1910-01-31

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 117) for the relief of George Robert Buttonshaw.

Mr. MONK.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to Bill (No. 26) on Public Bills and Orders respecting Co-operative Credit Societies. My right hon. friend will remember that this co-operative measure was introduced two or three times into this House, and on the last occasion, two years ago, it was referred to a select committee, which after a long investigation, made a unanimous report in its favour and the Bill was afterwards adopted unanimously by the House. It then went to the Senate and

was defeated there by one vote at the end of that session.
Bill (No. 26) is exactly to the same import. I would remind my hon. friend that the Bill which was adopted by this House was taken up by the government after the report of the select committee and was put through by the Minister of Labour. I am afraid that the Bill I refer to, which is among Public Bills and Orders, as well as one a little further down the list of a more comprehensive character having reference to co-operation, introduced by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Harris) may not be called this session, which would be a great hardship to those interested. Could not the right hon. gentleman give us an opportunity to have these Bills put through and sent again to the Senate?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: If we agree to this, I am afraid we shall have to agree to other motions of a similar character. At all events, I do not say nay to my hon. friend's request. We can go on with the order of the day and see this evening how far we have advanced.



THE NORTH POLE-TERRITORIAL RIGHTS.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I desire to call the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to the following despatch which appeared in the 'Citizen' and other newspapers on Saturday morning last:
(' Citizen/ Saturday, 29tli January, 1910.)
New York, Jan. 28.-'The question of who has territorial possession of the North Pole has been revived again by Capt. J. Bernier of Canada, who is here to attend the annual dinner of the Arctic club of America to-morrow night. Captain Bernier, will ask Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Prime Minister of Canada, to request Britain, the United States, Russia, Sweden and Norway and Denmark, all maritime nations bordering on the Arctic sea -to designate official representatives to accompany him on bis forthcoming Polar expedition which is to leave Quebec on July 15th next. The principal object of the expedition, he said, will be for a division of the Polar sea in order that Canada and the other six nations may have their fishery rights properly defined. Captain Bernier will visit both Croker Land, discovered by Peary in 1906, and Bradley Land, which Dr. Cook reported that he sighted, and, after raising the British flag, will proclaim them formally annexed to the Dominion of Canada. Great Britain, he said, formerly ceded to the Dominion all islands in the Arctic sea lying within its lateral boundaries.
I desire to ask the government whether they have received any such) request from Captain Bernier; and if so, is it the intention of the government to remind Captain Bernier that Canada is not yet a nation but part of the British Dominions and intends remaining so, and the expression that Mr. MONK.
Canada is another nation or that Britain is another nation separate from Canada is not applicable to actual conditions.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have seen the despatch mentioned by my hon. friend. I do not know of any such intention on the part of Capt. Bernier as that attributed to him. I do not think that he has any intention of going into international complications. But, if Capt. Bernier spoke as he is reported to have spoken, all I can say is that I think he had better keep to his own deck.


Mr. FOSTER.: That seems to imply that there is a project on to send Capt. Bernier to the North Pole under sanction of the Dominion government. Is that so?


Wilfrid Laurier: No. Capt. Bernier will go north again this summer to patrol the waters of the north and assert Canadian jurisdiction.


George Eulas Foster: I think somebody ought to take charge of this gentleman. He seems to be running loose.



PRIVILEGE-ACTION OF THE CROWN IN CAPITAL AND IN OTHER CASES.

Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH.: I desire to say a word, as a matter of 'privilege, with reference to something that fell from my lips in connection with the discussion which took place on the 17th of January, on the motion for papers relating to the capital case of Walter Blythe. In discussing the practice upon the consideration of questions of clemency in capital cases, I made the remark that, in capital cases, His Majesty's instructions to the Governor General are not to act except upon the advice of his Privy Council, but, in other cases, he does not take that advice". It has been pointed out to me that the inference which might be drawn from my language-and which, I am sorry to say, was drawn by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)-was that, in cases other than capital cases, His Excellency acted upon his own responsibility. That, of course, is not the case. I was discussing capital cases only, and intending only to point out that, in capital cases, the re- * sponsibility for the action of His Excellency was upon the whole government; in cases other than capital cases, the responsibility is not upon the whole government, but no more is it upon His Excellency individually ; in such cases, His Excellency acts upon the advice of some minister, not necessarily the Minister of Justice, but ordinarily in practice always the Minister of Justice, upon whom the responsibility rests.


Mr. SPROULE.: I am glad the minister (Mr. Aylesworth) makes the explanation,

because it seems, to me it was different from the general impression and understanding, certainly different from the understanding I had, and I think it worth while to have a definite statement of it.



POST OFFICE AT CAMBORNE.

Mr. GOODEVE.: Referring to an answer given by the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on behalf of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) with regard to the post office at Camborne, B.C., I see that a petition has been sent in to the government asking that the post office at Camborne should 'be removed from the hotel. The Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the Postmaster General, said that if the post office was in the hotel, the matter would be taken into consideration. I have a diagram of the hotel, showing the post office situated in the office of the hotel, between the bar-room and the card-room, which is very strongly objected to by the citizens. I will hand this over to the Postmaster General, and I trust he will take steps to have this remedied.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I will take it up with the Deputy Postmaster General at once.



THE WATERWAYS TREATY.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I desire to ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he has anything to announce respecting the present position of the Waterways treaty, and, if not, whether he expects to be able to make an announcement at an early day?


Wilfrid Laurier: As I told the hon. member (Mr. R. L. Borden) the other day, we have some subsidiary negotiations as to the interpretation of an article of the contemplated treaty. As soon as these come to an end, we shall make an announcement to the House.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I desire to ask the government when I may expect a return to a motion adopted on the 24th of November last in reference to printing?


Mr. MURPHY.: I will have that attended to at once.



PURCHASE OF WAR VESSELS.

George Eulas Foster: I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a request I made of him some time ago for information as to what had passed between the government and the British authorities with reference to the negotiations for the purchase of war vessels. The Prime Minister promised that the papers should be brought down. We ought to have these papers, before the debate on the Bill,
which, we understand, is to be gone on with. There is also in the memorandum which has been brought down of the proceedings of the defence conference an article which implies that correspondence is taking place with reference to the flag question. The Prime Minister will know to what that refers. I think it would be well also, if he should make a definite statement upon that subject. If there are papers to be laid on the table, they may be brought down or at least the Prime Minister might make a definite statement when the second reading of the Bill comes on.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not
think there are any papers, but I will inquire.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 82) to incorporate the Merchants and General Insurance Company.
On section 10,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the value of the property which the company may hold is very small, only $5,000, and in the province of Quebec, $10,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That seems to have been their idea; I have no special instructions, but they are satisfied with the figure. The amount of $10,000 is fixed as the annual value, that is, the rental; that would represent a considerable piece of property in Montreal. Deducting insurance and taxes, a property worth an annual value of $10,000 would represent at least $100,000. I suppose the annual value would be fixed upon the value as computed by the assessors. The assessors in the city of Montreal do not give a very high actual value, and a property might easily be worth over $150,000 in reality, while its annual value, as fixed by the assessors, would not amount to $10,000. It seems to be a fair amount for an insurance company that is beginning in the city of Montreal.
Bill reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 120) respecting the Royal Guardians.-Mr. Rivet.
Bill (No. 121) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Central Railway Company.-Mr. W. M. Martin.
Bill (No. 123) respecting the Central Canada Manufacturers Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. D. A. Gordon.
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Eastern Canada Manufacturers Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. D. A. Gordon.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Upon the section of the Transcontinental railway from mile 1,531-01 to 1,658-17, from, Moncton, district ' F,' let to O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall, what were the government engineer's estimated quantities of (a) solid rock,
(b)	loose rock, and (c) common excavation, upon which the tender was accepted and contract let?
2.	At the _ time the contract was let what was the estimated expenditure, based on contract prices, for (a) solid rock, (b) loose rock, and (c) common excavation?
3.	How many cubic yards each of (a) solid rock, (b) loose rock, and (c) common excavation. and of what value, separately have been returned and claimed by the contractor or his sub-contractors for work alleged to be done and what is the estimated quantity and value under each of these headings of work yet to be done according to latest estimates?
1.	What sums have actually been paid under each of these headings?
5.	At the time this contract was let, what was the total estimated expenditure, based upon contract prices?
6.	The same information is asked in respect of mileage 1,407-65 to 1,634-01, districts 'E' and ' F,' let to the same contractors?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: Section from mile 1,534.04 to 1,558.17 from Moncton, district ' F.'
1.	(a) Solid rock, 493,400 cubic yards; (b) Loose rock, 71,900 cubic yards; (c) Common excavation, 374,000 cubic yards.
2.	(a) Solid rock, $715,430;	(b) Loose
rock, $39,545; (c) Common excavation, $93,500.
3 and 4. Quantities returned to November 30,	1909.	(a) Solid rock, 344,334 cubic
yards; (b) Loose rock, 330,805 cubic yards;
(c)	Common excavation, 128,611 cubic yards.
The sums actually paid under each of these headings to November 30, 1909, are: (a) Solid rock, $499,283.86; (b) Loose rock, $181,942.75; (c) Common excavation, $32,152.75.
The estimates upon which the contract was let were approximate only. In a number of lakes, muskegs, &e., where no soundings had been taken it was found as the work progressed that the bottom of many of these was of such a nature as to require much larger quantities of filling, than was estimated in order to get a solid bottom. These fills had to be made of material nearest to the work, which was almost entirely loose and solid rock. This accounts to a great extent for the large returns of loose rock. It was more advantageous to use such material, as it stands at a steeper slope and does not require rip-rapping. The latest estimate of quantity and value under each of these headings is the estimates Mr. MONK.
upon which contract was let. It is impossible to give the quantity and value under each heading yet to be done without making a new estimate which has not been done.
5.	$1,158,258.25.
Section from mile 1,407.65 to 1,534.04 from Moncton, district ' F.'
6.	(1) (a) Solid rock, 2,602,000 cubic yards; (b) Loose rock, 89,000 cubic yards; (c) Common excavation, 1,489,000 cubic yards.
(2) (a) Solid rock, $3,850,960; (b) Loose rock, $75,650;	(c) Common excavation,

3 and 4. Amount and value returned on progress estimates, December 31, 1909, are as follows:
(a) Loose rock, 658,182 cubic yards, $974,109.35; (b) Solid rock, 242,178 cubic yards, $205,851.30; (c) Common excavation, 228,703 cubic yards, $66,323.87.
The estimates upon which the contract was let were approximate only. In a number of lakes, muskegs, &c., where no soundings had been taken it was found as the work progressed that the bottom of many of these was of such a nature as to require much larger quantities of filling than was estimated, in order to get a solid bottom. These fills had to be made of material nearest to the work, which was almost entirely loose and solid rock. This accounts to a great extent for the large returns of loose rock. It was more advantageous to use such material, as it stands at a steeper slope and does not require rip-rapping. The latest estimate of quantity and value under each of these headings is the estimate upon which contract was let. It is impossible to give the quantity and value under each heading yet to be done without making a new estimate which has not been done.
5. $5,967,208.75.



EMPLOYEES' PASSES, INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	How many employees' passes were issued on the Intercolonial railway in each of the months of September, October and November, in each of the years 1907, 1908 and 1909?


George Perry Graham: No record has been kept of the passes issued in the year 1907, but the following are the number of employees' passes issued during the months of September, October and November, 1908 and 1909:
September. October. November.
1908 .. .. 1,467	1,024	8121909 .. .. 1,296	983	793
COST OF BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION. Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:
1.	What was the cost to the British and Canadian governments of the Behring Sea Sealing Arbitration?

2.	How much of this cost was paid by the British government and how much was paid by the Canadian government, respectively?
3.	What was the result of the arbitration?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	$212,032.83.
2.	$140,665.79, and $71,367.04.
3.	(a) The denial of the claim of the United States government to extra territorial jurisdiction in Behring sea beyond the ordinary three-mile limit, and the ' findings of facts ' which formed the basis of a convention for the settlement of the claims in respect of Canadian sealing vessels seized and otherwise interfered with by the United States authorities.
(h) The Paris Award Regulations, controlling the seal fishery on the North American side of the North Pacific ocean as affecting Canadian and United States sealers.



POSITIONS IN CANADIAN NAVY.

Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	How many applications for positions in the proposed Canadian navy have been received ?
2.	How many have been received from officers or ex-officers of the Royal navy?
3.	How many have been received from officers of the Royal Navy reserve?
4.	How many from Canadians?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Total number of applications, 234.
2.	Number from officers Royal Navy, 59; number from ex-officers, Royal Navy, 6.
3.	From officers, Royal Navy Reserve, 37.
4.	From Canadians, 115.



LANDS LEASED TO SIR RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What are the terms of the lease of government lands occupied by the Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright in regard to the timber thereon ?
2.	Has the government at any time received from the lessee of said lands any money obtained from the sale of wood or timber cut on these lands? If so, when and how much?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1.	It is a condition of the lease that the timber on the property shall not be cut down except for the purpose of thinning and improving the same.
2.	No.



CONTRACTS TO EASTERN DREDGING COMPANY.

Mr. CROCKET:: 1.	Have any contracts for dredging in New Brunswick been let by the government to the Eastern Dredging Company, Limited, during the present fiscal year ? If so, for what dredging and at what places?
2.	Have any payments been made through the Public Works Department to the Eastern
Dredging Company, Limited? If so, what is the total amount of such payments?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	No.
2.	No.



PAYMENTS TO T. C. NORRIS.

Mr. MEIGHEN:: What was the total sum paid by the government to T. C. Norris, of Manitoba, in each of the years 1908 and 1909, and for what services ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: (As far as the Department of the Interior is concerned.)
Fiscal year.
1907- 8	$2,457 84
Services as auctioneer at school lands sale.
1908- 9	 Nil.



NEW DEPUTY MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.

Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Who has been appointed to the Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways and Canals ?
2.	AVhat duties is be to perform?
3.	Is he also appointed Chairman of Board of Management of the Intercolonial railway ?
4.	What are the qualifications of the new
deputy minister?	.
5.	What have been his services during the last ten or twelve years?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Archibald W. Campbell, C.E.
2.	The duties incumbent upon a Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals.
3.	He will act as chairman of the Board of Railway Management.
4.	He is a civil engineer and has an excellent reputation as an executive head.
5.	He has been Deputy Minister of the Department of Public Works in the Ontario government, and head of what is known as the ' good roads movement.'



MARITIME PROVINCES REPRESENTATION.

Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the maritime provinces of Canada should have preserved to them the representation in the House of Commons that they now enjoy. That in the redistribution of the constituencies to be made after the next decennial census the number of representatives to be returned from the said provinces should not in any case be reduced. And that an humble petition be presented to His Majesty praying that the British North America Act be amended in accordance with the purport of this resolution.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the subject introduced in this resolution has come before parliament on several occasions and under varying circumstances during recent years.

We are now approaching the time when another decennial census will be taken, on which will be based a new redistribution Act. A resolution was moved here a few years ago by Mr. Hughes, the then member for Kings, Prince Edward Island, in which he asked to have restored to the maritime provinces the representation which they had at confederation. The resolution which I have the honour of moving this afternoon, varies somewhat from that resolution. We are not appealing to the House upon this resolution for the purpose of reversing a decision given by the Privy Council a few years ago upon an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Upon a strictly technical interpretation of certain clauses of that Act it was determined that, as a matter of law, the maritime provinces were subject to have their representation reduced after each decennial census if the population has not increased in proportion to the increase in the province of Quebec. As a matter of law we are deprived of any further consideration of this question, but I appeal to the House of Commons of Canada as the high court of equity and the keeper of the King's conscience. On every consideration of equity and moral right I submit that the maritime provinces are entitled to special consideration in respect to the representation they are hereafter to enjoy in the House of Commons. Before I proceed to discuss the question, let me point out that in Great Britain the representation of the constituencies further removed from the seat of government is based upon a different principle from that which is applied to constituencies located nearer the capital. The county of Kent, which is near the city of London, has a representative for each 30,000 electors, while the more remote constituencies of Northumberland and Cumberland have a representative for each 10,000 and 9,000 electors, respectively. In England and Wales there is a member for each 10,000 electors, in Scotland a member for each 8,800, and in Ireland a member for each 7,000 electors. I point this out to show that in Great Britain, to which we look for precedent in constitutional matters, the various constituencies have their representation based upon a principle, different from that which in Canada is* applied to the maritime provinces. It is well known that conditions which prevailed at the time of confederation and which it was supposed would continue, have not been realized with respect to the different parts of Canada. It was expected then that in the course of the decades to come population would largely increase, not only in the older provinces which first formed the Dominion, but in the new provinces in the west which sooner or later would Mr. KYTE.
become part of the confederacy. Acting upon the presumption that the maritime provinces would increase in population quite as rapidly as the others, it was not considered necessary that precaution should be taken to preserve to these eastern provinces^ their representation undiminished. In 1873, when British Columbia entered confederation, although her then population did not entitle her to so large a proportion, she was given six members, which was to be the minimum representation of the provincb, and it was also stipulated that the representation should be increased in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act. It is quite plain to every one who looks into the matter with any care that had the representatives of the maritime provinces who took part in the pre-confederation conferences insisted that the representation with which they entered the confederacy should be the minimum, there would have been no hesitation in accepting that proposal, but no one ever dreamed then that such a precaution was necessary. I am not making any special appeal on behalf of the maritime provinces because we have lost population, or because of any decadence in our industrial growth, the causes of which have brought about a reduction of the representation of the maritime provinces is not due to any defect inherent in ourselves, it has to be looked for outside. The population of the maritime provinces has kept on increasing decade after decade, but the records of the immigration department tell the story of our diminished representation in the House. During the last nine years immigrants to the number of 49,521 came to the maritime provinces; to Quebec, 187,382; to Ontario, 227,756; to Manitoba, 255,921; to Alberta and Saskatchewan, 359,578. Thus, the maritime provinces have not kept pace, with Quebec and Ontario and the western provinces, not on account of any depopulation, but rather on account of the enormous immigration which has flocked into the other provinces in excess of that which has come to us. I need scarcely remind the House that for the last 30 years the energies of the immigration department of Canada under all governments, Liberal and Conservative, have been exerted to bringing immigrants, not to the maritime provinces, but to the fertile plains of the northwest. True, no special effort has been made to prevent immigrants coming to the maritime provinces, but we must recognize that immigrants are attracted to the northwest because there they can get fertile farms for the asking. The maritime provinces are not peculiarly adapted for agriculture, we do not possess these fertile fields that-have attracted to the prairie provinces so

many immigrants from European countries. Our resources are largely to be found in our lumber wealth, our fisheries and our mines. The European immigrant coming to the western provinces to engage in farming needs little capital to start in his new Hfe; a comparatively few dollars will give him a homestead location, and all he has to do is to turn up the ground, plant the seed and start in business. But, the man who comes to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick to develop our natural resources must have capital, and so for the vast number of immigrants with little capital the western provinces provide the greater attraction. Therefore, were it not for the enormous increase by immigration in the population of the other provinces, the maritime provinces would be able to hold their own in population and retain their representation as when we cast our lot with the Dominion.
I have before me a statement of the estii mated population of the Dominion of Canada issued by the Census Department at the end of last year. According to these figures, the population of the province of Quebec, which was 1,648,289 in 1901, is estimated to be 2,088,461 at the present time. The population of the maritime provinces, which was 893,553 in 1901, is estimated to be now 1,037,112, or an increase during the last nine years of 143,151. Having regard to this very substantial increase in the population of the maritime provinces;- one would naturally be inclined to the opinion that we would hold our own in respect to representation. But when we come to apply the rule which determines the representation which the provinces of Canada shall have in parliament after the next census is taken and taking the province of Quebec, which is the pivotal province, and dividing its estimated population of 2,008,461 by 65, the number of representatives, which that province is entitled to in this House, we find that the unit of population after the next census will be 32,130 in place of 25,000, which was the unit at the last census. The figures which I have quoted are the estimates of population at the end of the past year, and if the increase of population will continue for another year and a half, at which time the census will be taken, we F may fairly assume that a much larger disparity will exist as between the population of the maritime provinces and that of the province of Quebec. Having ascertained the unit of population to entitle a constituency to return a member to parliament at the present time as 32,130, and dividing that unit into the population of the maritime provinces, we find that instead of thirty-five representatives, to which they are entitled at the present time, they will be entitled to only 32 representatives after the next census is taken. TM3 disparity as regards population has been going
on for a good many years. At the time tha late hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) moved his resolution three years ago, certain hon. gentlemen who took part in the debate hoped that the conditions would be changed somewhat before the next census was taken, and held that there was evidence that the proportionate representation of the maritime provinces, if not restored, would at all events not suffer hereafter any further diminution. As I have pointed out, the fact is that although the population of the maritime provinces has increased by 143,151 during the last bine years, we stand to lose three more representatives after the next Redistribution Bill has passed this House.
There is another test by which ,the representation of the maritime provinces is determined, and that is the section which provides that if the population of a particular province has not decreased more than one-twentieth as compared with the whole population of Canada, that province shall not suffer any decrease in its representation. It was argued before the Privy Council, in the case which was referred to in respect to our representation, that Canada meant and included the four older provinces of Canada. There would seem to be strong ground for that contention; and had it been accepted by the Privy Council, the maritime province's would not be in the position they are in to-day in respect of their representation. If the population of the older provinces of Canada were taken as the basis upon which the estimated decrease was to be calculated, there i3 no doubt that we would retain our representation as we had it in the past; but when we take into account the fact that the population of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba is included with the population of the older provinces of Canada, it would be more than we could hope for that the maritime provinces, with their small proportion of immigrants, would be able to hold their own in that calculation. When I come to discuss the question of immigration, I am naturally reminded that the money which goes to bring immigrants into this Dominion is not the money of the respective provinces which are receiving the benefit of that immigration; it is the money of the whole Dominion of Canada, which is contributed proportionately bv the people of the maritime provinces. Then, it will not be denied for a single moment that from the causes which I have indicated, the maritime provinces have not received their fair share of immigration, notwithstanding the fact that some $9,000,000 has been paid by this government during the last nine years for the purpose of bringing into the country the immigration which has come into Canada during that period.
There is another question that ought to

have some bearing on the consideration of this matter, apart from its legal aspect, but from the point of view of the equitable rights of the maritime provinces; that is, in respect of the increased territory which has been awarded to the different provinces. Hon. members of this House are quite familiar with the fact that a few years ago the province of Quebec, which was designated by the framers of the Confederation Act as the ' pivotal province,' upon which the representation of all the other provinces should be determined, received a very large increase of area, equal to about 118,000 square miles. It is contended that this is not an increase of the area of the province of Quebec, but that the resolution of the House which determined that this additional territory should be given to the province of Quebec was only intended to identify or further locate the boundaries of that province. At the time of confederation, the northern boundary of the province of Quebec was regarded as the height of land lying between the watershed of the St. Lawrence and that of Hudson bay. That being the case, we may assume that the representatives of the maritime provinces, who attended that conference, assumed that the province of Quebec was the province as it was indicated by those boundaries, and did not include any additional territory. In awarding the province of Quebec additional territory, the question is raised as to how far that affected the maritime provinces with respect to the representation which we are hereafter to enjoy. It may be argued that there is no population in that additional territory, and that therefore it does not affect the unit of representation for the province of Quebec. At any moment valuable gold mines might be discovered, which would cause a rush into that territory and thereby materially increase the population of the province of Quebec. That province would then be placed in this position, that those people would be unrepresented in parliament, or the British North America Act would have to be amended for the purpose of giving them representation. The population of that new territory would be too remote from the settled constituencies of the province of Quebec as they exist at present, and we might have a demand from the province of Quebec for an amendment to the British North America Act in order to give to that additional population its due representation in parliament.
The province of Ontario has added very largely to its territory since 1867. By the decision of the boundary case in 1884, the Privy Council awarded Ontario additional territory now designated as New Ontario. At present the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario are knocking at the door of the House of Commons for additional territory. The territory in question was purchased Mr. KYTE.
and paid for by the people of the whole of Canada. It is not territory for which the province of Ontario or Manitoba made any sacrifice, but was territory purchased by the government of Canada, in which every province and every individual in the Dominion has an equal interest and share. The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which have lately been established, extend as far north as the territorial rights of Canada extend and the same is true of British Columbia. Were it possible for the maritime provinces to increase their territory, or improve their position in respect of natural resources, we would not be coming to th'e House of Commons asking compensation as a set-off to the new territory which other provinces have been given. We get no benefit from the investment made by the government of Canada in those lands which are to be awarded the other provinces. We receive no benefit from the money expended year by year by the immigration department for the purpose of inducing immigrants to come to this country; and all we ask, as a compensating condition, is that hereafter, under no circumstances shall the number of representatives from the maritime provinces be decreased in this parliament. The resolution which I have the honour of introducing does not in the slightest degree affect the representation of the rest of Canada. We are only asking that the number of representatives which we send to parliament shall not, under any circumstances be decreased. In that respect we are only asking what was granted British Columbia. If the representation in this parliament of British Columbia is to be permanent, and not subject to any decrease that same condition should be made to apply to the other provinces. I submit that the proposition involved in my resolution is not unreasonable in view of all the circumstances and in view of all the considerations upon which the Act of confederation was based.
The principle of fixing a minimum in the representation of any state or territory, has been followed in the case of every other commonwealth organized as a confederation. In Australia, when the Commonwealth Act was passed, it was provided that the House of representatives should consist of 77 members, of whom 20 were given one province, 23 another, and 9, 7 and 5 to the smaller provinces, and it was specially provided that not one of the original states forming the commonwealth should ever have less than five members in the house of representatives. The constitution of the United States also provides for a minimum representation. It seems to me that these precedents are so reasonable that hon. members should not

regard the proposition I am advancing as one open in any degree to objection.
I yield to no one in my admiration and appreciation of the great men who met together in 1864 for the purpose of considering the conditions under which a union of the provinces of Canada might be brought about. We who are living in a period somewhat remote from that important epoch are perhaps sometimes inclined to think that the men of that day were possessed of transcendent ability, that they were more far seeing, that they possessed the faculty of looking into the future and providing for future conditions to a degree far exceeding that possessed by the men who are occupying similar positions at the present time. Well, I do not think I am detracting in any respect from the merits of those great men when I say that the public men of the day, who are discharging their duties in our federal parliament and provincial legislatures, are quite as far seeing as those who preceded them forty years o.
n the view of subsequent events, we would not be justified in assuming that the framers of the Act of Confederation saw in advance all the conditions and circumstances likely to arise in respect of the various provinces of the Dominion for all time to come. It would be preposterous to say that these men intended to impose upon this country a piece of legislation which never could, under any circumstances, be amended in order to meet conditions bound to arise in a country of our rapid growth. As an instance, to show how men, familiar with the subjects they are attempting to discuss and settle, may be mistaken, let me quote the statement of the late Archi-bishop Tache regarding the possibilites of the Northwest as a wheat raising country. That venerable archbishop wrote a pamphlet in 1869 in which he asserted that the country now described as Alberta and Saskatchewan would never produce wheat, yet during last year the plains and valleys in these two provinces produced no less than 130,000,000 bushels. No doubt the venerable archbishop made that statement in all sincerity and honesty. It was made about two years after the Confederation Act was passed, and based on the information then at hand. Consequently we may very well assume that the framers of the British North America Act, who were representing the older provinces of Canada, could not have anticipated the enormous influx of population which would flow into those western provinces during all those years.
What are the objections heard against the very moderate and modest demand which the maritime provinces are now making? The answer given in some places is that the British North America Act has provided a system by which the representation of all the provinces shall be determined and that we must adhere to it. In other words, to use the language of that unsympathetic and exacting creditor immortalized in the ' Merchant of Venice,' ' it is so written in the bond.' I submit that written constitutions, if they are to be durable, if they are not to bear harshly and unfairly on certain elements of the population and certain parts of the country, must be subject to amendment from time to time. In fact I think I am well within the mark when I say that every essential feature and condition of the British North America Act has been amended from time to time since 1867, except that one provision which fixes the representation of the maritime provinces. In 1869 a resolution was passed by the House of Commons to the effect that it is the undoubted privilege of parliament to fix and determine the amount of all expenses chargeable on the public funds of the Dominion, but that the House was of the opinion that no further grant or provision beyond those made by the Union Act and the Act respecting Nova Scotia, should in the future be made out of the revenues of Canada for the support of the government or legislature of any province.
In addition to the fact that the amount of subsidy payable by this government to the different provinces was determined by the Act, we have years afterwards the resolution I have just read setting a limit to the amount of subsidy to be paid those provinces. It is within the knowledge of hon. members, that, a few years ago, the provincial premiers met in conference and passed a resolution by which they requested that a further appropriation be made to the respective provinces out of the federal treasury. That resolution was received favourably by the federal government and by this House, and, as a consequence, these provinces are enjoying a larger subsidy than they heretofore enjoyed. I might also remind the House that the question was not entirely unanimous, because the premier of British Columbia withdrew from that conference, refusing to accept the proportion that was allotted to the province of British Columbia. When these resolutions were presented to the imperial parliament for legislative enactment, it was sought to insert into that Bill a provision that there should be no further increase from the federal treasury to the provinces of Canada, but that the amount fixed by the Act then passing should be final and conclusive. That amendment was not inserted in the Act, showing that the imperial authorities did not regard it wise that any specific act of legislation should be held to fetter and trench upon the future development and future conditions that might thereafter arise with regard to this great Dominion.
Another objection that has been made to

the acceptance of this resolution is one which I find stated in the columns of the Toronto ' Globe ' of Wednesday last. The late Hon. George Brown was the great exponent of representation by population, and during the whole of his public life he endeavoured to work out that principle in its application to the provinces of Canada. He was the proprietor and director of the Toronto 'Globe' for many years, and that paper which was established by him and which is taken to represent his views so far as the application of his views could be made to the conditions of the present time, made this objection, and this objection only, to the acceptance of this resolution:
The most serious objection to the change is the resultant tendency to make the House unwieldy. There is neither wisdom nor despatch in an overgrown deliberate body, With large membership it is necessary that the preponderance take no part in the -work. Even with the present representation at Ottawa, if every member took an active part, progress would be virtually impossible. Every increase must increase tlie element of silent idlers, and that is rot desirable. The relative strength of the contingent from the maritime provinces would be no less under the change required by the present law than under the change sought. In either case it would be in proportion of population.
Now, Sir, it does seem to me that the merits of this resolution must be fairly apparent when the Toronto ' Globe ' can find no stronger objection to the acceptance of that resolution than the tendency it would have to make the House of Commons unwieldly. Even should all the representatives from Prince Edward Island lose their seats in this House at the next re-distribution, it would leave only four vacant seats for the accommodation of the increasing number of members who will come to this House from the west after the next re-distribution. At the very worst I cannot conceive that more than ten members would be taken from Nova Scotia during the next twenty or thirty years, and perhaps the same number from the province of New Brunswick. And, while such a large decrease as that would affect very seriously the interests of those provinces in this House, there would be no corresponding advantage as respects the unwieldly character of the House of Commons, when we take into account the increased number of members that must necessarily come to parliament from the new provinces in the near future. The objections of the Toronto ' Globe ' suggests a picture of the members who are hereafter to be elected from the now unformed constituencies in the great west, sitting upon the door-step of the House of Commons, patiently, yet hopefully awaiting the inevitable reduction of representatives from the maritime provinces, provided for in the British North America Mr. KYTE.
Act, by which representatives from those provinces are deprived of their seats whereupon they may joyfully enter and take possession of them. It comes to this, so far as the objection of the Toronto ' Globe ' is concerned, ' in the time to come the number of representatives from the larger provinces will necessarily increase, and, in order to provide room for them, some provinces must be deprived of their representation-and why not the maritime provinces as well as any other. I sympathize with hon. members in their desire to adhere strictly, so far as strict adherence is possible to the conditions of the British North America Act. I am not one who would lightly change the conditions under which all the provinces entered confederation. Nor am I one who would wantonly amend the British North America Act for some trifling consideration. But in matters of serious moment, matters that affect so vitally the interests of the maritime provinces, in view of the amendments that have heretofore been made, in view of the principle followed in other countries similarly circumstanced, I feel strongly that the members from the maritime provinces are not asking too much when they ask that a minimum be fixed beyond which their representation would not be reduced. With respect to the constitution of the United States, that constitution was drawn up by men I suppose equal in talent, foresight and statesmanship to those who drew up the British North America Act. But the people of the United States do not regard the American constitution as a piece of sacred legislation that is not to be amended or changed under varying conditions as they arise in that great country. No less than seventeen constitutional amendments have been made to the American constitution to meet the changing conditions in the United States, and whenever it is necessary to have further amendments, there seems to be no hesitation on the part of the people of that progressive nation to make the amendments to suit the circumstances of the day.
The province of Quebec having been selected as the pivotal point on which the representation of the other provinces is determined, some hon. gentlemen are inclined to say that it was so selected to assure to the province of Quebec its proportionate influence and standing in the confederation of Canada. I beg to suggest that no such consideration entered into the minds of the gentlemen who were interested in selecting Quebec as the pivotal province. The reason why Quebec was selected is given in the speech of Sir John A. Macdonald in the confederation debates, wherein he stated that Quebec was accepted as the pivot on which the whole would turn on account of the comparatively permanent character of its population, and from its having neither the

largest nor the.least number of inhabitants. It was not selected in order that the rights or customs of the province of Quebec should be preserved to the people; it was not selected on account of any fear that their influence would become less as this Dominion grew and became more populous; it was selected simply and solely because it was represented to be not the highest or lowest in point of population, and its population was less likely to vary than that of any other. That was another respect in which the framers of confederation did not anticipate the facts as they have occurred.
The province of Quebec has benefited largely by the inflow of population from European countries. It is situated upon the great waterway of this Dominion. The immigrants coming to western Canada first view the beautiful hills and the fertile plains of the province of Quebec, lying along the River St. Lawrence; they come to the great city of Montreal, which is the entrepot of the whole Dominion of Canada. The city of Montreal is destined to become a great city; and I am pleased to know that some of our hon. friends from the pro vince of Quebec are sanguine enough to look forward to the day when the city of Montreal will have a population of a million. When the city of Montreal has a population of a million, I wonder what will become of the representation of the maritime provinces. It is not too hopeful, or too sanguine, a view to take of the development and increase of the province of Quebec, and of the great city of Montreal, to say that hon. gentlemen who predict a population of a million for Montreal within the next thirty or forty years are not reckless in their prophecy. But when the city of Montreal has a population of a million, then I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what will be the position of the maritime provinces as a factor in the public affairs of this dominion, as represented in this House of. Commons. The city of Montreal, regarded as the national port of this country, has been the subject of large grants of money on the part of the national government, millions of dollars have been expended for the purpose of making Montreal the great centre of transportation for this country. It is money well spent, and I am sure no member from the maritime provinces begrudges the city of Montreal and the people of Quebec the money which has been expended to make its harbour safe and to deepen and to improve its channel. But every dollar that has been spent by the Dominion of Canada for the purpose of improving the city of Montreal makes possible a large increase in its population, and therefore a large increase of population in the province of Quebec is due to a considerable extent to the generous disposition with which the maritime 87
provinces have received every proposal to spend money in the province of Quebec and in the river St. Lawrence, at the same time that it is calculated to redound to their disadvantage on account of the increased population which it will bring about, and the corresponding decrease in the representation of the maritime provinces. I beg leave to move, Mr. Speaker, the motion of which I have given notice.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia).: My hon. friend from Richmond, N.S. (Mr. Kyte) has built up a very elaborate argument on what seems to me a very flimsy foundation. Not being learned in the law, I do not propose to follow along those lines. But there are some facts in connection with this matter that I think it might be well to lay before the House. The entire principle underlying the argument of my hon. friend is a wTong one. He has argued as if some injustice was being done, or had been done, to the people of the maritime provinces. He says that the British North America Act has been amended on many occasions, and that it ought to be amended again to meet his views. Why, Mr. Speaker, if any injustioe was being done to the people of the lower provinces, every man in this House would be ready to call for an amendment of the British North America Act to remedy the injustice. But my hon. friend, during the whole of his speech, has not indicated one single injustice that has been done, or is being done, to the people of the lower provinces. They will continue to be represented in this House just exactly in the same proportion, according to their population, as they were at the time they entered confederation. Nothing that could be said at the present time could make us believe that the fathers of confederation, who had this matter in hand, that men like the Hon. George Brown and others who had fought their whole lives for the principle of representation by population, would have agreed to any such proposition. They must have foreseen that in the future one province might increase in population faster than another, and they never would have consented that one province should be represented in the federal parliament on one basis, and another province on another basis. No one can gather from the debates of that period that any such intention was in their minds. Why, the whole basic principle of confederation was the fact that in the House of Commons every province was to be on an absolutely equal footing. If you want any further proof of that, you can consider what was done in the organization of the second chamber. It was provided that the smaller provinces, smaller territorially and in population, as they would not have an



equal number of members in the parliament of Canada, should be protected, if any protection was necessary, by giving them a predominance in the upper chamber. But the whole groundwork of confederation was the fact that there should be absolute equality of representation in proportion to population in the different provinces of the Dominion. Now it is almost half a century since that took place. At the time of confederation, when the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick united, does my hon. friend think for a moment that a resolution like this would have met with favour, that special consideration would be given to the lower provinces, that they should be allowed representation in this House on one basis, and the great province of Ontario, that came in at the same time, under exactly the same conditions and that has lost more representation in the past than the lower provinces have lost, should be allowed representation on another basis? Does my hon. friend think for a minute that the province of Ontario would sit quiet and allow herself to be unrepresented according to population? I do not think so for a moment. Just as certain if we adopted the suggestion of my hon. friend, then next year you would have the province of Ontario coming forward and rightly saying:	We came in under the
same terms, under the same conditions, as the lower provinces, and we are entitled to the same consideration.


Mr. JAMESON.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the province of Ontario has lost any of its representation?


John Gillanders Turriff: Certainly.


Clarence Jameson: Its original representation was 82.


John Gillanders Turriff: But ten years ago it was 92, and since then it has been losing some of its representation, because the province of Quebec has increased in population faster than the province of Ontario. The same thing is happening in the lower provinces. My hon. friend stated that the increase of population in the province of Quebec was largely owing to immigration, and he quoted figures, some 50,000 odd coming to the lower provinces, and 180,000 into the province of Quebec. That is just about an even proportion according to their population. Now, if the lower provinces are treated as my hon. friend proposes, Ontario would come in and ask to be treated in the same wav, and in that case, what would be the position of the rest of Canada? Where would Quebec be, where would the west be? Mr. Speaker, I was born in the province of Quebec, and lived there for the first 23 years of my life. I am proud of the province of Quebec, which is inhabited chiefly by French Canadians, among whom I lived Mr. TURRIFF.
fcr so many years. I learned to admire and respect them, and the longer I live the more I admire and respect the French Canadians of the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec is justly jealous of her position in confederation. Would it be fair, would it be reasonable to ask the province of Quebec to allow her representation to be cut down? Because if you give an increased representation to the other provinces, and keep Quebec, the pivotal province, at its original representation, it is cutting down her representation, proportionately.


Mr. DANIEL.: If the original area of Quebec at the time of confederation was, say, 150,000 square miles, and Quebec was made the pivotal province and the unit of representation was sixty-five divided into its population, would the hon. member consider it just and right that if the area of Quebec was nearly doubled after confederation no allowance should be made for that increase of area and consequent increase in population, in fixing the unit for the representation of the other provinces?


John Gillanders Turriff: I am glad the hon. member has asked that question. That is the one point on which I think there is a peg to hang a hat on. I claim that if the province of Quebec in the future should have its territory largely increased-as in all probability it will, and I hope it will-and there should be a large influx of- population into that newly added portion of the province of Quebec, in justice to the other parts of the Dominion the population in that new part that may be added to Quebec should not be a factor in governing the number of representatives from the other parts of the country, and I would be one of the first to object to and oppose any such concession or advantage being given to the province of Quebec or any other province. We have a great confederation, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, nine provinces, and we have been working along on good lines, on autonomous lines, simply because every province has been exactly on the same basis. But to suggest that any one province should have an advantage over any other province, would be to sow the seeds of discord at the very outset.
It seems to me that a proposition of this kind comes with less good grace from a member from the province of Nova Scotia than from a member from any other province, because I think Nova Scotia has already more than its share of influence in this parliament. There is one ground on which I think the lower provinces have rather an advantage, and I am pleased to grant them that advantage and hope they will always continue to have it, that is that during the years that have elapsed since confederation, certainly to-day, the repre-

sentatives from the lower provinces have averaged up better and more able than the representation of the whole Dominion, and to that extent they have an advantage and long may they continue to have it, long may they continue to send the same class of able men they have in the House to-day, so that in the future we will be able to acknowledge that they are the most able men in the House. One of them at all events is the most nervy man, to bring forward a proposition of this kind, to put Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces up on a pinnacle, all the other provinces to take a back seat. But it is not only in that respect that they have an advantage. Compare the position of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, we will say, with the position of Manitoba and Saskatchewan at this moment. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have one quarter more population than Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island conbined, but Nova Scotia has two members in the government, while Manitoba and Saskatchewan have not a single representative in the government. Does any one mean to say that if for the past five years, Nova Scotia had not a member in the government, the members from that province would have sat still and allowed that state of things to exist? That is exactly the position we have been in in the west, and I am beginning to think that the Liberal members from the west have been too modest and moderate in not having insisted on the rights to which they are entitled. The provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are certainly each entitled to a member in the government, they have not any such representation, and we have been content to take it easy and leave it to the government in their own good time, when they should be able to do it nicely, to give us the representation that is certainly our due. But, on account of that, apparently because we have been easy-going, because we have been moderate, my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) now comes forward with a proposition to put the west and the province of Quebec as well, although I am not looking after the province of Quebec, for all time to come, in a degraded and an inferior position. Is there anything fair and reasonable in that? I do not think there is. I do not think for a moment that the proposition brought forward by my hon. friend ought to meet with support in this House.
My hon. friend (Mr. Kyte) spoke about the subsidies. The subsidies were given on a basis that was fair to all, each province got an increase, there was no proposition made at that time to give one province an increase and not any of the others. Had it been attenuated to do that I do not think the attempt would have met with any success; this parliament would not have agreed to the proposition
made by the different premiers of the various provinces. I hope my hon. friend will not press this matter because if it is pressed and if it meets with the support of the members of this House, you would be sowing the seeds of discord, you would be starting in for the dismemberment of the Dominion of Canada. I know quite well that so far as the west is concerned, speaking as a member from the province of Saskatchewan, representing here 45,000 people, the best people from Ontario, Quebec, the lower provinces, Great Britain and the United States, they would not stand for one moment for accepting a position in confederation that would be inferior to the position held by any other province in the Dominion of Canada. So tar as as I am personally concerned, if such a resolution as that was to find acceptance in this House and were followed up in the only logical way it could be followed up, by a Bill to give effect to it, that Bill would not have had its second reading for five minutes, until my resignation would be in your hands, because I would refuse to sit in this House as a member representing people on any other terms than on the terms of fair and just equality from one end of the Dominion to the other.


Mr. MACKENZIE.: Would the hon. gentleman please explain how it would militate against the standing of the people of the west that the present representation of the maritime provinces should be made permanent?


John Gillanders Turriff: It would mean at present that four men in the lower provinces would have as much to say in this House as five men in the west. It might mean in the time to come that one man in the lower provinces, would have as much to say in this House as two men in the west. Is there anything fair or reasonable in that? My hon. friend must see that according to the present arrangement the lower provinces will always have absolutely their just fair share of representation, their just proportion.
Can the hon. gentleman ask that these provinces should have any more than their just proportion? No. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) does not himself believe that what he asks is right because if he has any ground for his demand at all it is that these provinces should have the same representation on which they entered confederation. If they are noi entitled to that they are not entitled to any change. I hope this resolution will not pass because I do not believe it is in the interests of the whole Dominion. I trust the conditions will continue as they are from the Atlantic to the Pacific; I trust that our people will remain as they are: happy, and prosperous, and contented, working for the

advantage of the Dominion generally. If this spirit should actuate the Canadian people there will be none who will be found to complain that they have been unjustly treated in the matter of representation in this House.


Mr. A. B WARBURTON (Queens, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, coming as I do from the province of Prince Edward Island which, I contend, has a grievance in this matter, and which can present strong claims to have that grievance redressed, I wish to place my views before the House. I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) that our just demand is that the representation of all the proivnces of the Dominion should be the same as that which they had when they entered confederation, but I cannot agree with him in much else. I do not believe with him, that our western friends take the same view a? he does. Since I have come to this House and become acquainted with gentlemen from the other provinces of the Dominion! both Liberal and Conservative, I have learned to know their feelings and to respect them, and I doubt very much if the representatives of the great province of Ontario would stand up here and declare that the principle which is working out so harshly to the maritime provinces should continue for ever. I do not believe that my fellow countrymen of French extraction in the province of Quebec, when I appeal to their chivalry and sense of fair play, would desire to see the representation of the maritime provinces dwindle until we have practically lost a voice in the councils of the nation. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) represents a district in one of the great western provinces which some day, perhaps soon, will hold the balance of .power in this country. He knows the west better than I do, but, when I remember that in that great west men from the maritime provinces are in the forefront of progress and development, I must doubt that the people of the west take the extreme view he has taken. We have sent the best of our blood to the Northwest, and throughout the length and breadth of that prosperous land the sons of the maritime provinces are to be found in the front rank of the population We are glad that our people have gone to the Northwest to continue to live under the British flag rather than that they should bend their energies to the development of a foreign nation. But, Sir, I refuse to believe that these children of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island will lend countenance to an effort to crush down the old provinces of their birth. Let me remind the House that the maritime provinces were the cradle of confederation. In the early sixties Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland thought it would be in their in-


John Gillanders Turriff: terest to have a union of their own, and in the spring of 1864 they met in Charlottetown with a view to bring that union about. It so happened that then, and for many years before, there was a practical deadlock in the political affairs of Ontario and Quebec which rendered it practically impossible to carry on government. Ontario fought for representation by population, and I do not blame her, because while she had a larger population than Quebec, the parliamentary representation of the two provinces was equal. However, when the Charlottetown conference was in progress it occurred to the statesmen of Upper and Lower Canada that they should sink their party differences and endeavour to find a solution for the troubles that confronted them by inducing the maritime provinces to enlarge the scope of the conference so as to include Ontario and Quebec, and with that object in view Sir John Macdonald and Hon. George Brown, and others, came to Charlottetown. This is probably the only instance in the history of Canada in which the leaders of both political parties agreed to sink their political differences absolutely in order to achieve a great end. The conference ended at Charlottetown to meet in Quebec in October of the same year, 1864, and at the Quebec conference the question of union was fully threshed out. 'It is to be regretted we have not fuller reports of the proceedings of that conference which were largely secret, but the result was that four of the provinces agreed to enter confederation. This question of representation in the Dominion parliament was fully discussed then. According to the census of 1861, Prince Edward Island was only entitled to five members, and the Hon. George Brown proposed a resolution which gave to Ontario 82 members, to Quebec 65, to Nova Scotia 19, to New Brunswick 15, to Newfoundland 7, and to Prince Edward Island 5 members. Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to this proposition, but Prince Edward Island declined. I do not wish to take up any considerable time in discussing this matter, Mr. Speaker, because during the earlier part of this session I dealt with it at some length. In that very conference it was provided in advance that there should be a violation of this very rule of representation by population; there was a loop-hole provided for that purpose. At page 40 of Pope's ' Confederation Documents,' you will find in a report of that conference that this provision was made:
The Northwest Territory, British Columbia and Vancouver, shall be admitted into the union on such terms and conditions as the parliament of the federated provinces shall deem equitable and as shall receive the assent of Her Majesty.
Nevertheless, there was one colony about which the conference had some

doubt, and in order to make sure of that colony coming in they made an exception in its favour, as follows:
And in the case of the province of British Columbia or Vancouver, on such terms as shall be agreed to by the legislature of such province.
The new provinces were to come in on such terms as should be arranged by this parliament, but the province of British Columbia was to come in on such terms as should be agreed to by itself. At that time Prince Edward Island voted against that resolution, because it did not give it sufficient representation. Quoting from the same Confederation Documents, I wish to give a few of the remarks made by different members of that conference on this very question. Mr.j afterwards Sir John A. Macdonald, in the discussions of the conference, referring to this question, at page 57, said:
The rate of increase of population in Canada must be greater in future than in the maritime provinces.
Showing that the condition which has now arisen was foreseen. The Hon. George Brown, who fought all his life on behalf of the principle of representation by population, in the same discussion, at page 67, made use of the following words:
After the census of 1871 we shall adopt the same rule. The practical result will be that while Lower Canada (Quebec) certainly will not be less and the lower provinces may increase in population, they cannot decrease in the number of representatives.
There were further expressions of opinion from other members of that conference. Mr. Brown's motion for a general government to protect the diversified interests of the provinces carried, Prince Edward Island alone voting against it. In this discussion, Mr. Hpviland, one of the Prince Edward Island delegates, afterwards a senator of Canada and a lieutenant governor of the province, and a strong Conservative, said:
Prince Edward Island would rather be out of the confederation than consent to this motion. We should have no status. Only five members out of 194 would give the island no position.
As Mr. Haviland was all his life an earnest advocate of confederation, he must have had very strong reasons for. taking this position. Mr. Palmer, afterwards chief justice of Prince Edward Island, said:
I take exception to the principle adopted by this resolution. Representation by popu-laiion is not applicable when a certain number of provinces are throwing their resources into one confederation, and giving up their own sdf-government and individuality. When a colony surrenders that right, she should
have something commensurate in the confederation. . . . Not even two or three more members would induce me to give my assent to the scheme.
I may say that Mr. Palmer was not a strong advocate of confederation, though he afterwards supported it. The Hon. Edward Whalen, one of the most able and brilliant men we ever had in the province, and a red-hot federationist, said:
I thought that Prince Edward Island had not been fairly treated as to representation in the Legislative Council, but I gave way on that occasion. I do not think, however, I could say that I was satisfied with the representation of five in the Federal House of Commons. We are in an isolated position. Our resources are large, and our people would not be content to give up their present benefits for the representation of five members. It may be said that the confederation will go on without Prince Edward Island, and that we shall eventually be forced in. Better, however, that, than that we should willingly go into confederation with that representation.
Mr. Whalen was supposed to be invincible in his constituency; but when it became known that he was prepared to sup-pi rt confederation on these terms rather than not go into confederation at all, he was beaten out of his boots in the next election; and it has always been said in Prince Edward Island that as a result of that defeat he died of a broken heart. Col. Gray, another delegate from Prince Edward Island, said:
I am instructed by my co-delegates to say that the provision of five members is unsatisfactory.


The Hon.  J. C.@: Pope, afterwards Minister of Marine in this House, said:
I cannot ask it as a matter of right, but one of expediency, as one without which it is impossible for us to carry the measure in Prince Edward Island. I therefore ask for six members.
Hon. Mr. Haviland said:
I fully agree with Mr. Pope. It would bo an insuperable difficulty to us if we had not six members.
So much for what took place in the Quebec conference But shortly after the return of the delegates from that conference, the matter came up in the local legislature. The Hon. Mr. Pope, who was leader of the government at the time and who was very strongly in favour of confederation, if he could get terms suitable and right for Prince Edward Island, introduced a series of resolutions. The first had reference to financial matters, but the second took up the question of representation. He said:
That if the relative circumstances of Can a da and this island rendered a union prac-

tioable, the evident injustice of 'be term-agreed to by the Quebec convention would pre vent there being ratified by the legislature oi this island. Without alluding to all, it wa-proper to notice some of the objectionabb features of the report. Without admitting the principle of representation according to population under all circumstances to be sound, it is, in the opinion of this House, particularly objectionable as applied to this island in connection with Canada, taking into consideration that the number of our inhabitants is and must continue comparatively small, owing to the fact that we have no Crown lands, mines, minerals or other resources sufficient to induce immigrants to settle here, and that we never can expect 'to become to any extent a manufacturing people, in consequence of our navigation being closed for nearly half the year, and all trade and communication with other countries stopped. Under this principle, the city of Montreal alone would, at the present time, have a representation greater than the whole province of Prince Edward Island, and under the provinces of the convention which regulates the mode of re-adjusting the relative representation of the various provinces, at each decennial census, looking at the rapid increase of the population of upper and lower Canada heretofore- particularly the former-and the certainty of a still greater increase there in the future over that of the population of this island, it follows as a certain and inevitable consequence, if a federation of the provinces were consummated upon the basis of the said convention, that the number of our representatives would in the course of a comparatively short number of years be diminished to a still smaller number than that allotted to us at the outset.
This shows that at that time gentlemen representing Canada and gentlemen representing Prince Edward Island foresaw what was going to happen and were preparing to guard against it. Further on he said:
I have said, Sir, that I entertained objections to the details of the scheme. Among these objections I may mention the principle of representation by population. A very simple calculation will show that the adoption of this as a standard would entitle the city of London to send to the British House of Commons no less than seventy representatives, and the city of Montreal in the confederate parliament would have a representation greater than that of this whole island. Its 'statistics warrant the belief that in a few years the population will be so increased by the influx of the tide of immigration that the island would lose in the halls of legislation even the small voice which she might raise at her entrance into the union.
Other hon. gentlemen spoke on the same occasion. The Hon. George W. Howlan, who was aferwards senator and became Lieutenant Governor of the province, also discussed the matter. He was likewise an ardent supporter of confederation and on the question of representation, ho said:


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: 
Alexander Bannerman Warburton: hole had been provided in the Quebec conference in regard to this very important matter that, in case of an emergency, this principle of representation by population might be evaded, when special reference was made to British Columbia coming in on terms agreed to by her own legislature. And we know that British Columbia did come in with six representatives, when she was not entitled, on a basis of population, to that number. Of course, she is entitled to more than that number to-day, but I think it was twenty years after she came in that her population was such as would justify her in claiming six members according to the unit of population that prevailed in those years. But we know that, when the terms of union were drawn up, the gentleman who was in charge on the part of Prince Edward Island either neglected his duty or did not know what he was doing. He did not, as the representatives of British Columbia, provide that the representation of the province should be ' increased ' according to change of population, but agreed that it should be 'readjusted.' There is no doubt that, had he mentioned putting in the word 'increased' it would have been acceded to, that being what was intended. But, in consequence of the difference in the word, we have been losing our representation. British Columbia's interests were better looked after, and so, when it came to a redistribution, she retained her six members, even when her population did not justify it on the basis of representation by population. If, as the hon. mover of this resolution (Mr. Kyte) said, this comes back to a purely legal consideration of the terms of union and insistence upon a legal technicality, I admit, we are out of court. But I put it to this House and this country upon the broad equitable principle that, though, in the terms of union, a word was not put in which was intended to be put in and that we are losing representation that it was not intended that we should lose, it is still within the power of this parliament to remedy that injustice and that wrong. I appeal to hon. members of this House from all provinces to look at this matter in the light in which we look upon it and to restore to us that representation which we formerly had. I am not arguing very strongly in support of the resolution as it is worded, my reason being that I intend to move an amendment. I pointed out two or three weeks ago, when discussing this matter before, that one great reason why our population had not increased proportionately to that of the province of Quebec was that the enormous public expenditure upon the harbours of Montreal and Quebec and upon the St. Lawrence river channel have had the effect of de-Mr. WARBURTON.
veloping the trade of that route and attracting population to the province of Quebec. No one is finding fault with the development of this route; every one wishes it to go on; we hope it will increase. But the effect upon us has been-aside from 'the question of immigration which my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte) brought up, but I think this more to the point-that we wl ) helped as well as we could in building up this country and in making the port of Montreal and developing the St. Lawrence as a highway of commerce are really suffering from the efforts for the general good that we have put forth. The northwest probably benefits more than any other part of the Dominion by that expenditure and the works carried on there. I cannot believe that the people of the northwest, recognizing these facts, are willing that we should suffer by having our representation made less than it was. And I am of opinion that my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) would take more than two minutes to resign his seat if this were carried. I shall take up only a few moments more in referring to the amendment which I now beg to move, seconded by Mr. Daniel:
That all the words in the resolution after the word ' House ' in the second line be struck out, and the following inserted:
' Each province of the Dominion of Canada shall have as a minimnm representation in the House of Commons the representation it had upon becoming a province of Canada. That in the re-distribution of the constituencies to be made after the next and after every future decennial census, the representation of each province shall be not less than that minimum. And that a humble petition be presented to His Majesty praying that the British North America Act be amended in accordance with the purport of this resolution.'
In proposing that amendment, I meet at least one of the objections raised by the hon. member for East Assiniboia when he asked why it was that Ontario and other provinces should not be treated in the same manner as the maritime provinces I agree to that; I think that every province should be placed in the same category, and that point I have covered by my amendment. Ontario, when she entered confederation, had 82 members; she afterwards went up to 92 and now has 86. Though she has four more than she had at first, it may or may not happen that the increase of population in Ontario will be less in proportion than that of the province of Quebec. But if the population of Ontario increases only in the same proportion to that of Quebec, as before the last decennial census, Ontario will be reduced in ten years to her original representation or perhaps less. My amendment would cover such a case as that. So, in moving this amendment, I wish to call your attention

to the fact that it was drawn so as to cover every province in the Dominion. If it was fair to one, it was fair to all. We are more particularly concerned just now in the maritime provinces, because up to the present we have been the victims of this comparatively small increase of population. Although we have only 4 members in the House of Commons at present. Prince Edward Island has 10,000 more of a population than she had when she entered confederation. Our population may or may not increase; it is not to be expected that a purely agricultural province which, owing to its insular character, is of a restricted area, can increase very rapidly. At the same time, we have now a population per square mile greater than that of any other province in the Dominion, we have a population of from 45 to 50 per square mile. But though we may not have much room for an increase of population as an agricultural community, we may increase in population owing to our fisheries, although I do not myself expect any rapid increase. But we are situated, as you know, in a rather peculiar position; we are an outlying part of the Dominion, and, owing to our isolated position, we have peculiar difficulties to contend with. I am not going to refer to those difficulties now, they have already been referred to on former occasions by members from that province. But owing, as I say, to our peculiar situation, a full representation in parliament is more essential to us than it would be to larger provinces. My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) pointed out that the principle of representation by population was not adhered to in Great Britain, and was not even adhered to in Canada. The city of Montreal, for instance, has a member for
80.000	of her population, which is much greater than the unit of representation for the Dominion at large. Montreal, therefore, has not representation according to population, and when the time comes that half the population of Quebec will be in the city of Montreal, which is not impossible, then if you adhered strictly to the principle of representation by population, Montreal would return half the representation from the province of Quebec. Such a state of things would be most unfair to the rural constituencies, because it is a well known fact that outlying rural constituencies require greater representation according to population than cities, because their affairs are spread over a larger area. In cities, and districts where population is more dense, the representative can have the whole constituency, so to speak, under his eye, and a member representing 80,000 people in Montreal can attend to their wants just as easily as a member representing
15.000	population in a rural constituency. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the amendment which I have placed in your hands.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It affords me much pleasure indeed to second the amendment which has just been moved by my hon. friend from Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. Warburton), more especially as it contains exactly the same idea embodied in a resolution that I moved in this House in 1908. As my hon. friend has said, it does equal justice to every province in the Dominion, and calls for no exceptional action in favour of any one province. I may say that I was somewhat surprised to hear some of the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). He went into the matter very vigorously, but I do not think that he studied his subject very thoroughly before he delivered himself on the floor of this House. I expected something a little different from the chivalry and generosity of the west than the evidence that a member from that country was willing to accept favours for his own province and neighbouring provinces which other provinces of this Dominion do not, and have not, enjoyed; but when the lower provinces down by the sea ask to have that treatment continued which was promised to them at the time of confederation, the hon. gentleman threatens if this justice is done to put on his hat and leave the House. I want to remind him that when Alberta and Saskatchewan were admitted to this confederation under the Autonomy Bills, one of the clauses of those Bills provided specifically that fo-r subsidy purposes the population of those two provinces should never be less than a certain figure; although Alberta had not at that time, and I do not suppose she has at this time, the population on which that subsidy was and is reckoned. Therefore I was a little astonished at some of the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia, upon whom I have always looked with a good deal of favour as a gentleman of wide views, and not of the narrow views which he propounded to the House this afternoon. I am afraid he has been taking his brief from the Minister of Justice, because I saw the Minister of Justice alongside of him this afternoon, and he has propounded the same ideas that the Minister of Justice propounded in 1907, namely, that the whole scheme of confederation was adopted by the maritime provinces on the one broad principle of representation by population. I wish to say, Mr. Sneaker, that that principle was never recognized nor adopted by the people of New Brunswick. When the Quebec scheme was laid before the people of New Brunswick, they voted _ against it by a large majority. When this question was up on a previous occasion, I read some of the remarks of the then Attorney General, afterwards Sir Albert J. Smith, a member of the Mackenzie administration in this House. On the 20th of March, 1866,

when he was Attorney General in the Legislative Assembly, he said:
He would not vote for any scheme that proposed to base representation on population, unless there is some check in it that will prevent the interests of New Brunswick from being swamped by Canada.
You may smile, Mr. Speaker, at the idea that the people of New Brunswick should be afraid of being swamped by Canada in voting power-for in pre-confederation days the old provinces were known to us as Canada. What was the condition of affairs then? The people of the lower provinces had very few relations with the upper provinces, Quebec and Ontario; there was no intermingling of the people. Our business was carried on across the ocean, and with the people of New England States and New York and other seaboard states. They had very little business with the rest of Canada, and there is no doubt that when this matter was brought up they did fear that their interests would be swamped by an increased population in that of Quebec and Ontario. Then if we take Canada as it is now, why, Sir, the people of those provinces never supposed, any more than did the reverend gentleman whose statements were read this afternoon, that the great country west of Ontario to the Rocky mountains was anything else but an inhospitable region unable to support population, and incapable of settlement. I might remind hon. gentlemen, especially those sitting opposite, that even for a number of years after 1867, there were loud cries that it was utterly silly and foolish to build the Canadian Pacific railway through that country, because it was sterile, it was fit for nothing but to be the home of the wolf and the bear. I have no doubt hon. members will recall some such statements as that. Mr. Smith, then, Attorney General, two days afterward said, in the Legislative Assembly:
I'll go down in the ship rather than consent to representation by population, as contained in the Quebec scheme; but I have no objection to going for it, provided there is a check in the formation of the TJpper House, or otherwise, that will serve to protect the interests of New Brunswick.
In the following month, a large public meeting was held in St. John on the same subject and the Hon. Peter Mitchell, afterwards well known in the history of Canada and I think the first Minister of Marine, said as was reported in the St. John 'Telegram ' of April 21, 1866, as follows:
Hon. Peter Mitchell at last night's public meeting, stated, ' Government would not insist on Quebec scheme of confederation; they would accept such improvements as could be had, and would be willing to allow delegates chosen from both political parties, to go as delegates to the British government to urge


John Waterhouse Daniel: such changes and alterations as might meet the views of the maritime provinces.'
That was done. On June 26 a resolution was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick to the following effect:
Resolved, that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor praying that His Excellency will be pleased to appoint delegates to unite with delegates from the other provinces in arranging with the imperial government for the union of British North America

Not on the Quebec scheme,
-but upon such terms as will secure the just rights and interests of New Brunswick, accompanied with provision for the immediate construction of the Intercolonial railway.
The province of Nova Scotia passed a resolution identically the same except that it made no reference to the Intercolonial railway. That will, I think, give the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) an idea that there was a great disinclination and a determination not to accept the principle of representation by population out and out. What was the result? In accordance with this resolution delegates were sent to the old country. They attended the London conference, and this difficulty of the representation of the maritime provinces was the great stumbling block in the negotiations. An effort was made to introduce something into the Act that would serve as a check, as Sir Albert Smith and the Hon. Peter Mitchell urged, on the idea of representation by population, so that the maritime provinces should not lose their representation, if, as was expected, they did not increase in population as rapidly as the other provinces. Hon. George Brown, who has been spoken of as the great advocate of representation by population, and who certainly took a very active part in this confederation scheme, wag troubled over the conditions with which they were met by the fact of these maritime provinces not being willing to consent to that scheme in its entirety, preferring rather to keep out of confederation altogether than to go in with the knowledge that in a few short year3 their voting influence and their representative influence in the parliament of Canada would be so weakened that it would be really swamped. The result was the framing of subsection 4, section 51, and known as the saving clause which is as follows:
On any such readjustment the number of memb?rs for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of any province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards.

Mr. Brown thought this clause so valuable that he said of it ' The practical result will be that while lower Canada certainly will not be less, and the lower provinces may increase in population, they cannot decrease in the number of their representatives.'
Then comes the question, what is ' The number of the aggregate population of Canada ' To find what comprised Canada, you have only to look at the third section of the British North America Act. That sections reads:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be one Dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and be one Dominion under that name accordingly.
Under that saving clause the maritime provinces joined confederation. What has been the result? They have found that their charter has been broken, that this saving clause which was put in to prevent their losing representatives has been made of no effect whatever by the subsequent amendments which have been made to the British North America Act, including the population of all the rest of Canada, instead of that merely of the four provinces. The result of that has been that whereas if the original Aot of 1867 had been carried out, we would not have lost our representatives, on account of these amendments being read into the Act, and the great population that has been brought into Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and these other parts which have been included in the Dominion of Canada we have been robbed of our representatives when we ought to have been protected by this parliament. It was on account of these amendments being read into the old Act that the Privy Council decided as it did, because it gave its decision on the law as they found it. That is the great grievance which we in the maritime provinces have; to use a common expression we have been gold bricked by these various amendments which, without our knowledge and consent, have been made to the British North America Act. We cannot seek redress in the law courts, we have to appeal to this parliament as the great high court of equity, constituted to redress the grievances of any part of the' Dominion.
Let me refer to the effect which the enlargement of the province of Quebec will have, if it has not already had, on the unit of representation. In 1907, when the Minister of Justice spoke on this question, he declared that there was no doubt in the wotM that the Quebec which was considered in the Act of 1867 was the Quebec whose northern boundary was the height of land separating the Hudson bay waters from the St. Lawrence waters, and that being so it requires no argument to show that the additional area added to Quebec affects the unit of representation and gives us of the maritime provinces a very real grievance. In the British North America Act of 1871 there is provision for enlargement of the boundaries of the various provinces, but the very section giving that power states that it can only be done on arrangements being made with any other province affected thereby. The Minister of Justice, in the course of that address, also stated that if the lower provinces were wrongfully dealt with in 1901, they should have protested, and that having kept silent they had no right to complain now. But, we have no reason to suppose that were a protest made at that time it would be heeded. Let me call attention to the fact that in 1905 the legislature of New Brunswick did protest to'this parliament. When the legislation providing for the autonomy of Alberta and Saskatchewan was before the House the New Brunswick legislature protested against the population of these two provinces being also read into the British North America Act so as to be considered when the representation in this parliament was being readjusted. But, the right hon. gentleman and his government paid no attention to that protest although Mr. Tweedie, now the lieutenant governor of the province, and others who are now close to the Prime Minister, were very strong in supporting it. Mr. Tweedie commenced his remarks by blaming those who were form-erlv interested in provincial affairs and who had moved to the higher political sphere forgetting their province when they came to this Dominion parliament, but I will not refer to that part of his speech. He said:
' At the time of confederation Quebec had certain well defined boundaries. According to the census of 1871, it had an area of 193,555 square miles. Quebec is the province by which the representation of the other provinces is regulated. In 1898 an Act was passed which extended the boundaries of Quebec so that it contained 351,000 square miles, an addition of
158,000	square miles to its territory. This territory thus added to Quebec is that territory through which the Grand Trunk Pacific will pass, and which we may expect to beoome populous in the future. The result will be to diminish our representation in a way never contemplated by the British North America Act.'
I call the attention of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) to that statement. On the same occasion in the New Brunswick legislature there was a speech also made by a gentleman, who, however we may differ about him in other respects,

we all agree is a very able lawyer, and anything he states in his legal capacity commands attention. I refer to the Hon. Wm. Pugsley who is now Minister of Public Works, and who was then Attorney General of the province, and who speaking to the resolution moved in the legislature of Jfew Brunswick in 1905, said:
I have never entertained the slightest doubt that the fathers of confederation in framing their scheme of representation intended that it should be confined to the four original provinces of Canada, and that if other provinces were admitted it should be on terms. In that view I was fortified by the statement of one of the greatest statesmen of Canada, who was himself one of the fathers of confederation, and who took a leading part in bringing it about. I refer to the late Sir John A. Macdonald who in his report of the 29th December, 1870, on the admission of the Northwest Territory said:
' The general purview of the British North America Act of 1867 seems to be confined to the four provinces upper and lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick originally forming the Dominion/
I call these words specially to the notice of the right hon. the Prime Minister because I understand that he once held- whether he does now or not I do not know -a different view, and that he contended that Canada was not originally confined to the four provinces but included all that might be added at any time since. Then the Hon. Mr. Pugsley also said:
When British Columbia was admitted into the union it was stipulated that her representation should be increased under the terms of the British North America Act and that this Act should apply as if she had been one of the original provinces of the confederation, the same thing was done with respect to Manitoba. Now what has been the effect of this? It is that you must construe the British North America Act as if these provinces had been in the union in 1876.'
' If that is so, the compact of confederation has been violated by legislation and by order in council without being consulted. Surely the authorities at Ottawa should see that this wrong is remedied.
If the population of the territories and of British Columbia had been excluded New Brunswick would not have lost a representative.'	'
' Some may say it will be difficult to have the wrong done us righted, but I think that it can be. I have faith in the sense of justice of those administering the affairs of the Dominion.'
' I can only repeat what I said yesterday, that the province of New Brunswick entered into confederation with Quebec with certain defined boundaries, and that it was never contemplated that a Quebec should be created double the size of the original province. Yet Quebec is the pivotal province upon which the representation of this province depends. I feel that they have done us a great wrong, yet I do not despair but that when the mat-Mr. DANIEL.
ter is brought to the notice of the government and the parliament, some steps will bo taken to see that this injustice is not continued.'
I believe that Saint Paul says that faith is the substance of things hoped for, and I hope that my hon. friend, the hon. Minister of Public Works, who has that faith, will also obtain the substance of the things which we hope for, and will be able, through his influence in the Cabinet, to have righted some of the wrongs to which we have been referring this afternoon.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Kecess.
House resumed at 8 o'clock.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker, when you left the Chair at six o'clock I had just read the opinions and statements uttered in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick with regard to the matter under discussion by the then Attorney General of New Brunswick, and now the Minister of Public Works in this government. When a gentleman of his well known legal ability expresses an opinion, it must be received with the greatest respect.
The subject we have before us to-night is an amendment asking that the minimum representation of every province in the Dominion, or which hereafter may join the Dominion, shall never be less than the representation given to it at the time ' of its admission. In other words, that would apply the principle to all the provinces which now applies to British Columbia. The principle of course is not a new one. It is carried out in the constitution of the Australian commonwealth, and I believe it is given effect to in the United States not alone with regard to the Senate but also with regard to congress. The idea is also embodied, as I stated before six o'clock, in our law regarding subsidies for the new provinces, in which it was provided that no matter how much smaller the population of the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan should become, their subsidies would never be less than those provided in the Acts creating these provinces.
I have spoken about the protest which was sent to His Excellency the Governor General and thfe Privy Council and also to the right hon. the Prime Minister against the admission of the population of the new provinces into the British North America Act, so that it might also be counted against the lower provinces when their representation came to be adjusted. I shall not read the preamble but will place the protest on ' Hansard.'	The
preamble	recites the fact that	the

Privy Council left undecided the question whether the population of the territories should be included in the nopulation of Canada, under subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act. It refers to the fact that the imperial order in council admitting British Columbia and the statute admitting Manitoba provided that the British North America Act of 1867 should apply to them as if they formed part of the original confederation, thus prejudicing the position of the original parties to the agreement. It refers to the enlargement of the boundaries of the province of Quebec without making provision for the effect thereof on the other provinces, and the resolution which was passed unanimously by the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick is as follows:
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House the earnest attention of the government of Canada should be drawn to the effect of the said order in council and statutes, respectively, relating to the admission to the union of British Columbia and Manitoba, and it should be requested to take such action as may be necessary in order to restore the four original provinces to the position in which they would have been but for the order in council and legislation passed subsequently to the Act of 1867 in respect to which, such provinces were not consulted, and to which they were not parties. (2) That in the Act for the creation of the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan it should not be provided that the Act should apply to them as if they were in the union originally, and the rights of the original provinces as to revision should not be affected by the creation of such new provinces. (3) That the injustice to the other provinces, particularly New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, which have no opportunity for enlargement of their areas, it should have been provided, and should now be provided, that for purposes of representation the boundaries of Quebec, the population o" which is the basis of representation, should be deemed to be as they were at the time of confederation, or that some just and equitable provision should be made to save the other original provinces and also Prince Edward Island from loss in the .representation. Further resolved that a copy of the aforesaid resolution, signed by the clerk of this House, be forwarded to the Secretary of State with the request that the same be placed before His Excellency the Governor General and that a copy be also forwarded to the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister.
I noticed, when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) was speaking this afternoon, that he threw out his chest and with an air of great importance informed the House and the country that he represented 45,000 people. Well, let me tell the hon. gentleman that quite a number of members in this House represent 45,000 people and more. I represent that number myself and I never thought it necessary to proclaim the fact as did the hon. gentleman. My hon. friend from Cumberland
(Mr., Rhodes) represents a constituency which has at least 50,000 people. No doubt the constituency of Westmorland, New Brunswick contains over 45,000 inhabitants. There is the constituency of Cape Breton South which has as large a population. I think, as Cumberland, while Halifax county of Nova Scotia, is the largest con-tituency in the whole Dominion. So that there was no reason for my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) being so chesty, more especially when we take into account the class of people he represents. The people we represent in the maritime provinces are the descendants of the early settlers-English, Scotch, Irish and French. But who does my hon. friend represent? He represents, to a large extent, Galicians, Lithuanians, Ruthenians, Buckowinians, and possibly Doukhobors, all new comers, a great many exceedingly illiterate, not able to speak the language of the country and unacquainted with its constitution. But because he represents some 45,000 of these people, largely the flotsam and jetsam of southern Europe, my hon. friend has all the assertiveness of a grand pasha, and strives to place himself on a par or above par as compared with the representatives of constituencies such as we have in the martitime provinces. Sir, I think there is no comparison between them whatever. But even if we consider only number and not quality, my hon. friend is not a representative of more people than the average member from the maritime provinces.
What we are asking for is what we believe to be the simplest ways of remedying the injustice to which we have hitherto been obliged to submit. There can be no doubt that it is an injustice. Where there is a legal wrong there should be a legal remedy, and that legal remedy cannot be found in our courts, it cannot be found in the Privy Council, the only place where it can be found is this parliament.
And we make this appeal, not for charity, not for something to which we are not entitled; we make our appeal for the granting of our legal rights, rights which have been taken away from us 'by legislation passed by the imperial parliament at the instance of this parliament; we ask for equity and right treatment from this parliament as the only means by which that .wrong can he righted. I do not wish to take up more of the time of the House. I have, on one ot two occasions, spoken on this subject. It is one that I think very much of, and it is of most signal importance to the people of the maritime provinces. It has not, perhaps, reached the stage of agitation to any great extent yet, but I am quite satisfied that, unless justice is dope to us in this resnect, agitation will arise in the maritime provinces and that it will continue to aggrandize and enlarge itself until the peo-

pie of the maritime provinces, in so far as the rest of the Dominion is concerned, will show themselves to he in a very dissatisfied condition. And I think it would he far better for this parliament to use good judgment now, at a time when it can be done without any straining, without any complaint, with good-will to all. I have a great deal of confidence, as I stated, in the opinion expressed by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). We have in the present cabinet, as has already been mentioned, three members from the maritime provinces, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) and the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden), every one of them the holder of a very important portfolio. I cannot but believe that if these hon. gentlemen use the influence that they have with the other hon. members of the government of Canada, there can be no doubt that the justice which we are asking for, the equity which we appeal for, will be done, and that at no distant day.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not wish to interrupt my hon friend (Mr. Daniel) in the course of his argument. Would he be kind enough to explain to the House what he meant by stating that the maritime provinces are labouring under an injustice?


John Waterhouse Daniel: 
Mr. GEO  E.@: 
John Waterhouse Daniel: How many would it add? Would the hon. member please say.


Mr. McCRANEY.: I have not figured that up. We are going to make no changes; if I thought we were, I would perhaps spend some time on the mathematics of the question. As a matter of fact, the fathers of confederation did make provision for the falling off in the population of some of the provinces, they could not foresee at that time which provinces they might be, by providing that if the decrease was not greater than five per cent there should be no loss of representation; that was one point. On the other hand, in the composition of the Senate, the maritime provinces were given 24 members, the province of Quebec was given 24, and the province of Ontario was given 24-no question of representation by population entering into the composition of the Senate. The Senate was to be the guardian of provincial rights, and whatever guardianship the Senate is
able to offer at the present time, exists now on that basis, and the maritime provinces are as strong there as ever they were.
One would almost assume, from the discussion in this House to-day, that there was a struggle between the east and the west, and that the east were afraid of los.ing something because we in the west hope, in a few years, largely to increase our population. Mr. Speaker, if there has been any strife between the east and the west it has not entered this House. As a western representative, I think I may say that the proposals of the west, and they have been many, and we have made great demands, we have a great future-these demands have been met in a liberal spirit, by the people of the east. I have always said that on my own platform, and I am going to say it here. The people of the west have never shown any antagonism to the people of the east.	,


Mr. McKENZIE.: Nobody says that they did.


George Ewan McCraney: I am inferring that from the argument.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member has no right to infer anything.


George Ewan McCraney: At any rate, I am .denying that such is the case. As long as provincialism is kept out, the east and west will get along together; it is only by the introduction of provincialism that there will be any strife. My hon. friend from St. John spoke about the makeup of the constituency which was represented by my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff):	Galicians, Buckowinians,
Doukhobors, Ruthenians-all speaking unknown tongues-if I understood him aright, the flotsam and the jetsam of southern Europe. My hon. friend informs me that he has none of that population in his riding.	.


An hon. MEMBER.: Four Galicians.


George Ewan McCraney: Four Galicians, some Germans, and I have no doubt they can all speak the English language. The argument of my hon. friend is that because the people of the maritime provinces have a better educated ancestry, and are better educated themselves to-day, therefore they should count more in the numerical representation of this parliament than do these communities in the west which are largely made up of foreign population. Well, while these conditions do not exist in the. constituency of my hon. friend from Assiniboia, I may tell you that they do exist in the constituency I have the honour to represent:	French Canadians, Galicians,
Buckowinians, Mennonites, Slovacs, Norwegians, Doukhobors, Americans, Canadians. I am very proud to represent such a constituency growing up in the Northwest

of Canada, and growing, I am proud to say, into a Canadian citizenship which will make them the equal of any population which Canada produces.
My hon. friend from Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Warburton) stated that the balance of power in the west was held by people from the maritime provinces. I ain not able to verify that statement, but I hope it is true. Some years ago there was a large emigration from the maritime provinces, and I am sorry to say it was not to the Canadian west, it was largely to the American states. The tide has turned, we are getting a large population from the maritime provinces. I have been struck with the way in which our own Canadian people are coming back from the United States into western Canada. I have run across so many from northern Dakota and northern Minnesota, who, themselves or their parents, emigrated from Ontario, particularly to the western States, and whose children or themselves are returning to Canada, that, in my part of the country, when a man tells me that he came from north Dakota or from north Minnesota, I always ask him: What part of Ontario did you come from?
There are some counties in the northern part of north Dakota which I could name where the population is very largely Canadian. My only regret is that we are getting, in many cases, only the children, and that of that good Canadian population which should have come into our west we are getting only a few. I am sorry that we are not repatriating people from the maritime provinces. The maritime province men invariably went into the eastern United States, and they dil not find farm life there congenial to them. Had they gone into the American west, we might have got them, but I am afraid that most of the people from the maritime provinces who went to the United States prior, say, to 1900, are lost to Canada. But times have changed and we are getting them now. I hope it is true, as my hon. friend has said, that the maritime provinces have the balance of power in the west. I think it has always been true that the maritime provinces have held the balance of power in Canada. It has not been because of provincialism on the part of the maritime provinces that they have held that position, it is because their leading men were not provincialists but great Canadians, and I need only point to such names as the Tuppers, father and son; Sir John Thompson and Sir Leonard Tilley. 1 would note that the first lieutenant of the Prime Minister is a Nova Scotia man, the leader of the opposition (Mr. E. L. Borden) is a Nova Scotia man, and his first lieutenant, although representing an Ontario con-


George Ewan McCraney: stituency, claims the province of New Brunswick as his birthplace. The Canadi-anism of the maritime provinces has shown itself not only in these great men who have taken part in the political life of this country, but it has shown itself in the way in which they have taken their position in .the interior provinces, in our universities. I need only noint to the fact that the late Sir William Dawson, a Pictou man, was nresident of McGill. The late Principal Grant was a Nova Scotia man, When the Universitv of Toronto wanted a president, they took President Falconer from Nova Scotia. The successor to the late Principal Grant is Dr. Gordon, also a Nova Scotia man. All these go to confirm the statement which my hon. friend makes as applied to Canada as a whole, that the balance of power, in fact I might say the predominating influence in Canada, is a maritime province influence, and I must say, as a Canadian, I am very proud indeed of the maritime province men who have made such a stand.
There is another thing; if the population of the maritime provinces was being lost to Canada, it would be a matter of very great regret not only to the people of the lower provinces, but to us all as good Canadians. We are glad indeed that in our Canadian west we are having maritime province' men in our professions, in our lines of business and in our schools. The Chief Justice of my own province of Saskatchewan, Chief Justice Wetmore, is a New Brunswicker; the Attorney General, Hon. Mr. Turgeon, is a New Brunswicker; the president of the new University of Saskatchewan, opened last September, is Dr. Walter Murray, lately of Dalhousie College.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: A New Brunswicker.


George Ewan McCraney: And as my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works says, a New Brunswicker. The time will come when the preponderance of population will be west of the Great Lakes, and when the great representation in this House will come from there also.
My hon. friend from Charlottetown (Mr. Warburton) said that he did not think that these maritime province men in the west would see any injustice done to the maritime provinces. I am sure they will not. As western men, they are not provincialists, you will not find them standing out for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta against the east. I think you will find them big Canadians, willing to do their share in the progress of the maritime provinces, as well as in that of the Canadian west in which they are living. The only danger in which we are in the west is from provincialism. I do not think that such a resolution as is put forward by my hon. friend, with its amendment, is going to

put down provincialism. It is said by these bon. gentlemen that if we only make the changes which they suggest we shall have peace, that can be the only object of the discussion which they have brought on. I believe that if their proposals were acceded to, we would have the same kind of peace after 25 years that they had when the Canadas were united and when the basis of representation was fixed in the Act of British North America by the men who then struggled for some new form of government to get out of a dilemma. I have only to say, in conclusion, that so long as there is no provincialism, and so long as there is a Canadian spirit, east and west will work together. It matters little as to the numbers of the representatives that are in this House, it matters very much as to the kind of representatives who are here. I have no doubt that in the future the maritime provinces will do as they have done in the past, and send us their very best, and if they do that, if they send the kind of representative that has always been here, there will be no danger at all to the interests of the maritime provinces.
I may say that if this question comes to a vote I shall be bound to vote against both the motion and the amendment.


Mr. O. S. CROCKET (York, New Brunswick).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to add my voice to what has already been said on behalf of the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Queens, P.E.I., (Mr. War-burton), and seconded by my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel). It seems to me that the mover and seconder of this amendment have made out a case which must appeal to that sense of justice and fair play which, aside from party questions, ought to animate this parliament in its deliberations. The mover and seconder of this resolution have shown that the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island were in a peculiar situation when the confederation compact was negotiated, they were small provinces, with small areas, with no opportunity of expansion of any kind. They could not possibly hope to keep abreast with the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec in the increase of their population. These two small provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were giving up the control of their own affairs with respect to which they formerly had full and plenary powers; they were assigning to the large Dominion parliament in which they were to be greatly outnumbered the control of their trade and commerce, their criminal laws, the right of taxation, and the other important subjects which are assigned to this parliament by the terms of the Confederation Act. In return for that they asked some slight concessions, and 38
I think it will be agreed by any student of the history of the confederation conferences, that these concessions were practically agreed to by the delegates from Ontario and Quebec. The concession which they chiefly asked was a slight modification of the principle of representation by population. There can be no doubt-I do not deny it, and I do not think it will be denied by anybody-that representation [DOT]by population was laid down as the guiding principle of representation when this confederation was formed. But the delegates from the smaller provinces insisted that there should be some modification of that principle, and the modification which was assented to by the delegates representing the four original provinces is to be found in section 51 of the British North America Act which I propose to put oil record, because, although subsection 4 has been referred to, there is a point in the first subsection which is important in this discussion:
On the completion of the census in. the year 1871, and on each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces-
I would wish the House to mark this:
-the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner and from such time, as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides subject and according to the following rules:- (1) Quebec shall have the fixed number of 65 members.
(2)	There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number of 65 bears to the num-b<?r of population of Quebec. (so ascertained)
(3)	In the computation of the number of
members for a proyince as a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded:	but a fractional
part exceeding one-half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole nnmber.
And this is the subsection which has been spoken of as the saving clause and offered to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as a guarantee against diminution of representation:
On any such readjustment the number
of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of tlie aggregate imputation of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province as ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards.
That is the section that covers the representation of the different provinces in this House. It will be seen that the original British North America Act contemplated only four provinces and that this



REVISED ED1TIOX.

[Stage Direction]
[DOT]very section uses the expression ' four provinces.' The agreement and the compact was so entered into between these four provinces. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) and my hon. friend from Charlottetown (Mr. Warburton) quoted the declarations which were made by Mr. Galt and the Hon. George Brown upon this question, and the declarations which were made in the legislatures of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island with reference to the contention which those provinces were making. They felt there was a danger in giving up the control of their affairs to such a large parliament as this that they would be outnumbered, and that they could not keep abreast with the increase of the population of Ontario and Quebec. It will not, I think, be disputed by any member of this House that that was the position which those delegates took. When the principle of representation by population was under discussion they made'this claim and subsection 4 of section 51 was offered to the delegates of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as a sure and certain safeguard against any reduction of the representation of these provinces. And Mr. Speaker, it would have been a sure and certain safeguard had it not been for the developments which have taken place since and which could not possibly have been foreseen at that time. They were far-seeing statesmen in those days, but how could they possibly have divined the wonderful development and growth of the Northwest Territories? Since that compact was entered into no less than five provinces have been admitted to the union with the result that that which was offered to the delegates of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as an absolute safeguard against any redaction of their representation has been practically read out of the Act. Another thing which occurred after the confederation conferences which had its effect in altering the conditions, was the extension of the boundaries of the province of Quebec. Quebec was made the pivotal province so far as representation was concerned and the province of Quebec had the advantage of having a minimum representation fixed.
Mr. TALBOT.: And a maximum as well.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And a maximum as well. But so far as Ontario and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were concerned they accepted subsection 4 of section 51 as a protection in that particular. It was felt in the maritime provinces, as I think all members of the House will agree, that in order to have effective representation in the large federal parliament composed of upwards of 190 members there must be a minimum of representation fixed. It was felt in New Brunswick Mr CROCKET
that to ensure effective representation of that province and the exercise of the fair influence to which that province was entitled in the confederacy, we should have at least fifteen members, and, the people of Nova Scotia in like manner felt they should have at least nineteen members. That was the representation which was assigned to these provinces at the union, with this saving clause, that there should be no reduction unless the proportion which the population of each of those provinces should bear to the aggregate population of Canada should be reduced by a one-twentieth part or over. Take the case of the last census; it is true that had the population of Canada been reckoned under the terms of that section as it was embodied in the original Confederation Act and made applicable only to the four original provinces: Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, neither Nova Scotia nor New Brunswick would have lost a member as actually happened.
It was only for the reason I have pointed out, that five new provinces have since been admitted to this union, that this result took place. I appeal to the hon. members of this House, if it strikes them as fair or equitable that that expression 'four provinces' in that section of the British North America Act should be construed to mean nine provinces. That is, however, just what the judgment of the Judicial Committee, of the Privy Council means. Although the expression 'four provinces' was used in that section on which we rely, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada held that in consequence, not of anything contained in the original Act to which we were parties, but of amendments having been made in it afterwards, with reference to which we had not been consulted, the meaning of the section was changed. I ask hon. members if it is fair or equitable that, although that was held, in the very judgment that has been referred to, to be the meaning at the time, we should be held bound by a change of that meaning effected by legislation to which we were not parties at all. My hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) has stated, in his very able argument this afternoon, that the judgment of the court proceeded upon that ground; and in order that hon. members may see that his contentions were well founded, I am going to read a few brief extracts from the judgment of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. Perhaps I should first point out that the amendments to which I refer as having been subsequently made to this Act were the amendments made to the Imperial Act of 1871, the Act of 1875 and the Act of 1886. Mr. Justice Davies, in the course of his judgment, used this language:

After careful consideration of the whole Act, and its amendments, I have concluded that the expression ' four provinces ' means and must he construed as ' several provinces.'
I Rave no doubt, reading into this Act those subsequent amendments, that that is a sound judgment, and that technically and legally Mr. Justice Davies was quite right; but I ask this House to consider this question, not upon strict legal grounds -because we all recognize that in strict law we are bound by this judgment-but whether that is a construction by which in equity we should be bound, when the courts of this country hold that the expression 'Canada', consisting of four provinces means for the purpose of the readjustment of our representation ' Canada consisting of nine provinces.' Further, he said:
If any reasonable doubts did exist as to the true meaning of the sections under review, this subsequent imperial legislation would seem to remove them.
That the judgment of Mr. Justice Davies was based, not on the original Confederation Act, but on the subsequent amendments which were made without the smaller provinces consenting thereto is abundantly clear from these extracts. Further on, Mr. Justice Davies said:
Upon the whole, after careful consideration, I am of the opinion that after the admission of new provinces and territories into the union, the expression 'Canada' and ' provinces ' throughout the Act of 1867 must, unless specially restricted by the context, be necessarily given an interpretation different from that which they respectively bore before these provinces and territories were admitted.
Then there was the judgment of the chief justice, Sir Elzear Taschereau:
It may be well that the framers of the British North America Act have not foreseen or provided for every possible eventuality in the positions of the different provinces of the Dominion as to population or other matters; it may be that some provinces would have refused to join the union had they foreseen all the results that their adhesion to it is now ascertained to carry, but with such considerations we are not here con cerned.
A very proper dictum in a judgment determining a matter on strict legal principles; but I ask hon. members of this House whether such considerations are those by which the parliament of Canada should be bound.
Now, I must express my very great surprise at the opposition to this resolution which has come from hon. members from western Canada. I was particularly surprised at the speech of my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), who frankly stated that he did not know very much about the legal aspect of the case, and I 881
think that before he concluded he convinced the House that that statement was absolutely correct. What astonished me more than anything else was the threat which that hon. gentleman made that he would resign his seat in this House if this proposal were adopted. The hon. gentleman based his whole argument upon an assumption which I have shown was erroneous. He dealt with this matter as if the maritime provinces were appealing to this House as a matter of favour or grace. That is not the situation at all. It might possibly appear to be so from the terms of the original resolution, and I quite concur in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, that to be logical and consistent, we should ask for the restoration of the representation which was assigned to us when we entered the union. I think, from what has been stated so well by my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) and my hon. friend from the city of Charlottetown (Mr. Warburton), and from the quotations which I have read from the judgments of the Supreme Court, the hon. member for Assiniboia should recognize that we are not asking this matter as a favour. We are asking that a positive injustice which has been done to the maritime provinces in the matter of its representation be remedied by this parliament, and it is only upon that ground that such a request could be made. We think that has been fully established, and I have listened in vain for anything either in the speech of my hon. friend from Assiniboia or the speech of my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney), which in any way meets the case which has been so well made out by the mover and the seconder of this resolution. Those hon. gentlemen spoke as if we were seeking to disturb the principle of representation by population and to alter the terms of the British North America Act. We are not seeking to do anything of the kind. We are asking to have restored to us a right of which we have been deprived by the amendments to the British North America Act to which I have referred, and by the admission of five new provinces into this confederation, which, under the meaning of that Act as it was passed and as it was accepted by the delegates from the maritime provinces, was never intended to enter into the calculation when the question of the readjustment of the representation in this parliament should be dealt with. I deprecate the position which my hon. friend from Assiniboia took. I do not think he breathes the snirit or gives voice to the sentiment of the west on this question. I know certainly of one hon. member from the west who, after hearing the very able speech of my hon. friend from St. John
27G7

(Mr. Daniel) this afternoon said that the latter had made out a good case and that so far as he was concerned he would, as a representative of the west, vote for it. I would put the question to my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) whether members from the east are disposed to deal with a question affecting the west in the same spirit as the hon. gentleman displayed this afternoon. If they did, what would become of this parliament? Can the hon. gentleman point to any occasion in which the east has shown any disposition whatever to treat the west with anything else than the utmost generosity?


John Gillanders Turriff: Has the west ever shown any disposition to treat the east with anything hut fair play, justice and generosity.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is not very often that representatives from the east demand anything from this parliament. This is one of the first things we have asked since I have been a member, and the first voice raised against that request is that of my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), and he is not content with simply opposing it, but threatens to resign his seat if it be granted. I do not know that I could retaliate by threatening to resign mine if it be not granted. I do not think that would have very much effect, but it would certainly create a very interesting situation if some of our good Liberal friends from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island would threaten to resign if this measure of justice should be denied them. I have confidence in the fairness and the justice of this House upon questions that are not party questions, and I am convinced that members of this House who have studied this question and have followed the debate, must be themselves convinced that a case has been made out to which no adequate answer has been or can be made.


Mr. J. W. RICHARDS (Prince, P.E.I.).: I wish t-o say a few words in support of the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Warburton). The question now under consideration has been brought up in this House on several occasions. I understand that in the session of 1907, and also in 1908, a lengthy discussion took place with regard to this question of representation. In the province from which I have the honour to come, it is one that has been agitating the minds of the people for a considerable time. You are all aware that Prince Edward Island was very reluctant to join confederation, and it was only after some years of discussion and considerable agitation that it decided to throw in its lot with the union. But there was one question standing out very prominently that is, the question of representation and we were not anxious to enter confederation Mr. CROCKET.
unless we were assured that we would have six representatives in this House for all time to come. I do not think it necessary*, to read the despatches and telegrams which were passed at the time the negotiations were going on for the purpose of bringing Prince Edward Island into the union, as these have been already presented to the House and to the country. But there can be no doubt that the intention was to give Prince Edward Island six members for all time to come, and when, on the readjustment in 1891, we lost one member, there was very much dissatisfaction in our province. There was, however, a strong belief in the minds of the people that some measure would be taken to rectify what was considered an oversight on the part of our delegates in negotiating the terms of confederation. The matter went before the courts and ultimately to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The decision was adverse to our contention, and now we can only look to the parliament of Canada for redress of what we consider was an error at the time and which is to-day a grievance. Should -we continue to lose our representation in the same ratio as we have done in the past, it will not be many years before we shall have but one or perhaps no representative at all. I do not know what shall be done when that condition cornels about; but if there be a desire to remedy this grievance, this is the opportune time to do it. Our Dominion census will be taken again in June, and after that time there will be no doubt redistribution of. the representation in this House. The present would be, therefore, the best time for this parliament to take some definite steps and have the matter settled. It is not my intention to go over the ground which has been so well covered by the different speakers this afternoon. I rise only to place on record my views on behalf of my constituents in Prince county, Prince Edward Island. Time and again they have urged me to bring this matter before parliament; arid in doing so I am simply discharging a duty which I owe those I represent, and I can only express the strong hope and conviction that this parliament will take such measures as will restore to the maritime provinces the representation they had when they entered confederation. In doing this, parliament would be accomplishing a graceful and generous act. It would re^ move a grievance and do an act of justice which would be very much appreciated and go a long w*ay to remove the discontent now existing in the maritime provinces.


William Pugsley: I think that perhaps it would not be out of place for me to make a few remarks on this very important question, more especially as my hon. friend who seconded the amendment (Mr. Daniel) has referred to the argument I made on the

subject while a member of the provincial legislature and also to the fact that I acted for the province of New Brunswick when the case was argued before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In my opinion the way in which this matter should be presented is rather along the line taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Richards) than along that taken by my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket). My hon. friend from York said that a great injustice was done the maritime provinces, and he claims that these provinces were not here asking for a favour but demanding, as a matter of right, that a change should be made in the representation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: If my hon. friend will pardon me, I said we were demanding the restoration of a right of which we had been deprived.


William Pugsley: I understood the hon. gentleman to say, and I think I understood him correctly, that it is not as a matter of favour, but rather as a matter of right that the representation should be restored to what it was. But it seems to me that my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Richards) has put the matter on the only ground on which it can be put, and that is that it would be a generous thing for the larger provinces to recognize the dissatisfaction existing in the maritime provinces and which is bound to increase as our representation declines. It would be an act of broad generosity, for the larger provinces to recognize that fact, to deal in this spirit with the smaller provinces and to restore the representation to what it was at the time of confederation and below which the people then thought it never would fall. The reason that I say that it cannot be said that an injustice has been done to the lower provinces is that we have no right to complain of what is the interpretation given to the constitution by the highest court of the realm. Under confederation we have a supreme court for the whole Dominion constituted by virtue of the provisions of the constitutional Act, under which the constitution may be interpreted. The question of representation came before that court and that judgment was given. Appeal was taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Act was interpreted by that tribunal. We are bound by that interpretation; the smaller provinces are as much bound by it as the larger provinces; and no province has any right to complain when the constitution is being lived up to by the provinces of Canada. Therefore, it is that I say we cannot base our claim upon the ground that any injustice has been done to us. When I was arguing the matter in the provincial legislature, upon the occasion to which my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) refers, I was arguing in the light of the constitution as I interpreted it. But I was contending that, according to the true meaning of section 51 of the British North America Act, the ' four provinces ' meant the four provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I thought that was a fair and reasonable interpretation to give to those words. But the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have held otherwise, and we cannot complain of the decision which these courts have given. It is the decision of the highest court in the empire and we are bound to regard that as a correct interpretation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was not the argument referred to made after the delivery of the judgment?


William Pugsley: One argument was made after the delivery of the judgment, I think, at the time the resolution was passed. But, if I remember rightly, I made an argument before the case went to the Judicial Committee. Possibly an argument was made after, at the time of the resolution which wa,3 forwarded to this parliament and to His Excellency the Governor General.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In 1905 that was.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend may have been referring to the latter argument. But I do not know that that alters the case. We cannot complain that any injustice has been done to us by reason of the interpretation that the highest court of the empire has given to the British North America Act. My hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) said that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has given a decision which has taken away the rights of the maritime provinces, and that that decision was based on legislation put through this parliament by the present government. Now, I was sorry that my hon. friend put the matter upon that ground because I could not help thinking that he was seeking in some way to create prejudice against the present administration by reason of legislation which this government had asked parliament to adopt. If the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council rests upon legislation passed subsequent to the British North America Act, that legislation began in the year 1870, some twenty-3ix years before this government came into power


John Waterhouse Daniel: I was quite aware of the time, and mentioned when these Acts were passed. I do not see how the hon. gentleman could understand me as having referred only to what took place after 1896. The thing was monstrous


William Pugsley: I am glad to hear my hon. friend's explanation. He said, not only once but twice, that the decision of

the Privy Council had been based upon legislation introduced into this parliament by this government.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This parliament.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman used the word 'government' perhaps not meaning to do so. I am glad we understand each other. The first legislation was passed in 1870, when it was provided that a portion of Prince Rupert's land, should be carved out and created into the province of Manitoba. And, by section 2 of that Act, these words were used, and upon them the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has laid some stress, as also has the Supreme Court of Canada.
On, from and after the said day on which the order of the Queen in Council should take effect as aforesaid, the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, shall, except those parts thereof which are in terms made, or, by reasonable intendment, may be held to be specially applicable to, or only to affect one or more, but not the whole of the provinces now composing the Dominion, and except so far as the same may be varied by this Act, be applicable to the province of Manitoba, in the same way, and to the_ like extent as they apply to the several provinces of Canada, and as if the province of Manitoba had been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.
The same language is used in the order in council admitting British Columbia into the union, and the same language was used subsequently when the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were carved out of the Northwest Territories. Therefore, I think no particular responsibility can rest upon one party more than another so far as this parliament is concerned in reference to the legislation enacted here or by the imperial parliament. But, I think that, in considering as to whether or not the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are such as can properly be complained of we must bear in mind that they rest their judgments to a very large extent upon section 146 of the British North America Act which provides that Prince Rupert's land, British Columbia and also Newfoundland may be taken into the union and become provinces of the Dominion of Canada, and have held that it must be considered that, when the four provinces went into the union they went in with the full knowledge of the fact that Prince Rupert's land, British Columbia and Newfoundland as well might subsequently come into the union, also, that when they did come in, they must come in as if they had originally been provinces of the Dominion, and also that when they did come in the word ' four ' should be held to be eliminated and the number be read as five, six, seven, eight or nine as the case might be, and that regard must be had to all the provinces of Mr. PUGSLEY.
Canada at the time when section 51 and subsection 4 of that section were being interpreted. I do not intend to say very much more, but I would like to express my own opinion that, strongly as I feel upon this subject, strongly as I feel that it is desirable, not alone in the interests of the maritime provinces but in the interests of Canada at large, that the representation of these smaller provinces should not decline, and that in some way, if at all possible, it would be to the interest of Canada that the number should be restored to what it was at the time of confederation, yet I think it would be a most regrettable thing if this resolution were to pass. Suppose, as we can conceive it possible, this were to pass against the wish of the majority of any one of the provinces, it would be regarded as an attempt on the part of the representatives in this parliament to alter the terms of the constitution against the views of the majority of one of the partners to the compact of confederation. That would be a most deplorable result, and it seems to me that, if we are ever going to attain the wishes we have with regard to the representation of the smaller provinces, we must go about it in a different way.
This thought occurs to me, that possibly the proper way to go about it would be to do the same as was done when it was sought to secure an increase in the allowances which were made from the Dominion treasury to the different provinces of Canada. At that time all the provinces were consulted, at that time an interprovincial conference was held, at which representatives of all the provinces of Canada were present. After considerable discussion and deliberation, they agreed among themselves that it was desirable that the British North America Act should be altered as respects the subsidies to the provinces. They passed a resolution, which was submitted to this government, and as a result, a petition was sent to the Imperial parliament praying that the British North America Act should be amended, and that the basis of subsidies to the provinces should be altered. It is possible that some such course might be adopted with regard to representation. It is possible that if the governments of the smaller provinces were to make representations to the provincial governments of the larger provinces, they might be induced to hold a conference of the representatives of the different provinces of Canada, which might agree among themselves with regard to representation; they might pass a resolution and forward it to this government, with the request that it should be laid before parliament to be dealt with. I can well understand that if all the provinces of Canada were unanimous on this question, if they were all to agree

that the representation of the smaller provinces should be restored to what it was at the time of confederation, this government might feel it to be its duty to bring the matter before parliament, and parliament might feel it t-o be its duty to give effect to the unanimous resolution of the representatives of the governments of the various provinces. When the subsidies were readjusted, I remember distinctly it was stated in parliament that this was an agreement which had been come to by the family of provinces, that it was a matter for the provinces to deal with, they had spoken with united voice, and their voice ought to be heeded by this parliament. It may be that if the governments of the different provinces were to speak again with united voices in regard to representation, and if they should unanimously agree that the representation of the smaller provinces should be restored to what it was at the time of confederation, then this parliament could act upon such a resolution. But it seems to me that until that course is taken, it certainly would not be desirable, it would not be proper, and it would be entirely against the best interests of Canada, that the present resolution should be adopted by this House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At the commencement of this debate I had no idea that any such an element as sectionalism would enter into it. I am sure that there is no foundation for introducing sectionalism into this discussion; and if the hon. mover of the resolution, or the hon. mover of the amendment, has introduced any argument which might be understood as diminishing any of the powers or possibilities of the west, I am sure it was inadvertently and unintentionally, I do not remember that any such argument was used. But there must have been something that stirred up my hon. friends from the west to make the observations they did, particularly the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff). We in the maritime provinces believe that we have a good record behind us in respect to our feelings and actions towards the west. In 1870 they had some trouble in the west. I ask my hon. friends from the west: who were foremost in quelling the trouble that occurred in those days: Were not volunteer red coats from Nova Scotia to the fore in quelling that rebellion, and standing up manfully for the rights of the people of the west? In 1885 another trouble occurred in the northwest, and the same thing happened; the boys from Nova Scotia willingly and manfully volunteered to stand all the hardships that were necessary, to risk their lives within the zone of fire, defending the interests of the people of the west
and the rights of Canadians. That is the record of our feelings and conduct towards the west. I do not think that if my hon. friends would read the history of those days, they would likely speak about us as if we had no interest in the west. Our interests in the west have grown very materially since those days, the number of our people who have gone to the west has increased during the last 20 and 25 years, and for that reason our love for the west and our interest in the west have proportionately increased as the years have gone by. For that reason, I think this idea of sectionalism must be wiped out, and anything that has been said along that line must be understood as not having been said at all.
The Minister of Public Works, distinguished and able lawyer as he is, will understand that there are many -cases where the courts of law will find that a statute must be construed in a certain way, and that decisions will be given in such a manner as to take away rights and equities which were understood to be safeguarded by the principles and rules of the statute which is under interpretation. The learned Minister of Public Works no doubt knows that on several occasions, on scores of occasions, people have come back a second time to the legislature to get another enactment to take the place of one that had been legally construed by the courts, and so to change it that the original intention would be borne out by the subsequent legislation. That is very largely the position which is taken by the hon. mover of the resolution and the hon mover of the amendment which are before the House, because there is very little difference between them. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the principle adopted at con-feds ration was not the principle of absolute representation by population. The principle of representation by population was only adopted, as some other things were adopted at confederation, subject to stipulations. For instance, in the British North America Act the subject of education is absolutely given over to the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. If you stop there, you would think that this House has nothing to do with the question of education. But you will find that the subject is hemmed in by certain conditions which make it impossible for a local legislature to legislate on the question of education as they may see fit, they must have regard to the stipulations attached to that particular proposition in the British North America Act. Upon the same principle, it is stated here in the terms of confederation that representation shall be based upon population; but if that were so without any restriction at all, what is the sense of this

subsection 4 of section 51? It would have no meaning at all. We must suppose that it was put there for a purpose, and the purpose which I see was that of safeguarding the smaller provinces against the effect of representation by population. We find that absolute representation by population would take away some of the privileges we had at confederation, and this was put in to safeguard them. That subsection 4 of section 51 was to be interpreted of course as it was then understood, together with the section which defines what Canada was territorially; and we submit that properly defining that section 4 which says Canada shall be, or as considered to be, we would still retain our representation; that is our contention. We say: Give this Act the reasonable and equitable interpretation which was put upon iti by the fathers of confederation and we will not lose any members at all. Since then four has been converted into nine. Other conditions have come into consideration and the court of highest appeal in our country has said that this safeguard is not enough, it does not protect us at all when the aggregate is turned from the four provinces into nine. The aggregate is so great that five per cent or one-twentieth of the whole is not enough to safeguard our representation.
I say that purely in a court of equity and seeking equity as we come to this House, we have a right to say: If you have enlarged the aggregate from four to nine, you have a right to give us a safeguard in place of the insufficient old one that will protect for us and preserve for us the same ratio of representation which we had when we came into confederation. While that may be an absolutely bad argument in law, as: it probably is in view of the decision of the Privy Council, it is a proper argument in equity to lay before this House in asking for fair and equitable treatment, and beyond that we are not looking for anything.
I could understand the disappointment of a member for any province if what we are seeking would deprive them of a single representative in any part of Canada. I cannot understand that it does, I submit that it does not. The unit of representation remains the same, that is all they need be concerned about. In Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta or any other province outside the maritime provinces, disappointment might be. caused if the unit of representation was to be disturbed. It is not to be disturbed and therefore they will get the same number of members whether we have less or more; it does not strike them in any way, their population will be divided by 65 as the Quebec representation is to remain fixed at 65. Therefore, the other provinces will get their number of members according as their, Mr. McKENZIE.
population bears a ratio to the population of Quebec and they need not be concerned about where we are, it does not take a single member from them. I could understand further that if the number of members who are to constitute this House was fixed they would have reason to find fault, they could say: There is only a place for 181 members, as the original agreement provided, and therefore if there are 15 or 18 from Nova Scotia, there will never be room for us, and it is only fair that they should be put out in order to make room for our representatives. That is not the condition, and therefore that argument falls to the ground because there is no limit upwards to the number of members who may compose this House. Yet it may well be said that this House should not be constituted of a smaller number of members than the number named at confederation. Therefore, as the unit remains the same, as we must make room for the members in this House as occasion requires-a larger House must be built if necessary-no man need be afraid that any group or unit of his people will remain unrepresented, because we have the same number of members we had at confederation, or because there is no room for them in this House. Therefore, unless it be on the question of allowance to members or some expense attached to a greater number of members, I cannot understand where it in the slightest degree touches the right of any province or increases or lessens the number of representatives outside of the provinces asking to be dealt with in this amendment. For that reason I cannot appreciate the objections taken on the grounds that have been set forth by the hon. members for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) and Saskatoon (Mr. Me- * Craney). I think it is fair to say that those fathers of confederation who came from the maritime provinces expected that they would have at least the same representation they had at that time. In my own province of Nova Scotia, we can readily understand why we had nineteen members. In those days we had a member from each county, and could not think of having less. The city and county of Halifax had two members. Therefore, our representatives from Nova Scotia agreed upon having the same number of members here that we had at that time. The political division of the province into counties had much to do with it. If we had had twelve counties I suppose we would only be looking for twelve members, and it was never intended that any of our counties should be deprived of their representation. When two counties are joined together in one constituency in Nova Scotia, it is looked upon as if one or both were to some extent disfranchised. If the old member for one county gets the united seat, the other part of the constitu-

ency feels itself more or less disfranchised. Take the county of Shelbourne, take the county of Victoria which I represent, and I think Pictou which formerly had two members. Victoria feels very keenly that it has been deprived of its member. If it can be done, without interfering with the rights of any other part of Canada, it would seem best for the sake of peace and harmony if that which was the intention of the fathers of confederation could be continued.
1 would say to my hon. friends who object to the proposal we make-why do they sit in the House for one day with the condition in the Act in respect to British Columbia. I have not heard any one finding fault in respect to that province, and yet that is all we are asking, simply that the condition in the Act in respect to British Columbia, shall be applied to us in the maritime provinces. The representation in British Columbia can never be reduced below the number of members with which it came into this union. My friends in the west are right in touch with the province of British Columbia. They do not regard that provision as unconstitutional or as militating against them, and if that condition of things in British Columbia cannot be regarded as unfair to the people of the west, how can similar conditions concerning what we regard as our rights in the maritime provinces be regarded as in any way infringing on any rights they may think themselves entitled to under the constitution. We do not want in the slightest way to cause any friction in this country, but I think it is our duty to our people to lay our case before this House, the highest and last tribunal to which we as Canadians can come, and to ask the powers that be, in their wisdom, to deal with it as in the best interests of the country.


Mr.  A. L.@: FRASER (Kings, P.E.I.) Mr. Speaker, the history of this whole matter has been so well set before the House by hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces who have already spoken that anything I might say would be repetition, and a3 I do not believe in reiterating arguments which have already been forcibly advanced, my remarks shall be brief. This question vitally affects the interests of the maritime provinces and more especially my own province of Prince Edward Island. The hon. gentleman, (Mr. Warburton) who moved this amendment, has been for a long period of years identified with the public life of our province, and every unprejudiced mind must give great weight to any declaration which he may make concerning our provincial affairs. Let any unprejudiced man in this parliament ask himself:	Would the fathers of confederation
have entered the union had they known that conditions wnich at present face us
would have arisen, and the answer must be, no. Read the correspondence, read the utterances of the public men of the period, read the newspaper comments, and in all these it appears most forcibly that were it known to the representatives of the maritime provinces at the confederation conference, that in time to come the representation of these provinces would be reduced, confederation would not have been accomplished. I am surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Turriff) and the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) with regard to this motion. I believe that the western members are blessed with a spirit of fair play, and I know that if they study the question they must conclude that no harm can arise to their provinces by conceding that which we justly demand. All we _ ask is that the original compact upon which we entered the union be carried out in its spirit. The hon. member for Assini-boia said that the representation of the province of Ontario had been reduced since confederation, but I think he is mistaken in that; and that only the maritime provinces are in this unfortunate position. We appeal to the sense of British fair plijy of hon. members of this House not to allow this injury to be done to the maritime provinces, and we ask them to aid us in getting redress. Let me tell the government that this question will not be settled until it is properly settled; let me tell the government that this question will not down; and that the longer relief is deferred the more troublesome it will become. It may be-I trust the day will never come-but it may be that some day this will become a burning question between the east and the west. We do not seek to injure the west; we helped to build up the west, and we spent our hard earned money in that endeavour. We of the east opened up the west and gave these people the great advantages they now enjoy, and would it be unnatural that they should now seek to penalize the provinces that brought them into existence. When the Hon. Mr. Pugsley wa3 in the New Brunswick government he took a very strong ground on this question, but I am sorry to see that to some extent he has receded from his then position. There are no two men in the House more conversant with this whole question than the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Justice; because when the former was Attorney General of New Brunswick he urged the cause of his province, and the Minister of Justice himself was retained by the legislature of Prince Edward Island to plead our cause before the Privy Council of England. The Privy Council unfortunately decided against us, and now we appeal to this parliament to give us the equity we-

are entitled to. The hon. the Minister of Public Works, in referring to this question, and mark you after the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had decided against the contention of New Brunswick, used these words:
In the course of the argument before the Privy Council one of the law lords admitted that if Newfoundland should seek admission to the union she would have the right to stipulate as regards the terms and in respect to representation. How have our rights been taken away by the legislation of the Dominion. The only justification for it is that it was done by the authority of imperial orders in council or imperial statutes at the request of the government of Canada. When British Columbia was admitted into the union it was stipulated that her representation should be increased under the terms of the British North America Act, and that the Act should apply as if she had been one of the original provinces of the confederation. The same thing was done with respect to Manitoba. Now what has been the effect of this. It is that you must construe the British North America Act as if these provinces had been in the union in 1867. If that is so the compact of confederation has been violated by legislation and by orders in council without our being consulted. Surely the authorities at Ottawa should see that this wrong is remedied.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the authorities at Ottawa to-day is the Hon. Mr. Pugsiey, who then declared that Ottawa [DOT]should right this wrong, and, on this same subject the same hon. gentleman further said:
Therefore, when we raise the question of representation it is not that we are opposed to Quebec, but because we desire to preserve our rights and to maintain some degree of political influence in the east.
Again he said:
It does not seem to me that in view of the legislation which has already taken place, so seriously affecting our interests, and in view of what is now being done in connection with the legislation for the Northwest Territories, this government is yet doing its duty in asking the legislature to express its views and to endeavour to undo this great wrong.
These are the sentiments which were expressed in the year 1905 toy the Hon. Minister of Public Works in the legislative halls of his own province of New Brunswick. Now that he is one of the authorities at Ottawa, I would expect, and I think we should all expect, that he will continue to entertain these views. I will close by asking the members of this House, if they are not prepared to vote in favour of this resolution now, to study the question, and they will find that there is nothing in the resolution to do wrong or injury to any other province in Canada.


Clarence Jameson: 
Wilfrid Laurier: I did not know that my hon. friend wanted an immediate answer, and I have no objection to give my view of the case. I do not admit at all that when the boundaries between Ontario and Quebec and between Quebec and the rest of Canada were settled by statute in 1898, that was done with the view of increasing the territory of the province of Quebec. It was done to settle a dispute as to where the boundary was between Quebec and the rest of Canada.


Clarence Jameson: I ayn not in a position to contradict the right hon. gentleman, nor would I do so, but according to the census returns of 1871, the area of the province of Quebec was shown to be some 193,000 square miles, and the area of Quebec today is stated as 351,000 square miles.


Wilfrid Laurier: All this is conjecture. It never was asserted.


Clarence Jameson: According also to the recognized maps of the period just following confederation, we find that the province of Quebec was very differently outlined from what it is at present. Further, let me read from 'Hansard' of March 30, 1905, a speech delivered by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) in which he says, with reference to this very matter:
If there is any doubt as to the statement I have made, I would like to lay before the House a few extracts from an order in council of the Quebec government, dated the 24th April, 1898, upon which the legislation was subsequently framed. Attached to this order in council is a report from Mr. E. H. Taclie, assistant commissioner of Crown lands, who, after discussing the question as to the province of Quebec making a demand for that portion of the coast of Labrador which is under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland, goes on to say:	The claiming of that territory

27:4
would result in serious diplomatic complications which the Dominion government certainly will not raise, but it seems to me that a compromise might be arrived at which will prove acceptable to all those interested. The claims under the old French regime, thus altered, would still include a vast extent of territory, which in extent and value wou'd be a good equivalent to the territory claimrd by Ontario. The claim might be framed in the following manner:
Mr. Tache then went on to define in detail the boundary line as it was finally adopted in the Bill passed by this parliament, and he said:
The definition of the limits means an increase in area of 116,550 square miles. In my opinion to go further, as far as the Hudson straits would be too grasping.
That is what I base my opinion upon. In 1908, a resolution was adopted by this House to add to the province of Quebec a portion at least of the territory known as Ungava, and at the same time to add to Ontario and Manitoba the southern portion of the very vast district of Keewatin. I only mention this to show that the province of Quebec has had its territory considerably enlarged, and that, should that additional territory become populated, the unit of representation will be changed and changed very prejudicially to the maritime provinces. Although to-day the land is barren and seemingly inhospitable, no man can say that in its icy grasp there may not be valuable minerals. Indeed we have fair authority for believing that there are, in all likelihood, gold and silver deposits, and even iron and coal there. One American professor, an enthusiast it may be, has gone so far as to say it probably contains diamonds. Well, we know what the discovery of any of these would mean. That discovery would be followed by development, and development means an increased population, so that there is nothing very improbable in the prospect of the addition of this territory considerably changing the unit of representation. To-day we are speaking hopefully of the construction of a railway to Hudson bay, of which no one 25 or 30 years ago would have dreamt the possibility. There is therefore no argument in saying that this territory is not likely to have a large population at any time, or may not figure in the representation to the extent of altering the unit. In this connectiort let me say that the maritime provinces have also some claim to this vast territory purchased from the Hudson Bay Company in 1869, for the sum of $1,500,000 and that in any further disposition of that territory the rights of the maritime provinces, as partners to the extent of their original partnership interest, should be recognized. The maritime provinces are sea-girt, so that their natural boundaries are fixed and determined and they cannot expand their i
Mr, JAMESON.
population by any extension of their boundaries. Therefore they are not likely to grow so fast as the other provinces. My hon. friend from Kings' (Mr. Fraser) has referred to the building up of the west at the expense of the east. No doubt if there had been no east, we would have no west. We know that opening up of the territories, the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, and the vast inflow of immigration were things not fully contemplated when confederation was formed, and not consider, ed in their great effect when the British North America Act was framed. But despite that fact a saving clause was put into the British North America Act, and it was only by the Act of 1886 that that saving clause was taken away, or its effect destroyed.
The fact that British Columbia was given a minimum of representation seems to me fair ground why we should ask for similar treatment for the maritime provinces. The argument that in order to do so we should change the unit of representation from Quebec to the maritime provinces does not seem to me well taken, and that is the only argument which can be put forward against the conceding of the very reasonable proposition advanced by the hon. gentleman who has moved the amendment to the resolution. It seems to me that for another reason too, the maritime provinces are entitled to fair and reasonable consideration from this parliament, At a time when the political fabric of old Canada was tottering to its very foundations, when the statesmen of the day were unable to find a common ground on which to uprear a lasting government, in fact when the very fate of the country seemed to be trembling in the balance, they looked to the Atlantic coast, there they saw the Atlantic provinces, their people happy, prosperous and progressive, their statesmen, wise, firm and far-sighted. The maritime provinces were called in to redress the balance of the old Canadas. Confederation became an accomplished fact, a firm and stable government was erected. The maritime provinces may be said to have saved the situation. That larger Canada gave to the statesmen of the day the courage and to this Dominion the resources and standing in the money markets of England to enter upon the great national undertakings which were then begun and are still going forward with giant strides. I do not think, Bir, that the people of old Canada or of the new west will deny to the maritime provinces who undoubtedly made sacrifices to render these things possible; that mead of recognition in this House which the founders of confederation evidently considered they should have. And I trust that the amendment to this resolution, for the various reasons advanced to-day, will carry, and that the matter will not be deferred as has been intimated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 think there is little doubt that most people of generous disposition will regard this question as one of equity rather than of law. While it may fairly be admitted that there are elements which have been brought into the situation since the original compact was entered into by the four provinces that disturb the relations of to-day and make them different from what they would have been had the original compact been adhered to closely, still I do not think there is anything in it that seems to give them a legal right-if a layman may be permitted to express an opinion on a question of law. to entitle them to the consideration asked for. But thinking it over it seems to me that the four original provinces might well claim that in our representation here we will adhere to the right which we secured at confederation of having our representation struck by the census of these four provinces, excluding all other provinces, and according to the unit of representation ascertained by dividing the population of Quebec on a basis of 65. Ascertain the unit of representation and by that means determine the number of members each of the maritime provinces should have. But I do not think that Prince Edward Island can claim the same right, because that province came in afterward, and the Act provides that any province which might come in afterwards would come in upon the terms of the agreement that was come to by its own legislature and the federal authority. Prince Edward Island came to some understanding, and that understanding was embodied in the agreement. That is, Prince Edward Island made its terms according to the judgments of its legislature and came in under that Act passed in accordance with those terms. And one of these terms was the unit of representation. It has been cited here tonight that when Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia came in it destroyed the proportion. Well I think that is a fair and reasonable contention. I listened to the figures given by the hon. member for York, N.B., (Mr. Crocket) when he said that if representation had been given at the last decennial census, ascertained on the basis of the population of the four original provinces of confederation, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would be quite satisfied. I think they have a right to claim that, regardless of what principle was adopted in giving the other provinces representation, and that it is not in justice to the other provinces if that right is conceded to them, for it is in their bond and they have a right to look for the fulfilment of the conditions of their bond. There is another thing, that has disturbed the relative strength of these provinces in this House. We provided for Manitoba, and Saskatchewan and Alberta taking a census every five years and having their representation rearranged according to the increase of population. The British North America Act provides for redistribution every ten years. Here is another element in this situation that disturbs the balance to the disadvantage of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
In view of these considerations, it seemed to me it would not be unreasonable or very much out of place if this parliament should take it up and give to these smaller provinces a proportionately larger representation than the larger provinces have. That is a principle that obtains in all deliberate assemblies. In our county councils in Ontario we provide that any township with a population of one thousand shall send one reeve to the county council; if it has more it sends a deputy reeve, if still more two deputy reeves; but the smaller townships are given a larger representation proportionately than the larger one. In the United States they follow the same principle in regard to the smaller states of the union, and in legislative representation, and in even the election of the President. they are given a larger proportionate share of power than the more populous states. That seems to be in harmony with the idea that the weaker shall have something to help them in addition to their own strength. I do not feel that the maritime provinces are depending only upon the number of their representatives or that the influence they exercise in the House is simply through the men who are sent here by the votes of the people of those provinces. For, as an hon. member has pointed out, many maritime province people have gone to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and helped to develop that country, some of them have done so well that the electors of their several districts have sent them back here as representatives for those districts. I have no doubt that when they come here and take part in the deliberations of this House they will not forget the fact that they are natives of Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, or Prince Edward Island and will exercise, it may be a silent, but nevertheless a potent influence on behalf of their native provinces in addition to the influence which they exercise as representatives of their constituencies in the west. So they have a little additional influence in this House beyond what mere numbers would seem to indicate. So with regard to the influence we have in the Senate. Come to the province of Ontario. Quebec wisely provided that her province should be divided up into various districts with a senator for each one. But we did not make the same provision in Ontario; therefore, in the rural districts, there are large areas which are unrepresented by a senator, and when you

speak of representing a given district, we have no representation in the Senate from any of those districts. But as the larger number of the representatives in the Senate reside in the cities, they are still representatives of the province, they have their interests in the various portions of the province and in making a calculation how many shall be in this House from the cities we do not give the same proportionate representation as the country districts Why? Because a large number of senators and members reside in the cities, they have the larger share of their property in the cities, and they look after the interests of the cities as well as of the rural districts. We have no rural districts represented in Ontario, in the same sense rural districst are represented in the province of Quebec. The same remark applies to the maritime provinces, some of whose population has wandered off to the northwest, and are coming back here as representatives from those various districts. I think there is some thing in the enlargement of the province of Quebec as one of the disturbing elements, it is a factor at least that may be regarded as an element of the situation. The first minister said that it was only in 1878 that we determined what was the boundary line. Well, we passed an Act declaring it, but it was never determined, as it ought to be, by some tribunal established for that purpose. We determined the boundary line between Canada and the United States, not by an arbitration, but by men selected to ascertain where the boundary was. I have no remembrance that we ever appointed' any commission of experts to determine exactly where the boundary was between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; but we determined it by Act of parliament, and by so doing we enlarged very much the province of Quebec. It was admitted in this House that we were enlarging the province of Quebec, and when a desire was afterwards expressed to have the province of Manitoba extended it was said that we had enlarged the province of Quebec, but we refused to enlarge the province of Manitoba. We did not determine by any tribunal exactly where the boundary line was between the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but we made practically an arbitrary boundary by federal statute. In speaking now, I am saying very little with reference to the resolution except as regards the equity of the claim. It always did seem to me that there was some equity in the claim; and speaking personally, and judging by public sentiment, I do not think the larger provinces would be averse to conceding to the smaller provinces the right never to have their representation less than it was when they entered confederation.
Mr. SPROULE


Wilfrid Laurier: I believe this day has been very profitably spent in discussing a question which is growing in importance to a certain portion of the Dominion. This is above all things a maritime question, it affects the maritime provinces. The resolution is intended to deal exclusively with the maritime provinces. It reads thus:
That in the opinion of this House the maritime provinces of Canada should have preserved to them the representation in the House of Commons that they now enjoy. That in the redistribution of constituencies to be made after the next decennial census the number of representatives to be returned from the said provinces should not in any case be reduced.	.
This motion has been prompted by the fact that as a consequence of the two last censuses the representation of the maritime provinces has been decreased on each occasion. Prince Edward Island has lost one man, Nova Scotia has lost four or five, and New Brunswick three or four. If that motion had been adhered to, I think it would have been more favourably received than it can be with the amendment added. The amendment which is to take the place of the original motion, reads thus:
Each province of the Dominion of Canada shall have as a minimum representation in the House of Commons the representation it had upon becoming a province of Canada, and in the redistribution of constituencies to be made after the next, and after every decennial census, the representation of each province shall not be any less than that minimum.
I never heard any expression of opinion asking for a change in our present constitution except from the maritime provinces. I do not see any reason why there should be such a change applied to Ontario, or to any other province. I can see some reason why such a change should be made with regard to the maritime provinces. Therefore, so far as my judgment goes, the only way in which it can be approached is on the lines laid down by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, and repeated by the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule), that is to say, that the maritime provinces, in view of the peculiar position which they occupy, ought to command a generous treatment from the other provinces. Now, I would like the House to remember that confederation was a compact originally, and must remain a compact between province and province. When the first four started the work of confederation together they agreed' upon certain conditions. I have listened carefully to this debate, with the exception of a, little time when I was called out; I have listened to the arguments which have been brought forward by hon. gentlemen who have spoken to the resolution. They have

not all been conducive to the resolution, and some of the arguments in support of the amendment have been conducive to the motion. I must say that I differ altogether from the arguments of my hon. friends from the maritime provinces when they assert that they are labouring under an injustice. I cannot see where the injustice lies. They say the injustice lies in the fact that when they entered confederation it was stipulated that the unit of representation should be the representation of the province of Quebec, which was then apportioned between four provinces, and that the unit of representation has been changed by the fact that it is now apportioned between nine provinces instead of four. Now, if there is one thing more certain than another, it is that historically there is not a shadow of doubt that when the four provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, made the original compact of confederation, they had no idea that the Dominion would always be composed of those four provinces only, they certainly contemplated that other provinces would join them. Section 146 makes this as plain as it can be:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of the parliament of Canada, and from the Houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia to admit those colonies or provinces, or any of them, into the union.
Therefore when the four provinces made the original contract it was contemplated that Prince Edward Island should come in, that Newfoundland should come in, that British Columbia should come in. When each one of these provinces was to come in under, what terms and conditions was it to come in? It was to come in under certain terms and conditions to be agreed upon by themselves but always subject to the original contract. These are the very words:
On such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act.
What was one of the provisions of this Act? One of these provisions, and it was an important one, was in regard to this veTy item of representation. How was it to be done? Every time that a new member was joined to confederation, an apportionment was to be made on the unit determined by Quebec, but to be apportioned between four, five, six, seven, eight or nine provinces as the case might be. Provision was made for the admission of the three provinces then in existence, and provision was made also for the acquisition of Rupert's land and the Hudson Bay country, and with what object? With the object,
accomplished since, of making provinces, and it also has been determined legally by the Privy Council and historically that what had applied to confederation was to extend to the provinces, that every new province coming in was to have the same rights, privileges and restrictions as the other provinces.
The difficulty, however, has arisen from this point, that the provinces by the sea have not developed as rapidly as the other provinces. You would not hear of this motion being made to-day if the provinces by the sea had developed as rapidly and had been able to keep their representation. But Quebec moved more rapidly, Ontario and the other provinces in the western part of the country all moved more rapidly, and the consequence was that as every other province had its representation increased, the representation of the maritime provinces was decreased. They ask for some remedy. They cannot have it in law, they cannot have it, so far as I can see, in the arguments which they have advanced. The only way in which they can have a remedy is, as I said a moment ago, to apply to the other provinces, more potent than they are, with larger representation, to give them some equivalent to what has been given to British Columbia. The members from the maritime provinces must remember that representation by population was a bone of contention in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec for something like 20 years. It did not bring on a revolution, but it almost brought on a revolution, and at last it was conceded that no fairer and no more equitable principle with regard to representation could be found than population. What principle can be fairer than every province which is represented on the floor of this parliament should be represented according to the number of its population? It is impossible to find or to imagine a principle more equitable than this one. And you propose now to limit it. In what way? In regard to the other provinces. I very much doubt if the other provinces would agree to limit it in any way, and moreover, I say to my hon. friends from the maritime provinces, that the principle is fair and equitable and cannot be gainsaid on that ground. But it is another story if you say to me: The provinces by the sea are small compared with the others, they have not the same opportunity of expansion as the others have, they cannot extend their territory, they are necessarily limited; the territory of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and the other provinces, can be increased because there is a large territory behind them, but the provinces by the sea are cramped, and therefore they cannot increase, and it can be claimed in equity or fairness that it is not a matter of concern to the other provinces, if their representation is kept up to the

limit as at the time of confederation, because the other provinces have become so large that even if the maritime provinces are granted that small privilege the balance between, province and province would not be seriously affected and the preponderance of one province over the other would not suffer. This is a view with which, for my part, I would be disposed to agree, but 1 have to say also that there is great force in the contention of my friend, a force absolute, a force paramount in my judgment, that it would not be in the right spirit of the Confederation Act that the parliament of Canada should undertake to disturb in any way the principle laid down in the British North America Act as to the representation of every province in this parliament unless the other provinces have been consulted. I do not think, for instance, that an amendment of this kind should be taken up by this parliament unless all the other provinces had had an opportunity to express their opinion on it, and for this reason I think it is well that we should pause and look about before we go further into this.
I may repeat that I welcome this discussion. I am sorry that the time has come now that we must adjourn, because I would like to hear more about it. I am sorry that we have not heard from the other provinces. We have not heard from Ontario or Quebec, we have heard from only two of the provinces, other than the maritime provinces, and, therefore, I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the Minister of Railways is to make his statement to-morrow?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER Yes, the Minister of Railways and Canals, in view of the fact that Mr. Butler, the deputy minister, has taken another position, would like to dispose of the estimates. He will premise that with the usual statement in regard to the railway. The discussion on that may possibly take more than one day.
I had intended to take up the Naval Bill on Wednesday, but in case this other debate is not concluded to-morrow, I propose to take it on Thursday next.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not appear that there is any provision for a report by the present board of management of the Intercolonial railway. That is due, I presume, to the fact that the board has been constituted under the general powers of management conferred upon the Minister of Railways and Canals by the Act respect- [DOT] Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
ing the Intercolonial railway. It would be desirable, it seems to me, that such a report should always be presented to parliament. That is merely a matter of administrative order by the minister, assuming he has the power under the statute to which I have referred. No such report has been laid before us up to the present time, and I trust that the minister, when he makes his statement, will at least give us every item of information which might reasonably be expected if those commissioners were bound under the terms of the statute to make a formal written report to parliament


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall call the attention of my colleague to the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 1, 1910.