which takes the place of population and does the work of the naked hand. Does my right hon. friend want this House to think for a moment that there is any connection between the bare number of bushels of agricultural products raised in one section of the country and the number raised in another section as an index to the population that may be in each ? The argument, if anything, is against him. But he says-, when you come to the south, it is rich in cattle, and cattle require great areas. But the south is not confined to cattle entirely ; my right hon. friend ought to know that. Gen- . tlemen who come from the Northwest know that. Go down to the border, and you find large ranching interests, but you find other interests as well. Is it the one or the two kinds of products that you take as indicative of population, or is it the value of the whole mass taken together, and the value of the trade current in and out ? That is the kind of figures my hon. friend gave. In that there is some force ; but in the argument used by my right hon. friend, I put it to himself whether there is either logic or good sense. Let me press it home to him once more, so as if I can to make him understand what I am after. A school-house is standing in a certain place and a school-house is standing in another place. From the mere fact that a school-house is standing in each place, how can you deduce the population which supports the school-house in each place ? Is it possible ? Give the school population in the one case and the school population in the other, and any well instructed and informed man will give you a pretty close guess as to the total population in each. Let me go a little further. My right hon. friend talked learnedly and discursively about the three bases of this distribution. What was the first'! The first he declared to be existing conditions. Does any one know what he meant by that ? I followed him very closely to get at the conclusion he was going to deduce by saying that they had taken existing conditions into account. The only thing I could find was this. Under existing conditions you have fifteen local members in what is the present province of Alberta, and you must add ten more in order to make up twenty-five. I cannot see the argument in that. None of these fifteen representatives are for the new province. The moment the province is formed, these members disappear, and you will

make twenty-five new constituencies. In what way does the fact that there are now fifteen constituencies for the local legislature enter into the formation of the twenty-five constituencies which you have to create V
It evidently did not enter into it thus far that you adopted the fifteen that are there and did not change them. You did not let it enter into your considerations when you carved out ten others so as to make your number up to twenty-five. You went by the country that you had to divide and by the number of constituencies that you wanted, and you cut and carved, divided and added and subtracted to make up the distribution that you have now. How did existing circumstances find themselves as a factor, and in -what way did they enter as a factor into this ? Neither gave you the basis, because you have disturbed the basis. What did it give you ? That I tried to find out from my right hon. friend from time to time, but I am quite certain I was unable to do so, and I may be uncharitable if I say I do not think he has been able to find it himself, except as a mere matter of declamation. What were the factors taken from existing circumstances that have entered into this ? The Minister of the Interior gives the answer. He says that the only thing that has entered into it was the vote that was polled. He says what entered next was population, and he says that was a guide; what they wanted to get as near as possible was equality of population in the different representative districts. That is what my right hon. friend put forth as his strongest argument, and to-day he reiterated the same thing. He said: I do not care for north or south or the dividing line, I only want to see that the population is equally divided in these constituencies, and that consequently every elector has his proportionate share in the government of the province. Who raised the point of north and south ? It was certainly not the member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). The first mention I heard of that line of north and south in this House was by the Minister of the Interior himself. It was not mentioned as a division which should be sectional or anything of that kind, it was taken as a dividing line to show the population north and south and show if possible that the populations had been equally divided. But does it not strike the right hon. gentleman and his supporters and all the members of this House that when you have exhausted the argument as to twenty-three constituencies you have brought it down to this agreement amongst gentlemen on the other side of the House that as far as these twenty-three constituencies are concerned there is not any very great inequalty shown. We have given fourteen to the north. You have given eleven north of Red Deer and eleven south, which makes twenty-two, and you have Red Deer in the centre. Consequently you have divided it
you say pretty equally. Even in that division the hon. gentlemen took care that they would get a political advantage. They get on that division more members than the south get. After that has been done, my right hon. friend comes in gratuitously and says: Over and above that we will just chalk off two other constituencies in Peace River and Athabaska River and we will add them to the north as well. Without these two it could not be shown that there was equality between the north and the south, but when you come to shave as near as hon. gentleman can to it, then they take away fiom the whole of their profession of fairness by injecting the vast districts to the north with a voting population of from 300 to 500 and making them equal to a voting population in each case of 960 in the south and in other parts, and they call that equality. They appeal to the principles of fairness and justice, they call on all Canada and high heaven to witness that they are doing exactly what is right. There is no insuperable difficulty with reference__to the northern district. One thing I would like to know, is as to the distribution of population in the Peace River and Athabaska River. Are the people who are living there, the voters who will be, in settlements, and if so, in what settlements ? There must be some knowledge with reference to this. I do not imagine that although the distance may be great you have a widely separated rural population up there. If you have a nomadic population that is one element that makes it very difficult to give them representation, but it may be that not so great an injustice would be perpetrated by not giving the nomadic part of the population representation as by giving them triple or quadruple representation. If you have a sedentary population residing in settlements what are those settlements ? Your Interior Department ought to give us that information, and we want that information from them if it is possible. The Prime Minister says you cannot have a Canadian in this country and not have him exercising the rights of a free-born Canadian and a British subject. We have many people in this country who cannot exercise their rights. Circumstances alter cases, and the circumstances of distance and space and sparseness of population make it so that there are hundreds and thousands of people in this country who cannot practically be represented. This is due to the circumstances of the life which they have chosen for themselves, and the only duty upon a government is to follow that class of people as far as you reasonably can, and when they get into anything like a settled condition, into stated settlements, as far as possible to give them the rights of representation. To-day we have constituencies represented in this House within the limits of which constituencies there are living hundreds of British and Canadian citizens who cannot and do not exercise their franchise. Sup-

pose it were a little difficult for a man who wants to be a representative, within a certain space of time, to visit these settlements in Peace River and Athabaska. Suppose that we annexed it to some constituency further south, even if it were a little difficult to carry on the election, there are resources in the legislation of this country to meet the case; it is possible to accommodate the machinery of elections to that kind of circumstances. It is done to-day in our present election law, and in our constitution. It could be done there in just the same way. More time can be given and special machinery can be put into operation in order to give these more distant settlements the right to exercise their franchise and poll their votes. It is not necessary, and it is not fair to go to the opposite extreme and to argue that because there are two or three posts 300 or 400 miles distant from the nearest constituency that therefore you are to give unequal representation. No one would grumble at unequal representation to a certain extent.
But will the government give unequal representation to an unreasonable and absurd extent merly to sustain the argument that every Canadian, every British subject, who has the franchise should have equal right in the exercise of the franchise ? No, it is done because it makes uneven the due balance between north and south ; it is done in order that two men may be placed in the new parliament to exercise authority in moulding its initiatory legislation in order that party advantage may be gained. In other words, there is no doubt, I believe, that this is simply a gerrymander. This is an attempt on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to control the legislature of Alberta in their own interest. There are reasons why tliey wish to do this. The very campaign we have been going through here for the last five months furnishes the reason-the necessity hon. gentlemen opposite feel of having a majority in the legislature to throw the mantle of their approval over everything that is done by this government. Now, is it well to proceed to the formation of n new province on such lines as these ? Is it well for even a powerful government to afford ground for suspicion of such a thing? Commence with a gerrymander, and with what measure ye meet it shall be measured to you again. A gerrymander perpetrated by the father and founder of the province will be measured back again

but without profit to the new province. The feeling caused by such an act rests deep in the hearts of the people and is not easily overcome. Does my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) read the newspapers from the Northwest ? Will he collate the utterances of the Liberal newspapers from the province of Alberta and try to understand what that voice is telling hint ? Is it not reasonable to suppose that these newspapers have the interest of their country at heart ? Is it not reasonable to suppose that they represent as good Liberal doctrine .Mr. FOSTER.
as does the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) ? Is it out of malice, out of mere cussedness that they are giving utterance to the sentiments that they express ? Or is it because they have a feeling that they must express ? They afford my hon. friend food for reflection. The course he is pursuing must inevitably implant in that new province, at the beginning of his political life, a suspicion, a sense of injustice, a desire of revenge-feelings that do not help in maintaining the peace, order and good government of that country. Why should the government incur suspicion ? Is there not a better way ? More than that, the government's supporter from Strathcona (Mr. Peter Talbot) may be a fair and sensible gentleman ; the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) may be the same ; they are credited with being the master hands in drawing up this schedule. I have been given to understand that, if the Minister of the Interior had not been unreasonable in pushing this proposal, some better way would have been resorted to. Is it, or is it not a fact consonant with common sense that you might go to a non-partisan body in the Northwest ? I am not making any imputation against the hon gentlemen I have named. But they are partisans. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) could not live if he were not a partisan ; he could not be Minister of the Interior if he were not a partisan. And his friend beside him (Mr. Peter Talbot) could not get the good things that are going, and could not support what the Minister of the Interior wants him to support, unless he were a strong partisan-and sometimes, I dare say, he feels that he must be mighty strong to support it all. The plain common sense of it is,-here are two partisans with an interest in the complexion of this representation, a money interest, a party interest, a political interest, to go no further. Are these gentlemen presumably able to prepare for this parliament a fair and reasonable distribution of these seats, or is there some other body that could do it better ?t It seems to me that the better course has been suggested by- my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). 'What objection can there be to having these men who have been appointed to the highest judicial position in the gift of the government in that country do this work ? They are men of trained legal minds, men who have been elevated to the bench and so live outside the atmosphere of partisanship, in a place, where, as it is popularly supposed, these old scales fall from their eyes and they can See the facts as they are and act judicially. Certainly, they are free from the trammels of politics and have nothing much more to hope for in political advantage. And they have their reputations at stake. More than that, they live in all the constituencies ; they travel through them all. The principle is declared here that these constituencies should be formed with a due regard to population. Who are the men who can most

fairly and with the best knowledge of the facts apply this principle ? Who could do it better than these six men who to-day are your Supreme Court judges in the Northwest ? What possible argument can be used against their delimiting these constituencies? Leave the matter to them and you will immediately do away with oppposition so far as this clause is concerned. Is that a thing which it is worth while to consider ? High precedents can be quoted for such a course. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has vaunted himself a Liberal of the English school. If he were a member in authority in the British parliament, would he dare to propose a scheme for the redistribution of seats in any of the divisions of Great Britain according to a scheme framed by two partisans of his own from the extreme corner of that division ? Would he venture to force that plan, without reasonable argument, upon parliament ? No English statesman has ever tried to do such a thing ; no British government has ever been guilty of doing it. Whenever there was redistribution of seats there, the first point was agreement. We do not want Liberal or Tory, we do not want Whig or Radical, in the redistributions of seats-we want a fair redistribution.
We do not want a Whig or Radical distribution. What we want is a fair distribution; and a proper government and a proper House of parliament has always acted upon that rule, and avoided the rock of trouble which my right hon. friend is steering against. May I recall to my right hon. friend his own favourite utterances of years ago, how he stood on this side and pleaded for an equal division of the constituencies. He will answer me that he did not get his request, so far as he himself viewed it, but that does not matter here nor there against the rightness of the argument. It does matter, however, to my right hon. friend. It shows whether he was in earnest then or not. If he was in earnest, he wished that tv be carried out, not for party advantage, but in justice to the electors themselves. If lie was in earnest then, these great principles have not changed since, and we must presume him to be equally in earnest now. There he stands at the helm of legislation. Will he do to-day, as Prime Minister, what he held for and argued for years and years when on this side ? Why not ? I am not going any further in the argument than this, but this one thing I will say. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) and my hon. friend from St. Antoine ' (Mr. Ames)-the latter of whom 1 did not hear, but whose speech I have read- bestowed more blood and brain and muscle expenditure on the information that they have procured, and procured at immense toil to themselves, than has been shown by the whole of the government on the other side, and they have put information before this House which is reliable. I believe; which must be held to be reliable until it is controverted; and the whole trend of that information goes to show that an injustice is being perpetrated. They might very well say: Your distribution is wrong ; here is curs, put that on. But they did not go that far. They sense this idea that there is partisanship on both sides, and that there might be partiality even in their own proposal. They do not ask that theirs be adopted, but they present their side of the case and say : l or reasonable fair-play and justice, for the stilling of bad passions, and for the setting out on a smooth sea the new sail which is to break from harbour on the 1st July, let your only impartial board in the Northwest, whom you yourselves have appointed in part, who are looked up to and trusted, against whose honour, justice and fair-play no man will breathe a single word-let them be trusted with the duty of giving to the new electors of that new province their new scheme of distribution. Why cannot that be acceded to ? What interest would suffer if it were, and what good would not be brought about if it were acceded to by my right hon. friend ?


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman saw tit to draw attention to an alleged discrepancy between the position taken by the First Minister and myself as to the basis of calculation upon which the distribution was made. I think he rather missed the point in what I said, as I think the House will bear me out, having heard him read It. The basis of the division of the constituencies was necessarily, I said, the vote cast. That was not the question that he was arguing about at all. That question has not yet arisen. I said that we took the actual vote cast, because it was the latest and most accurate information we could get for the purpose of drawing a dividing line between the constituencies. But that was not, if he followed my remarks of yesterday, the sole basis, from my point of view, of the general arrangement that was made. He speaks of my having introduced the question of the dividing line at township 3S. I do not know whether it is to the purpose in this argument to shut our eyes and ears to what we have seen and heard ever since these Autonomy Bills came up for consideration; but I instanced the increase of population, the number of post offices, the number of statute labour districts, the number of school districts and other matters connected with the northern country, as evidence that there has been a large increase of population in that country such as would justify the large increase of representation that is being given to it. I gather from the remarks of the hon. gentleman that, having availed himself of all the information which v, as collected at so much labour and pains, most commendable, by the hon. members for Calgary and St. Antoine, and having applied his own intellect to the matter, he came to the conclusion that, so far as the

new province of Alberta is concerned, as far north as the southern boundary of Athabaska, a fair, reasonable and equitable division had been made. If I did not gather that from his remarks, then I certainly missed the point.


George Eulas Foster: Then you missed the point.


Frank Oliver: Certainly the hon. -gentleman entertained the House for a considerable time, and I will go so far as to saj' that I do not think there is a member in the House besides himself who saw the point If that was not it. He has not challenged the division of the constituencies in that part of the new province of Alberta. If my memory does not fail me, he acknowledged that it was a fair division, an approximately fair division.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose the hon. gentleman is bound to assert that over and over, and I shall have to rise in self-defence. He will have to take my assertion that I did not intend to, and, in my humble judgment, I did not ; but if I did, I take it all back, as far as that is concerned. I did not intend to, and I tried to make my words explicit enough to convey my meaning.


Frank Oliver: We must admit that the hon. gentleman is certainly able to make out a case if he has one, and he certainly did not spare his time in dealing with this question ; and I say again that if he had any evidence of unfairness to give the House, he certainly did not show it.


George Eulas Foster: If it be any help to my hon. friend, I will tell him one other thing. It is a secret between himself and myself. I am going to take the liberty of making another short address on this before very long. I dealt to-day entirely with the principles of the thing. I do intend to deal later on with the details. But that is a secret between my hon. friend and myself.


Frank Oliver: I think my statement has been unchallenged that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has not indicated the point in which this division has been radically unfair. As my right hon. friend the leader of the government says, if we accept the position taken by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) that there is a question between the north and the south and that this Red Deer district should be the dividing line, it has been shown that on that same argument by the census figures, which are now the only absolutely reliable figures we have, that the north is at a disadvantage of something like 5.000 people, that on the votes cast the south is at a disadvantage of something like 1,000 votes and that on the number of votes on the list the south is at a disadvantage of something like 2.000 votes. We submit that the difference in favour of the north, as indicated by the census, equalizes beyond question the dif-Mr. OLIVER.
ference in favour of the south in regard to the number of registered votes and votes cast. If there is any balance either way it must be admitted to be so small that it never before was taken into consideration in a redistribution Bill where
20,000	votes were at issue. The hon. gentlemen have come down to absolute hair splitting on this question in order to make out a grievance, and they will have to split hairs still finer before they can succeed in making out a grievance as far as Alberta is concerned up to the southern boundary of Athabaska. We will be glad to hear the argument of the hon. member for North Toronto when he comes to deal with this question in detail. So far he admits that he has not made an argument on that subject, but he says and says eloquently that there is unfairness and injustice and he threatens revenge just as some time ago he threatened disruption of the constitution in regard to another question. He is very strong in threats, but we have to get used to these things. He is going to avoid all difficulty by referring this question to a commission of judges. I will admit that if it ivere, a question of dividing the constituencies so that no harm should be done to this or to that political party a commission of judges, or an impartial outside commission, might very well be appointed. But so far as this argument has gone that question has not arisen. Nothing has been placed before the House to show that any question has to be decided that can be decided by people outside of this House better than by people inside of this House. When we come to the actual division of the constituencies, then, I will admit, it vTill be time for such an argument to be made if ever. The question that is before the House at the present time is not a question of law. It is a question of policy. The question to be decided has no more right to be relegated to an outside commission than any ot the responsibilities which have been placed upon us by the people of the country have a right to be relegated to an outside commission. The question is :	Shall the district of Athabaska be
represented or not? I. submit that this is not a question of law. It is a question of policy. It is not a question for judges to decide. It is a question for this House to decide. The time for the hon. gentleman and his friends to 'mve dealt with that question was when it was faced squarely by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). He moved a resolution in the House, or proposed to move a resolution, that the district of Athabaska should not be included in the new province of Alberta, but when it came to the time to vote on that resolution, to make a declaration of policy on the part of the party of the opposition in regard to that dis-

trict, ;tlae lion- gentleman withdrew vliis motion, I presume, because he could not get his friends on the other side of the House to support it. 1 think they showed a very considerable degree of wisdom in securing the withdrawal of the hon. gentleman's motion. If they agreed then, as they did agree, to the inclusion of the district of Athabaska in the new province of Alberta, they must face the question squarely whether they are going to give that district representation or not. This is not a judicial question. They may call it a partisan question, but it is a political question, using the word in its highest sense, a question of policy on the part of this parliament and we must make a decision and be responsible for that decision. My hon. friend has spoken of principle. Does he take the ground before this House and before the country that this country containing more than half the total area of the new province shall not have representation in the new parliament? If lie does we take issue with him on that point and we say that taxation shall have representation, that when we include the district of Athabaska in the province of Alberta that district shall be subject to all the responsibilities of provincial government and that it is entitled to all the advantages which will result from sharing and taking part in that government.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: Why was the hon. gentleman not very solicitous to have that district represented in the Dominion parliament ?	1 understand that at the
present time these people are not represented in the Dominion parliament.


Frank Oliver: Well, I think my hon. friend should not be absurd. He knows that during the two parliaments I represented the district of Alberta, which is now represented in parliament by four members. I felt, for my part, speaking of the matter personally, that I had enough on my hands without urging the addition of other territory, but as the representative of the district of Alberta adjoining this district of Athabaska and living in a locality which was in close communication with that district, it was necessary for me to spend a considerable part of my time and energy in representing the interests of the people of that district as far as I could. I certainly was under a very great disadvantage by reason of the fact that I had no authority, and I think that the people of that district should be represented from this time forward. The fact that they have not been represented. I hope, will not be urged as a reason why they shall not be represented in the future.


Samuel Hughes: No. The hon. minister took part in the enactment of certain legislation a few years ago. I do not know that he was so solicitous at that time that taxation should carry with it representation or that these people should have their rights asserted as he is now.


Frank Oliver: That |is quite another question. The district of Athabaska was not included in the organized portions of the Territories?


Samuel Hughes: Why not?


Frank Oliver: Because the time had not come. It is going to be included now. The Northwest government had never asked to have it included and there was no particular reason why I should at that particular time urge its inclusion. .


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Had not the legislative assembly at Regina the administration of affairs in Athabaska?


Frank Oliver: They had a certain right of administration, but they had not control over the district of Athabaska as they had over the organized Territories. They had a right of administration such as the government of Manitoba has over the district of Keewatin, but the district of Athabaska was not part of the territory over which they exercised full control and they did not ask to have it added to their territory. Probably the time had not arrived when it should be added to the territory. But an idea that hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to be able to grasp is that there has been progress in the district of Athabaska as there has been in other parts of the Territories, that these conditions require to be met and that this legislation is for the purpose of meeting the conditions as they exist and as they are in immediate prospect. The fact that the district of Athabaska Is not a part of the organized Territories and did not receive representation in the Dominion parliament is no more a cause of complaint against this government, than it is a cause of complaint against the Creator of the universe that the world had to be created at a certain period of time.


Samuel Hughes: That's pretty good.


Frank Oliver: That ought to settle the question. The representation of the district of Athabaska in the new provincial legislature is a question of policy, and that question of policy is : Shall a district which contains population, which contributes largely to the trade of the country, which is on the eve of being opened up to the fullest extent; shall this parliament take the responsibility of including that district in the new province and not provide it with adequate representation ? If gentlemen on the other side take that position, I qan assure them that we on this side take issue with them

on that point here and now. There is another consideration. The subsidies which the new provinces will receive have a nominal basis of calculation at any rate, upon the amount of ungranted land available for revenue purposes. It is because of the large areas of the new provinces that it is possible to give them the liberal subsidies we have accorded. Were it only the old districts of Alberta, Saskatchewan and As-siniboia, that were organized into two new provinces, they could not have claimed, and I believe they would not have obtained, that liberal treatment which it is proposed to give the new provinces. Is it to be said that we are to give the new provinces a large subsidy proportionate to their large area, and then cut off that very area from representation in the legislature ? A few minutes ago my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) was almost threatening rebellion, or revenge anyway, in the Territories, because of this injustice that he said was about to be perpetrated.


Samuel Hughes: A musket on the Athabaska.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) should modify that language a little. I did not threaten any personal revenge1.
I said that action of this kind was apt to breed feelings of revenge, and there may be a slight difference in meaning between these two forms of expression.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Only a shade of difference.


Frank Oliver: I will accept the apology of the hon. membei (Mr. Foster), and I will say that he was threatening revenge and not revolution. Last night the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Ames) was almost eloquent in informing us of how7 little importance this division was because it was momentary, and immediately the legislature met it could make its own redistribution. I say that this parliament has responsibility in this matter irrespective of what action the provincial legislature may take. We propose to create these provinces with these areas, the duty is laid upon us of distributing the seats, and our responsibility is to see that that area is represented properly and adequately. It is for that reason we propose to give this representation to the district of Athabaska. It is entitled to representation as a part of the province, and this parliament would be doing less than its duty if it did not provide representation for that district. Is it to be said that the district of St. Albert, or the district of Sturgeon. or the district of Saskatchewan, which border on this district of Athabaska, and which already are two or three times the area of any of the districts in the southern part of the country; is it to be said that these districts shall also have the charge of representing the district of Athabaska ? Surely that suggestion would be as unfair as the suggestion made by the hon. member (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) that south of town-Mr. OLIVER.
ship 3s there should be fifteen representatives and north of that township there should be only ten representatives.


Herbert Brown Ames: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the constituency of Sturgeon was two or three times the size of the constituency of Medicine Hat, for example ?


Frank Oliver: I did not intend to say that; I meant to say it was two or three times the size of some of the southern constituencies, for example, Cardston, Lethbridge, Macleod, Fincher, Banff, Rosebud, and others.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are any of these as small as the constituencies of Strathcona and Le-duc ?


Frank Oliver: They are not, and the population of Strathcona is quite as large as any of these I have mentioned. This province lies along British Columbia; the area of the northern part of British Columbia is just as isolated as the district of Peace River is to-day ; the prospects of opening up Peace River are as good, or better, than the prospects of opening up the northern parts of British Columbia; the Cassiar district has been represented in the legislature of British Columbia for twenty years or more, and there is no reason why, on our side of the mountains, a country of very much greater agricultural and other value, should not be represented in the new legislature. If the province of British Columbia deems it proper to have its outlying districts represented, the new province of Alberta has just as much right to have its outlying districts represented in its legislature.


Herbert Brown Ames: Suppose Peace River and St. Albert were united, would they have any greater area than the constituency of Cassiar, in British Columbia ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say.


Herbert Brown Ames: Figure it out.


Frank Oliver: However that may be, I am satisfied that the representative of the district of St. Albert will have greater responsibility in representing that district than will the representative of Cardston, according to the population. There is no right or justice in suggesting that in addition to the present responsibility which he discharges-equal to that of the representative of one or two or three of the southern constituencies-he should have added the responsibility of representing a district which is as large as a European empire, and as valuable.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is there any necessity for running St. Albert within six miles of Edmonton ?


Frank Oliver: It runs within nine miles of Edmonton, and I would say there is. These districts of Athabaska and Peace

River are traversed by two great rivers ; they contain possibilities of equal value to the possibilities of more than equal areas in other provinces in this Dominion ; they have a present population and they have a valuable trade; it is in the interest not only of these districts but of this whole Dominion that the methods of civilized government should prevail throughout the length and breadth of these provinces; and the only means that we recognize for the application of the forms of civilized government in this country is adequate representation. That is all that we ask at the hands of this House, and we ask it, not as a matter of judicial decision, but as a question of public policy, upon which we are prepared to take issue with our friends on the other side of the House.


George Eulas Foster: I do not understand that it is proposed to have the commission of judges decide as to what parts of the country shall or shall not be represented. Their duty is a duty of delimitation based upon the decision of this parliament as to what country shall be represented.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: My hon. friend is in error. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary' makes no such distinction. It proposes to refer everything to the judges. Here it is :
That section 12 be struck iout, and that the following be substituted therefor :
Until the said legislature otherwise provides, the legislative assembly shall be composed of twenty-five members, to be elected to represent the electoral divisions hereinafter mentioned.
Such division shall be made by a board of commissioners, &c.
Mr. FOSTER, Does my right hon. friend mean to say that it proposes that the judges shall mark the boundaries of the province of Alberta ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Not the boundaries of the province, because that is ddne by parliament.


George Eulas Foster: If then the boundaries of the province are marked by parliament, what the judges would have to do would be to delimit the area so bounded into twenty-five constituencies.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: And they would say whether the present district of Athabaska should be represented or not- whether it should be annexed to a neighbouring constituency or have representation of its own. I say7 this is not a question to be determined by' the judges. It is a question to be determined by parliament.


Samuel Hughes: Has any one in the House suggested that the northern regions should not be represented ? I have not heard it.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I heard it not later than yesterday evening-that they 249
should not have representation by themselves.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Ah !


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: That is a question which should he determined here. It is essentially, as my hon. friend the Minister of the ..nterior says, a question of high politics, the highest kind of politics. The question whether these matters should be determined by parliament or by the judges is never a question in England, My hon. friend refers to the policy of the Liberal party in Great Britain. It is always pleasant to hear my hon. friend talking of Liberal principles and never applying them paying them the tribute of empty compliments and nothing more. In England the duty of delimitation is not assigned to judges, but to a hoard of commissioners, and they are restricted to the duty of delimitation. They have to consult old charters to ascertain the limits of towns, boroughs, and so on, which we have not to do here. What we have to determine is what should be the basis of representation and how it should be applied. I must say that I am a little disappointed at the conduct of my hon. friends on the other side of the House. When two months ago we gave them the actual numbers of the constituencies and tlie manner in which we intended to divide the province, I expected that if they had any objection to the division, they would offer a counter proposition. But nothing of the kind has taken place. If they had come with their list of constituencies, we might have seen how far we could agree, and then there might have been something to refer to the judges. But nothing of the kind has taken place. Our proposition has been met with a naked negative and nothing else-with the statement that our distribution as between the south and the north is not fair. That is the only jioint our hon. friends on the other side of the House make. Have you heard a complaint that any of these constituencies are unfair, or that there is any attempt at what is known as a gerrymander ; You have not heard anything of the kind. The only point made up to the present time, after twenty-four hours of discussion, is that our distribution is not fair to the south, that it is in favour of the north. My hon. friend from North Toronto argued a moment ago that we had not any basis of representation, although we have shown that we have taken as a basis all the records 'hat are at our disposal-the population as given by the census, the recorded vote and the registered vote, and to these we have added the number of post offices. My hon. friend says there is no argument in the number of post offices. He says That in the town of Calgary there is one post office and in Stony Plain one post office, and that the former has an urban population of some magnitude while the latter is an insignifi-



7S52
cant place with a small population. Is it fair to make suck a comparison-to compare a city with a village ? What tells a tale which bears on this question is a comparison of the number of post offices in two sections of the country such as the northern part and the southern part of Alberta. The number of school sections in one part as compared with the number in another part is also a fair test. Of course, it would not be fair to compare one post office with another ; but it is a fair comparison to take two sections with the same areas and inhabited by the same kind of people, and compare the number of post offices in one section with the number in the other. The logical conclusion from such a comparison is that where there are more post offices there are more people. My hon. friend cannot draw any conclusion from the argument, which he made very insidiously, I will not say ingeniously, in which he compared a rural population with an urban population. Then, I instanced the production of grain in the northern district as compared with the production in the southern district. My hon. friend says that is not a fair comparison, because if we compare the east with the west, we shall find much more machinery used in the east than in the west, and therefore the production does not indicate the relative populations. Very true, but we are not comparing the east with the west. We are comparing two western populations which hare similar methods of doing their work ; and if you find that there is a greater production of grain in one section than in another, you have a right to conclude that there are more people to produce that grain. I have never contended that these tests were strictly accurate, to the point, peremptory and paramount; but my argument is that all these put together tell a uniform tale, and show that there are more people in the north than in the south ; and that if so, there ought to be more representation there.


Samuel Hughes: If he is going by the people in the north and the south why not "go by population entirely ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Will my iion. friend rest his case on that ?


Samuel Hughes: On the basis of population.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Very well. I will say to my hon. friend then that by the census of 1901 there were in the 11 districts north of Red Deer 36,398 people and in the 31 districts south of Red Deer 31,034, showing a balance of population in favour of the north of 5,000 by the census of 1901.


Samuel Hughes: Wliat is the population now taken from the voters' lists, returns of homesteads and everything of that kind ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I will take the voters' lists, the homestead entries and every -Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
tiling else of that kind and I will conclude that there are more in the north than there are in the south. Of course the figures cannot be given with absolute accuracy owing to the circumstances of the case but they tell that there is not a sufficient discrepancy between the north and the south to make it the basis of the discussion we have had up to the present time.


Mr. HAGGAIIT.: The right lion, gentleman twitted my friend here in reference to the statement that he was always professing to follow principles which were advocated by the party opposite and that he never followed them himself. The liou. gentleman says that we are following the same course as is followed in England, that in England there is left to the judges only the power of delimiting the different constituencies.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I did not say anything of the kind.


John Graham Haggart: The question of policy was not decided by the parliament at all ;
the question of policy was decided by a conference of both parties. That policy was agreed upon and then the matter was submitted to the judges for the purpose of delimiting the constituencies according to that policy. What does the hon. gentleman propose V He says that the admission of Athabaska and Peace River district is a question of policy. That question would not be decided in the imperial parliament at all. That is a fair question for a conference or for the judges to decide. The principles upon which a delimitation is made is a subject for a conference. because the delimitation is made upon principles which are given to the judges for that purpose. In England it was entirely different. Mr. Gladstone meets Sir Stafford Xorthcote and Lord Salisbury. They agree upon principles upon which the delimitation is to be made or in other words the two parties have a conference and agree upon the policy, but the right hon. gentleman forces down the policy upon the people of this country nolens volens. He says : why not give representation to these two territories ? Xo person in this House denies representation to them, adequate representation if necessary.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: It was denied yesterday.


George Eulas Foster: Who was it ?


John Graham Haggart: Who was it ? I never heard a person in the House deny it. that these two portions of the country might he added to the other constituencies and given representation. That would he a fair representation but what we deny is, and what we think is the anomaly and the curiosity in this is, that there is a division between the north and the south ; every one knows the reason of that division, each wants the capital, they want a fair show in reference

to it, and they want the question left to the country. _ It is not left to the electorate at all because in making what he calls a fair division the Prime Minister brings in the question of policy and gives to two constituencies which by their population are not entitled to a third of a member, two members. That is the position. The hon. gentleman to be fair and to be right, should follow the principles adopted in every other English speaking country in the world: in the United States, in New Zealand, in Natal, in New South Wales. He should follow the principles adopted in Great Britain, that is to remove it from the area of pure party politics altogether. They are big enough in every other place to leave these questions to an independent tribunal.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Did the hon. gentleman follow that policy ?


John Graham Haggart: The first to propose this policy was Mr. Gladstone


Archibald Campbell: Did you follow it ?


John Graham Haggart: The party who proposed that policy in the House and advocated it again and again, were the leaders of the hon. gentlemen opposite in this House, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Mills. The policy was endorsed, was inscribed in an Act of parliament introduced by the present Postmaster General. It has always been the policy of the Reform party to adopt this principle, but it is like the other promises made and many of them made by the present government from end to end of the country, it was all talk and when they had the power to pertorm it they were led by political reasons in order to get a little political advantage, in a small manner, in one section of the country, to swallow their principles and adopt others when the opportunity offered.


Archibald Campbell: Did you adopt it. when you divided the constituencies ?
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


Mr.  L. G.@: MCCARTHY moved the third reading of Bill (No. 115) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.


Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton).: I was present when this Bill was before the Railway Committee, but was not in my place the other evening when it was discussed in the Committee of the Whole. I believe that on the latter occasion some remarks were made by the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), l had hoped that he would be here to-night, because I wished to ask him some questions about the changes that have been made by 2491
the forms of agreement in the Bill, which, in effect, amend and alter the Acts passed last session. I do not know whether it is desirable to go on at the present moment, or whether we may expect that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will be soon in his place. But I am prepared to state the question I raised before the Railway Committee, and perhaps the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will be able to tell us exactly what the effect of the change is. In the Act passed last session provision was made for the issue of interim bonds by the railway company, which bonds were to be guaranteed by the government, and, in the event of such bonds being issued, provision was made for their retirement and the substitution for them of permanent bonds. It was found-and I think very probably it was correctly found-that the interim bonds would not serve the purpose. I never thought it was a very happy expedient, and I think the company are quite right in coming to the conclusion that interim bonds would have been a mistake. But the question I raised in the Railway Committee was this : The original contract was drawn with the view to the issue of these interim bonds, which, at the conclusion of the work, would be replaced by permanent bonds ; and when that substitution should take place there would necessarily be an adjustment of the whole construction account. Therefore, the government would know, at the end, precisely the amount to which its guarantee applies. It wall be evident to any person at all acquainted with such matters that there is always some risk io issuing, on progress estimates, interim bends, as the amount may far exceed the value of the work as finally ascertained. As I say, I pointed this out in the Railway Committee to the Minister of Justice and in the presence of the counsel for the railway company. It was not disputed. I pointed out that it was almost impossible to avoid some risk in this respect, because the chief engineer of the work was absolutely dependent upon his subordinates for the progress report. A young gentleman with very little experience might have charge of ten miles of some very important portion of the work. He, of course, would send in his estimates month by month, and the chief engineer would have to make up his accounts on the basis of these reports. With every desire on the part of each person concerned to be absolutely correct and honest, errors might creep in from time to time. These, of course, would be repaired on the final adjustment. There would be no trouble in this under the Act we passed a year ago, because, whatever the interim bonds might be, the permanent bonds would not issue until the account was finally made up.
But, finding it inconvenient to issue interim bonds, the solicitors drawing these forms agreed that permanent bonds

should be issued forthwith. Therefore, the bonds issued from time to time on these progress estimates become an absolute obligation upon the government of Canada ; and there might be some difficulty in the final adjustment. I asked the counsel for the company, Hr. Chrysler-who was very fair and, so far as I ean see, desired to give every information to the committee-what protection was provided in this contract to the public against error which might creep iu in the progress estimates. I asked him also whether, under this contract, there was a reservation or drawback of a certain percentage on the estimates - for which bonds would not be issued. People who are acquainted with such contracts know that this is a very common provision-that 15 or 20 per cent of the progress estimate is often reserved for final adjustment. Hr. Chrysler answered that there was no such provision. But he also said that the government had the matter in his own hands, and it would only guarantee the amount of bonds that it considered would be safe. But I asked him if there was anything in the contract that would entitle the government, if, for instance, $100,000 was certified on the progress estimates, to issue only $80,000. His answer was: No ; I take it that the government will do just what it thinks necessary in that case. And he went on to say that Hr. Schreiber, Chief Engineer of Government Railways, or whoever happened to occupy his position, would take care to certify for only such an amount as would allow full protection to the government. But, as I pointed out, Hr. Schreiber, on the face of the contract, has no right to do anything of that kind. That there was no provision in this contract for the reservation of any percentage until the final adjustment of the account; and if the government did reserve part, they would be doing something that no private contractor would have a right to do.
They would be breaking the contract, but Mr. Chrysler said the government is not like an ordinary contractor for they can do as they please. But that did not seem to me a very satisfactory explanation. He went on to say that Mr. Sehreiber-he only used Mr. Schreiber's name because he was there before us-the chief engineer of the government, in issuing his progress certificates, would take care to be within the mark. To that I pointed out that the chief engineer is absolutely at the mercy of his subordinates. We need not speak of any subordinate as dishonest. All of us know the young gentlemen who superintend the construction of sections of eight and ten miles of railway. These young gentlemen are very anxious to do right but they make a great many mistakes. Mistakes are frequently made for many thousands of dollars on a small section, and the chief engineer is absolutely dependent on those young gentlemen for the bulk certificates he issues as the maximum amount to cover them all. It did seem to me that some provision should have been made, either in the agreement or the mortgages or the Act, to enable the government, as a matter of legal contract not as a matter of arbitrary conduct-to reserve 15 to 20 per cent as a safeguard, so that at the end of the contract the final adjustment would find the government on the right side of the account. My hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, took a note of the remarks that I made. Mr. Chrysler was unable to give any explanation except that he supposed the government would always take care of themselves. I would point out to the right hon. the First Minister that that is not business. What is not business for an ordinary railway company cannot possibly be business for a government, unless the government are going to assume that they will do arbit-trarily what no company would be allowed to do. I do not think that would be a proper position to take. There may be ample protection in these contracts. The day we met in the Railway Committee to discuss this Bill, it was placed in our hands for the first time. We had an Act of about two or three pages and schedules of over 100 pages of a printed contract, and we were asked as a committee, taking care of the interests of the country, to act to the best of our ability in criticising that Act. I have not the slightest fault to find with the conduct of any gentleman on that occasion. I believe that Mr. Chrysler endeavoured to give the fullest and clearest explanation in his power. I am quite sure the Minister of Justice wished to have every protection, but it was patent to everybody in the committee that he was not fully advised. I do not think he could possibly have acted personally in the matter. It had been entrusted to Mr. Shepley, of Toronto, a very-able legal gentleman, who gave a written report, in very general terms, that the contract was settled satisfactorily, but I do not think his report dealt with these particular questions. He wasv satisfied at large with the terms of the contract: but it occurred to me, in the short discussion we had in the committee, that the government, having since last year, when parliament agreed upon the terms of the contract, iu effect altered its terms by providing that instead of interim bonds, which could be recalled, the company were at once to issue and put upon the market final permanent bonds, the effect of that change might not have been sufficiently considered. No gentleman on the committee could have pretended to criticise the contract in that respect. I speak for myself quite frankly when I say I do not think the Minister of Justice on that occasion at all professed to answer, of his own knowledge. that everything was satisfactory. I am quite sure he decided to have it satis-


Samuel Barker: 735S
factory in every respect ; but this Bill is ot such vast importance, so many millions are involved in it, that unless some explanation has been given the House since the meeting of the committee, beyond what took place in that committee, I do not think, we should pass this Bill as it is. I do not mean to say that there is anything wrong in it : but in a matter involving so many millions, and especially ns we are not going to close tins session for a week or two, it would be well, unless the right hon. gentleman has satisfied himself on those points, not to pass this Bill too hurriedly.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. The question raised by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) was in a measure discussed in the committee on Monday last and was answered by the Minister of Finance, who quoted from a printed report of Mr. Shepley, who acted on behalf of the government in the preparation of these documents. Mr. Shepley did not pass this over in general terms at ail as the hon. gentleman suggests, but devoted a large portion of his report at page 4 to the subject of these interim bonds. He said :
(a) The guarantee of interim bonds during the period of construction to be compulsorily convertible into the .guaranteed permanent bonds on the completion of the work of construction, which was the scheme for interim aid contemplated by the agreement of 1903. During the negotiations it was found impracticable to devise a workable scheme on the precise lines of the agreement, and there were found to be formidable market objections to bonds issued on the terms contemplated. The method adopted in the mortgage submitted is to provide for the immediate issue of permanent bonds, adding to the fifty-year period of currency of such per mauent bonds, which period was under the agreement to begin on the completion of the division, the seven years limited by the agreement of 19<H for such completion, making the bonds at once fifty-seven year bonds. The mortgage provides that the proceeds of these bonds as they are marketed from .time to time are to be placed at 'the credit of the Munster of Finance and Receiver General in approved hanks, and paid out from time to time with certain safeguards, as they are earned by construction work.
So tue hon. gentleman will see that Mr. Shepley did discuss these bonds-I refer him now particularly to page 15 of the Bui, articles 3 and 4, which X think must have escaped the hon. gentleman in considering this question, because he will there find it is provided that these bonds are to be sold but are not to be handed over to the purchasers until it is certified that they have paid to the credit of the Minister of Finance and the Receiver General the full amount of these bonds to be held by him in trust and to be paid out only on the certificate of the [DOT] chief engineer that the money has been properly earned. That apparently is wliat Mr. Sheplev referred to in the words I have just read namelv, that the mortgage proceeds, as they are marketed from time to time, are
to be placed at the credit of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General in approved banks and paid out from time to time with certain safeguards, as they are earned by construction work. The safeguards are provided in articles three and four of the mortgage, whereby the engineer is protected and so is the government. The schedule goes on :
During the period of construction the interest * paid upon these bonds is added to and forms part of the cost of construction. During such period of construction, therefore, being presumably the seven years limited by the agreement of i994. the permanent bonds now provided for perform the identical functions which the interim bonds would have performed under the original scheme.
When the work of construction is completed, these bonds inherently ripen into the fifty year permanent bonds contemplated by the agreement of 1903, and from that date all the provisions of the two agreements relating to- permanent bonds begin to operate upon them. The difference is in my opinion merely formal, and does not in any degree alter the substance of the rights and obligations of the parties.
Consequently, I think that the objection which the hon. gentleman makes is met by ill1. Shepley's report and is met by the articles that I have referred to on page 15 of the Bill. This question was discussed in Committee of the Whole and answered partially in the way which I have answered it. What took place before the committee, I am sorry to say, I do not know as ^1 was not present, but if this is the only objection 1 would ask that the Bill be allowed to pass to-uiglit. It was held up on Monday night simply for the purpose of allowing the hon. gentleman to discuss this point, and I ant not complaining at all, but I am informed bv the railway company that they are very anxious to get their Bill through owing to the necessity of completing the financial arrangements which are in contemplation.


Mr BARKER.: I certainly would be verv glad to facilitate the passage of the Bill. I have no desire to obstruct it in any way whatever.
ill1 X. G. McCarthy. I do not mean ! to suggest that the hon. gentleman desires I to obstruct the Bill.
! Mr BARXvER. I do not think the hon. gentleman imputes that. I repeat I would be verv glad to facilitate the passing of the Bill, but there is not a word in this report and there is not a statement of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that adds anything whatever to what appeared at .the Itailwav Committee. lliis report ot Mr. Shenlev had been in the hands of the Minister of' Justice-. It had also been in the hands of Mr. Chrysler before the meeting of the Railway Committee, but neither the Minister of Justice nor Mr. Chrysler was able to give an answer to tbe question I nut Mr. Chrysler admitted frankly and verv properlv" that there was nothing ii>
tlie contract enabling the government to reserve any portion of the progress estimates until the final completion of the work. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are entitled, under the contract, to call for a progess estimate of all the work they have done. There is not a word from beginning to end of any reservation of any percentage for the final adjustment. Mr. Chrysler admitted that. I do not think my hon. friend who has just spoken will say there is one word in the schedules, Mr. Shepley's report, or in the Bill before the House inconsistent with that statement. I am quite sure if there had been anything to the contrary, Mr. Chrysler, who is thoroughly informed on the subject and who is, I believe, a very able lawyer, would have at once met the point I made and told me there was every protection to the government. There is no question whatever that in the original contract the government agreed to guarantee interim bonds, which bonds would ultimately be exchanged for permanent bonds on a'final settlement of account. But, from beginning to end there is not one word to show that the interim bonds were to be issued for anything less than the full amount of the progress estimates.


Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY.: I have been trying to look it up, but I have not been able to find it; perhaps the hon. gentleman could tell me from recollection or from having looked it up : Did the original contract between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and 'the government provide for the retention of any percentage before the issuing of the interim bonds 5


Samuel Barker: Mr. Chrysler says expressly not. As I said before, X do not profess, with all the other things we have here, to have read through 108 pages of contracts in addition to the two Acts we already have on the statute-books with all their schedules for the purpose of searching out all the details. But, I asked the question of Mr. Chrysler : Is there any provision in the contract whereby ' a certain percentage of the progress estimates is reserved until the completion of the work. He said : No. I therefore pointed out, that, while in the original contract, the government might have been willing and might safely have issued an interim bond which was subject to adjustment and would have to lie taken up before it got into the hands of the public, it would be"a very different thing to at once issue instead of that interim bond a permanent bond that went on the market and bore the guarantee of the government. Mr. Chrysler met that in only one way. He said : I assume that the government will not issue more than they feel safe in issuing. But, that is not the contract.
of Finance and the Receiver General when they issue it.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman may wish to deal with the proceeds of the bond; I am dealing with the liability of the government after the bond gets into the hands of the bank or somebody else.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: If the government has the proceeds of the bonds that are outstanding they have the proceeds to meet the bonds so that there is no difficulty there. If the proceeds are not paid out improperly, if the engineer does his duty and if the proceeds of the bonds are in the hands of the Receiver General or the Minister of Finance in trust no harm can come to any one.


Samuel Barker: I think the hon. gentleman does not quite understand my point. U hen the chief engineer issues certificates amounting to, say, $1,000,000, the company calls upon the government to guarantee bonds for $1,900,000. These bonds go out on the market, pass into the hands of the bank or some one else who will pay for them a certain amount of money, say. $1,000,000 less the bank discount. But these bonds are in the bands of the public and the government has undertaken to pay $1,000,000.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The money does not go into the hands of the company. It goes into the hands of the Receiver General.


Samuel Barker: Y'ou do get the cash for the $1,000,000 worth of bonds, but you apply the cash in payment of the progress certificates.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The government has got the cash and the bank the bonds.


Samuel Barker: The government issues bonds for $1,000,000. It may be that you get $950,000 for these bonds. The government is liable for $1,000,000 although there may be less than $950,000 worth of work done.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: They have not paid that out.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. That is not the
fhehnn i ^e- a"sw,er is that the proceeds of the bond go into the hands of the Minister Mr. BARKER.


Samuel Barker: They have signed the guarantee and the government are good for whatever they sign. I am not proposing to criticise this contract. It is not my business to do it. It is the business of the government of the country and if the hon. Minister of Justice or the right hon. Prime Minister says the government have considered that question and they are satisfied, I have nothing more to say. But, I consider it my duty to point out to the government that there is no safeguard here, that there is no limitation, as is usual with all contracts entered into by railway companies, reserving a percentage until'the final completion of the work. The Grand Trunk-Pacific Railway Company may issue bonds

for $50,000,000. The proceeds of these bonds may be $45,000,000. Of what advantage it is to the government that they are to receive and pay out theh $45,000,000 when perhaps less than that amount of work may have been done. The bank or somebody else who has advanced the money has their guarantee for $50,000,000 ? The government cannot say they are not responsible for it. They cannot confine their responsibility to the amount of the cash advanced on these bonds or make their responsibility conditional upon a final settlement of construction account. The moment the government put their guarantee on an issue of $1 .Ooo.OOO this country is liable for the whole $1,000,000. In the ordinary course the government of Canada with $100,000,000 certified by its engineer would only advance $85,000,000, or it would not guarantee more than that sum. But, under this arrangement the government guarantees the whole $100,000,000 unless there is something in these contracts that neither Mr. Chrysler nor the Minister of Justice was able to point out.


John Graham Haggart: The old form of agreement with the contractors was to issue interim bonds, but they found it difficult to negotiate these and they asked to exchange them for permanent bonds to which the government consented on the condition that when the bonds are issued they will get the cash for them.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The government gets the cash.


John Graham Haggart: The government gets the cash for the whole of the bonds before they issue one dollar, and the obligation the government enters into is to pay them out as the work proceeds. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) asks what guarantee they have that the work is done, when they issue the money, and he says that the certificate of an under engineer is all the authority there is to issue the bonds. But the fact is this: the Grand Trunk Pacific enter into'a contract with contractors to build the road, and the government only advances 75 per cent


Samuel Barker: Where do you find that?


John Graham Haggart: Then the government have the security of the contract which the Grand Trunk Pacific makes with the contractor, and very likely that contract is that they will advance everything upon the work done except 15 per cent. Anyway if Mr. Sliepley's opinion is correct at all, the government may make the advance on such conditions as they please.


Samuel Barker: He does not say that.


John Graham Haggart: He does, he says :
The mortgage provides that the proceeds o: these bonds as they are marketed from time to time are to be placed at the credit of the Minister of Finance and the Receiver General, anl paid out from time to time with certain safeguards as they are earned on construction work.


Samuel Barker: It does not say what the safeguards are.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Shepley says there are safeguards. After all, the government guarantee 15 per cent, and they get the whole money from the bonds into their hands. Then they pay out on the contract as it advances. The probability is that the Grand Trunk Pacific will not advance more than 85 per cent of the cost of construction to the contractor, and if Mr. Shepley is right, they can even then only advance it on such conditions and safeguards as the government may think fit.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. The fears of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) ns to what the contract may permit are not well founded. Section 4, at page 15 of the Bill, states:
In proportion as the construction of the western division is proceeded with to the satisfaction of the government, according to the specifications agreed upon or to be agreed upon between the government and the Pacific Company, the government shall, out of the said proceeds and interest, pay to the Pacific Company or its nominees, in monthly payments as far as practicable, such sums as the chief engineer appointed by the government or such other officer as the government may appoint for thai purpose, may certify are earned, having regard to the cost, at the date of such certificate, of construction work as hereinbefore defined, and having regard to the proportion of the cost of construction which, under the scheduled agreements, is to he met by the proceeds of bonis guaranteed by the government.
That is consistent with wbat Mr. Chrysler said in the committee, that the matter was entirely in the hands of the government. The suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) is that there ought to be some words in the contract leaving it in the hands of the government, but in the contract are these very words: That these contracts are to proceed according to specifications to be agreed upon between the company and the government, and the money is not paid out upon the progress estimates upon the certificate of a junior engineer, but ' on certificate of the chief engineer or some other officer specially appointed by the government for that purpose.' The matter is therefore entirely in the hands of the government to make the specifications in the form which they see fit. The chief engineer has it then absolutely in bis own hands to see that too much money is not paid out. He Is responsible to the government and the government to the people, that more money than is earned is not paid out. I believe that this is even more safe than the retaining of 15 or 20 per cent, as is usual when interim bonds are issued. Therefore, I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) to allow the Bill to go, if that is the only objection be has.


Samuel Barker: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Samuel Barker: The lion gentleman from York (Mr. Campbell) may call 'carried' as usual, but before it is carried I want the responsibility of the government on this question, and not the responsibility of the member for Centre York.


Archibald Campbell: Spoken.


Samuel Barker: If the First Minister is satisfied I have nothing more to say. I do not propose to accept the statement of the hon. member who introduces this Bill on behalf of the company as an answer to my question with regard to the protection of the country. I have no fault whatever to find with the hon. gentleman; he introduced this Bill on behalf of the company, not on behalf of the public. If the First Minister, or the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Finance, says that he is perfectly satisfied. I have nothing more to say. If I am a guarantor, I want to see that there was ?100 worth of work done in respect to every 8100 I guarantee. If some responsible member of the government says he is satisfied, I do not raise any further question. It is not fair to the members of this House to throw into their hands on the morning that the question comes before the Railway Committee. 108 pages of agreements, and ask the members to pass upon them. I asked the question of the Minister of Justice and of Mr. Chrysler at the time, and I got no answer, but I am willing to accept the statement* of the First Minister in that regard.
ilr. FIELDING. I accept the view of my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) that it is not reasonable to expect any individual member of the House to make himself familiar with all the details of this very elaborate document. All that we can do in a case of that kind is to see that the various Points involved in the matter are considered as they arise, and that upon them we have the advice of competent legal authority that the rights and privileges of tin country are protected in every respect. My hon. friend wants some one to say on behalf of the government that we are satisfied that the interests of Canada, as represented by the government, are properly protected. The member's of the government have been advised by very careful and competent authority, and we are perfectly satisfied that at every point the interests of the government under this contract have been properly protected, and that the mortgage carries out to the fullest degree the intentions of parliament as expressed in this legislation.


Samuel Barker: The counsel expressly said that the terms of the contract as passed by parliament were being altered.
Mr. l. g. McCarthy.


William Stevens Fielding: Not as respects the obligations of the government. They were amplified in certain respects, but the obligations of the government have not thereby been altered at all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 09) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On section 12-distribution of seats^-
Mr. PER LEY.: My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has suggested that we ought to try to go into this question with what he calls an open mind. Now, I have endeavoured, with the figures given to us by the government, to make up my mind as to whether the division proposed by the government is a fair one or not. This is a very grave and important question. We are forming two new provinces in the Northwest, which are practically the wards of this Dominion, and I am sure that my hon. friend the Prime Minister, if he had two wards of his own, would try to clear up everything before he launched them on life on their own account. He would not leave them in suc-h a position that when they came of age they would be sure immediately to have trouble before they learned to take care of themselves. Our object should be to avoid friction-to avoid causing to any portion of the people of these provinces a feeling of injustice, which they may spend their first session, and perhaps their first years, in trying to rectify. They will have their hands full taking care of their own family affairs, trying to set their house in order and get started on the business of life; and they should not have thrust upon them any trouble of this kind. I do not see that this is a question of Dominion politics at all. It seems to me that all -we ought to try to do is to have this first election in the province of Alberta conducted in as fair and equitable a way as possible, so that every man entitled to vote shall have just as much to say about forming tbe new government as any other man in the province. Surely a question of this kind is above party politics. Surely we can lay aside all feelings of partisanship, and try I n ensure to every man in the new province l'air-play. I for one do not think the Prime Minister of this country would lend himself find tlie strength of the great Liberal party behind him in helping any section of people i.i the new province of Alberta to control that province. The question of the location o! the capital of the province will probably be settled by tbe first election ; and I do not think this government should lend their influence either to help the people of tbe north to establish tlie capital permanently

number of post offices, tbe number of school districts, or the census of 1901.
The Canadian Pacific Railway tonnage for the years 1903-4 added together, including goods forwarded and received at the different stations on the Canadian Pacific Railway in the proposed districts are as follows :
In the south-	Per cent.
Medicine Hat section	 6ts
Calgary section	 1-9
Calgary	21-4
Calgary to Laggan	 5-5
Bellington to Red	Deer	 7-0
In the north-
Blackfalds to Ellersley	 7-0
Strathcona	 7-5
In the south-
Calgary to Macleod.^	 5-5
Lethbridge section	 2'6
Lethbridge	26'2
Cranbrook section	 8-|
Thus the north contributed 15 per cent and the south 80 per cent. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I wish to say that about one-lialf of the length of the Medicine Hat section, from Swift Current to Walsh, will not be in the future province of Alberta, but all the other lines for which the figures are given will be entirely within its boundaries. I claim that the fact that 85 per cent of the tonnage of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the future province of Alberta is south of this mysterious township 38 is some indication, at all events, that' there are more people in the south than in the north which provides only 15 per cent.
The present division of constituencies for the Northwest Territories in the future province of Alberta, is, as has been stated many times, nine in the south and six in the north. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has rather found fault with my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) because he said yesterday that if it were divided in the same way, there would be 15 in the south and 10 in the north. I do not propose to argue that there should be 15 in the south and 10 in the north. At the same time, I believe that the people in that country knew something of what they wele doing when they made this division of 9 in the south and 6 in the north. I have heard no serious complaint about it, and. as I understand it, the government of the Northwest is not a party government, and never has been, but is made up of both sides of politics. I therefore feel that the present division of 9 to the south and G to the north must have had some merit-there must have been some reason for it. While I do not argue for it, because I have seen the figures, yet there must have been some reason for it. and I do not think the Minister of the Interior should have found fault with my hon. friend from Cal-garv for referring to it. The minister fights


Mr. PERLEY.: "
his own battles pretty hard, and I think the hon. member for Calgary should use eyery effort to maintain his own case. But I be-lieye a division of 15 to the south and 10 to the north would be far nearer right than would the suggestion brought down by the government and so heartily approved by the Minister of the Interior. It would be nearer fair play to give the people of the south 15 seats out of 25 than to give them 12 out of 25, and I hope to give some figures presently to prove it. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) has been working on this matter for a long time to my knowledge and has got out many facts and figures about it. I think he deserves the thanks of both sides for the labour he has undertaken. I do not know how long the government have had these figures, but I think they might have brought them down and saved members of the opposition much personal work, for we are entitled to have the figures from the government. There are two parties In this country, notwithstanding that the government seen inclined to keep information to themselves to the last moment as though they were the only party.
What does the Minister of the Interior reply to the facts and arguments of my hon. friend from Calgary ? He begins by talking about partisans. He accuses the hon. member for Calgary of being a partisan merely because he lias taken a lot of care-which as far as I know, nobody can find fault with-and tried to show his side of the case, it seems to me that if the minister had any real answer to these figures, he would not have spoken about partisans. This is a question that ought not to be argued on such a basis. My bon. friend from Calgary offered an amendment, that this matter should be left to the judges. I submit that, while the question of referring to the judges is one for parliament to decide, it is clear that the arrangement of the constituencies is a matter that could be readily determined by the board of judges proposed by my hon. friend from Calgary. The Minister of the Interior yesterday made a most extraordinary remark with regard to this proposition. He said :
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.
If the hon. minister is so satisfied with this case, why does he object to leaving it to tbe judges ? Hon. members on this side have stated that if it were left to the judges we would be satisfied, f do not think it was a wise criticism on the part of the Minister of the Interior to say that there was 110 possibility of our being satisfied with any decision arrived at by the committee of judges.
In trying to arrive at a conclusion in my

cast or not. But the right hon. gentleman said that there were on the voters' lists in these eleven proposed constituencies south of Red Deer 15,895 and in the eleven north 112.8(53-a mere difference of 3,032. But if the average of each constituency on the lists is 1,200, which I understand it to he practically, there are two constituencies and a-half given to the north, even talcing the figures of the First Minister, more than to the south. Therefore, the north is apparently getting an advantage which I for one would like to see somewhat rectified. In these figures Athabaslca has been left out again. The right hon. gentleman says that in the north there are 12,8G3 votes on the lists for eleven constituencies-but they are to have thirteen constituencies. It does not seem fair to discuss this matter with regard to the old province of Alberta and leave out the proposed new constituencies which hare so few people in them entitled to vote.
I propose to say a few words with regard to Athabaslca. In the first place, the suggestion of some hon. members on this side that Athabaslca should be added to another constituency has been taken up wrongly by hon. gentlemen opposite. There has been nc suggestion on this side that these people in Athabaslca should have no representation. We have gone beyond the time when we think people should be deprived of repre-senation if that can possibly be avoided. But what hon. members on this side do say is that Athabaslca should not have two constituencies given it for comparatively few voters and the constituencies on the south he deprived of their rights. By being added to another constituency the people of Atha-baska would have their representation, but they would only have what is due them and not the extraordinary representation proposed by this Bill.
Now, in reference to Athabaska. first of all, I want to read the words uttered by the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday. In speaking of this subject he said :
I admit at once that the suggestion that would at once occur to any man's mind under some circumstances would be to join such districts to existing districts.
Of course, that is the very first thing that any one would think of. Then he goes on to tell about the size of the country and how impossible it would be for anybody to visit tlie whole of this country in election time. I would like very much if I could get an answer from every hon. member in this House as to whether he visited every part of his constituency at the last election or not. I would like to know what percentage of the country members of parliament were able to visit the whole of their constituencies during the last election. in certain constituencies they can do it, but there are many constituencies in both Ontario and Quebec, to say nothing of British Columbia, where it is impossible to visit the whole of them. The constituency Mr. PERLEY.
which I have the honour to represent is one of the smaller constituencies of Quebec, and still I was not in all parts of the constituency during the last election simply because there was no time to cover the whole ground. I have here a small map of the province of Quebec showing the counties of Montcalm, Joliette, Ber-tliier, Maskinonge and St. Maurice. These counties extend from the St. Lawrence to the original boundary of the province of Quebec. The people who live at the back end of these counties are never visited in election time. Probably a member would never, during the whole of his life, be able to visit these people and still can anybody say that these people have no representation ? 1 submit that Athabaska is exactly in the same position and that the constituencies should he carved out giving representation to the north and giving representation to these people but that they should not have any more voting power per man than any other voter in the proposed province. Further than that there is a stronger case in Quebec than this one I have cited. When the northern boundary of the province was changed a few years ago no representation whatever was given to the part taken in north of the original boundary. It has no representation now. It has no recognized constituencies and it is administered as an annex of certain of the old constituencies. These people in Athabaska have got along for many years without any representation at all, and it seems rather strange that there should be such solicitude at the present moment that they should he represented are very much overrepresented. It seems to me that if they are given proper representation by population now, they will be very well satisfied, and that is all they can possibly expect. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) spoke in a slighting way yesterday in regard to the large business and wealth of the people in Southern Alberta. He says that money does not have votes, that it is the people who have votes. Well, that is what we want them to have. We want the people to get votes, one vote for one man and no more, but if the government give to the unoccupied part of Athabaska two constituencies to elect members it seems to me that the minister will have to register a lot of white fish and spruce trees up there to get the proper number of voters for these constituencies. The hon. minister has made a strong plea for the representation of the northern part of this new province on account of its great future. We will grant that it is going to have a great future. I do not think it was necessary for the hon. minister to set forth this argument about tbe future of the country because I do not think any one will say it Is not going to be a great country. We all hope and expect it will and we will all lie very much disappointed if we are mistaken. But, I submit that the future of

the northern part of the province has nothing to do with its representation to-day. This legislation is for to-day only. An election has to be held within six months of the passing of this Bill, and I hav e yet to learn that it is customary or wise for any government or parliament, in dividing a province up into constituencies at a given time, to give any part of it special representation, because of what the future is going to be. When this countrj was divided up into Dominion constituencies, the province of Quebec	was given
65 members, and the province ot Ontario the number it was entitled to by population, 'but there was no argument made that there is going to be a great state developed next to Hudson bay some day and ne should carve out a constituency up there and give them a member because they may need one in ten or twenty years. The needs of today are the only proper and fair basis to go. upon in dividing up Alberta for a purely local election which must take place during the current year. I further submit that the hon. minister lias made out no case to show that the north has increased any faster in the last year or two than the south. We have the good fortune of knowing that they have both increased, but last year the homestead entries at Lethbridge and Calgary south of this mysterious township 38 were 4,554 while the liomesteadtentries last year north-tliat is at Red Deer hud Edmonton-were 4,057. In other words last year there were 497 less homestead entries north of this line than there were south. Fur ther than that my hon. friend from Cal gary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) yesterday gave some figures taken from a map which had been prepared from government sources showing the thickly settled townships and the sparsely settled townships, which figures go to show that there has been no proportionately greater increase in the north than in the south because there were 32o tlnckij settled townships south of this mysterious line and 247 north ; that is to say 44 percent north and 56 per cent south. Ill-sparsely settled townships are even more in favour of the south. I find from my hon. friend's figures that there are 04; pei cent of the sparsely settled townships south and 351 per cent north. I merely quote these figures to show that the northern part of this province has certainly not increased more in proportion during the last year or two than the south has. In regard to the future increase the hon. minister dilated yesterday in glowing terms.
' Let us grant that the north is going to increase ; we hope so and we think so. But is the south not going to increase ? What reason is there to say that the south is going to stand still ? Are the people of the south less jirogressive than me people of the north; are they less business like and less industrious? I.t seems to me that the statement is beyond refutation when I say that the present condition of
affairs in that new province must be the true consideration in this purely local and temporary matter. It is unfair to import into the consideration of the question guesses as to the future.
How many people are there m the part of Athabaska that will be included in the province of Alberta? Yes-terdav the Prime Minister stated that there were 1,724 people, according to the census of 1901 in the _ Peace River new constituency, and 1,670 in Athabaska according to the same census, a total of 3,400. I asked the right hon. gentleman if this included the Indians and he said he did not think it did, but I am sure the right hom. gentleman was mistaken in that. The Indians must be included. in those figures and for this reason. According to the census of 1901, the population of the whole of Athabaska was 6 615, including whites, Indians and halfbreeds. Out of this number there were 3,716 Indians or 58'5 per cent of the who e, and these Indians would have no vote There were 2,395 half-breeds or 3i i pei cent of the whole, and there were 242 white men, being 3-8 per cent of the total population. In addition to these there were 262 given as unspecified as to race.
1	have applied the same basis of percentage to these 262 unspecified, and the result would give 253 whites altogether, oi
2	746 half-breeds and white men together m the whole of Athabaska in 1901. Therefore when the Prime Minister said thought there were 3,400 people m this half of Athabaska, not counting the Indians, he made a mistake. I have made inquiries from people who know something about it, and I am told there are no more white men in Athabaska to-day ^ there were in 1901; in fact I am told there are probably less, because expeditions started out for the Yukon bywayof Edmonton which were unable to get there, and a good many of these men remained in Athabaska for a time. The2,746i half breeds and white men m Athabaska di vided by five, would give 549 voters in the whole of Athabaska. How many voters there are in this half of the territory which goes to Alberta nobody knows ; the government do not seem to know. How
ever, if we take one-half ot the whole
vote in Athabaska, it will give os 'oe 14	* narf For the sake of argumenfl will say that there are 300 voters n the1 part of Athabaska that will belong to Alberta!	1 submit, that considering
here are only 2,746 half-breeds and whites in the whole of Athabaska altogether, an allowance of 300 voters for the western half is quite liberal. The Prime Minister s figures of 3,400 as the population must have included Indians, and taking the same percentages as above. I have tW ured out that there are 1,411 out ot that total	of 3,400 who would be

white men and half breeds, and dividing that by five, it would give 282 votes for the western part of Athabaska which is put in Alberta. This calculation is made on the figures given by the Prime Minister himself. It seems to me that it is a fair calculation to allow 300 votes for the part of Athabaska that will be in the new province of Alberta. Before 1 go further I appeal to the Minister of the Interior if it is not correct to say that some of these 300 voters who live in Athabaska are on the voters' lists and vote in old Alberta, in the constituency of the hon. minister. These men are wanderers, they do not live in any particular place, they scatter about, and I have been told that many of the half-breeds that really live in Athabaska and are counted in the census there voted in the constituency of Edmonton at the last election. Xow I have come to the figures which it seems to me are the only figures that any reasonable man can say ought to be the basis of the proportion of the different constituencies in this new province of Alberta. In the first place I take the number of votes cast at the last election which is the basis the Minister of the Interior relies on. I have taken the trouble to sift the figures given by the Prime Minister yesterday, and I find that out of the votes cast at the last election, the constituencies numbered No. S to No. 7 in this schedule Medicine Hat, Gardston, Lethbridge, Maeleod, Pineher, Gleichen. Calgary city-these constituencies cast 7.265 votes. The eleven constituencies in the middle numbered No. 1 to No. 18 are fairly dealt with m this Bill. They are given as nearly as possible the unit of the vote cast, and the unit of 1,200 on the voters' lists. At the last election these 11 middle constituencies cast 9,063 votes or an average for each constituency of 824, so that we may dismiss them altogether from the argument.
tlle flrst: soven constituencies in the , Ji**1 cast 7'265 votes, how many did the Nos iqVS? o-orL*ern' constituencies cast- ^-'Stony Plain, Edmonton Citv. Saskatchewan, St. Albert, Sturgeon, Peace Rner and Athabaska? They cast 4 035 votes. Each of the seven southern constituencies cast an average of 1,035 votes, and each of the seven northern constituencies cast an average of 662 votes. Will anv man say that that is fair-play-that 7,265
m.ifnV11 tlie S3,,th should have onlv as uch to say as 4,035 in the north ? Now.
I may say that the number of voters on the fist last November is absolutely the onlv informatmn before this House that is worth a button with regard to the number of peo-p e in the province. According to the fig-,flver* by the Prime Minister, which I an<* which are practically the same ,se of m.v hon. friend from Calgary,
the eleven middle constituencies Nos *8 to Mr. PERLEY.
18, are fairly dealt with. In these eleven constituencies there were on the voters' list last November, 13,264 votes, an average of 1,206, almost exactly the proper unit for the division of these constituencies. But the first seven in the south had on the voters' list 10,784 votes, an average of 1,540, and the last seven in the north had on the list 5,902, an average of 843. In other words, 10,784 voters in the south are supposed to have only as much to say' as 5,902 in the north. Surely no man can claim that that is fair-play. Adding to the north the greatest number of votes that can possibly be expected in the western half of Athabaska, even then the average in the seven constituencies in the north will be only 8o0, as against an average of the [DOT]seven constituencies in tlie south of 1,540. Now, I would like to ask why one vote iii Stony Plain is just as good as over two in Pineher. 1 would Hike to ask why 156 votes in the city of Calgary are only as good as 100 votes in the citv ot Edmonton. And, worst of all, by the proposal made in this Bill, it is intended that 300 voters -in Peace River and Athabaska shall have twice as much to say as 1,701 voters in Edmonton or 2,653 in Calgary. Are tihe people in the north so much more intelligent, so much more powerful, so much more wealthy, so much more active, that they are entitled to undue consideration in comparison with the people of the south ? I think it is a patent fact known to everybody that the bulk of these people in the north are half-breeds, and people from the south of Europe. In fact, the figures I have read show that only about 30 per cent of the votes in Athabaska are white people, and all the others are halfbreeds. Now, it is proposed to give to these half breed voters in Peace River and Athabaska all this extraordinary and undue predominance in votes. Each of these halfbreeds is to wield eighteen times as much power as a man in Calgary, and tell or twelve times as much as a man in' Edmonton. It seems to mo that if intelligence is to be taken into consideration, it ought to be the other way-the white man should have the greater power of voting, and not the half-breed. I understand that most of these half-breeds can neither read nor write, and that a large number of the people in that country from the south of Europe, know nothing of the sanctity of the franchise-do not understand what it means at all; and I submit that to give a greater proportion of voting power to people of that character is a course that no reasonable man would suggest or expect. My idea is that a fair way of settling this purely local and temporary' matter is to give as nearly as possible the same power to every voter in the country in this election. If this new province wishes to give these northern areas undue representation after it becomes a province, that is its own business; but so far as we are concerned,

surely tlie proper' thing for us to do with these infant children of ours is to give each voter in them the same voting power If you have 30,000 voters and 25 seats, give every one of the constituencies 1,200 votes as nearly as possible. These people in the north should not get any more representation than the others, so far as we are concerned. That is a local matter. In settling their local affairs, whether the people of the province put their capital at Calgary or at Edmonton, I do not care; hut I think that one man should have as much right to say where the capital should he as another man, and I do neit think the half-breed in the northern country should have ten, twelve or eighteen times as much to say as a man in Edmonton or Calgary. Now,
I have endeavoured to go into this matter as fairly as I know how. I know nothing about the country except from reading; I know nothing about the lecal disputes, except that I understand that they are largely about the location of the capital; and surely we do not care sufficiently where the csipital is put to stultify ourselves by giving the people in a certain part of the province a pull over the others. It seems to me that the only fair and proper way for us to do is to give to every man who has a right to vote in that new province as nearly as possible the same powers ns any other man in them, whether lie is in Athabaska or Calgary, in the north or in the south.	.
If there is a dispute as to the capital in the province let them fight it out themselves. Why should a half-breed in Athabaska have ten or twenty times as much to say about the settlement of this first question in the new province as a good white man in Edmonton or Calgary? If there are 25 seats and 30,000 voters then as nearly as ipossibly every constituency should have 1,200 votes, and it is unfair to compare the 11 constituencies north of Red Deer and the 11 south, overlooking the two constituencies away in the north with practically no voters. If this were a business matter, a dispute between business men, we would get together and agree on it; even among bitter enemies in business an agreement would be reached. It is a local matter of which we should get rid. I therefore appeal to the Prime Minister for fair-play to all the people in the proposed new province of Alberta, I submit that the schedules should be so altered, if the government cannot agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy), that no voter should be at an undue disadvantage or think he was prejudiced in his rights in this first subject for consideration in the new legislature.


Peter Talbot: As one of the representatives from the proposed new province of Alberta, and as I have studied this question to a great extent since it was decided to place'the boundaries of the proposed
province, I wish to give my views to the committee. When a portion of the territory of Athabaska was added to the old district of Alberta, forming the proposed new province of Alberta, we all became very much interested, or at least I did, in learning as much as could be learned about the southern
portion of the whole of that portion of Athabaska. By reference to the map you will see that the portion of Athabaska added to this province is about 350 miles from east to west and somewhat more than that from north to. south. The southeast portion of it you will notice is drained by the Athabaska river and the southwestern portion by the Peace River. As a resident of the Northwest Territories for a number of years I know that those two portions of that territory have been attracting a good deal of attention. I know that large numbers of people are going up to the valley of the Athabaska river and that still greater numbers are going to the valley of the Peace River. They are attracted there by the encouraging reports of people who have been there for years. I endeavoured to get all the information I could relative to those two portions of Athabaska, and I have some information that perhaps lias not yet been given to the committee. The valley of the Athabaska, that is the proposed district of Athabaska in this new province, 1 found, after making careful inquiry and getting information from various sources has at present twenty-four stores, thirteen churches, eight schools, four sawmills, three shingle mills, two plaining mills, one flour mill, seven steamboats, and three Royal Northwest Mounted Police Posts. Those of us who .live in the Northwest know that that country has been attracting a great deal of attention and there is an immense trade between Edmonton and the Athabaska valley or the proposed district of Athabaska. Any district in the new province in which so much money and energy are expended is certainly entitled to a representative. The Peace River district I found in even a more flourishing condition. I found there eighteen stores, ten churches, six schools, four sawmills, five shingle mills three plaining mills, five flour mills (one of which is a fifty barrel roller mill and four of them stone mills), three steamboats, one Royal Northwest Mounted Police Post and three steam threshers. It is well known that what is called the Grande Prairie, a portion of the Peace River valley is one of the most productive and fertile districts in the west. I maintain that that district also is entitled to one representative in the new legislature. In addition to that I found there was a considerable amount of money invested by traders in that country. The Hudson Bay Company alone have invested over $350,000 ; Braden <fc Cornwall have invested $1,>0,000 , there is another outfit with $25,000, another with $50,000 and six others with $5,000 each, making a total of over $000,000 invested in trading in that country at the present time. After coining to the conclusion that that
7S79

78S0
portion of Athabaska is entitled to two representatives, ns I did, I set to work to see how we would divide the remaining twenty-three constituencies in the rest of the country. Unfortunately we cannot ascertain the exact population of that country. We all believe, I know the hon. members on the other side, as well as on this believe in representation by population. Unfortunately we cannot get the exact population and there are no means by which we can get it. I contend that the nearest thing will be to take the vote that was actually polled in the late election in November and along with that any other evidence of settlement that we can find. That is what I did and I came to certain conclusions. I found south of Red Deer 10,556 votes and north of Red Deer 9,563 votes.	-
Now. there are five cities in the Northwest

Regina, Moosejaw, Prince Albert, Edmonton and Calgary. Some of these cities. are slightly larger than others, but there is no great difference in their size. We believe that each of these cities should have a representative of its own. I have said there were 10,566 votes south of Red Deer. Take away the vote polled in the city of Calgary, which, I think, was 2,186. This leaves, for the rural part south, of Red Deer, 8.380 votes. I have said that north of Red Deer there were 9,563 votes. Take out the vote polled in Edmonton-1,343, and -we have. 8,320 votes remaining. That will leave for the 10 rural constituencies south of Red Deer an average of 838 votes, and for the 10 rural constituencies north of Red Deer an average of 822 votes. I maintain that nobody could make a division fairer than that.
I wish to draw attention to the figures prepared by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). I maintain that there is not a very great difference between his and ours. At the same time, I think I can show where he has made some slight mistakes. According to the hon. gentleman's calculation there were 10,833 votes cast in the south, and 9,394 cast in the north. Take from the vote cast in the south 2,180 for the city of Calgary, and you have a remainder of 8,653. Take from the votes cast in the north 1.343 votes cast in Edmonton and you have a remainder of 8,051. So. according to the hon. member's figures, there is an average for the ten rural constituencies of the south of 865, and in the rural ten constituencies in the north, of 805. Therefore there is only a difference of 60 or, for the 10 constituencies, 600-not enough for an additional representative.
Well, I must find fault with some of the figures prepared by my hon. friend (Mr. M. 8. McCarthy). From him, I learn that a portion of my constituency, Strathcona. was deprived of some of the votes that should have been left with it. In the northeastern part of my constituency is the town ol Lloydminster. There was a polling subdivision there extending for six miles, or one


Peter Talbot: range of townships, west of the 4th initial meridian. That portion is thickly settled. The polling booth is practically on the 4th meridian line. The votes polled there number 170. By the hon. member's (Mr. M. S. McCarthy's) calculation, they were all handed over to the other side of the line, our constituency not getting the benefit of any of them.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What proportion does the hon. member (Mr. Peter Talbot) put on either side of the meridian ?


Peter Talbot: I count half on the west and half on the east. But the hon. member (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) does not give us any of them. 1 know that was not done intentionally-I know the hon. member for Calgary too well for that. There is another calculation of his that is somewhat faulty.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Would the hon. [DOT]gentleman permit me to say that at Lloyd-minster poll, No. 23. there were 20 votes cast and 48 votes on the list.


Peter Talbot: Oh, my !


Herbert Brown Ames: I might state that we took these out, name by name, in the voters' list in the range and township in which they were described.


Peter Talbot: The hon. gentleman has certainly taken the wrong polling subdivision. I have here a map of my whole constituency with the polling subdivision numbered. Lloydminster is poll No. 23. I got 97 votes, one of my opponents got 72, and another got 1, a total of 170 votes in that polling subdivision.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The hon. gentleman will understand that the town of Lloydminster is east of the 4th meridian.


Peter Talbot: But the polling booth is within one hundred yards or, at most 200 yards of the 4th meridian line.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Peter Talbot) will look at the map


Peter Talbot: But I have been there-I was out canvassing those people. Now the other error the hon. gentleman has made in the same way was in the local constituencv of Red Deer, which he. says contained only 608 votes. I have here the polling subdivisions throughout that constituency, and, according to my calculation there were SOS votes. If it is necessary. I will read over the polling subdivisions. But it should be remembered that it is somewhat difficult to get at the exact figures because tbp lines run through the polling subdir isions and we cannot tell how many votes belong to each side.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: If the hon. gentleman will read the polls, we will soon find out where we vary.


Peter Talbot: They are as follows -Carrott's polling subdivision, 14 votes; Evart, 67 ; Merkerville (in part), 36 ; Pollette, 5 ; Martin's Place (in part), 47 ; Burnt Lake, 33 ; Poplar Ridge, 28 ; Penkold (in part), 46 ; Red Deer, 334 ; Brookfield, 13 ; Valley Centre, 22 ; Willow Dale, 64 ; Windham (in part), 30; Ross Place, 14 ; Mound Lake, 19 ; Content, 40 ; Leckie, 6 ; total, 808 votes.


Herbert Brown Ames: 
Peter Talbot: , How			many
votes cast at Martin's Place ?


Herbert Brown Ames: 
Peter Talbot: Those are the votes the other fellow got. X got more than that. There were 334 votes in Red Deer town.
Mr. AMES, Hkere are 406 names on the list.
103, Penfold, except sections 13 to 24 of township 26, range 27; and except sections 24, 25, 26,
27 , 33 , 34, 35 and 36 of township 36, range 28	 50	76


Peter Talbot: The principal discrepancy is in the town of Red Deer. I have 334 votes cast and the hon. gentleman only has 180.


Herbert Brown Ames: If they are not in that constituency they will be in the next one.
79,	Brookfield, entire	
13	2780,	Valley Centre, entire	
22	2981,	Ross Place, entire	
14	28106,	Willow Dale, entire	
54	65
105, Northern third of section 36,
including Edme.ll town	 11	14
107.	Windham, except southern two-thirdis of township 36, range 24; and except southern two-thirds of township 36,
range 25	
4	592, Mound Lake, entire	
19	28109, Lackie, entire	
6	27



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
Poll.	Cast. On list-
110, Sparks Place, sections 24 to 36 in township 36, ranges 11 to 23 inclusive	No ipopulation-
97, Content, entire.. ..estimate 40	50
98,	Baird, that portion in township 38, ranges 11 to 19 inclusive	,	6	14
608	1,095
Peter Talbot: The discrepancy I see in that is not only in Red Deer where the hon. gentleman gives 189 instead of 334, but there are other discrepancies.
I happen to know the locality fairly well and I find the hon. gentleman lias put only two or three votes in some polling subdivisions when the votes were as high as twenty or thirty. The next point I wish to draw attention to is the area of those districts north and south of Red Deer. The area south of Red Deer and including the Red Deer district, would be 55,831 square miles. The area north of Red Deer, excluding Peace river and Athabaska, is 74,592. Although I do not claim that we should have representation according to area entirely, I maintain that that should have some weight when making this division, provided there is a scattered settlement through it. I would not base a great deal on that, but 1 think it should be considered.
I next wish to call attention to the homestead entries. The homestead entries, up to the 31st March, 1905, throughout the whole province of Alberta were as follows: In the Edmonton land office or district, there were 18,773 entries. In Beaver Lake land office, which is closed now but was in existence for some time, there were 436 entries. In Battleford we claim one-fourtli of the entries made, for about one-fourth of that land district is to the west of the fourth meridian. Our friends opposite do not allow us any of that, although all this Barr colony-or a great portion of it -is in that locality. That would make 1,243. We claim one-half of the Red Deer district, which would he 4,630, making a total in the north of 25,042 entries. Now, in the Calgary land office there were _12,278 entries, in Alberta, 3,875 ; in the half of Red Deer, which we allow to the south, 4,630, making a total of 24,803 in the south against 25,042 north of Red Deer.
I have not the homestead entries made for the several years. I have one year here, 1903, but I am not sure whether that is the one some of the hon. members; opposite gave. But if they did and left out a portion of the Battleford district, they were certainly wrong, for there is a considerable portion of that district west of the fourth meridian.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the hon. gentleman tell us over what space of time he has computed the 1,243 entries in the Battleford district?



EDITION

Peter Talbot: Right from the beginning. X do not know when they started the Battleford land office, but there were four times 1,243 entries in all. I may say that quite recently, there have been about 7,000 entries in that office and a good many are in this particular part, our side of the fourth meridian.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. gentleman cannot say how many of the 1,243 were made in the last two years?


Peter Talbot: I think most of them, for we know that in that particular locality there were no settlers until the Barr colony went out there, and now we know, that every available quarter section, for many miles around Lloydminster, is homesteaded.
I made a little different calculation on the post offices to that which was furnished by the Post Office Department to the Minister of the Interior. I shall give my calculation, and I think you will agree with me that I acted very fairly. I found that in the constituency of Alberta there were forty-six post offices ; in Medicine Hat district, which is to be added to Alberta, there were ten; in Calgary, fifty-four; in Edmonton district, sixty, and in Strathcona, ninety-five. A portion of the Strathcona constituency runs south of township 38. I made a careful calculation of the votes polled north and south of Red Deer in my constituency, and I concluded that one-fiftli of my constituency was south of the river. Going on that conclusion, the part of Strathcona constituency south of Red Deer would have nineteen post offices. That would leave south of Red Deer 129 post offices and north of Red Deer 136 post offices. Although I ani well aware that post offices are not a sure indication of population, I submit that in a farming country they do indicate whether that country is fairly thickly settled or not. If we find in a certain district ten post offices and in another of the same size only four, we would naturally conclude that* there was a much larger population in the former than the latter.
I also claim that the local improvement districts that were organized north and south of Red Deer are an indication of population, although not one that can be entirely relied upon. The people are not compelled to form local improvement districts, but if they do form these local improvement districts, they spend their own taxes in their own way. If they do not form these local improvement districts they pay their taxes to the government at Regina, and their money is expended for them. But we know that the great majority of the people want to see how their taxes are going to be spent, and the result is that they have formed these local improvement districts wherever there is sufficient population in the different localities. I may mention that these local im-


Herbert Brown Ames: piovement districts are of a uniform size- 12 square miles. We have north of Red Deer river 62 of these local improvement districts, while south of Red Deer district there are 42. Now, some hon. gentlemen argue that the presence of schools and school districts is no indication of population.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Before the hon. gentleman passes from the Battleford homestead entries, I would like to say that I have here a map published by the Department of tlie Interior on 1st January, 1905, showing [DOT]the townships which are ready for settlement. I will pass this map over to my hon. friend, and he will see that there are very few of such townships which are included in Battleford west of the 4tli meridian. I merely mention that fact because the hon. gentleman has added one-fourth of the homestead entries of Battleford to his calculation of homestead entries. I do not think be would make the statement if he would look at the map.


Peter Talbot: I do not know anything about that map. These are the figures I got from my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, and I know from driving through that locality and having spent several days there that the country is settled.


Mr. IM  S.@: McCarthy. Could not the hon. Minister of the Interior place before the House the actual homestead entries ?


Peter Talbot: I dare say he could get them. I am sure that the Minister of the Interior has given the total as four times 1,243. I think you will find that is right. I may be mistaken in saying there are a fourth of them west of the 4tli meridian, although I believe there are. On this question of schools, I maintain that if there is anything outside of an actual census that would tell the population of a district or a country, it would be the number of schools in it. People do not form schools until they have to. They do not organize schools and pay taxes for fun. They are compelled, by our laws up there, when the child population of the locality reaches a certain number, to organize schools, and school districts are of a uniform size. I find that in Edmonton constituency there are 92 schools, in the part of Strathcona north of township 38 there are 234 schools, making a total north of Red Deer of 326. South of Red Deer we have in Alberta constituency 74 schools, in Calgary district 116 schools, in part of Strathcona south of Red Deer 58 schools and in Medicine Hat district 20 schools, making a total of 268-326 schools north of Red Deer and 268 south of Red Deer. I believe I am correct in saying that that corresponds with the number of teachers for each room is called a school in the report of our Commissioner of Education. Some one sought to convey the idea that a lot of these schools might be vacant. I want to con-

vince the committee they ace not. In 1902 there was an examination of teachers in various parts of the Northwest Territories. In the town of Stratheona 29 teachers were examined and got certificates, and in the city of Edmonton 25, making a total of 54. In the city of Calgary there were 9 teachers granted certificates and in the town of Lethbridge 7, making a total of 16. At Red Deer, which I have not counted as either north or south, there were 9 teachers who received certificates. In 1903 we had examinations held in some other places. In Stratheona town there were 19 teachers examined and granted certificates, in Edmonton 22 and in the town of Lacombe 8, making a total of 49. In the south we had in Medicine Hat 9, Lethbridge 6 and Calgary 30, making a total of 45. Then again we had teachers' conventions held in several towns in the Northwest in the year 1902. There was a teachers' convention held in Calgary and 30 teachers attended. There was a teachers' convention held at Red Deer, which is located about centrally between the two, and there were 31 teachers present. There was a teachers' convention at Stratheona and there were 98 teachers present. Next year the teachers held conventions in different places. At Lethbridge, in 1903, there were 19 teachers present, Banff 23, Calgary 49, Innisfail 14, making a total of 105 teachers attending conventions south of Red Deer. In Red Deer alone there were 18. But leaving that out, as it is a central point, I will say that at the town of Lacombe there were 24 and at Edmonton 94, making a total of 118 teachers attending conventions north of Red Deer as against 105 attending south of Red Deer. There is no doubt we have more teachers north of Red Deer than to the south. Yesterday, last night and again today, I think on five or six occasions, speakers on the other side have held out to us as a model division that which was made by the local legislature of the Northwest Territories in 1902, and I want to show to the hon. members opposite especially what kind of a distribution that was, and to ask them if they think it was a fair one. In 1902, just before the election-the election was held in May, 1902, and it was in April that this distribution was made-there were C constituencies north of the town of Red Deer, 8 constituencies in the old district of Alberta, and since has been added the Medicine Hat district, making 9 constituencies south-6 constituencies north of Red Deer and 9 constituencies south of Red Deer.
Now, I want to give you the vote that was polled at the election immediately afj ter that. In the1 districts north of Red Deer, Lacombe had 871 votes; Stratheona 645 votes; St. Albert 695 votes; Victoria 641 votes ; Edmonton 801 votes. In Wetaskiwin, one of the largest and most thickly settled districts in the Northwest, the member was elected by acclamation and there was no vote, but the vote there would certainly be
larger than in any of the others. The total was 3,653 votes for the five constituencies, and remember there' was one by acclamation. It would be fair to put Wetaskiwin the same as Lacombe; each constituency is six townships wide, and any one from the west will agree with me that the Wetaskiwin district is certainly more thickly settled. In the districts south of Red Deer, the district of Banff had 364 votes; East Calgary 7S4; West Calgary 621; Cardstou 285; High River 285; Innisfail 359; Lethbridge 489; Macleod 676; Medicine Hat 671, making a total of 3,877 votes for the nine constituencies south, while1 the five constituencies north polled 3,653. The average votei polled for each constituency in the north was 730, while the average vote polled in each constituency in the south was 430. And that is the distribution that our friends on the other side of the House hold out as a model.


John Herron: Will you explain to the House the cause of the small vote in the south at the last election ? Do you remember the floods in southern Alberta on the day of the' election ?


Peter Talbot: Were there no floods in the north ?


John Herron: Not the same.


Peter Talbot: Oh, my dear mau, I was forced to walk the day of the election eighteen miles because1 the railroad was swept away.


John Herron: This government granted $500,000 to repair bridges that were swept out mostly in the southern district on the very day of the election.


Richard Stuart Lake: Where does my hon. friend (Mr. Talbot) get these figures ?


John Herron: From Magurn's Parliament Guide.


Richard Stuart Lake: I have the figures from the Northwest government, which I think are official, and they do not correspond with your figures in several particulars.


Peter Talbot: I do not wish to make any statement that Is not correfet, and I will be glad to compare the figures in the guide with your figures.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman give the names on the voters' lists for the nine, constituencies south and the six constituencies north ?


Peter Talbot: I have not got that information, but I will explain how the names are put on our voters' lists. The hon. member for Calgary and another hon. member opposite tried to convey the impression that as more, votes were polled in somd divisions that there were on the voters' lists, and that as he alleged that occurred in the north especially, there was something crooked about the last election.

Let me point out that we do not prepare the voters' lists, as they do in other provinces.


Herbert Brown Ames: May I be allowed one interjection ? I did not claim that there was anything crooked in that election. I would like! to ask the hon< gentleman not to put it in that way.


Peter Talbot: For what other reason was the statement made at all ?


Herbert Brown Ames: Because it is true.


Peter Talbot: Then why was it not also stated, because it is true, that three instances of that occurred In the district of Calgary, and thre'e instances in the district of Macleod, as well as three instances in the Edmonton district, and one instance of it in Strathcona. I want to explain why a thing like that could occur. The preparation of our voters' lists is entirely different from the system in the other provinces. We are never particular in preparing our lists because we know that a man can vote whether his name was put on the list before polling day or not. Some carelessness was exhibited no doubt by the enumerators, and they omitted seVeral names, but these men came forward on polling day and got their votes as they were entitled to do. The statement that more voted than were on the list before1 the day of election applies not only to the Edmonton district but also to Calgary and Macleod.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Where did that occur in' Calgary ?


Peter Talbot: In the Calgary district at poll number 14 there were 59 votes polled, while there were only 53 on the list before polling day. You will bear in mind that when a man votes with us his name' is put on the list and it need not necessarily be on the list until the day of polling. In the Calgary district, poll number 32, there were 81 votes polled and 64 on the list; in poll number 66 there were 11 votes polled and there were 10 on the list. The first poll I mentioned in Calgary district was in Calgary city, the second poll was at Pine Creek and the third poll was at Kamanaskis. Just one other matter and I am through. It' has been stated here that the press in every portion of the Northwest Territories was condemning the government because of this legislation. I quote the following item from the Strathcona * Plaindealer ':
The Calgary papers, particularly the ' Herald,' are in a terrible state of excitement about the distribution of constituencies in Alberta. The faot that thirteen constituencies out of twenty-five are north of Red Deer has caused the ' Herald ' to fume and foam in a most extraordinary manner. They consider the arrangement the most iniquitous gerrymander ever perpetrated. They present a map to illustrate their point, and really the appearance of the map proves


Peter Talbot: f
the utter fallacy of their argument. Calgary people seem to imagine that all the immigration of the last five years has been into t.he south country, whereas as a matter of fact the north country has been filling up at an equal if not greater rate. Calgary's eagerness for capitaL honours has got away entirely with the prudence and good judgment of the 1 Herald.'


Andrew B. Ingram: How far is that Strathcona paper published from Edmonton?


Peter Talbot: It is published about 200 miles north of Calgary.


Andrew B. Ingram: Across the river from Edmonton. i


Peter Talbot: Yes, it is close to Edmonton. Now, we will see what the Edmonton ' Journal,' a Tory organ lias to say on this same thing. It says :
Here is a fine sample of the arguments Calgary is using against the arrangement of the Alherta constituency :	While iit is possible
under the proposed distribution for Edmonton with its 7,000 people to elect at 'east, live members, Calgary with 12,500 can have buit two at the outside. Another sentence explains this strange statement. ' Equally outrageous is the gerrymander of St. Albert, Sturgeon, Saskatchewan and Sitrathcona, all of which corner on Edmonton.' The evident purpose of these statements is to leave the impression that Edmonton is able to exert some mysterious influence over the electors of adjoning constituencies. The constituencies will resent this reflection on their independence. And the adjoining constituencies are as completely separated from this city's influence as if the Saskatchewan river marked the boundary, which it does in the case of Strathcona riding. It is by such poor arguments that the Calgary press hope to affect a change in the arrangements, favourable to the capital hopes of that city.
I do not think it is necessary for me to detain you longer. I have prepared these facts mostly independently, without consulting anybody, and in the main they agree with what has been prepared by other lion, members. I am perfectly satisfied that this division is as just and fair a one as could be made.


Richard Stuart Lake: Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to take up the real business part of this question, I would like to make a remark with reference to the question of more votes being polled than there were voters on the list. It struck me as a peculiar circumstance that that should have happened in certain cases, and I came across an example of it in a return which was brought down to this House giving the names on the voters' lists in the Northwest. It appeared that in one of the districts, the electoral district of Mackenzie, there were two lists for polling division No. 20. One of them is not signed at ail. The other is signed by a man named Bisli J. Bildel. The former is evidently the correct list, and it contaians sixty-one names. I was startled by this fact and began to look through the list, and I found that the names were du-
JiraE 21, 1905
plicated pretty much all through. The name of this gentleman, who evidently drew up the list, appears twice. In one place it appears as Gisli J. Bildel, and in another place as Gisli J. Bildpett. Both names are for the same section. Then the name of John Jamieson appears, and further down the list appears the name of John Jameson-certainly the same man for the same section. Then there is the name of Stefan Olofron for section 16-32-11 and further down the name of Stephen Olopson for the same section ; and so on. This accounts for the fact that while there were twenty-nine names on the real list, a larger number voted. It is a matter of speculation how many of these men voted under different names.


Mr. CASH.: That is a poll in an Icelandic settlement and in these Icelandic settlements there are a great many men of the same name.	.


Samuel Hughes: On the same section ?


Edward L. Cash: No. I think that shows that there was nothing incorrect in the list except a repetition of names by accident. It also shows that it is not very good evidence as to population in that section of country, because it indicates that only one was on the quarter section. It would not be fair to take that as an indication of the population of that section of country.


Richard Stuart Lake: Or an indication that these voters' lists were drawn up in a proper manner. I just throw that out as a suggestion which may account for the fact that more men voted than those whose names appear on the list.


Samuel Hughes: How many votes were cast at that polling subdivision ?


Richard Stuart Lake: Twenty-nine voted, the same number as the names on the original list. With reference to the figures given by the hon. member for Stratlicoua as regards the developments which are taking place in the Athabaska district, I noticed that he did not give the postal statistics of that district, as he did those of the districts further south ; and I do not think the statement of the hon. member for Calgary has yet been refuted, that the whole postal revenue from the Athabaska district came from the Lesser Slave Lake post office and amounted to $66. The hon. member, in laying down the basis on which he proceeded to distribute these seats, remarked that he thought it would be advisable that each of the cities in the Northwest Territories should have a member, mentioning four or five cities. I would like to ask why it is that one of those he mentioned, the city of Moosejaw, is not given a member, although the vote cast there was greater than that cast in the city of Prince Albert which is given a member. The vote of the residents of
Moosejaw, I think, was actually greater than that of the residents of the city of Regina. With reference to the argument that schools are a very good indication of the population of a country, and the fact stated that there are more schools in the northern part of Alberta than in the southern part, I think that argument may be met by this statement. It is certainly true that where you have a settlement of agriculturists living close together, they are likely to form a school district; but where you have a ranching district, the ranchers are much more distant from each other, and it is more difficult for them to form a school district. In southern Alberta I have met the complaint that the ranchers do not form school districts, but move into the town in the winter and make use of the town schools. The trustees of these schools complain that it is rather hard on them to have to bear the expense incurred by the ranchers coming in and using their schools in this way. So I think that the figures given as regards the school districts cannot be considered reliable in this connection. This afternoon when the Minister of the Interior was dealing with the question of the huge areas in some of the northern constituencies he took exception to a statement of mine that the district of St. Albert, a very large district to which he was calling special attention, ran within, 6 miles of the city of Edmonton,
I was asking why, if they considered that these vast areas should be taken into consideration, it was necessary to run in a huge area of that sort within 6 miles of Edmonton. The minister stated it was 9 miles from Edmonton. I have the map here issued by his own department in which it is marked within 4 miles. Does the Minister of the Interior intend to repudiate this map along with other documents which apparently have been issued by the Department of tlie Interior as being incorrect ? I presume we may take that as correct, the way in which the constituencies are laid out in this map which was forwarded to the various members.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: This map places the district of St. Albert within 4 miles of the city of Edmonton instead of 9. It seems to me that just looking at the map should arouse suspicions as to an improper distribution of seats. Here you have four constituencies touching the city of Edmonton, the town of Edmonton and three other constituencies, and you have three other constituencies all poking their noses within 12 miles of Edmonton. That is to say that the city of Edmonton controls practically 7 seats in that legislature. I would like the Prime Minister to look at that point especially on the map ; he will see that 7 different constituencies all come up within 12 miles of Edmonton. Take that into consideration I when you say that the areas should be espe-

cially considered in the formation of these constituencies.


Frank Oliver: Will you explain how Edmonton is going to control these 7 constituencies ?


Richard Stuart Lake: I think we may take it for granted that the members who are going to represent these constituencies will be living near Edmonton, in most cases at any rate. The population will be pretty close into Edmonton, and it certainly seems to me that was the idea under which that distribution of seats was made.


Frank Oliver: Are the people there ?


Richard Stuart Lake: I think that the probability is that they are. I simply say that on the face of it it looks like an attempt at gerrymander.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps it would relieve the hon. gentleman's mind to know that the boundary of St. Albert where it comes close to Edmonton, is the boundary fixed in the distribution of 1902 by the Northwest Assembly. There is no alteration of that boundary.


Richard Stuart Lake: I understand that; I am coming to that presently. First of all, however, I wish to call attention to statements made both by the Minister of the Interior and the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) yesterday, when they made the assertion that the Conservative members were invited to conferences a considerable time ago in regard to delimiting these constituencies. Both the member for Calgary and the member for Alberta and myself denied that this was the case. I again take this occasion to positively deny that I was ever asked to a conference for that purpose of delimiting these constituencies.


Mr. SCOTT.: Last evening when I mentioned this, I did it upon the spur of the moment. Since then, I have had time to furbish up my memory, so to speak, and my own memory has been assisted by those of other gentlemen who were present. I wish to make the statement again that a conference was held several evenings before the 21st of February, several days before these Bills were introduced. The conference was called by Mr. Haultain and to that conference were invited, I understood. all the members of the House of Commons from the Northwest Territories, including the member for Qu'Appelle, all the senators from the Territories and there were also present at the conference the members then in Ottawa of the Northwest government. I make the statement that Mr. Haultain told that conference that it had been suggested to him by the Prime Minister that he should endeavour to get an agreement from the representatives from the Northwest upon the boundary line between the two provinces, secondly, with re-tbe number of local constituencies Which should be given to each province, and,


Richard Stuart Lake: thirdly, with regard to the divisions of these local constituencies. I repeat the statement that we were told that by Mr. Haultain. The matter of the boundary between the two provinces was discussed at great length. The matter of the number of constituencies was also discussed and the method of division of the constituencies within each province was debated at considerable length. I make the statement now deliberately that I discussed with the member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) that evening the matter of a bi-party committee for each province to make these divisions, and he gave me to understand he was not willing to go into the work with the other members for Alberta. He put it in this way : It will be two against two, myself and the member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) as against the member for Strathcona (Mr. Peter Talbot) and the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) two against two, there will be certainly a deadlock as the interests of Edmonton and Calgary are so diverse and distinct that we could not hope to reach an agreement.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I have already denied in this House that I was ever asked to discuss that question of deciding the boundaries of these constituencies. I do not see why the same insinuation should be repeated, but if anything were needed to show the absurdity of the insinuation, of the member for West Assiniboia


Thomas Walter Scott: I made no insinuation. I make a direct and absolute statement.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I deny it. I deny that I was ever asked and I say that if any thing were needed to show the absurdity of the statement it is the fact that it would be impossible for us to settle the boundaries of the constituencies when the dividing- line between the two provinces was not settled.


Mr.   HAKE@: I made my denial a few moments ago. I will go on to say that no Liberal, to the best of my recollection, ever mentioned the question of local constituencies to me before the schedule containing these constituencies was brought down and then it was mentioned by a member of the government.


Thomas Walter Scott: I understand that the member for Qu'Appelle was not present at that conference ; I understood him to say that last night.


Richard Stuart Lake: Yes.


Thomas Walter Scott: I made a formal motion at that meeting that a bi-party committee representing each province should take up this matter of the division of the provinces.
I think my motion was not seconded ; at all events it was not carried. We took it for granted, from the treatment given to the motion by the conference, and I took it for granted from the statement that was made to me personally by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy), that it

was useless to proceed with the proposition, and that our hon. friends on the other side were not willing to act with us in an endeavour to reach an amicable arrangement with regard to the local divisions.


Richard Stuart Lake: 1 think the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) has already definitely denied that statement before, it should not be repeated.


Frank Oliver: I think the dispute between my hon. friend from Calgary (Mi* M. S. McCarthy) and my hon. friend from Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) arose from something that I said yesterday. Therefore, it would hardly be fair for me to listen to the assertion and denial without saying my say on the subject. I do not know what was said to the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) or the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy), but I have a distinct remembrance of being in room 48 with the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. member for Alberta, and also Premier Haultain and other gentlemen, senators and others. My remembrance is that the purpose we were there for, was as the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has stated. As I remember it and as he had said, we did discuss, at great length, the question 0f boundary between the provinces, without making any progress in regard to that question. The further questions we were expected to discuss were not gone on with. But there was a conference, and there was a request for a joint discussion, at any rate, In regard to boundaries, and such a discussion, certainly took place as to the boundary between the provinces ; and I am of opinion though 1 am not so clear on that point as on the point of the discussion with regard to the boundary line-that there was also a discussion on the question of the number of representatives to be given to each province.


Richard Stuart Lake: I was not present at that meeting, as I have stated.
Mr. L'AMONT. I was present, and I distinctly recollect hearing the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) making the motion he states he did make. It was not seconded and the matter dropped.


John Herron: The motion made by the hon. member for Western Assiniboia was that we should hold out together to get our land and minerals for the Northwest. I was at the meeting and remember the proposition made with reference to the division line between the two provinces1. That was all that was discussed at the meeting. And I distinctly remember that the hon. member for Western Assiniboia said we should hold together and fight for our lands and minerals.


Richard Stuart Lake: I spoke to Mr. Haultain this morning and asked whether he was
present when the formal motion which the hon. member for Western Assiniboia has told us of was made. Mr. Haultain told me that no formal motion was made while he was present, if it were made- and no doubt it was ; I accept the hon. member's (Mr. Scott's) statement-it was when no Conservatives were present. If I had been invited to a conference of this sort, I should have considered it my duty to accept. I was very anxious with regard to the distribution of seats in the new constituencies. But I felt that I had no right to assume that the government would not do justice to the people, and I did not know to whom it would be my duty to appeal to ask them to do justice; and, after all, that is all we look for.


Thomas Walter Scott: Did I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) to say that he asked Mr. Haultain a question this morning with regard to this matter?


Richard Stuart Lake: I asked Mr. Haultain whether he was present when the formal motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) was made, and he stated distinctly that he was not present when that formal motion was made.


Thomas Walter Scott: But he would not dispute the fact of the conference, or the fact that he called it for the purpose for which it was called. The best proof that the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did not wish to decide matters, and force them, as the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) had said, nolens volens, upon the people of the Northwest, is that. he suggested that Mr. Haultain should try to get amicable arrangements as to the boundary line and the number and division of the constituencies.


Richard Stuart Lake: Before I came to Ottawa in December, 1 received a letter from Mr. Haultain similar to a letter which, I understood, had been sent to every member from the Northwest, inviting us to meet in conference in Ottawa during the discussion of the Autonomy Bill. I understood that it was in pursuance of that policy that we were invited on two or three occasions to meet together. I was present at two meetings in room 48. The only questions seriously discussed were the possession of our lands and mines, and the boundary between the two provinces. Cer-' tainly nothing whatever was said in my presence in regard to the constituencies.


Mr LAMONT.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr Lake) say that at that conference m room 48, Mr. Haultain did not say, over and over again that the Prime Minister had asked him to give thirty constituencies to each province ?


Richard Stuart Lake: I cannot deny it, because I was not present at the last meeting. But
it is the first I have ever heard of the matter. I had always understood that there was a strong movement to have this question submitted to the judges.


Mr. FINLAY.: I understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) to say that he had a letter from Mr. Haultain on the subject, and now he says he never heard of it.


Richard Stuart Lake: 
Mr. OLIY ER.: I had occasion to correct one speaker on the other side in a statement similar to the one the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) has just made. I hope it will not be necessary fur me to correct it again. Speaking for myself, I do not admit responsibility for the schedule for Alberta. I admit responsibility for having given advice with regard to the schedule for Alberta, but not responsibilitv for the schedule.


Richard Stuart Lake: 
Mr. SAM HI  GHES@: Does not the minister repudiate the boundaries ?
iiigIt'he0BnTER' The mIn,ster is support-


Samuel Hughes: Then he accents the whole responsibility ?	^


Richard Stuart Lake: 


Frank Oliver: The government takes the whole responsibility.


Richard Stuart Lake: The Minister of the Interior and the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. P. Talbot) have1 both spoken in very disparaging terms of the redistribution which took place in 1902 in the legislative assembly, and they have given various samples of what they consider to be the gerrymander which was created by that redistribution. in the first instance, I would like to say that that redistribution was decided on by a conference of all the members of the House. I doubt whether Mr. Haultain was present even on that occasion. The line's laid down were laid with regard to population, and a certain consideration of area. The population in the three districts at that time, each of which was entitled to a certain share of representation, was taken into consideration, and the population which vras to be allowed to each was figured out'. It was .figured out that, working on these lines, the constituency of Alberta W'ould get one member to every 4,700 population; the district of Assiniboia one member to 4,492; the district of Saskatchewan, one to 4,279. It will be noticed that the distribution, looked at from that point of view, was a fair one. There' was only a margin of less than 5 per ce'nt as between the amounts allowed to these three districts from tiie average of the whole. It was decided to interfere as little as possible with existing local constituencies, and that may account for a certain discrepancy in the total votes cast, but I do not think it is necetesary to go into these figures, and the figures given by the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. P. Talbot) are different in many respects from those I liave\ which were made out by the Northwest government. At the time of the redistribution, we had a very lively opposition in the legislative assembly, who were ready to find fault on every pretext. If was just on the evd of an election; and surely jf there had been any attempt at a gerrymander that would have been brought up in the House. But what do we find' Looking over the reports, I find for instance two objections were made by Mr. Patrick, of the district of Yorkton. The first was that there should be another representative up there, because he had an additional population of 5,000 Doukhobors, but he' did not Press that very hard. And it was shown him that his total population was a very fair one under the circumstances. He also thought there should be one more member in the House. It was found necessary to reduce the representation in the district of Saskatchewan by one. Mr. Mackay, of Prince Albert, also objected to losing one member from one of the constituencies of Prince Albert, which was cut off. Mr. Bennett simply objected to the! Liberal executive having any finger in this redistribu-
JUNE 2h 1905
tion. That was all his objection. He went on to say he had no objection to a certain change which was made in his constituency. And 1 think there was only one division taken on thd whole of that question, and that was as to whether there [DOT]should be 35 or 36 members. I am not sure on this point. If there was a division at all, it was lost. I only find the record of one amendment being proposed, and I do not see whether it was pressed to a division or not. Therefore, it cannot possibly be said that there was any unfair redistribution by the legislative assembly in 1802. Not one of these members who. the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. P. Talbot) says, were so badly treated in the northern part of Alberta, raised any protest against the redistribution. We, therefore, can take it' as absolutely the fact th'at it was a fair one, and I think it will be found to compare very favourably indeed with the redistribution we are now discussing, in which, instead of a margin of only something like 4 per cent between one district and another, we find a margin of from 10 to 100 per cent. I am very glad that the principle has been laid down that the figures of last election are the basis for the distribution of se'ats. These lists, upon which that election took place, were drawn up last fall, and the election took place in November. There may be considerable difference of opinion as to whether we should take the votes actually cast or those which appear on the lists. For my part, I would take the ones placed on the lists, which lists were' drawn up by men employed by the present government, who certainly would not be unfair towards the members of their own party. I think most strongly that the votes on the lists should be the basis upon w^hich this distribution should be1 made.
However, if the government washes, let us take the basis of the votes cast just for the purpose of argument. As far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, I am perfectly willing to accept that basis. Probably my hon. friends on this side would be willing to accept even that basis also so long as it is strictly adhered to. But I find that in the case of the province of Saskatchewan, the votes cast at last election are not followed to any degree whatever. Let me point to this as an illustration The new province of Saskatchewan can easily be divided up ibetwreen north and south. There are three Dominion constituencies in the north and three in the south. We have the absolute number of votes polled in all these constituencies so that wre can get down to an absolute basis of fact. In the three northern constituencies, there were 7,S24 votes polled. Add the number from the districts of Strathcona and Edmonton, and you would possibly have 150 votes more. In the three southern Dominion constituencies there were 17,771 votes polled.
Now, we find that the actual distribution we are discussing gives to the north eight members and the south ten members, and that there are seven local constituencies which are divided up, and I think that hon. gentlemen opposite will be perfectly willing to admit that those constituencies can be divided equally between the north and the south. We find that to the 7,824 votes cast in the north they give 114 seats, whilst to the 17,741 votes cast in the south they only give 13* seats. It will also be found, taking the votes actually cast, when you come to the province of Saskatchewan, that it takes 100 per cent more votes to elect a member in the southern part of the province than in the northern part.


Mr. LAMONT.: When my hon. friend speaks of north and south, I presume he is following the same dividing line as that which was followed in Alberta-township
38.


Richard Stuart Lake: No ; I have already said that I am not following the same dividing line.
I am taking the three northern constituencies, about which there will be no question whatever, and in regard to which tlie right' hon. Prime Minister himself brought down the votes cast in the last election. I will give some figures on another occasion in regard to Saskatchewan, in which I will give one of the degrees of latitude as the division. But in the three northern Dominion constituencies they are only giving half the number of voters to each local constituency that they are in the three southern Dominion constituencies.


John Graham Haggart: That is in the new province of Saskatchewan ?


Richard Stuart Lake: That is in the new province of Saskatchewan. It becomes even more apparent if we take the figures which the right hon. Prime Minister laid so much stress upon to-day-the figures of the census of 1901. He used these figures as an argument in support of the distribution in the province of Alberta. If you will take these figures and apply them to the old provisional districts of Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, you will find that the population of Assiniboia amounted to 67,385 in the year 1901. You can deduct say about 3,000 for the portion of Medicine Hat which would be included in the census. The population of Saskatchewan was only 25,679 in the census and a portion of the territory lias been thrown into unorganized territory under the present administration. So that, taking that basis upon which the Prime Minister insisted so much this afternoon, there should be two and a half times the representation given to Assiniboia as to the province of Saskatchewan ; that is to say, there should be eighteen seats in the old provisional district of Assiniboia and seven in the old provisional district of Saskatchewan ; whereas, as a matter of fact, in the

distribution which is proposed by the government, Saskatchewan gets ten and Assini-boia fifteen. That is roughly speaking, but the figures are close enough to make a fair test of the right hon. gentleman's argument. Taking the right hon. Prime Minister's own figures given this afternoon in reference to the votes cast and the voters on the list in Alberta, you will find, if you will calculate them up, that he has made a margin of 10 per cent, roughly speaking, between the representation of the constituencies which lie south of the dividing line at Red Deer and those which lie north ; that is to say, that it takes 10 per cent more voters in the constituencies south to elect a representative to the legislative assembly than it does in the north. I noticed that in the instructions which were given for the mapping out of the constituencies of the Transvaal by the British government the other day, it was laid down that there might be a variation of 10 per cent in the populations which were to be allotted to the different constituencies, but it was never suggested that that 10 per cent should apply to a whole group of constituencies. That is what is being done in this particular case. The constituencies grouped north are receiving, taken as a whole, an exceptional amount of consideration. But if you take the number of votes on the list you will find that the right hon. Prime Minister, according to his own figures, has favoured constituencies in the north to the extent of 22 per cent; and I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, in regard to this, that I am not taking into consideration the two extra constituencies which are to be formed in Athabaslca. 1 am taking purely and simply the constituencies in the old district of Alberta. If you take the voters' list you will see that the northern people have been favoured to the extent of 22 per cent. The figures furnished by the right hon. Prime Minister show that on the basis of the votes cast they have been favoured to the extent of 10 per cent. 1 would like to know how that compares with the way that the legislative assembly managed their own distribution, in which the variation amounted to about 41 per cent throughout the whole country. We have heard a good deal about the argument that areas should be taken into consideration in discussing this question. So I consider they should to a certain extent, but a mountain has been made out of a molehill in regal'd to the difficulties of carrying on an election in the district of Athabaska. The legislative assembly of the Northwest have been hoid-ing elections in the district of Kinistino. I have not a map showing the district of Kinistino as at present constituted, but taking -the district of Prince Albert East, which -was only a portion of the district of Kinis- < tino, I find that that district was 180 miles 1 wide by 270 miles long. Yet no very great ( difficulty was found in holding an election \ tor a member of the legislative assembly. ] Mr. LAKE.
The only trouble was that the return of the election had to be delayed for a fortnight, because some of the returns could not be brought in during the same time as in other constituencies. While we are hearing so much talk in regard to the necessity for representation in Athabaska, I would like to say that I fully agree that every man in that country should have the'franchise and should be entitled to cast his vote for a member to represent him, but we must not forget the fact that there is a large portion of the country which is being cut off and deprived of representation by the action of the present government. That portion of the district of Saskatchewan which lies north of Manitoba has a fair number of voters in it. I should not wonder if it has just as many voters as those who will cast their votes in either of these proposed districts in Athabaska. They have enjoyed the franchise for many years, they have been entitled to elect a member for the Northwest legislative assembly, and now they are to be thrown into unorganized territory and to be deprived of their franchise. I think that is a point which is worth bearing in mind in connection with this discussion. You have only to look at the map to see how very little consideration has been given to the question, because you will see that they bring in all these huge constituencies from the north and corner them in and around the city of Edmonton. We find also tl'.at this principle of area has been departed from in the most astonishing way in the new province of Saskatchewan. There is one constituency in the south that has more than five times the area of two of the constituencies in the north. It has five times the area and nearly double the voting strength of these constituencies in the north. That is one example to show that the area has not been the guiding principle in this redistribution. The smallest district in area is Kosthern, one of these northern constituencies, which is just one-sixteenth the size of Moosejaw in the south, and has only about one-half of the voting population.


John Henderson Lamont: What is the population of Rosthern ?


Richard Stuart Lake: On the 3rd of November last there were 1,348 names on the voters' lists in Rosthern as against 2,584 names in Moose-jaw. Take Prince Albert city, Humboldt, Rosthern, area * 83 townships, with 2,285 names on the list and 3 members. Take Moosejaw in the south with an area of 420 townships and 2,584 names on the voters' lists with only 1 member. Take Prince Albert city and Prince Albert rural district, add to them Humboldt, Redberry and Greenwood ; they have a total on the voters' lists of 2,617 and 5 members. Compare that with the district of Souris on the south which has on the voters' lists 3,346 names-more than that, because one poll was never held as the list was missing:-it has 1 member for 3,346

votes in the south while there are 5 members ' for 2,617 votes in the north. These are some comparisons which might well be taken into consideration in this distribution.
'Mr. TAYLOR. What will the Prime Minister say to that ?


Richard Stuart Lake: I could compare these live members which are given in the north with the district of South Qu'Appelle


Samuel Hughes: Is not the population in the north much more accustomed to British institutions than the population of the south ?


Richard Stuart Lake: I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) in that statement. As a matter of fact the original population came in chiefly along the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Of course there was a small population in the cities of Prince Albert and Battleford, but there has practically been a very small increase of population there until within the last year or two. The increase has taken place along the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway and along the southern line. These people living along the two southern lines are the men who have practically made the Northwest what it is to-day. They have stuck to farming and have made a success of farming, and yet we find that the votes of five of them are only equal to the vote of one of these men who have recently come into the north and the majority of whom know very little of our institutions and many of whom are quite illiterate.


Thomas Walter Scott: I understand that some of our friends opposite have very carefully scrutinized all these lists. Can my hon. friend (Mr. Lake) inform the committee whether the Doukhobor population in that part of the country was placed on the voters' list ?


Richard Stuart Lake: I cannot be certain on that point. I have spent a good deal of time and labour going through the voters' lists of all these constituencies counting them name by name and in many cases distributing them to each local constituency they may belong to, because of course many of the polling divisions are broken into two or three local constituencies, but I cannot give an answer to the hon. gentleman. In fact I do not know that I should be able to recognize the names of the Doukhobors so as to distinguish them from the names o>f Russians, Poles, Galicians and others. I do not understand the Doukhobor language.


Samuel Hughes: Your education is sadly neglected.


John Graham Haggart: Who prepares these voters' lists ?


Richard Stuart Lake: An enumerator who is appointed by the government.


John Graham Haggart: By this government ?


Richard Stuart Lake: By this government I presume. I believe in the great majority of cases these enumerators are strong party men, and I do not think we would find them discriminating against the Liberal party. In fact I know of cases in which they were canvassing for the Liberal party at the same time they were drawing up the lists.


Thomas Walter Scott: 
Samuel Hughes: How do you know ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Would my hon. friend (Mr. Lake) not admit that the larger part of the Doukhobor population aro'not yet naturalized and are not yet on the lists. It is a very odd one amongst the Doukhobors who have yet taken out naturalization papers, made their homestead entries, and were last fall in a position to be placed on the voters' list.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) tell me how he knows what I had in my mind. I referred to the Galicians, who were hawked all over the country from riding to riding by the hon. gentleman in the last election in November.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am perfectly willing to accept the explanation of my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Plughes) as to that.


Richard Stuart Lake: I cannot say how many of these electors have been naturalized, I know that in a return brought down the other day, forty-five of them have been apparently deprived of their homesteads and sent to locate on other lands, and I think it was stated that a great majority of these had naturalized, I know that one man was spoken of as having naturalized, but the only source of information I have as to that is to be found in these papers which were brought down the other day. At any rate it is for us to deal with existing conditions. It has been admitted by the Minister of the Interior and by the Prime Minister that the fairest basis of calculation in regard to this redistribution which is to be for an election which will take place within six months, is the basis of the voters' lists and the votes cast at the recent election. Surely that should be sufficient for the members on the other side of the House as it is sufficient for us. We are quite prepared to accept that as a basis, we consider it a fair basis and if it is adhered .to we will have nothing more to say in regal'd to this matter. For my part at any rate, I would have nothing more to say. I do not care how these are divided up so long as there is a fair distribution of the population ; they may zig-zag them in any way they please so long as they give a fair distribution of the population. Let the man who has lived in the southern part of that country and who has made that country, and who has proved that the country is of some

ase, let him have at least equal rights with the new comer in the north. Do not make his vote of only one-fifth the value of the vote of some of these new comers away in the northern part. I was speaking of comparing these five members which are given to live constituencies in the north with a total aggregate voting strength of 2,617, with the district of Souris with a voting strength of 3,346 and the district of South Qu'Appelle with 2,842 names on the voters' lists, each of which has only one member. * That includes the district of Indian Head, about which the Minister of the Interior made some complimentary remarks yesterday. I do not think it is any compliment to the people of Indian Head that their votes are only one-fifth of the value of the votes of 'the people in that northern country. Compare these five members with the number given to Moosejaw, with 2,584 voters on the list, or with the district of Cannington, another southern district with 2,455 voters on the list. Even compare it with one of the northern constituencies, that of Saskatoon, which gets one member with 2,094 votes, I think the largest vote given to any northern constituency. The two Prince Alberts, Humboldt and Greenwood, four constituencies, have a smaller aggregate vote than Saskatoon. So that there must have been some extraordinary distribution going on. With regard to the question of area, we have the district of Maple Creek, which lias ten times the area of the district of Humboldt and seven times the voting population.


Samuel Hughes: Does it get seven members ?


Richard Stuart Lake: Each gets one member.


Thomas Walter Scott: That was the district the assembly fixed, was it not?'


Richard Stuart Lake: The district of Maple Creek was formed by the legislative assembly.


Thomas Walter Scott: Did my hon. friend compare it with Cardstoo, also formed by the assembly?


Richard Stuart Lake: Certainly. I find that where it has suited the present government, they have taken advantage of existing local conditions, but where it has not suited them, they have not done so. For instance it has suited them to take the constituencies in the southern part of the province of Saskatchewan as they stand, adding just one seat the cilty of Regina. But they have interfered with existing local conditions only in the north, where it has suited them to do so, and where they have been able to run in a considerable number of more members by doing so. Moosejaw has six times the area and fifteen times the voting population of the district of Humboldt, and each place gets one member.


Andrew B. Ingram: Whose Italian hand is that ?


Frank Oliver: Sbarretti's, I guess.


Richard Stuart Lake: It has been suggested that this scheme of representation should provide for the prospective increase of votes in the future, and I think it was stated by the Minister of the Interior that that had been done in the case of the distribution of seats by the legislative assembly in
1902.	I differ with him in regard to that. I do not remember ever hearing that point raised. At any rate, the facts stand for themselves-that they took the census of the previous year, which was not a year old, and distributed the seats exactly according to that census, with only 4i per cent variation. So that I do not think it can be stated that in actual practice at any rate they took into consideration the prospective increase of population.


John Henderson Lamont: Did the assembly not do that in the last distribution?


Richard Stuart Lake: No, I do not think they did.


John Henderson Lamont: Then, how do you account for 293 votes in Batoche and 1,052 in Moosejaw in the last election?


Richard Stuart Lake: The special circumstances which made the vote in the southern part of Alberta so small in that election have already been referred to-the carrying away of the bridges over two of the main rivers, which made it practically impossible for a large number of the voters to go to the polls.


John Henderson Lamont: There is no river in Batoche.


Richard Stuart Lake: I did not understand that the hon. gentleman was referring to Batoche. As far as my memory goes, the question of the prospective increase of population was not taken into consideration at all. As little interference as possible was made with existing conditions. At that time we fully believed that the Dominion government were going to create us into a province almost immediately, and Mr. Haultain was making an appeal to the country on the autonomy question. What would have been the use of complicating that question with questions of gerrymander or anything of that sort ? The fact remains that there was no serious criticism of that Redistribution Bill in the House. I doubt if it took three hours to put it through.


John Henderson Lamont: Then on what principle was one seat in Prince Albert wiped out ?


Richard Stuart Lake: Because it was found that the district of Saskatchewan had altogether too large a representation.


John Henderson Lamont: It had it for years.


Richard Stuart Lake: Well, that indicates that ih had been at a standstill for a number of


Richard Stuart Lake: years, while other districts had been increasing in population.


Thomas Walter Scott: Will my hon. friend tell me1 what principle the assembly followed in>
the previous redistribution?	<


Richard Stuart Lake: I was not in the assembly at the time of the previous redistribution. I still point to the fact that the redistribution made in 1902 took into consideration the three great divisions of the country- Assiniboia, Alberta and Saskatchewan-and that the seats for these three provisional districts wrere distributed in such a way as to make only a variation of 4$ per cent in the number of seats given to each of these provisional districts. Further than that while Batoche, Moosejaw and Prince Albert were all represented in that House there was no serious criticism of this measure. The member for Prince Albert was the only one to introduce an amendment whicli was to the effect that there should be 36 seats. The question was where would the odd seat go. Provision was made for 35 seats already, and with 35 seats Saskatchewan was getting 41 per cent the advantage of the district of Assiniboia. There was no serious objectitou to that redistribution at all or else we should have heard of it. There is no question about that. At any rate we find that those gentlemen on the other side of the House are most anxious to take it where it suits them and they are leaving it and discarding it where it does not suit them.


Frank Oliver: Before the hon. gentleman closes, would he tell the House what this has to do with Alberta ?


John Graham Haggart: It has everything to do with it.


Richard Stuart Lake: It is all pointing to a moral. We have been told to-day that the government have proceeded with this distribution upon principle ; that they have adopted the principle of being guided by the voters' lists and the votes cast on the 3rd of November last and by justice and fair-play. I am simply making a comparison of the two districts. As a matter of fact it appears to me that the gerrymander, shall I call it, in Saskatchewan is so glaring that it must iu itself call attention to the fact that there has been something wrong in the distribution of seats in Alberta. Of course when the schedules of the province of Saskatchewan come up I will be prepared to go into the figures in regard to that province at far greater length than I have done ; I have not completed my notes in regard to that matter, and I have spent a good many weary hours over it. What I ask is that the principles of fair-play which prevail throughout I think the whole British empire, as well as the English speaking people of the world, should govern in this case, that there should be a fair distribution of these seats in regard to population, that
where certain existing local conditions render it absolutely necessary that there should be a variation in the numbers allotted to each seat, it should not exceed 10 per cent, but that discrimination should certainly not be allowed as against a whole district; that it might take place up to that percentage as an extreme limit in certain individual cases. And yet we find according to the figures of the Prime Minister himself that between the northern and southern portion of the old district of Alberta, leaving out the two new constituencies, the government propose to put in the north, there is a discrimination in favour of the north on the votes actually cast of 10 per cent and on the voters' lists of about 22 per cent. All we ask is a fair distribution according to the best information we have in regard to the voting population of that country and the voting population has been given to us within a year from the time at which these new elections will have to be held.
Progress reported.



FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 185) for the relief of Isaac Pit-blado.-Mr. Barker.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
John Graham Haggart: Could any of the ministers inform us what business will be proceeded with to-morrow.


William Stevens Fielding: We will continue the same programme.


John Graham Haggart: Nothing before ?


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest that perhaps it would be an understanding that the general discussion which has taken place might be brought to a conclusion, and that we might then take up the schedules in their order. However that will develop tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 12 o'clock, midnight.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 22, 1905.