1914-06-11

Mr. BORDEN moved:: That the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker as to the appointment of Mr. J. A. D'Astous, as a reviser of translation, and Mr. Henri Trudel,' as translator, on the Debates staff of the House, presented to the House on the 6th inst., be concurred in.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Before this motion is
adopted I wish to reiterate the protest I made last night, ot early this morning, not against Mr. Trudel or Mr. D'Astous, but against the mode of procedure. I claim that the appointments ought to he on merit, and ought to be made by the 3321
Debates Committee. And while this motion may be adopted I wish to enter my protest against the mode of the -selection of the candidates.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As I understand it, these appointments must lbe made according to the Civil -Service Act in the usual way, as we are doing now. ISince that A-ct came into force it is not under the control of any committee of the House to make such appointments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The examination -and
selection of the candidate should have been made by the Debates Committee in this case, but that committee has been completely ignored; therefore we have poor translation.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no personal knowledge of the circumstances attending the appointments of these -gentlemen, but 1 understand they have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil -Service Act. If theTe is any objection based on the view that the provisions of that Act have not been complied with, that would be good ground for it. The Civil Service A-ct does not give power of appointment to the Debates Committee. The appointment, of employees of the Senate and th-e House of Commons has to be made under the Act. The Act was amended in that respect, I think, by the late Administration.	.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The report which has been placed before th-e House is in these -terms:
I have the honour to report that provision having been made for the appointment of a reviser of translation of the Debates translation staff of the House and of an additional translator on the same staff, and the Civil Service Commission having held an examination of persons applying for qualifying certificates for such positions. M. J. A. D'Astous and M. Henri Trudel have been presented with the required certificates from the commission. The work attached to these positions is of an exceptional character and the certificates are based upon that fact and the sum of two hundred dollars each is added to the initial salary of these officials, who are to be graded in subdivision A of the second division as provided by the organization of this - branch of the service of the House. [DOT]
I must take exception to this report. The work which is done by -the gentlemen who are to be appointed is not of a special character. It is the work of translating the debates of this House, a work which

has been going on for the last twenty-years. There is nothing special in that; it is work o,f an ordinary character. The initial salary, which, I understand- because I am not familiar with the Civil Service Act-is paid in subdivision A of ' the second division, is $1,600. These gentlemen are, upon entering, to get $1,800. This is a distinct discrimination against those longer in the service. One of the former appointees wias employed nnder exactly similar circumstances, and came on at $1,600 a year; and there can be no reason at all why this discrimination should be made. It it is intended that these gentlemen should receive $1,800 it is not fair to the others that they should not receive the same and the consequential annual increase of salaries as well. Neither is it fair that these gentlemen should be placed at once on the same basis. If they receive the benefit of a larger salary the same privilege should be allowed to those already in the service.


Robert Laird Borden: Occasionally there has
been in the House some criticism of the manner in which the translation is conducted, not so much perhaps as regards the debates as with regard to the official records of the House. It is desirable that this work should ;be well done, and it appears that it is difficult, if not impossible, to get men to undertake the work for a smaller remuneration. As a matter of fact, I think there is no one on the staff who enjoys a salary of less than $1,800, and I am informed that the salaries range from $1,800 to $2,650; and the two gentlemen now to be appointed, one a reviser of translation, and the other an additional translator, will be called upon to perform exactly the same work as is performed by the other members of the staff. We have the report of the proper officer of the House that the work attached to these positions is of an exceptional character, and under the circumstances it does not seem to me that there is any legitimate ground for objection.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My objection is not so much against the amount to be paid to the new translators as it is against the mode of their appointment. A gentleman who is quite new in translation work *is appointed chief, whereas there are many persons on the staff who deserve that appointment by right of seniority. Although translation work is not of an exceptional character, yet, in my judgment, it is quite complex; we have only to look at the French 'Han-

sard' to see how difficult it is to translate English into French. What I complain of is that an outside influence seems to be exerted and that appointments are made which, in the judgment of those who happen to know a little about French translation, should not be made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: That the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker as to the appointment of Messrs. Frangois Armand Terrault and Joseph Wilfrid Barii, as translators on the blue-book staff of the House, be concurred in.


Wilfrid Laurier: There can be no objection to this motion and to accepting the report that has been made, but this shows the force of the objection which I made with regard to the other appointments. In one case two gentlemen who are to be translators are appointed at the salaries provided by the statute, and in the other case the terms of the law which provide that the minimum salary shall be $1,600 are directly set aside and an additional amount of $200 given. It seems to me that there can be no other opinion than that this must be done simply through outside influence. Why should a man who is a translator on one staff be better paid than a man who is a translator on the other staff? The work of translating ' Hansard' is precisely the same as the work of translating the blue-books and I do not think that two employees should he paid $200 a year more than the law allows them while the others are regularly appointed under the law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To the assertion that
somehow outside influence is being exercised I give an emphatic denial; the matter has been arranged solely between the Civil Service Commission and myself. With regard to the two men who receive $200 more than the minimum, this was due to the fact that one of the men has had long experience in newspaper work and is regarded as an exceptionally good man to act as revisor of translation. The weak feature of the work appeared to be that the translations were being sent to the Bureau without revision, and a suitable man was required as revisor. This man was temporarily put on the staff, and in view of his long experience in that line and of the assurance that he is exceptionally clever, I advised that he be appointed



XI, 1914

[Stage Direction]
as revisor. With regard to the man who is appointed as acting chief, it was a question as between himself and Mr. Lasalle. Mr. Lasalle is well up in years; he has been on the sick-list for two or three years, and an assistant has been doing the work. It does not. appear to me that in reorganizing the staff it woulid be desirable to put a man of his years at the head of it, especially in view of the fact that the certificate of his doctor states that he may be permanently disabled at any time. As to Mr. Trudel, I consulted the commissioners and got the very best recommendation I could get, and T thought it was the proper thing to put him there for the time being. The two men for the blue-book staff have passed the examination in the ordinary way, and, of course, start at the minimum of their class.
Wilfrid Laurier: I do not doubt the qualifications of these men, nor am I jealous of the salary which they are receiving, but the law provides that men who go into that class, whether better or less qualified, shall get a certain minimum salary. That is the law, and the law should be observed. It cannot be conceived that the other men in the service will accept this as fair; there is no reason why the law should be followed in the one case and not in the other.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a provision in the Civil Service Act to the effect that where the man to be appointed is to do work of a special or technical character, the amount of the salary may be increased up to $500 above the minimum. As the man who previously occupied the position of chief received $2,100, it seemed to me that as this man had been doing the work for a long time and had been giving evidences of the highest qualifications, it was at least reasonable to recommend an increase of $200 instead of $500. No person on the staff receives a lower salary than $1,800; the salaries range from $1,800 to $2,600 or $2,750.
Mr. LEM1EUX:	I cannot let pass, the
*opinion expressed by Your Honour with regard to the qualifications of Mr. Lasalle as compared with the qualifications of Mr. Trudel. I say most emphatically that Mr. Lasalle is one of the ablest men on the translation staff. Beside,, by right of seniority, he ought to have been appointed chief officer. Your Honour says that Mr. Trudel is much younger, and that he is qualified; with that I fully concur. Your Honour adds that Mr. Lasalle is disabled. It is true that he has suffered from rheumatism owing to the strain of writing continuously for thirty years, but if we were to give promotions over senior officers for similar reasons in other cases, what consequences would follow? Take the editorial staff of a paper.
A young man of twenty may come in as a reporter. He is young and physically very healthy and so on, and according to the opinion of your honour he would immediately take the place of the old editor who had been writing the leader i and editorials because, forsooth, the editor might be disabled. The translation work on the ' Hansard ' as well as in a newpaper office is done not only with the hands but with the brain, and for that reason I claim that Mr. Lasalle and many others with their experience are better equipped .for this transcript work than any new young man who might be appointed to the staff.


Robert Laird Borden: The Civil Service Act
makes express provision for the slight increase of salary alluded to. Section 33 of the Civil Service Act declares, in the first place, that every person appointed to a particular class must be appointed at the minimum of that class. Each class has a range of about $600. But it also provides that if the work is of an exceptional character, and if the Civil Service Commissioner certifies that the person to be appointed possesses the exceptional qualities alluded to, then he may be appointed at a higher salary than the minimum; but in no case at more than $500 in excess of the minimum. The procedure in this case is not in defiance of the Civil Service Act, but under the Civil .Service Act, and in accordance with its terms, the proper officers of this House and his honour the Speaker having concurred in the recommendation.	As far as any
extraneous influence respecting this or any other case is concerned, I never heard of it. I have not the pleasure of knowing either of these gentlemen or anything of their records. I know nothing of the record of any of the members of the translation staff. Mr. Lasalle has been referred to. The Speaker commends him as a very good officer, but he has spoken of his unfortunate disability and the frequent necessity of his absence from duty. Under those circumstances I think it will be agreed

that in the public interest such an appointment could not be made. There is not the slightest desire to discriminate against any one, but to promote the interests of the service in this particular branch.


Mr. CODERRE:: I know the two gentlemen whose names have been mentioned in connection with the office of chief of the translators of the ' Hansard,' Mr. Trudel and Mr. Lasalle. I had an interview with you, Mr. Speaker, in your office about this matter. I gave to your honour the reason why I think that Mr. Lasalle should have been made chief of the translators. Mr. Trudel is a new member of the staff, while Mr. Lasalle is one of the oldest members. I ^annot see why Mr. Trudel should be appointed chief. I am sure that Mr. Trudel, although he is a good and excellent translator, is not as good as Mr. Lasalle, who has had a great deal of experience. He is not disabled at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Louis Coderre: I know. I have been in his room many times. Last year, and the year before I asked him to try to have the Government pay the services of a stenographer for him. Mr. Lasalle has paid for one out of his own pocket. He has employed this stenographer because, as the hon. member for Rouville has said, he has some slight rheumatism in his right arm and so can not write all day long, although he can write for a quarter of an hour at a time. That is a further reason why he should be appointed chief of the translators. He is one of the best among the best of the translators, and I feel that it is an injustice, although I do not mean to say that you realize it, not knowing the two men as I know them. I feel that an injustice which is being committed against Mr. Lasalle for no reason whatever.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 'And towards the
Hansard.


Louis Coderre: It is difficult to-day for us to find competent translators who will consent to come on our staff for $1600 a year. There are two classes of translators, who although they are doing the same class of work they are paid on two different scales and I think this is unjust. One class is composed of men whose salary starts at $2100 and goes up to $2800. The other class is composed of only one man, Mr. Desaulniers, whose salary started at $1600

and by yearly increases has now advanced to $1750. There is no reason why there should be two classes. That is the reason why I believe it is almost impossible to find competent translators who will come on the staff at $1600 a year. It is possibly for that reason that an injustice is now being committed as it is sought to give an extra $200 by this means to the new man. If the new men could receive the salaries which the others have received from the start there would be no question of taking the chiefship from Mr. Lasalle or any of the older members.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There appears to be a
misunderstanding on the part of some of those who have spoken, because they are proceeding on the assumption that Mr. Trudel has been appointed chief. He has not been appointed chief but he is doing the work of the chief.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not see why a chief is not appointed.


Mr. PROULX:: I mentioned last night
the case of Mr. Desaulniers who is the only one in the inferior class and I am corroborated this morning by the statement of the Secretary of State. Mr. Desaulniers has been on the staff since 1909. He eame on at $1600 a year and is now receiving $1750 or $1800. I do not see any reason why he should not be put in the higher class and receive the initial salary of $2100.


Mr. LAFORTUNE :: I agree absolutely with the remarks that have just been made by the Hoij. the Secretary o.f State. I have known Mr. Lasalle for many years. He was long ago admitted t-o the bar; while he practised he was a distinguished advocate, and I have never' lost sight of him. He is a man of high intelligence, with the best education and .the greatest competence for his work, and he is temperate and hardworking, therefore he certainly merits promotion. Why is a branch .so important as this without a chief? It formerly had a chief; why ie not another appointed ? Everybody knows that in every department properly organised it is necessary to have a chief, a directing head, to supervise the work. Why not appoint Mr. Lasalle to this position? He is not a political 'friend of mine, for he is a Conservative, but he has eminent qualities to fit him for that position. I hope that Mr. Speaker will do justice to Mr. Lasalle by appointing him to it.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Some of the remarks that have heen made are certainly very appropriate, and, ae a member of the Commission on Internal Economy, I think it my duty to bring to the attention of the Speaker and the members of the commission representations which have been made and which certainly deserve consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	What is the number of fishermen engaged in fishing on the Atlantic coast of Canada, on the Pacific coast, on the Great Lakes, on the other inland lakes and rivers of Canada?
2.	What is the average yearly yield per man engaged in this industry in the sections of Canada mentioned?
3.	What is the amount of loss sustained by fishermen in the sections mentioned during the past three years, ' owing to the ordinary casualties of the trade?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	On the Atlantic coast, 47,299; on the Pacific coast, 8,747; on the Great Lakes, 3,604; on the other Inland Lakes and Rivers, 5,431.
2.	On the Atlantic coast $297; on the Pacific coast, $1,664; on the Great Lakes, $788; on the other Inland Lakes and Rivers, $237. The comparatively low average per man on the Atlantic coast is due to the fact that many farmers who engage in occasional fishing are counted as fishermen.
3.	The Department has not a complete record of these details.



ADDRESS TO HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GOVERNOR GENERAL.

Robert Laird Borden: The approaching departure of His Royal Highness the Governor General in the month of October next makes it appropriate that reference should be made in this House to his services as representative of the Crown in this Dominion.
The Crown personifies the power and majesty of the Empire and thus the Crown also personifies its unity. With the growth and development of the overseas dominions the powers and responsibilities of their parliaments have continually increased, so that in a certain sense and within certain limitations the Empire is to-day a federation of sister nations united by the ties of a common and undivided allegiance. We have been fortunate from the first in the selection of men who have been called
upon to fill the office of Governor General. They also have been fortunate in their association with this country during a most interesting and important period of its history. While they have seen wonderful material progress, they have also witnessed important constitutional growth and development.
Nearly three years ago the Duke of Connaught came to our shores as Governor General of Canada. It was by no means his first visit to this country, for he had served with his regiment at Montreal when this Dominion was in its earliest infancy and before the progress and development of later years had set their indelible mark upon its history. His Royal Highness had visited Canada in the meantime, but coming here as Governor General he has	had	unequalled	opportunities ofstudying and understanding all that has been accomplished in the great march of events since the days of 1870. He brought with him the record of a distinguished and honourable career in the public service as	soldier and	as	diplomat. Thatcareer had enabled him to know and to realize	the	empire,	to	comprehend itswonderful power and its still more wonderful possibilities, and to understand the forces	that	serve	to	unite its vast
dominions in one allegiance.
I have spoken of the career and the record of the Duke of Connaught. I am convinced that his course as constitutional representative of His Majesty in this country will add additional lustre to that record. He undertook the great responsibilities of the office which he now holds at the personal request of His late Majesty King Edward VII, whose high example in devotion to duty and in the constitutional discharge of the responsibilities of the Crown has found its counterpart in the course which His Royal Highness has pursued as Governor General of this Dominion.
His Royal Highness has availed himself to the fullest extent of the opportunities which have been afforded him of noting and studying the conditions of our national life and of observing and understanding the ideals and aspirations by which it is animated. The great extent of our territory, the vastness of the distances to be traversed, and the varying conditions which prevail in different portions of the Dominion have made this a great task. To accomplish all that he desired His Royal Highness has not spared himself; and he may be assured that his visits will be held- in

happy remembrance by our people in every province from the Atlantic to the Pacific. He has associated himself with sympathy and, indeed, with enthusiasm in all that would advance the future of our country, and as to that future he has been an optimist amidst a nation of optimists.
It was with the deepest regret that more than a year ago the people of Canada learned of the serious illness of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Connaught, who has taken the keenest interest in all that tends to the welfare and* advancement of the country, and whose most earnest desire to be in every way helpful to the Governor General in the discharge of his official duties has always made itself most clearly manifest. In offering our very sincere congratulations that Her Royal Highness has made such splendid progress to complete recovery of her health, we trust that she and the Princess Patricia, whose equal tact and graciousness have also endeared her to our people, may retain the kindest remembrance of their sojourn in this Dominion.
In saying farewell to His Royal Highness we hope that many years of active service to the empire lie before him, and that in the years to come his association with this country will recall to him, as it will to the Canadian people, the happiest memories.
Therefore, I have very great pleasure in moving, seconded by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that the following address be presented to His Royal Highness:
To Field Marshal His Royal Highness Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, Duke of Connaught and of Strathearn ; Earl of Sussex (in the Peerage of the United Kingdom) ; Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; Duke of Saxony ; Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter; Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle; Knight of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick; one of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council; Great Master of the Most 'Honourable Order of the Bath ; Knight Grand Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India; Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George; Knight Grand Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire; Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order; His Majesty's Personal Aide-de-Camp; Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of the Dominion of Canada.
May it Please Your Royal Highness:
We, His Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Members of the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, desire to approach Your Royal Highness with an expression of the deep regret with which we have learned that your 
official connection with this country is about to cease.
We beg to assure Your Royal Highness of the deep appreciation with which we have witnessed your assiduous care over the affairs of the Dominion as His Majesty's representative in the high office of Governor General.
In visiting every portion of our Dominion, and in the earnest endeavour to acquire by personal contact with all classes of the community a full and accurate knowledge of the varied conditions prevailing in this country, and of the purpose and aspirations which animate our national life, Your Royal Highness has but given another evidence of that high devotion to duty which has always inspired your actions and has ever been associated with your career.
The Canadian people will not fail to cherish a happy remembrance of the deep and practical interest which Your Royal Highness has invariably manifested in literature, art and industrial pursuits in the Dominion, as well as in all philanthropic and charitable undertakings; and they recognize most fully that Your Royal Highness has always been ready to associate yourself with every movement designed to improve the conditions and add to the happiness of those to whom has been entrusted the great task and duty of possessing and developing this portion of the empire.
Any acknowledgment of Your Royal Highness's important services in this regard would be incomplete if it should omit to recognize the gracious and kindly co-operation of the Duchess of Connaught, whose prolonged illness brought to each member of the community a sense of deep and personal concern. We share with Your. Royal Highness and the members of your family the happiness of welcoming back to health one whose name will ever suggest to to our people all that is dignified in her exalted station, and all that is gracious in private life.
In the appointment of Your Royal Highness we have not failed to perceive our Sovereign's recognition of the growing importance of this Dominion and of his solicitude for all that concerns its welfare.
We venture to hope that when Your Royal Highness resigns your trust into the hands of the King, you will assure His Majesty of the unalterable loyalty and devotion of the Canadian people to His Majesty's Throne and person, of their abiding affection for the motherland and of their firm resolve to accomplish their part in the maintenance and upbuilding of our great empire.
We trust that Your Royal Highness may have many years of usefulness before you in which to continue your work on behalf of that empire and that you will preserve in the years to come a kindly recollection of Canada and its people.
In bidding farewell to Your Royal Highness and to the Duchess of Connaught and the Princess Patricia, we are privileged to tender on behalf of the Canadian people our warmest wishes for your future welfare and happiness.


Eight Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, it would be ungrateful on the part of the Canadian people if they did not, in every possible way open to them, testify to the deep regret which must be caused by the early departure of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. This regret arises

not so much from the fact that we are going to lose the services of one of the Royal family, a Prince of the blood, hut from an even higher cause; for we realize that in losing the services of the Duke of Connaught we lose the services of one who since he has been amongst us has proved himself a man in the truest sense of the word.
Our people are, above all things, a democratic people. There are evidences not a few which go to show that titles, decorations, pageants, ceremonies and the append-ances of royalty do little if anything towards increasing the respect for the Crown which is felt in this as well as in other parts of the British possessions; but the Canadian people were deeply touched to find in this scion of a long line of kings all those domestic virtues and those unobtrusive and solid qualities which, after all, are acknowledged to be the soundest in the human race. They were deeply touched to find that His Royal Highness on all occasions was easily approachable, simple, and considerate, ever willing to oblige and ever the first to forget the high rank to which he had been born. Certainly it can ibe said with perfect truth that they were more than moved by the cordial frankness and the invariable kindliness with which he performed the duties of his high office of whatever kind they may have been.
If there is one thing more than another which has impressed the mind of the Canadian people, it is the quality that has been touched upon by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden)-the unswerving devotion to duty that has characterized the career of his Royal Highness amongst us. It was his evident desire, from the day that he landed in Canada, to discharge the duties of the office to which he had been called in no perfunctory way, but with cheerfulness and alacrity, sparing no pains to obtain the ibest results both for Crown and people. Within the short space that was allotted to him he endeavoured to visit all parts of Canada, to bring himself into contact with all classes and to take a part in all the events which constitute our national life.
The same thing, and perhaps more, should be said of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Connaught, for the reason mat, while she, in her sphere-the sphere properly allotted to her sex-seconded as best she could the efforts of her noble spouse, she did so under the burden of constantly impaired health. Though there was an impression among many among us that
perhaps this illness was due to the rigors of our climate, Her Royal Highness has! been kind enough on more than one occasion to say that she had nothing to complain of in that respect, but that she had enjoyed her sojourn amongst us, and that she would count the years of her stay in Canada as amongst the most memorable and delightful of her life.
What has been said of the Duke and Duchess can also be said, and even with greater emphasis, of the Princess Patricia.
In these days kings and dukes, princes and princesses, have to live in the fierce glare of modern publicity, and when that searching light reveals nothing in the lives of these august personages but what is noble and elevating, no one can be blind to the fact that such an example as that exhibited by the noble lives of the Duke and Duchess oif 'Connaught must be productive of good results among the mass of the people. When the Duke and Duchess sail from our shores, they will not altogether leave us, for they will leave behind them the elevating traditions which they brought with them and which they themselves learned from that great and good woman, Queen Victoria.
I have great pleasure in seconding the motion of my tight hon. friend the Prime Minister.



REPRESENTATION IN THE SENATE.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. R. L. BORDEN moved that the House go into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that a humble address be presented to His Majesty praying; that he may graciously be pleased to give his consent to submitting a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend certain provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, in the manner set forth in the draft Bill hereto attached.
An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867.
Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act, 1867, or in any Act amending the same, or in any Order in Council or terms or conditions of union made or approved under the said Acts, or in any Act of the Parliament of Canada;
(1)	The number of senators provided for by section 21 of the British North America Act, 1867, is increased from seventy-two to ninety-six.
(2)	The divisions of Canada in relation to the constitution of the Senate provided for by section 22 of the said Act, are increased from three to four, the fourth division to comprise the
[Stage Direction]
western provinces, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which four divisions shall (subject to the provisions of the said Act and of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate as follows:
Ontario, by twenty-four senators; Quebec, by twenty-four senators; the Maritime provinces and Prince Edward Island, by twenty-four senators, ten thereof representing Nova Scotia, ten thereof representing New Brunswick and four thereof representing Prince Edward Island; the western provinces by twenty-four senators, six thereof representing Manitoba, six thereof representing British Columbia, six thereof representing Saskatchewan and six thereof representing Alberta.
(3)	The number of persons whom, by section 26 of the said Act, the Governor General may, upon the direction of the King, add to the Senate, is increased from three or six to four or eight, representing equally the four divisions of Canada.
(4)	In case of such addition being at any time made the Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate, except upon a further like direction by the King on the recommendation, to represent one of the four divisions until such division is represented by twenty-four senators and no more.
(5)	The number of senators shall not at any time exceed one hundred and four.
(6)	The representation in the Senate to which, by section 147 of the British North America Act, 1867, Newfoundland will be entitled, in case of its admission into the union, is increased from four to six members; and in case of the admission of Newfoundland into the union, notwithstanding anything in the said Act, or in this Act, the normal number of senators shall be one hundred and two and their maximum number one hundred and ten.
2. The British North America Act, 1867, is amended by adding thereto the following section immediately after seotion 51 of the said Act:
(51 A) Notwithstanding anything in this Act a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province.
He said :
It is proper that I should make certain explanations as to this proposed resolution. There are now upon the Order Paper four Bills: one providing for an-increase in the representation iim the Senate of the province of British Columbia; another containing a like provision with regard to Alberta; another with regard to Saskatchewan; and another with regard to Manitoba. These provinces are now represented in the Senate as follows: British Columbia by three members; Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, each by four members. The provisions of the British North America Act, under which these appointments have been made and under which they are proposed to be increased, have been brought to the attention of the House in the dis-

cussion upon these Bills. So far as the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned, we are agreed on both aides of the House that the Parliament of Canr ada has the constitutional power to increase the representation in the Senate of each of these provinces from four to six, as is proposed. So far as the province of Manitoba is concerned, we are of the opinion that the Parliament of Canada has likewise the power to increase its representation in the Senate from four to six. In respect to the province of British Columbia, which is represented in the Senate at the present time by only three members, there is an agreement on both sides of the House that, for the purpose of increasing the representation of that province in the Senate, an amendment of the British North America Act will be necessary.
Under the British North America Act of 1867 it was provided that there should be three divisions in Canada in respect of the Senate, and that each of those divisions should have a representation of twenty-four members. The three divisions in the first instance were: the province of Ontario, constituting one division; the province of Quebec, constituting one division and the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, constituting one division. At that time each of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was represented in the Senate by twelve members; but under the provisions of the British North America Act, that representation was reduced upon the admission of the province of Prince Edward Island into Confederation; and thereafter no appointments were made in the Senate for the province of Nova Scotia or the province of New Brunswick until the representation of each of those provinces had been reduced below ten. So that at the present time the representation of the Maritime provinces stands at ten for Nov.a Scotia, ten for New Brunswick, and four for Prince Edward Island.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, in the course of the de-
12 noon, bate upon these Bills, suggested-what had occurred I dare say to some of us before-that a fourth division should be constituted, which should comprise the four western provinces of the Dominion, namely, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. He suggested to me that the better course would be this: that we should not proceed with the Bill at this session;

but that, inasmuch as legislation was necessary for the purpose of increasing the representation of the province of British Columbia in the Senate, we should accomplish that result as to all the provinces in that way; and that, further than that, we should constitute a fourth division and ask for the necessary amendment to the British North America Act for that purpose. My right hon. friend also suggested to me that he thought that, in case of the future constitution of any additional province in Canada, it was desirable that that province should be represented by not less than six members in the Senate. We have the power to deal with that under our constitution at the present time. I concurred in the view which my right hon. friend presented to me in that regard; and I suggested to him that, if that were a proper consideration in respect to any province hereafter to be constituted in Canada out of what are now territories, it would also be desirable to make a similar provision with regard to the island of Newfoundland, which may some day enter this Confederation. So far as the admission of Newfoundland into Confederation is concerned, there seems to be no present prospect of any early con-sumation of the union; and, of course, we all realize that in any case it could be brought about only on the initiative and by the free will of the people of Newfoundland, as any proposals or advances that might be made by the Parliament in Canada in that connection might be misunderstood. It is needless to say that the people of Canada would receive in a very cordial manner proposals with that end in view; but it is desirable and proper that the initiative in that regard, if any action is taken in the future, should be taken by the Government and legislature 'of Newfoundland. But, as it is a possibility which was contemplated by the British North America Act as far back as1 1867 that Newfoundland might some day enter Confederation, it would seem proper-.as it is undesirable to have frequent amendments to the British North America Act-that that contingency should be provided for now, and consequently a clause has been introduced into the Bill for that purpose.
The first section of the proposed Bill provides that the number or senators fixed for by section 21 of the British North America Act is increased from '72 to 96. The normal number of senators at the present time is 87; that is, 24 for each of the three divisions originally constituted, four for
each of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and three for the province of British Columbia. If the representation of each of these provinces is increased to six, constituting a new division represented in the Senate by 24 members, then the normal number of Senators will be 96 instead of 87, as it is at present.
Subsection 2 of the Bill provides that the divisions in Canada in relation to the constitution of the Senate shall be increased from three to four. That means the constitution of a fourth division comprising the four western provinces, as I have already explained. Subsections 3 and 4 deal with section 26 of the British North America Act, which is as follows:
If at any time, on the recommendation of the Governor General, the Queen thinks fit to direct that three or six members he added to the Senate, the Governor General may, by summons to three or six qualified persons (as the case may be), representing equally the three divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.
The provisions of these sections amount to this:	inasmuch as there is a fourth
division now to be constituted, and as it is proper that that division should have equal consideration in case the member- . ship of the Senate should 'he increased under section 26 of the British North America Act, the necessary amendment is made by these two sections for that purpose.
'Subsection 5 provides that the number of senators shall not at any time-exceed 164; that is 96 the normal number, plus eight additional senators, who may be appointed under the authority of section 26 Of the British North America Act.
Subsection 6 'provides that in case Newfoundland should enter the union it shall be represented in the Senate by six instead of by four members.
Subsection 2 of the resolution is based upon the report of the Committee on Redistribution, which recommended unanimously that the British North America Act should be amended in that respect. It provides that, notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act, a province shall always be entitled to a nuthber of members in the House of Commons. not less than the number of Senators representing such province. In speaking upon the question of redistribution in this House during the present session, attention was called by other members and by me to the incongruity of having any province of Canada represented by a smaller number of members in the House of Commons than
[Stage Direction]
its representation in the Senate. That is quite possible under the British North America Act, and, in fact, it occurs to-day, because the representation of Prince Edward Island has been reduced by the result of the census of 1911 to three, whereas that province is represented in the Senate by four members. I do not think a condition of that kind can be found anywhere else in the world. As a general rule, in all legislatures which possess two branches the members in the branch elected (by popular vote outnumber the members of the appointed branch by at least two to one, and in some cases three, four and five to one. It seemed undesirable, therefore, that this condition should be permitted to continue, inasmuch as it is a condition that plainly was not foreseen or contemplated by the framers of the British North America Act.
The provision will have application at this time only to the province of Prince Edward Island. That province, as iwe know, has made strong claims that its representation ought to continue at six, the number allotted to it at the time it entered Confederation. The terms of the Order in Council under which Prince Edward Island was admitted to the Union are plain and unambiguous. That province has rested its case upon certain written communications prior to the Union, and also upon the well kpown feeling in the island at that time that the province should not enter the Union with less than six members. The Committee on Redistribution, whose report will be under consideration at a later stage to-day, have not found themselves able to recommend that the representation of Prince Edward Island shall be continued at six; but they have made this unanimous recommendation, which commends itself to my judgment, for the reasons I have already mentioned. Therefore I have embodied it in the proposed resolution, and I trust it will receive the favourable consideration of the House.
At the moment I do not know that there is any further explanation which can be offered with regard to the terms of the resolution. I trust it will be received a~s a proper measure, and one which will preclude the necessity on the part of this House and of the Senate of considering the Bills which stand upon the Order Paper, and which, in the event of the passage of this resolution, will, of course, be dropped as entirely unnecessary.
	.
Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, as stated by my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden), four measures have been standing on the Order Paper since the early days of the session, providing that the representation in the Senate of the four western provinces should be increased. The discussion which occurred on one or two occasions, when these Bills were called, showed that, on both sides, we were agreed as far as the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were concerned. There can be no doubt that this Parliament as constituted has the power to increase the representation of those two provinces. With regard to the province of British Columbia, it was, I believe, also agreed on both sides, after discussion, that this Parliament had no power to add to the representation of that province. With regard to the province of Manitoba, my right hon. friend entertains the idea yet that we have porwer, but, for my part, I am sure that this Parliament has no power to increase the representation of Manitoba.
These views, divergent though they were on some points, were of minor consequence when compared with the broader principle of having some uniform legislation in regard to these provinces based upon the principle of the British North America Act. My hight hon. friend has stated, and very accurately, that at Confederation the representation of the. provinces in the senate was divided into three groups, one for Ontario, the second for Quebec, and the third for the Maritime provinces, and the representation of these groups in the Senate was to be equal. Since Confederation we have assumed that we should carry the same principle to the western provinces and create a fourth group with similar representation in the Senate. The resolution of my right hon. friend has that object in view, and it is one to which we on this -side are ready to .assent; but this can only be done by an Imperial Act based upon a joint recommendation of the House of Commons and the Senate. The resolution, when passed, will go to the Senate to receive their concurrence. I have no observation to make at the present time with regard to what concerns the Senate except this. My right hon. friend is applying to the new order of things which will be created by this amendment the provisions of section 26 of the British North America Act, which is as follows:
If at any time, on the recommendation of the Governor General, the Queen thinks fit to direct

that three or six members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may, by summons to three or six qualified persons (as the ease may be), representing equally the three divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.
This provision, which was an exceptional one, has not been acted upon since Confederation. It did not contemplate an increase of representation, but simply provided that the representation in the Senate might be temporarily increased, and that no new appointments should be made in excess of the number of six. As I said a moment ago, this legislation has long since been obsolete, because it has not been applied once in the forty-seven years since Confederation. The Government of Mr. Mackenzie, as is well known, tried in 1874 to obtain from the imperial authorities power to anticipate the appointment of three senators-one for Ontario, one for Quebec and one for the Maritime provinces, but after some correspondence the imperial authorities did not think it advisable to interfere to that extent with our autonomous powers. I presume that in the year 1914 such power is even less likely to be exercised. My right hon. friend has thought it advisable to have this provision repeated in this amendment. To that I have no objection to offer; I have no doubt that it will remain in the future inoperative, as it has done in the past.
The most important consideration with which we have to deal at the present time is contained in the last paragraph of the resolution, as follows:
The British North America Act, 1867, is amended by Adding thereto the following section immediately after section 51 of the said Act.
(51 A) Notwithstanding anything in this Act a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province.
Section 51 of the British North America Act provides that the representation shall be readjusted every ten years, after the census, and that the representation in every province shall be regulated by its population as shown by the census. The representation of the Maritime provinces has been steadily decreasing. This year the representation of Prince Edward Island, which was six when it entered Confederation, is to be reduced to three. This matter was brought particularly to the attention of my -right hon. friend in connection with the Redistribution Bill, and of course the committee came to the conclusion that this Parliament has no power to change the representation of Prince Edward Island, which has to be reduced to three. But they have recommended an amendment to the constitution which will provide that in the future the representation of any province in the House of Commons shall not be reduced below the number of its representation in the Senate. My hon. friend has said that there are some incongruities in the representation in the Senate and the House of Commons. I do not share his view as to that. The representation of the provinces in the House of Commons is based upon population. In the Upper House it is not based upon population; there the smaller provinces have abnormal representation, the larger provinces have the smaller representation according to population and the smaller provinces have the larger representation according to population. I remember when any amendment of the kind now suggested could not be passed.
I may say that there are precedents for some of the present conditions in respect of representation in the Senate and in the House of Commons. In the United States the representation in the Senate is fixed at two for each state, whereas representation in the House of Representatives is according to population. I have not looked into the subject recently, but I have a distinct recollection that when Rhode Island entered the Union it was representated by two members in the Senate and only one in the House of Representatives. This is a precedent which might apply to conditions here at the present time. If we are to adhere strictly to principle, we should not pass the amendment which is now before us.
However, for my part I am not disposed to insist upon the principle; I believe that, although the principle of representation by population is violated by this new provision, on the whole no serious incon-convenience can arise to the different members of Condeferation. We are aware that unfortunately the population of the provinces of Nova Scotia,	New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island is not likely to keep page with the population in the other provinces. The other provinces have vast territories; we have added to the territory of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, and it is possible, indeed it is most certain, that there shall be a large increase of population in some parts of the territories which

we have added to those provinces. It is ^impossible to conceive, that there can be except by an abnormal industrial development, any increase of population in the eastern provinces. From the viewpoint of agriculture alone, it is not possible for them to have an increase; they have no new territories to settle; their territory is practically all occupied. Therefore, as it is not possible to conceive that there can be any increase in those provinces, no harm can be done, I believe, to the larger members of Confederation if it is provided that the representation of any province in the House of Commons shall not fall below its representation in the Upper House. I am not disposed, therefore, to offer any objections; on the contrary, I am disposed to agree to the provisions which are here adopted upon the recommendation of the Committee on Redistributions


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: We have heard from the right hon. gentlemen representing the great Conservative party and the great Liberal party in this country on the matter of the revision of the constitution in so far as the Senate of Canada is concerned. To my mind, however, they have not expressed the views of the plain people of this country, the democratic spirit of this country, in regard to the constitution of our Senate. I believe that it is the opinion of the people of this country that when this House proceeds to consider, as it does in this resolution, the constitution of the Senate, they should consider more than the question of the number and appointment of members; they should consider the actual constitution of the Senate and the manner in which members thereof are selected. Especially should they have regard to this section containing the resolution which says:
In case of such addition being at any time made the Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate-
The people in this country, I believe, are of opinion that the Senate of Canada should not be summoned but like the House of Commons, should be a body responsible to the people of Canada in some way and that its members should not be summoned to it by the Governor General and His Council. In other words, the Senate of Canada should be responsible to the people, their term o* office should be limited, and the Chamber should be more democratic. It is neither; it is not democratic and it is not responsible. These
[Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1
men are appointed for life; they are irresponsible and that is absolutely out of harmony with the democratic institutions of this country and with the British constitution generally as it is to-day, and I am going to proceed to develop that idea.
The greatest progressive measure under British constitutional rule to-day is the Parliament Act which was recently passed in England. What was the object of the Parliament Act? It was to do away with the undue influence on progressive legislation of the irresponsible and hereditary body known as the House of Lords, and the Parliament Act took away the veto power from that irresponsible body and brought it within the zone of parliamentary responsibility; or rather it has so limited its powers that if the people, Voicing their views through, the House of Commons in three succeeding sessions, declare in favour of a measure, that measure becomes law irrespective of the veto of the Lords. What the mother country has done we in this democratic country ought to do, and we do not propose to continue in Canada a body which is irresponsible, which is not democratic and which is appointed for life and appointed by whoever happens to be the Governor in Council for the time being. The great question in England to-day-and all England is ringing with the struggle there- is not so much Home Rule, is not the coercion of Ulster but the greater principle whether the people shall rule or whether the voice of the people shall be stifled by an irresponsible hereditary body like the House of Lords. Therefore the people in England have this greater and wider issue even than Home Rule and while I do not want to see any coercion of Ulster, I do want to see the people of England win out on this principle of responsible parliamentary rule, and at the same time have it maintained. It is sometimes said that we are coercing Ulster. That is not the great issue in Great Britain, it is the maintenance of the Parliament Act, the maintenance of democratic rule, and the principle of having everybody who has any voice in the control of legislation responsible to somebody, or if they are not responsible, having their Acts capable of being overridden by those who are responsible to the people. They have accomplished that in England to-day and the hereditary House of Lords has been deprived of its veto on the public opinion of England, as expressed by the House of Commons. Here we in Canada, after forty-six years' experience of the British North America Act, are going to

further crystallize this condition of affairs, and not one word of protest is being made. I have proposed in this House on several occasions that the time has come and more than come when there should be constitutional revision in this country in the direction of improving the British North America Act and, above all, of giving us democratic, responsible government. But no protest is being heard in that respect although we have had experiences in this House on different occasions when we have thought the popular will has been overridden by the Senate.
I believe in a double Chamber system if we have both Chambers responsible; but if we cannot have a Senate responsible like we ourselves are, I am inclined to believe, and I do believe, the people of Canada are in favour of the abolition of the Senate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am afraid the hon.
gentleman is travelling far afield from the resolution before the House.


William Findlay Maclean: But, Mr. Speaker,
in the resolutions before us we raise the whole question of the constitution of the Senate. I quoted the words, namely that we are maintaining the appointive system. I absolutely disagree with that and I wish to take an illustration from current history. I may refer to a question which the Senate already has dealt with, contrary to the wish of this House, the question of the defence of the British Empire, and which is the great question to all of us. The British Empire of to-day was or is threatened by attack by a great Empire which has an autocratic war lord in control of it who can make war whenever he wants to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are all wrong;
Carson is the man who is threatening the British Empire to-day.


William Findlay Maclean: If in England we
have brought about democratic rule so that no autocratic chamber can over-ride the popular judgment, Germany will get a similar form of government; there will be less autocratic government in Germany, less of the war lord, the common people of Germany will gain greater influence and will have made another step in the direction of the peace of Europe. I object to the continuation in this country of an irresponsible appointed body, in office for life, having an equality of say with the people's representatives, elected by the people. It is not democratic, it is not American, it is not Canadian, it is not British, it is not
progressive-and the people will stop it in a very short time if there is not a change.


Wilfrid Laurier: What change would you propose?


William Findlay Maclean: fl would have a constitutional convention and would invite representatives of the provinces to meet representatives of the Dominion. I would consider this question. There was a convention at Charlottetown some years ago. We could have the same thing again and we could easily find a way. Constitutional revision is not an impossible thing; we have secured it time and again, we have got amendments and we have such confidence in the Imperial Parliament in submitting this address here to-day that we know they will do what we want.


Wilfrid Laurier: What would
you propose to that convention?
Mr. MAQLEANi :	I would propose
a revision of the constitution on this specific point, a discussion of the revision of the constitution in the direction of abolishing what is contained in this Act, the appointment of the members of the Senate by the Governor in Council, and the Governor having power to summon them instead of the people of this country. What is going on in United States.


Wilfrid Laurier: What
my hon. friend favour?


William Findlay Maclean: The people in United States say they not only want the appointment of Senators responsible to the people by way of the State Legislatures but they are insisting on appointment by the people in a great, wide-open, state vote, and that shows the direction. Not for a moment would the people of the United States stand for a Senate that was irresponsible. I am satisfied for the present to state the case; just what the cure is I do not know. I would have a Senate in this Parliament responsible to the people, made up either by selection by the legislatures or election by the people; I would prefer election by the people. I would have proper safeguards about it so that you would have a constitutional Senate responsible to the people of Canada and, therefore, reachable by public opinion. It is public opinion that rules, not the Governor in Council or the appointees of the Governor in Council.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: Public opinion must rule in this country. In my opinion.

the peop-le of this country want to have an absolute say in the constitution of our Senate. The right hon. leader of the Opposition criticised this last clause because it deale with the representation of this House. For the first time in history, this House of Commons, responsible to the people of Canada, is, by this clause, to be measured by the irresponsible Senate. We have glorified here to-day the idea of an irree-ponsibile^ Senate, and it is now proposed that we should cut our cloth by them. I do not like it, and it is my determination, unices I hear further from the people of this country, to oppose every increase in Senate representation until that body becomes responsible to the people of this country, and I believe that is what the people of this country want to-day. I am in favouT of a second chamber, if it is responsible to the people. There is great work for a Senate to do in this country; there are a great number of questions they could deal with, but it is because they are not in touch with public opinion that they accomplish little. Almost every other upper chamber throughout the empire is susceptible to public opinion. Neither Australia nor South Africa has a system like ours, and all this Parliament has to do is to declare that it wants a constitutional revision or leave the matter to the Imperial Parliament. I am content to leave to the Imperial Parliament the question of making the Senate of this country a responsible chamber in harmony with public opinion, and, until that is done, I am opposed to any increase in the Senate representation whatever. If something is not done, some day this House will take charge of the whale constitution of Canada, and declare itself to be absolutely free in regard to its power, saving that it is under the British Crown. That, at least, should be the width of the powers of the Parliament of Canada. This Parliament ought to be supreme in this Dominion, even to the extent of having power to make a constitution of its own, and respecting the original contract rights, provided it Temains under the Crown. We are moving in that direction, but the one thing in the way is this irresponsible, appointeu-for-life Senate. I am making no party appeal, but I tell the members of this House that the question the people of Canada are concerned with is not the number of senators and their distribution throughout the Dominion, but the question of bringing the irresponsible Senate of this country into 
harmony with our democratic institutions and in harmony with responsible government. It. has taken ns a hundred years to achieve what we call responsible government in this country, but we have not responsible government to the fullest extent even yet, and never will have so long as there is an irresponsible, appointed-for-life Senate.
Mr. SAM. SHARPE: I desire to endorse in their entirety the remarks of the hon. member for South York. In my opinion, he has expressed the sentiments of a great majority of the people of this country. Senate reform has always been a live question with the party out of office, but not so live when the party gets into power. In 1893, Senate reform was part of the Liberal platform, and I think they prepared a resolution whereby a joint committee was to he appointed to consider the method by which the Senate should be reformed and made responsible to public opinion. Both parties are pledged up to the hilt to amend the Senate in some way or other. We had an example only a few days ago in connection with the Farmers Bank Bill showing that the Senate does not represent public opinion in this country. Four recent appointees to the Senate supposed to be responsible to public opinion voted against this Government that is fresh from the country. The Government, which is supposed to represent public opinion in this country, brought down a measure to provide relief for the depositors of the Farmers Bank. When the Bill got to the Senate these four new appointees discharged their functions in a manner not at all satisfactory to the people of this country or to the Government in power. In my opinion, this country" is looking for some method of Senate reform rather than to increasing the number of senators which only adds to the difficulties of reform. I desire to go on, record that the Senate should be abolished in its entirety or be so amended as to make it responsible to public opinion. It has demonstrated time and again that it is the bulwark of privilege and the big interests, and not a democratic institution. All democratic countries are getting away from the predominating influences of the privileged classes. The mother Parliament has amended the House of Lords so that it -cannot thwart the will of the people.


Mr.   M@: How does the hon. gentleman make out that the Senate is out harmony with public opinion? On the

Naval question, has not the Senate brought this Government to its way of thinking?
M. SHARPE: I never knew the Senate responsible to public opinion.
(Mr. GLARE :	I can give my hon.
friend an example.
Mr. (SHARPE :	In one instance they
may have shown evidence of sanity, but in nearly every case they have shown that they are not responsible to public opinion. They have shown continually that they are the bulwark of the privileged classes. Both parties are to blame in respect to the appointments to the Senate. Appointments are made simply to suit certain interests and certain sections of the country. I venture to say that 95 per cent of the men appointed to the Senate would not have been elected if they had appealed to the electors for public support. This time both parties are a unit. Our own party is committed to Senate reform and it is time the question was taken up. Senate reform is a more live question to-day than it ever was before, and I trust the Government will seriously address itself to the question of Senate reform.


Mr. KYTE:: The complaint which my
hon. friend from North Ontario has against the Senate is due to their action with respect to the Bill to relieve the depositors of the Farmers Bank. A good many are of opinion that the cause to some extent of that vote was the speech of the hon. gentleman himself, in which he said that every vote in favour of the Farmers Bank Bill was a vote of censure upon the Hon. Mr. Fielding. The majority of the senators felt that Mr. Fielding should not be censured. They took the hon. member at his word, and voted against the Bill to relieve the depositors of the Farmers Bank.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.):: I
am sorry that the committee to whom this representation Bill was referred did not see eye to eye with the representatives from Prince Edward Island who presented the ease of that province before the committee. It is an old story in this House and in the country the manner in which the province of Prince Edward Island refused to enter into Confederation in 1864. The refusal was based upon the question of representation. The conference composed of representatives from Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, offered to Prince Edward Island a representation of five in the House of Commons. This the delegates 333
from Prince Edward Island absolutely refused, and gave valid reasons for their refusal. The Hon. Edward Palmer, who was one of the members of the Government at that time, spoke at the Quebec conference as follows:
Representation by population is not applicable when a certain number of provinces are throwing up their self-government and individuality. When a colony surrenders that right she should have something commensurate in the Confederation. We give up such great certainties where we have only a feeble voice. I never understood that any proposition at Charlettetown was to be binding as to representation by population.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition to-day made the statement that the representation had to be based on population. It seems to me, from my reading of the history of Confederation that that was not the idea in the several conferences which took place previous to 1867. We have the speeches of the representatives of Prince Edward Island at the conferences denying that that principle should be adopted in setting their representation in the House of Commons. Prince Edward Island, principally on that ground, held out until 1873. Then we had Earl Granville asking the Dominion of Canada to round out the Confederation and bring in Prince Edward Island. A special request was made by the British Government that generous treatment should be held out to Prince Edward Island. What was Prince Edward Island asking for? There was only one thing that we were asking for and that is that the representation should be six instead of five and that is what was offered by us to the delegates from the different provinces previous to 1867. When the delegation came here from Prince Edward Island in 1873 the 'question which was put to the Government of Canada was: Will you concede us six representatives in the House of Commons? There is a record of what took place; it was put in writing, it is entered upon the journals of the House of Commons and upon the journals of the House of Assembly of Prince Edward Island. It has been stated to me several times by some of my colleagues that there was no evidence to go before the committee to which this Bill was referred of any arrangement or understanding whereby a representation of six was to be granted to Prince Edward Island in 1873. There is ample evidence; there is the evidence of the records of Parliament and of the House of Assembly. Here we



are sitting as a supreme court of justice and the committee to which the Bill was referred is a part of this House. The evidence was submitted to the members of that committee and when they report that they would not be justified in recommending to this House that Prince EdwardJ Island is entitled to a representation of six they are committing an error. There was ample evidence of the fact that Prince Edward Island is entitled to six. This report, in my opinion, was simply a matter of expediency. They were not, in any way, entering into the merits of the case. This report does not deal with the merits of the case except in regard to the recommendations which would apply to more than one province; that is, that no province should be represented in the House of Commons by a less number than the number of its representatives in the Senate. That will, of course, apply to Prince Edward Island, but as far as carrying out the contract made between the people of Prince Edward Island and the Dominion of Canada in 1873 is concerned, this committee did not consider the matter and when they reported upon it they were not justified in stating that there was no evidence. I repeat there was ample evidence.
This matter has been put before this Parliament before on former occasions. In 1903 it was before Parliament and- at that time it was agreed to submit to the Supreme Court of Canada the question of whether Prince Edward Island was entitled to a representation of six. The Supreme Court decided that, according to the letter of the law, Prince Edward Island was not entitled to any more than the Parliament of Canada was then conceding to if. But the Supreme Court did not enter upon the merits of the case. The chief justice stated:
It might be that it was the impression of Prince Edward Island at the time, in the minds of the public men when they consented to this, that they did not expect a decrease, hut that is not a consideration in the interpretation of a clear Act of Parliament.
That I concede. There was no evidence before the Supreme Court at the time and the judges were simply giving a decision upon the wording of the British North America Act and the resolutions which were passed by the Imperial Parliament admitting Prince Edward Island into the union in 1873. They were bound by the

words of that Act. The counsel, Mr. Williams, stated:
It is not entirely an impression. If we can give you the express wording of the Act to show what was the meaning of it in the minds of the conference.
The Chief Justice: The framers of the Aot may have intended a different meaning from the mind of the British Parliament.
There is no doubt that the men who were connected with the framing of this Act did intend that Prince Edward Island should have a representation which would not be decreased below six. That is conceded on all hands. But these hon. gentlemen say that it would not be expedient to give Prince Edward Island the number to which she is entitled and to leave Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and some other provinces without any increase. I do not think that is the way this Parliament should enter into the discussion of the Act or to undertake to decide the matter. The matter should be looked at fairly and squarely and justice and right should be done. You must view the matter in the proper light and you must treat it as the people concerned at the time intended it should be treated. When this question was before the House in 1907 the right hon. leader of the Opposition stated that if it were proven that a mistake had been made in the drafting of the resolutions admitting Prince Edward Island into the union it should be remedied. The right hon. gentlemen, addressing the House in 1907,	' Hansard,' volume 2, page 2199,
said:
For my part I say without hesitation that this is a matter in which we can afford to be generous. Even if the balance of representation by population be not absolutely and minutely kept, even if Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick should have one or two members on the floor of this House beyond the number provided by the original constitution, the granting of such excess of representation would perhaps be a gracious and generous act and one which would redound to the benefit of confederation. But this House ought to hesitate in passing judgment until it has before it the views of all the provinces affected.
That was showing a proper spirit. The matter came up upon a resolution asking the House to declare that the Maritime provinces should retain the representation which they had when they entered Confederation. The leader of the Opposition, who was then the leader of the Government, thought that more time should be taken by the House to consider this matter, and he said that, after consideration, he had no doubt that Parliament would

act in a generous manner in order to prevent these provinces from losing their representation
At that time the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) also made some noteworthy remarks. He was of opinion that the representation of Prince Edward Island should be restored to six. The question was discussed in all its phases; all the evidence was presented to the House, and the hon. member for Pictou had an opportunity of hearing the arguments pro and con and of reading the evidence adduced iby the members twlho argued in favour of Prince Edward Island. This is what the hon. member for Pictou said at that time:
Whether you are dealing with the ordinary affairs of life or whether you are dealing with constitutional problems and constitutional rights which perhaps should be given a higher regard than the other; it is only common sense and fair-play to say that the people of Prince Edward Island who were given six members in 1873, although they had no right to that number according to the unit of population, are entitled to preserve that number of six members right through so long as the Confederation of Canada lasts.
Here is a strong opinion. The hon. gentleman, who was almost as conversant with the politics of Prince Edward Island as the members for that province, declared in this House, after hearing the arguments, that, in his opinion, Prince Edward Island should preserve the number of six members right through as long as the Confederation of Canada lasts. I have no doubt that is the opinion of the hon. member for Pictou to-day, because he is a man who does not rapidly change his mind; and I would ask him to-day in this House to give a declaration to the same effect as he gave at that time.
There are other hon. gentlemen who have *taken part in the discussion of this matter at various times in this House, and who nave expressed similar views to those expressed by the hon. member for Pictou; and I have no doubt that, if the matter were cairly presented to the members of this House to-day, there would be only one opinion on both sides, namely, that a contract was made in 1873 between the people of Prince Edward Island and the Dominion of Canada whereby that province for all time to come was to have a representation in the House of Commons of six members. It is my intention, before this matter goes before the committee, to move a resolution. In doing so I think I would be derelict in my duty if I did not strongly urge that this resolution be approved by 333i
this Parliament. The resolution would provide that the original representation of Prince Edward Island in the Senate of six members be restored.
At one o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Angus Alexander McLean: Before recess I
mentioned that it was my intention to move this amendment in committee:
(b) Prince Edward Island shall be entitled to be represented in the House of Commons by six members. The representation to be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867. Prince county shall constitute one district to be designated [DOT] Prince county district ' and return two members; Queens county shall constitute one district and be designated 'Queens county district' and return two members; and Kings county shall constitute one district, to be designated ' Kings county district ' and return two members.
When the resolution asking for the admission of Prince Edward Island to the Union was passed by this Parliament and sent to the Imperial Parliament and there made law, it provided that each of the counties should return two members. This is what I now ask to be incorporated in this resolution.
There is no doubt that, if you take this Order in Council of the Imperial Government of the 26th June, 1873, the resolution .of this Parliament, and the resolutions of the Legislature of Prince Edward Island, you will find that the clear and distinct intention of the Legislature and of this Parliament was that Prince Edward Island should have minimum representation of six members; otherwise, why was it stated that each county should return two members ?
The provision in the resolution of this Parliament,
That the population of Prince Edward Island having been increased by 15,000 since the year 1861, the island should be represented in the House of Commons by six members; the representation to be readjusted from time to time under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.
was not intended to be in that form. The insertion of the word ' readjust' was an error. It was agreed between the Dominion Government and the Prince Edward Island Government that the island should have an irreducible representation of six, similar to British Columbia. It was not intended that the representation could be reduced under the provisions of the British North America Act. It was contended in this House some time ago

that we should have been reduced in representation in 1881, but that it was found that there was no record of a census of the island for 1871. That could never have been successfully contended, as the resolution passed by this Parliament on the 20th May, 1873, distinctly declares that the island's population. ' as shown by the census of 1871,' was 94,021. The resolution of this Parliament is incorporated into and forms part of the Imperial Order in Council admitting the province into the union. The population being only 94,021 in 1871 we could not possibly be entitled to a representation of six in this House if it were the intention of the agreeing parties that the terms of the 51st section with respect to re-adjustment should apply. There was no justification in giving us six members in the first instance with our then population if the contracting parties thought for a moment that the provisions of the 51st section with regard to readjustment applied. You must read all the documents, all the records together and thus judge the case. My opinion is that any fair-minded man will admit after .reading all the documents and correspondence that the intention was to give the island a minimum representation of six. The Order in Council provides that each county should return two members. In 1881 Sir John Macdonald was premier. He had a full knowledge of what passed in the Confederation conferences and subsequently. He negotiated the terms of union in 1873 and he evidently thought when the redistribution Bill was passed in 1882 that Prince Edward Island had a minimum representation of six, otherwise he would have reduced it to five. All the facts have been before Parliament many times. In 1865, immediately after the conference took place in Quebec, and when the matter was fresh in the minds of the men who were present at that conference, we find the matter was discussed in the legislature of Prince Edward Island. A great nunlber of speeches were made. I am not going to weary the House by reading them. But there was one terse speech upon this question in the House at that time made by Mr. Duncan. He said:
As to the general legislature-
That is, the Dominion Parliament:
-I consider the representation in it allowed to this Island unfair and unjust. The five representatives allotted to us in the Lower House would not give this colony much influence there,
but as our population will not increase so
[Mr. A. A. McLean 1
rapidly as that of Canada, there is a prospect, through the operation of one clause in the report, that our five representatives would dwindle down to three.
That is what happened. These men were objecting to a representation of five and it was the principal objection in the Legislature of Prince Edward Island in 1865, immediately after the contention of the delegates of Prince Edward Island for a representation of six was rejected by the delegates from the other provinces in the Quebec conference. Mr. Duncan goes on and says:
Taking all these points into consideration, therefore, it is clear to me that we have nothing to gain and much to lose hy adopting the Quebec scheme.
It may be said we are a small province, and that we to-day are only on a level with any three other constituencies in any other part of the country. I do not look at the matter in that light at all. We were a separate province; we had certain valuable rights and privileges as a separate colony, we were asked to give those rights away; we made an agreement with the Dominion Government that certain of these rights should be granted away for all time. We wanted a representation of six members in the Parliament of Canada as one of the considerations and we would not go into the union unless we got a representation of six. The Imperial Parliament, through one of its principal officers, said:	Be
generous to Prince Edward Island. They were generous; they gave us one more representative than we were entitled to. That solemn compact should be ratified by this Parliament to-day, by inserting the amendment which I read, in the resolution which, is going to the Imperial Parliament for ratification. This will only be doing what is fair and just. We got six members then. Are we any less important to-day than we were in 1873?
So far as wealth is concerned, we have gone ahead with rapid strides; in proportion to our extent of territory, we have advanced perhaps more rapidly than any other part of Canada; yet our representation is now to be reduced to three. The rest of Canada has increased in population to a very considerable extent. Within the-last few years the territory of Ontario has been increased by 150,000 square miles. We see by the legislation which is before us that two new constituencies are opened up in Northern

Ontario; two have been opened up within the last two years. By reason of the addition of 180,000 square miles in 1897 and of the Ungava territory in 1912, the population of Quebec is rapidly increasing. In 1912, in the Act ceding Ungava to Quebec, they were given their new representation. Outside of the 65, which is the pivotal number upon which the representation of Canada is based, they are getting additional representatives for the territory which was granted to them in 1912. If you read the discussions which took place not only at Quebec, but in the different legislatures of the provinces at the time of Confederation, you will see that the whole theme of the discussion was that the representation was to be based upon the various conditions, existing in and the influences acting upon the provinces. If the provinces gave away certain rights, they were conceded certain rights. Some hon. gentlemen say that the basis of Confederation is representation by population, but the representatives from Prince Edward Island never conceded that. The province of Manitoba also got a large extent of territory, and their population is increasing very rapidly. But nothing is given to the other provinces in respect of this great increase of territory, although there is a provision in the British North America Act that in case of increase, diminution or alteration of territory in respect of any province, provisions respecting the effect and operation of such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby must be considered. Although the three provinces which I have named have been largely increased in area by the addition of territory, no consideration is given to that in so far as the Maritime provinces are concerned. This is a matter which the British North America Act clearly states should be considered by this Parliament.
We had a clause in our terms of Confederation that we should be provided with continuous steam communication, winter and summer, between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I take it that this is a matter which should receive consideration by this House in the discussion of the matter now before us. It was brought up toy the delegates to the Interprovincial Conference last year and it was brought up by the members of the Government of Prince Edward Island when they appeared before the committee of this House a few months ago. We were to get continuous steam communication, and although immediately after we
entered the union we asked the Dominion Government to fulfil the terms of Confederation in that respect, we were totally ignored, and from 1873 up to the time the present Government came into power, we received no consideration at the hands of any Government. I may say that the people of Prince Edward Island are to-day rejoicing in the fact that within a very short time we will have continuous steam communication and that the terms of union in that regard will be fulfilled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I suggest to the
hon. member that he is rather wandering away from the motion now before the House?
Mr. MoLEAN: I think that it has a certain connection with this matter and that I have a right to make the statement, but in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall not continue to discuss the matter along that line.
Reference is made in this resolution to the colony of Newfoundland. In my opinion if would be a good thing if we were to obtain the consent of Newfoundland to their entering into this Confederation; it would be a good thing not only for the people of Newfoundland, tout for the people of Canada as well. I think that the real reason why the colony of Newfoundland did not come into the union is because the terms of Confederation in respect of communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland had not been fulfilled, and because the representation which was agreed upon has not been conceded to us. We are living contiguous to the colony of Newfoundland; we have trade communications with them; we have close commercial relations with them; the principal trade of the island in produce is carried on with Newfoundland. Notwithstanding the fact that it was known by the people of Canada and by the representatives of the people in this House that the terms of Confederation had not been carried out with the island, the matter was allowed to stand from year to year. Is it any wonder that the people of Newfoundland did not make any approaches to the Government of Canada in respect to their entering this Confederation? In 1864, when the first conference met at Charlottetown, the delegates from Newfoundland were there, and we were in hopes at that time that Newfoundland would come into the Confederation. But they saw how Prince Edward Island was being treated; the conference would not grant what Prince Edward Island asked for, and Newfoundland

backed out also. They were in hopes at that time that they would get the concessions for which they asked, but their requests were refused by the delegates from the other provinces. Now we have the opportunity of bringing Newfoundland in and of clearing up all the abjections and grievances of the provinces which did enter into the union in 1867.
Give to Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia what the people at that time thought they were getting. Be generous, as the right hon. leader of the Opposition said here in 1906, even though you may concede a little more than you think the people are entitled to. If you are generous, if you give to Prince Edward Island what I consider she is entitled to, but, what some hon. gentlemen seem to consider she is not entitled to, you will be heralding to the world the fact that you are acting in a generous way and the people of Newfoundland will see that Canada is desirous of fulfilling the contract which she entered into with the people. On August 18, 19 and 20 next we propose to have a celebration in Prince Edward Island of the conference which took place on September 1, 1864 Let this Parliament shew the people of Prince Edward Island, every man of whom believes that we are entitled to a representation of site in this House; every man of whom believes that a contract was made that we should have that representation; let, this Parliament show to the people of Newfoundland, many of whom will be present at this celebration, that the Dominion is willing and anxious and ready to hi Ini the contracts which were entered into with Prince Edward Island at that time. Then you will find that the people of Newfoundland will probably take a different view of the desirability of their entering into Confederation with us.
1 know that this measure has been introduced by the leader of the Government and that the Government are bound by it. But there is no law which we cannot change. Notwithstanding the fact that this committee represented that there should be granted to any province representation in this House equal to what it has in the Senate, still there is no reason why this Government, in my opinion, should not add the clause which I read to the House a few moments ago. I think it would be only fair, just and right that this Government should do that, in fulfilment of the solemn contract that was made

with the people of Prince Edward Island in 1873.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Morphy in the Chair.
On section 1, subsections 3 and 4 of the draft Bill :	.
(3)	The number of persons whom, by section 26 of the said Act, the Governor General may, upon the direction of the King, add to the Senate, is increased from three or six to four or eight, representing equally the four divisions of Canada.
(4)	In case of such addition being at any time made the Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate, except upon a further like direction by the King on the like recommendation, to represent one of the four divisions until such division is represented by twenty-four senators and no more.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: I would suggest to my
right hon. friend that subsections 3 and 4 might be made clearer than they are. Under section 26 of the British North America Act, the King may give direction to the Governor General to appoint additional senators. That would be in case of emergency. But there is no provision for bis appointing them for a particular division and it would not be known for what divisions they were to be appointed, whether for the Maritime provinces or Ontario or Quebec or any one of the four western provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: Would that not be fixed by the necessity of their residence? It is provided that a senator must be a resident of the province for which he is appointed.


William Pugsley: Then by clause 4 there could be no appointment for that particular division until those who had been appointed by the King under those circumstances had either resigned or died, so as to get the number down to twenty-four.
Mr. BORDEN': Or a vacancy had occur red in some way.
Mr. PUiGSLEY:	Probably my right
hon. friend is right, that the residence would determine.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose that in future appointments to the Senate the intention of the fathers of Confederation will be carried out. They were actuated by a desire to protect the various minorities throughout the country, and I hope that my right hon. friend will follow out their intentions in making future appointments.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not intended to initiate any new practice or principle in this regard.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I want my right hon.
friend to reaffirm the old principle.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will
examine my practice I think he will find it satisfactory.


William Pugsley: I think this motion
lacks one thing: this change in my opinion ought to come into operation at the same time that the representation of the people in the House of Commons is increased. In this Parliament the people are represented in this Chamber, and the Crown is represented by those appointed to the Senate. As a result of the increase in population it is proposed to give the Crown greater powers of nomination to the body which is not responsible to the people, but which is appointed by the Crown irrespective altogether of the wishes of the people. I think that there should he increased representation of the people in the popular branch of Parliament at the same time that the increase in the representatives of the Crown takes place; and therefore I think the Address ought to be amended so as to provide that this Act shall come into effect after the next general election at which time there will be increased representation of the people in this House. It seems to me that would only be a fair recognition and protection of the rights of the people.


Robert Laird Borden: Provision was made in
the Alberta and Saskatchewan Acts for increased representation in the Senate after the census. The same provision was made in the Manitoba Act. There is no reason why there should not immediately be this increased representation of the western provinces in the Senate, and I cannot see any force in the suggestion of my hon. friend. It is perfectly true that the representation in this House is based upon a popular election, and not as in the case of the Senate upon nomination by the Grown; but I do not see that this consideration should properly involve delay in the appointments which we propose by this Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: I merely wi3h to add to what I said this morning when dealing with the irresponsible character of the Senate that even the high office of King
has been brought within the zone of parliamentary responsibility. In Great Britain, the dominant party in the House and the Government of the day assumes responsibility for all the King's acts.


Mr. HENDERSON:: The King can do no wcong.


William Findlay Maclean: They provide that
anything he does shall be on the responsibility of his ministers and of the dominant party in the House of Commons. In England, they passed the Parliament Act for the purpose of overcoming the irresponsible character of the House of Lords. Inasmuch as there is more or. less responsibility in all the progressive constitutions of the day, and especially in the case of those modelled on the British constitution, my contention is that we ought to provide some way of getting around the irresponsible acts of our Upper Chamber. The great thing that governs wherever British institutions exist is public opinion, and the well thought out opinion of the people as expressed in the various legislatures. The last thing we ever thought of in this country in connection with appointments to the Senate was that the men appointed to that body should reflect public opinion. Take a case in point- that I mentioned to the House the other day. Public ownership is one of the great questions in this country to-day. Since that question has been to the front a great many senators have been appointed, but has a single one been appointed for his championship of that principle? Take the question of banking. I have noticed that a great number of the men who have been appointed to the Senate represent the interests of the banking institutions of this country, but I have failed to see a s.ngle one appointed who was seized of progressive ideas in regard to banking and currency. It is altogether different with the Senate of the United States, which reflects public opinion in regard to this question of banking; they have recently passed the most progressive banking measure known to the American continent, reflecting the well-known views of the people. We have nothing like that in this country. I do not know of a single man being appointed to the Senate because he represented some great progressive measure. No appointment has been made to that body where the first consideration was regard for public opinion, regard for progressive ideas or regard for legislation for

the general uplift of the community. My object is to get a better Senate that will share with this House in the responsibility for legislation to a greater extent than it does now-a Senate that will take a greater share in framing new Bills, a Senate that will be in touch with public opinion, and therefore better able to crystallize into legislation the views of the public on the great questions of the day. Inasmuch as both parties in this country are on record from the platform in favour of Senate reform, I say that now is the psychological moment for us to declare for Senr.t'' reform in order to keep ourselves in good standing with the people we represent. I have advocated Senate reform on the platform, and have heard the party leaders advocate it both on the platform and in this House. I have read the platforms of both parties in this country, setting out that they were in favour of Senate reform, and therefore I say that this is the psychological moment for us to make good the pledges and statements that have been made by both parties in favour of Senate reform.
While I do not wish in any way to alter a single word of the address that is to be passed by the House, or to alter in any way the Bill which we asked the Senate to join with us in requesting the Imperial x'arliament to pass, I want to move that the following words be added to the resolution :
And be it further resolved that this House, while It recognizes the existence in the said Act of the right of the Governor General to summon persons to the Senate is nevertheless of the opinion that the constitution should be further amended in the direction of having the said Senate made elective for fixed periods, and thus constituted more in harmony with the principles of responsible parliamentary government.
This does not militate in any way against the resolution as it is proposed, nor does it change the Act which we are asking the Imperial Parliament to pass. But we do acquaint the mother of parliaments, which has only recently stripped the irresponsible House of Lords of its veto power, with the fact that what is good for her is good for democratic Canada and good for America, and that we, too, desire the responsibility which Australia and South Africa have in connection with their Senates. I do not wish to have a change brought about that will in any way militate against the contract rights of the provinces, or the other rights set out in the original pact of Confederation with respect to the constitution of the Senate, but I want to
l"Mr. W. F. Maclean.]
have such changes in the constitution as will bring the Senate within the zone of responsible parliamentary government. I am pleading in this House from sixty to eighty years after the great principle of responsible government was vindicated in this country by the Liberal party, by Baldwin and Lafontaine, whose statues, as I saw them out on the grounds here the other day, present such a magnificent picture of these two great patriots. They united Upper and Lower Canada on the great principle of responsible government. That meant that the irresponsible government by Governor in Council in the old days, which was partial government, should be completely removed. The time has came when an end should be put to a Chamber in this country which is absolutely irresponsible to puiblic opinion or to the legislatures which are the constituents of this Confederation. There is no way whereby the provinces, through their legislatures, can express their views in regard to the constitution of the country. If we had the Senate elected, as it could be under my resolution, by the votes of the legislatures, as they have it in the United States, or by a wider election by the people, or by having the provinces divided into districts- and I am not going into details at the present time-this country would be a modern country and it would be living in the twentieth century. To-day this country is living in ancient times and under ancient conditions. It is not in accord with the principles of liberty, it is not constitutional, it is not of the twentieth century, that we should have to-day an absolutely irresponsible Chamber in this country, possessing powers co-equal with those possessed by this House, which is elected by the votes of the people and which is, therefore, amenable to public opinion as it may be voiced in the elections, in the press, on the public platform, and in other ways. I call on both parties in this House to make good their pledges in the past, and to have the principle of an irresponsible Chamber removed from our constitution. I am not going into details, I am not going to make any exact proposal, but I say that the amendment which I submit now does acquaint the Imperial Parliament with our view upon the matter, with our pledges on the platform, and with the views of the people of Canada, and therefore it is worthy of adoption by this House. It is also worth our while asking the co-operation of the Senate, because I do not cast one reflection

on the Senate other than that it is irre-;, sponsible. I think well enough of thet Senate as a body to say that I respect them, and that 1 respect their co-ordinate powers of legislation, but I desire to see them made amenable to the great principle of responsible parliamentary government. To that end, I submit this amendment.


Mr. CARROLL:: 
William Findlay Maclean: It says that here; I
would like the members of the House to consider it, amend it, or word it in any other way if any hon. gentleman can suggest anything. When we are dealing with the question of the constitution of the Senate, as to its members and the allocation of the members to different sections of the country, I appeal to this Chamber, and I hope I appeal from purely patriotic motives and not from any party motive, to accept this amendment or something similar to it. Therefore, if I can get a seconder, I hope I will get the acceptance of the whole House to the proposition I now submit.


Edmond Proulx: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to second the amendment of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean). I believe that the Senate should be elective. Both parties have been thinking for a long time of reforming the Senate, but nothing has been done so far. The work of reforming the Senate, has, up to the present time, been left to Providence. I believe that the Senate should be made elective, that the term of office should be eight or ten years, that the districts should be large, that there should be proportional representation, and that there should be an age limit. We impose an age limit on county court judges. The senators revise most of the laws passed by this House, and if the county court judges are too old at seventy-five to continue administering the laws, I think the Senators, when they reach that age, should also retire and not be in a position to revise the laws passed by this Chamber. In the new constitutions of the British possessions, Australia and South Africa, the Senates have been made elective. An elective Senate is more consonant with democratic institutions than an appointive Senate. Deadlocks would be better avoided by having an elective Senate than an appointive one. I do not want to detain the House because time is
precious at this stage of the sessi n, but I will be pleased to support the amendment of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean).


Mr. OLIVER:: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather large question to bring forward at this stage of the session; but that is no reason why an opinion should not be expressed in regard to it. My view is that it will be yet a long time before the last word has been said in regard to the best method of representative government. I am for progress, I am for betterment, I am for bringing legislation as closely in touch with public requirements and public opinion as it may be brought. But my experience and my reading do not lead me to the belief that an elective second Chamber is the best means of attaining effective and prompt legislation. My opinion is that if you want to be closely in touch with public opinion, and give effect to that opinion by legislation, you require to have a one-chamber parliament where action is direct from the people to the Parliament, and from the Parliament back to the people, in accordance with the expressed wish of the people. Experience, as far as I have been able to gather it, shows that, when two legislative bodies, deriving their respective authority from the same source, are dealing with the same questions, the result is in the first place more or less clashing and delay, in the second place more or less compromise and ineffectiveness, and in the end one body absorbs the larger proportion of authority and dominates the situation. That body who is given the higher position, if it derives its authority directly from the people, in the nature of things and properly asserts its dominance, having the authority to do so, and the more truly representative chamber has the less influence in the Parliament of the country. Today in the United! States, which my hon. friend has quoted as an example, the House of Representatives, elected directly by the people, is a negligible body in the important legislation of that great country. The Senate is the controlling authority; it is the Senate that settles everything, the Senate, the Millionaires' Club-[DOT]


William Findlay Maclean: No, not now.


Frank Oliver: Absolutely, notoriously
so, holding place and power for the purpose of advancing the interests of all those forces in the United States which are injurious to the welfare of the people. If you

cannot trust yourselves to govern yourselves by electing a legislature directly by the people, then you are not bettering the condition by electing some other legislature by the same people to prevent the One first elected from doing what you ordered it to do by your election. I am aware, of course, as I said in the beginning, that the last word has not been said in regard to these matters; but I am saying what I am saying now in order to bring to my hon. friend's attention the fact that neither has he said the last word when he has declared that an elective second chamber is a more truly democratic system of Government than the one under which we carry on our business to-day. Everyone knows that the reason why we have a second chamber in this country is because, without what was supposed to be the protection of a second chamber, we never could have achieved Confederation. It is a condition which belongs to our situation that we have a second chamber. If our condition calls for a second chamber in this country of Canada, I certainly assert that an elective second chamber would not achieve either the purpose that was intended by the establishment of the Senate or the democratization of the legislation of this Parliament. We have our Senate as a protection to the smaller provinces, to the minorities, to the sectional interests, if you like, of this country of Canada. We did not create it; we are not responsible for it; hut we do ourselves little credit to think that the men who fathered Confederation had not in their minds sound and, at that time, certainly good reasons for what they did. Our Senate is constituted to achieve certain purposes. I will admit that those purposes are not essentially democratic.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Not always.


Frank Oliver: I will admit that they are not always democratic. Some of the principles, for instance, the protection of the minorities, are not essentially democratic. But so long as we have to provide for that protection, I do not see any other 4 p.m. way of providing for it than by appointment. Certainly we could not provide for it by election. The very fact of election would prevent it from being provided for. What is there objectionable in the matter of appointment to this body created to meet a certain specific purpose? The members of that body are appointed, and are appointed for life. I have given the reason why they are ap-

pointed; I will give the reasons why they are appointed for life. It may not be a good reason; but it is that, when appointed, they shall be absolutely independent of any possible outside influence in giving their votes on the subjects that come up for consideration. There may be disadvantages surrounding that appointment; (but it is only fair to say, in the first place, there is a good reason for their membership by appointment and, in the second place, there is a good reason why they should be appointed for life. But my hon. friend says it is not democratic. Well, our judges are appointed, and they are appointed for life, with a certain restriction mentioned by my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx), which I have no doubt is a very proper restriction. I am free to say- and I think my hon. friend will not contradict it, that, undeT that system of appointment of our judges for life, our administration of justice is more truly in the interests of the common people than the administration of justice across the line where the judges 'are elected presumably in the interest of the principles of democracy. If as a democratic country, in the protection of the interests of democracy, we find it necessary to appoint our judges for life, I am not so easy to convince that it is at all contrary to the principles of democracy that, having a certain condition in this country which calls for the provision of a. second chamber, we should not provide for that second chamber on the same principle as we provide for the administration of our rights and privileges as between man and man.
As to the actual facts of the case, it is true that a vast power rests in the Senate, and it is true that that power could be abused. There is no doubt, if that power is ever abused, there will be a necessity for the reorganization of the Senate or for its abolition. But the proper exercise of the power that is placed in the hands of the Senate is not an abuse of that power. I have been in this Parliament since 1896, and have followed the course of legislation very carefully; I have seen the Senate go counter to a Liberal Government, and I have seen it go counter to a Conservative Government. I am bound to say that, in my humble judgment, the Senate is of most use when, by reason of its majority not being in accord with the majority of the Commons, political alliances do not govern the judgment of senators as thoroughly as they do when the majority is the same in both Houses. It is when the Senate is liable to bring upon itself the

objurgations of the Government and its supporters that it justifies its existence and protects the interests of the people.
But, of course, the Senate could abuse its rights and its privileges; it could make itself an unbearable incubus on our political institutions. That is what the House of Lords in Great Britain did, and if the Senate should do that it will have to be dealt with as the House of Lords was dealt with in Britain. Had the House of Lords in Great Britain only exercised its authority as it was entitled to exercise it, if it had used it and not abused it, it would not have been shorn of a measure of its authority. Until it has been shown that the Senate has gone beyond the use of its authority and has abused it, there is no reason for in any way taking from the authority that it exercises or finding fault with its constitution or actions. I am for improvement; I am for betterment; I am for democratic institutions. But I am for good government; I am for the best expression of the will of the people in legislation and in administration. And I find that best expression through the means of a House elected directly by the people and to whom the people look directly for [DOT] legislation, and for the results of legislation, and an upper chamber having large powers and exercising those powers with good, sound judgment and patriotism, having regard to all the conditions and circumstances of our country and to the reasons for the creation, existence and maintenance of the Senate itself.


Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester):: I wish to say a few words in reference to this matter. Like my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), I am for improvement and for betterment; but 1 would rather move slowly and surely than hastily and recklessly, especially in matters affecting the fundamental principles of our constitution. My adherence to the principles of the constitution is well known. In my opinion the fathers of Confederation were very wise in providing two bodies in this Parliament, one elective and the other appointive or permanent. The Senate, as the hon. member for Edmonton said so eloquently and forcibly, is the protector of the smaller provinces of this Dominion, as well as of the minorities. It is not to he expected that two bodies, elected .by the same people at the same time, could counteract each other's actions. The Senate is a safeguard, more especially for the Maritime provinces, which are the smaller body in this Dominion; and it was
owing to the fact that the smaller provinces could depend upon the protection of the Senate that the principle of representation by population was introduced in thi3 Dominion. I will try to be as brief as possible, because I expressed my views formerly when I could speak longer than I can to-day. We all know that without the protection afforded by the Senate, Confederation would not have taken place. Sir Leonard Tilley, of New Brunswick, with all his desire to have idle Intercolonial link the Maritime provinces commercially and nationally with the western provinces, would have come back to St. John without Confederation if his people had not been certain of the guarantee of a high representation in the Senate.
It has often been said in this House that it is not constitutional, nor according to good sense, that the Maritime provinces should have a larger representation in the Senate than in the Commons. It was with that object m view, in order to be able to counteract the increasing preponderance of western Ganada, that the Fathers of Confederation gave that constitution to the Senate. If it were elective we may rest assured that in the larger provinces more particularly, minorities would be apt to lack the protection which may be needed at different times. 1 remember very well a very eloquent speech on this question made no less an authority than Sir Kiehard Cartwright a few years ago in the Senate, in which he contended that while with all good-will possible the majority of the province of Ontario had endeavoured to give the Catholic minority of that province as fair and equal a representation as possible according to their numbers in the House of Commons yet through some uncontrollable political reasons it had not been able to do so; but that owing to the fact that the Senate was appointive, and that the Government of the day had the onus of protecting the minority, the 'Catholic minority of Ontario found its protection by representation in the Senate. Likewise, in ihe province of Quebec the Protestant minority might not perhaps in a public election find its due representation in the Senate; but, owing to the fact that the Government of the day is charged with tlie duty of protecting thait minority, it finds its protection in that body. As conditions are to-day in my province, the Irish Catholic minority has no representative in this House, but owing to

the fact of the Prime Minister of the day having the responsibility of fair representation	they have had a	representation greater than they are justly entitled to in the Senate to compensate for what they lack in this House. You must Temember that if you make the Senate elective minorities cannot be well protected in a country like ours.


Edmond Proulx: Suppose that we had
proportional representation?


Mr. TUEGEON:: It would come to about the same thing. I have always had faith in the extreme wisdom of the Fathers of Confederation, and I believe they had in view more particularly that a permanent and non-elective Senate would be a greater check to the popular prejudices which may at times prevail.
We have heard a great deal lately detrimental to the Senate because it has shown its independence in dealing with measures passed by this House. But our constitution, according to the wisdom of the Fathers of Confederation, is still left open to democratic ideas, and if, perchance, the Senate should be persistent in blocking legislation which is approved by the House of Commons, the Government of the day has the power to consult and appeal to the people. That is what could have been done last year, when we heard so much about the action of the Senate. The Government of the day could have appealed to the people and the Senate would have agreed with their decision. I contend that the Senate is a more important body in the destinies of this country than some hon. gentlemen seem to think it is. It is a permanent and responsible body; it is permanent m order that men appointed as senators may be free from the prejudices of the people. While they may not be perfect at all times, who can say that we in this House are all perfect ? The physical condition of a man is not always an index to his intellectual ability. In the Senate to-day we have men who are well advanced in years; I mention particularly the name of Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who is over ninety years of age, but who has at all times during this and other sessions shown the same vitality which he evidenced twenty years ago. The same condition may exist in particular instances in this House, and I am therefore opposed to any cnange in the constitution of the Senate.
[Mr Turgeon.]
Mr.BORDEN: I understand that the hon. member for South York has put forward his amendment only as an assertion of principle, and that he does not submit it with any idea that it is a proper motion at this time. It would hardly be compatible with the control we have over our own affairs to forward a resolution of this character to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and ask them to work out a scheme under which the Senate of Canada could be made elective. Any proposal for an elective Senate would involve a great deal more attention than it is possible to bestow upon the matter at the present time. Fault has been found with the constitution of the Senate; many men in Parliament have criticised it, and it has been criticised outside of Parliament. It is true .also the method of election to this Parliament has been criticised, and various suggestions have been put forward; for example, as to proportional representation, upon the view that the method of election at the present time does not do justice to minorities of population. A system of electing the Senate prevails in the United1 States and in Australia. It has been subjected to the criticism which the hon. member for Edmonton puts forward, that in the final result that system very often makes the Senate a more powerful body than the lower House, and one cannot be sure that the system is working out with perfect satisfaction either in the United States or elsewhere. The question of the method by which the House of Lords in the mother country shall be reformed has been under consideration for a number of years, and it is probable that within a year or two years some proposals will be placed before the British Parliament in that regard. It is an open secret that proposals have been under consideration by the Cabinet for some time; at least I so gather from what has been said' in the Imperial House of Commons on the subject. For us at the present time, and at this stage of the session, to attempt to solve the problems to which the hon. member for South York has drawn attention is out of the question. He has said that while he .sees need of some remedy for the conditions which he criticises, he himself is not prepared to come forward with a satisfactory remedy. In the meantime, while the Senate is constituted as it is, it is important that the western provinces of Canada should have their proper representation in the Senate. I do not think it

would be just that this should be hied in abeyance while we are working out a scheme for the improvement of the Senate. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment for these reasons:	In the
first place, because it is entirely inappropriate as an amendment to the resolution which is now under consideration by the House; and, in the second place, because the subject has not received thorough debate in Parliament this session and the consideration which it undoubtedly merits before any distinctive steps should be taken in the way of reform.


Wilfrid Laurier: Whatever
merit there may be in the suggestion which has been made, as has been stated by the right hon. Prime Minister, it is too late in the session to give it consideration; and besides, the suggestion itself is not at all germane to the question now before us. There is a great deal of force in what was said by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sam. Sharpe) this forenoon, that that part of the constitution relating to the Senate, as it was planned and carried out by the Fathers of Confederation in 1864 and 1865, has not met with the same degree of success that has characterized the other parts of their work. He has stated, and truly so, that both parties in this respect ai'e committed to a policy of reform. The party to which I belong has certainly committed itself to this policy, and it has been said that after fifteen years in office we did not implement that part of our platform. The reason is the same ae has prevented the hon. member* for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) from offering a concrete suggestion. Nobody has yet been able in this House or in this country to suggest a plan of reform which would be acceptable to the large body of the people. The very way in which the member for South York has drafted his resolution shows the difficulty of the task. He asks the Imperial Parliament to be wiser than ourselves and to frame some amendmeqt. I am satisfied that the Imperial Parliament would not , think of changing our constitution except in the very terms in which we would direct such change. It would be vain to argue that the Imperial Parliament should make the reform; they would say to us: What is the nature of the reform you want? I think that the hon. member for South York would be averse to the Imperial Parliament making the reform 'for us. We want to have the authority of the Imperial Parliament, but
we must direct them as to the nature of the reform which we desire. In 1864, the united Canada of Upper and Lower Canada had an elective legislative council which was elected by groups of counties. The system worked fairly well, but it failed to command itself to the Fathers of Confederation and they accepted the nominative system. The nominative system has not been as successful as it ought to have been, on account of the large preponderance of party appointments. That was not the intention, as was stated at the time of Confederation. I remember very well that in the debate on Confederation Sir John A. Macdonald stated that the change of parties would keep the balance of parties in the Senate properly adjusted. It has not worked out so, and no government so far has been able to resist making the appointments on party lines. If we could devise a system to prevent having appointments made altogether on party lines we would attain the object desired. I thought at one time that we might adopt the American system and have a Senate elected by the local legislatures. But even in the United States that has not worked satisfactorily, and to-day there is an amendment of the constitution, which will shortly come into effect, providing that the senators shall be elected by the State at large. If we had an elective system the best thing would be to group the population. I do not think, however, that this is the proper time, in the dying days of a session, to discuss such an important question. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) might keep the matter in mind and present his views on another occasion, perhaps next session, when the matter could receive more consideration than it has hitherto received; and _ perhaps, having thought it over during the recess, he may be albLe to give us in concrete form the ideas which he wants to have implemented.
I think we have now come to the end of the resolution. I would call attention to the wording of the preamble. It says 'that a humble address be presented to His Majesty.' I would suggest that it should be 'a joint address of the Senate and House of Commons.'


Robert Laird Borden: The idea was to pass it
and then move that a message be sent to the Senate. I suppose that will fulfil the same purpose.


Wilfrid Laurier: In the end it must become a joint address.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no objection to that course.


William Findlay Maclean: This is the
psychological moment to deal with this question, when we propose to amend the constitution in regard to the Senate. If it comes at the tail end of the session I am not responsible for that. If the two great parties of the country are pledged to Senate reform, I think that they should have presented this question, and it should not have been left to a single member and a private member to implement their views. 1 do open the question and I do present it to the Imperial House. Perhaps the answer of the Imperial Government on receipt of this prayer of the Canadian people, in which I hope the Senate will join, will be that they have received this prayer from the House of Commons of Canada and would like to have further light upon it. In that way we would get the question advanced and have it discussed, but we will never get it advanced if it is to come up only in the dying hours of a session and if we are to increase the number of members of the Senate and ignore the pledges of the two parties in this respect. If that is not good doctrine, then it follows that the parties in this House-and I am not going to make that statement, but there will be people who will contend that the parties are not in earnest in declaring for Senate reform. I am absolutely in favour of Senate reform because I think it will widen the parliamentary institutions of this country, we will have a division of labour between the two Chambers, and the people will have an opportunity of appealing not only to this House but to the members of the Senate, and therefore enlisting their sympathies. While it is said there is no great urgency, England today is on the verge of civil war because an irresponsible body in connection with the Parliament of Great Britain has been repeatedly blocking progressive legislation and especially blocking great measures in the way of money Bills in the direction of progressive legislation. The result is that to-day the Liberals and the Progressive party in England are hampered by this condition, and they have to pass a progressive measure in three successive sessions of Parliament, under the fire of the greatest obstruction, while the reactionaries have only to vote it down once in the House of Lords and they kill the proposition. That is not progressive, that is not

what it should be. We must have something better in this country, and the people want something better. The United States would not submit to a single House of Parliament, nor would the people of Great Britain. There must be two Houses, and the two Houses, if there is to be parliamentary Government, must be responsible to public opinion. I respect what my hon. friend from New Brunswick says as to the rights of minorities; but I am not interfering with the rights of minorities; I am improving them so that public opinion in the provinces can make itself more efficient in guarding those minorities. I am not in favour of a second Chamber being created simply as a reward for political services. It ought to be created for the advancement of public legislation. Then, who is there who would justify in Canada a branch of Parliament having no age limit in it? I am not going to pass a reflection on the aged men of the Senate; I have too much veneration for age to do anything of that kind. But it is not fair to either the judicial or legislative interests that there should not be an age limit in connection with a great branch of the legislative scheme.


Wilfrid Laurier: I protest
against that.


Mr.   MAGLEAN@: I say that the principle of an irresponsible Senate is not a good one and ought to be improved. I am willing to improve it. I make a proposition here to-day in the line of improvement, and call for the discussion and cooperation of the Imperial Parliament, and I leave it there; but I leave it there standing by my resolution, and it is for this committee to deal with that resolution as they see fit.


Edmond Proulx: My hon. friend from
Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) says that with an appointed Senate the minorities have a better chance to be represented. If counties were grouped and we had proportional voting, the minorities would have as much if not more chance of being represented in the Senate than they have today. In Ontario the French-speaking population is about one-tenth of the total population. Of the twenty-four Senators for Ontario that population should have at least two representatives, but they have only one. I take this opportunity of urging on the Government, when they recommend appointments in future to consider the claims of the French Canadians

in Ontario to further representation. I urge especially on the Postmaster General, who is the particular guardian of the interests of his compatriots in the 'Government, to urge the Prime Minister to recommend the appointment of another French-Canadian senator from Ontario.
Amendment (Mr. W. F. Maclean) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
2. The British North America Act, 1867, is amended by adding- thereto the following section immediately after section 51 of the said Act:
(51 A) Notwithstanding anything in this Act a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province.
Angus Alexander McLean: I beg to move that the following clause be added to the resolution, at the end thereof:
Prince Edward Island shall be entitled to be represented in the House of Commons by six members, the representation to be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.
Prince county shall constitute one district to be designated ' Prince county district * and return two members.
Queen's county shall constitute one district to be designated ' Queen's county district ' and return two members.
King's county shall constitute one district to be designated * King's county district ' and return two members.
While I ajppreciate the concession of four representatives for Prince Edward Island as is provided in the last clause of the resolution, I submit that the original bargain should be recognized and carried into effect. The Government deserves great credit for this concession which is of very great importance, but I do not think it is too much for me to ask that the original representation of six members be restored.
Amendment negatived.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think we are entitled to know the policy of the Government on this point.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The policy of the Government is to adhere to the unanimous report of the committee composed of members on both sides of the House. We gave the best consideration possible to the very eloquent representations made to us by gentlemen from Prince Edward Island. The Prime Minister of that province was heard before the committee, and although his representations made a deep impression the committee came to the conclusion that he had not made out a sufficiently strong case for the six members. The committee have given a certain measure of relief to the
province of Prince Edward Island, and the policy of the Government is to adhere to the unanimous report of that committee.


William Pugsley: I am very glad the Postmaster General has made the statement he has, because the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island seemed to be under the impression that the Government was entitled to the credit of making this arrangement whereby a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province; and of course that is a protection more especially to the smaller provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia. The Postmaster General has made it clear that this provision is the result of an agreement which was come to by the committee composed of members on both sides of the House.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We agreed unanimously.


William Pugsley: It is well to have it
understood that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was the first man to suggest that solution of the difficulty.
I would like to ask- if the Government has given any consideration to the representations which have been made from time to time by the Maritime provinces, and more especially by the Government of the province of New Brunswick, to the effect that the unit of representation should be applied to the province of Quebec as it existed at the time of Confederation. My hon. friend the Postmaster General knows that at the time of Confederation the province of Quebec was bounded on the north by the height of land, and that all the territory north of that belonged to the Hudson Bay Company, and was not included in the province of Quebec. Through a portion of that territory, which was added to Quebec quite a number of years ago, the Transcontinental runs, and in the future that district will no doubt have a very considerable population. The same remark applies, though perhaps not to the same extent, to that district which was added to Quebec since this Government came into office. No doubt there will be considerable population there as well, especially if mining developments should take place, as many people expect. What we in New Brunswick believe, and I think it is the view of the members of the Maritime provinces generally, is that the repre-

sentation of Quebec should be based upon the population in the original territory of Quebec, -and that the added territory should be entitled to additional representation -based upon representation. In other words, suppose that in ten years from now there should be thirty or forty thousand people in that new territory, then the people of that new territory should be entitled to a representation which would give the province of Quebec 66 members, but only the population of the original province of Quebec would count in determining the unit of representation for the different provinces. I think this question will be of considerable importance in the future. We in New Brunswick would not like to get below the representation we now have. -On the contrary, we are hoping to get back to the original fifteen members which New Brunswick had at the time of Confederation.
I -think the same remark would apply to the other provinces. Now, when we are for the first time since this new territory has been added, dealing with this subject, I think, in -connection with this resolution, that the Imperial Parliament should be asked to make a provision along the lines I have spoken of. If legislation by the Imperial Parliament is not necessary, I would ask that the Government introduce legislation into this Parliament because certainly now is the time to do justice in this Tespect. We in the lower provinces feel that a great injustice has been done and done more especially by the interpretation which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has given to the British North America Act. There is no doubt that at the time of Confederation the four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and, later on Prince Edward Island, were considered and the Fathers of Confederation never intended that representation by population should be- rigidly adhered to. For the protection of the smaller provinces it was- provided by section 51 that notwithstanding that a province is, upon the -basis of population, to be entitled to a certain representation, that representation shall not be reduced unless its population declines beyond a certain proportion relatively to the population of the four original provinces of Canada. That looks like a good protection. The Fathers of Confederation thought that New Brunswick would never have less than 15, Nova Scotia, 18, and, later on, Prince Edward Island, 6, -and -that with reference to Ontario the representation would never

decrease beyond what it was at the time of Confederation. But the judicial committee, unfortunately, were of the opinion that in interpreting the words ' provinces of Canada,' they were bound to include the added territory, to consider the western provinces where the population has greatly increased. This has prevented the saving clause from being of the slightest benefit to the smaller provinces and has rendered inoperative a clause that the Fathers of Confederation thought was going to be effective in preventing a reduction in the representation of the smaller provinces.
I would like to say, with respect to this provision that the representation shall not be reduced -below the number of senators, that the Imperial Parliament should be asked to amend the British North America Act so as to provide that the representation of no one province should ever be less than what it was declared to be at the time the province entered into Confederation. You could justify that proposition just as well as you could a declaration that Prince Edward Island should never have less than four, that New Brunswick should never have less than- -ten, that Nova Scotia should never have less than ten, and that Ontario should never have less than twenty-four based upon representation in the Senate. Quebec has always been the unit. It was done in the case of British Columbia. When British Columbia entered into Confederation the people had the same doubt that the people of Prince Edward Island had and they would not join the confederacy unless they had .a settled representation in the House of Commons. In the Act of Union, the people of British Columbia being a little more foresighted than the people of Prince Edward Island were, it is especially provided that the representation of British Columbia shall never be less than the number -at which it was when- that province entered the union. If that w.as right in r-egard to British Columbia, why would it be so contrary to British fair^play to apply it to the original provinces forming the confederacy? You would be just as much justified in asking the Imperial Parliament to say that Prince Edward Island should never have less than six, and that New Brunswick should never have -less than fifteen, as you would be in saying that Prince Edward Island shall never have less than four and that New Brunswick shall never have less than ten. You are doing the very same
JUNE li, 1914
tiling, only you are doing it in a roundabout way, but you make the number less than it otherwise would be.
These are two matters to which I would like the Government to give their attention. I know that members of the present provincial government, having visited Ottawa, have gone back to New Brunswick and have expressed great gratification and satisfaction at the interviews which they have had with this Government upon the .subject. They have reported that they have been received most sympathetically upon this question of representation and they have rather led the people to believe that their wishes were going to be met. I would like to know whether or not it would be possible to induce the Government to ask that provision be made to enable the British North America Act to go just a little bit farther and to provide that the representation of the original provinces shall in no case be less than it was at the time of Confederation; also that Quebec, in considering the ques tion of the unit of representation, shall be deemed to be the area forming the province of Quebec at the time of Confederation, that it shall not include the territory which has since been added, but that this new territory shall be entitled to additional representation according to its population and that the rule shall apply to the added territory as it applies to the other provinces of Canada.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Referring to the different points raised by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and to the remarks which were made by my hon. friend from Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. McLean), I may say that the case of Prince Edward Island had .been put 'before council previously to the argument which was presented to the committee on redistribution. As imy right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) said when he introduced the Redistribution Bill, the impression made upon the members of the Government by the argument put before them by the Hon. Mr. Mathison and his friends was such as to lead the Government to believe that something should be done, although the Bill as introduced here did not suggest any solution of the Prince Edward Island difficulty, that -being left to the committee. The matter was again argued before the committee, and the members of the Government who were there, knowing the impression which had been made 334
upon their minds, and desirous of doing something, were quite in accord with the suggestions which were made and which have resulted in the suggestion which we find in the Redistribution Bill, and of which this claus-e before the committee, to a certain extent, is a reproduction. My horn, friend from Queens, Prince Edward Island, is right in saying that the Government have considered the proposition with a view of meeting the wishes of the people of that province as far as possible. If it had been possible to meet the full demand made by the Government of Prince Edward Island, it would have been done with the greatest pleasure, because I, for one, believe in treating the smaller provinces in the fairest possible way. The case of Prince Edward Island was not on all fours with that of British Columbia, the case of British Columbia is clearly settled by the statute which declares that the number of members for British Columbia will never be less than six. In the case of Prince Edward Island, the same wording is not employed, and the matter is very far from being as clear. There are elements and circumstances which go to show that there were expectations, at the time that Prince Edward Island entered Confederation in 1873, that the number of representatives might be reduced. Taking a broad general view of the situation in order to try to give general satisfaction, the members of the committee on redistribution, I am happy to say, adopted one of the suggestions the Government had in its mind. In order to be perfectly fair, I desire to say that the motion to that effect was moved by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) and seconded by the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald). That is my recollection of the matter. This report is before the House; it is unanimous. I do not know whether or not we may have to give further consideration to this question; but for the moment the Government will stand by the unanimous report of the committee.
My hon. friend the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) said that, instead of reducing the number of members for the Maritime provinces and fixing the same limit as the one now in existence for the number of senators, we might have come to the conclusion to ask the Imperial Parliament to pass an enactment restoring to the Maritime provinces the number of members they had at the time of Confederation. I do not in-



KE7ISED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
tend to speak here for any province or for any one in particular. At the present moment I speak for the Government. My own personal views on the matter I have no right to put before the committee now; but I believe that something had to be done in order to prevent the Maritime provinces from going beyond at least a certain limit. We have adopted that policy for the moment; it is to a certain extent a relief of the situation, and at all events guarantees that the number of members for the Maritime provinces shall not be reduced below a certain minimum which is now fixed. Whatever consideration may be given later on to these questions remains for the future; but at this date my hon. friend from St. John will understand that, having this unanimous report from the -committee in this matter and the committee having endeavoured to meet the situation as best it could, the Government can not at the present moment, without breaking faith as regards what has passed the committee, do anything like what is suggested 'by the hon. member for St. John. We take it that this report which is before the House is binding on us.
William Pugsley: This is very important
legislation to bring in at this late stage in the session.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Of course my hon.
friend knows that, if it is late, it is not entirely the fault of -any one, and at this stage no one would like to accuse any one else of being the cause of the delay. We have worked at this matter for a number of months; and we have -succeeded in bringing down a measure which gives su-ch an extent of satisfaction all around, with only one or two exceptions, that we may be given the credit for having accomplished something, if we have not done all that my hon. friend from St. John would like to see done.
In regard to the other point 5 p.m. to which my -hon. friend referred, namely, as to whether or not the unit in the province of Quebec should be according to the area or territory which existed at the time of Confederation, there is a distinction to be drawn here. If I -am wrong in this, I trust my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition who is to follow me, will correct me. Speaking from memory, I think the territory of the province of Quebec has been increased twice. The first time -an increase was made, no provision was made on the lines suggested by my hon. friend from St. John, but the

last time the boundaries of the province were extended to Hudson strait, giving the whole of Ungava to the territory of the province of Quebec, a special provision was inserted meeting the views, if I mistake not, of the hon. member -for St. John. I think I am perfectly safe in stating that, and I think my rigfirt -hon. friend will agree with me that I -am right in -my statement.
SiT WILFRID LAURIER: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When the first Bill
was passed, extending the limits, no one seems to have thought of such a provision, and I have no recollection that it was ever
discussed'.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I correct my hon. friend here? The first time there was an alteration of the limits was in 1896. No mention was made of such a provision at that time; but, whilst it is contended by my hon. friend the member for St. John that there was an increase in territory given to the province of Quebec, my impression has always been that the intention of the Bill was not to give any -more territory to Quebec than it was entitled to, but simply to rectify the boundary and substitute the natural boundary for what was the conventional one.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I was coming to that. I was not quite sure about the matter, and I am glad my hon. friend has made that statement. I think the first Bill that was passed was simply acquiescing in the demand or the legal pretension which the province of Quebec made that the limits were not where they should be.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is, that the limits were not at the height of land, but extended to Hudson strait. That was really the point.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Bill which we
passed two years ago, that is, during our first session, provides that any new country which may be created out of the development of Ungava will not count against the other provinces.


William Pugsley: That is not in this Bill.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is not necessary
that it should be, because it is in the Bill annexing Ungava.


William Pugsley: You think it is not
needed in the Redistribution Bill?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, because that matter is fully provided for already. I am' speaking for the Government on this. We



II, 1914

[Stage Direction]
understand that the Bill annexing Ungava makes this point perfectly clear. Therefore I think it was a fair clause to put in as regards the other provinces.
Mr. MACDONALD:: Keferring to the
point raised by my hon. friend from St. John, I think it is just as well that it should go on record in the discussion upon this question that the committee, in considering what the electoral unit in the province of Quebec was at that time in order to arrive at the number of representatives in the other provinces of the Dominion, treated the unit as having been made up of the number of population that was in the old portion of Quebec, and did not take into consideration at all the unorganized portion. We arrived at the unit in the same way as was stated by my right hon. friend the Premier when he introduced the Bill, namely, by dividing 65 into the population of old Quebec as it was organized.


William Pugsley: Before Ungava was annexed?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes; so that hereafter in any future redistribution it is well to have it definitely understood that this Parliament, in dealing with this question at this time, so treated that point and left the new territory to be dealt with entirely apart from Quebec as it is mentioned in the British North America Act.
I might say in reference to the question mentioned by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that, so far as I was personally concerned, I treated it as having been closed on account of the statements made by the Prime Minister on February 10 last, referring to the proposition that the representation of all the smaller provinces of the Dominion should be fixed at the number at which they entered the Confederation. The Prime Minister dealt fully with that question, and announced the policy of the Government as follow:
Under these circumstances, as the provinces at the conference to which X have alluded had declined to take any action or pass any resolution on the subject-although I understand there were a good many expressions of sympathy-it did not seem to us to be our duty to come to this Parliament and propose any remedy for the unfortunate situation with which the Maritime provinces find themselves confronted.
So that the Government on the appointment of the Committee, with that intimation as to what their policy was in regard to that whole question, practically closed the doors to the deliberations of the Com-334i
mittee reaching any end which would mean the preservation of the original representation. In regard to Prince Edward Island I regret that my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Hughes), and my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Richards) whose illness I am sure every member of the House deplores, are not here today at this discussion. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Kings was called home on business and went down with me on Friday and has been unable to return. He desired me to mention if this matter came up-and at that time it was thought that it would go over for the (session altogether-that were he present ha would represent the views of his constituents by moving a resolution similar to that moved by my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Maclean) to-day; and my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Richards), and himself voicing, as I am sure they would, the feeling in Prince Edward Island, would have asked us, as we are now being asked, to assent to the proposition that this BiP should Ibe amended by practically providing for maintaining the representation of Prince Edward Island at its original figure. The Government, however, have barred the door to any action of that kind by the announcement of policy upon the introduction of the Bill by the Prime Minister, who said in addition the Bill he was then introducing he would leave blank the number of representatives to be named for Prince Edward Island, to be filled in by the committee. Every hon. gentleman will recall the discussion on the second reading, when it was the unanimous opinion that it was not within the power of Parliament, having regard to the provisions of .section 51 of the British North America Act, to pass any legislation which provided for a representation in any one of the provinces greater than what was fixed by that section. I ventured at that time to point out to the right hon. gentleman that the only remedy for dealing with the case of Prince Edward Island would be by a motion for an Address to the Imperial Parliament to fix the increased representation. My right hon. friend suggested that it would be possible for this Parliament to pass a Bill which would not come into effect until it was ratified by the Imperial Parliament. The matter came before the committee. The case of Prince Edward Island was presented to it by the Premier of that province and one of hiis colleagues, urging the ground that a mistake had been made in the preparation of the original Orders in

Council, or rather in the petition from the Parliament of Canada and from the two legislative bodies in Prince Edward Island, which, when ratified by the Imperial Order in Council, was their charter. It was put forth that the statement in these petitions which said that representation was to be reduced from time to time under the British North America Act was an error and that the proper intention of the parties at that time was that the clause should have read that the representation should have been increased. The decision of the committee was to the effect that the proper method of dealing with the question was by proposing an address to the Imperial Parliament fixing a minimum representation for all the Maritime provinces, which is now proposed to be done by this committee. I have not personally had the opportunity of seeing the report which has been submitted by the Redistribution Committee; I presume on account of my being absent. I had the opportunity of seeing the resolution which was submitted to it in the terms which it was understood would be presented by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes). That resolution, I assume, is in terms the clause of this resolution which is now in committee.
The situation, therefore, is that one must regret that the aspirations and feelings of the people of the smallest province of the Dominion with regard to representation cannot be met under existing conditions. The situation with them is a very keen problem; they regard the preservation of their original rights as of the utmost importance; and my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Maclean) has not put the case too strongly in regard to it. Naturally, their insular position, and the special interests which always develop under such conditions, cause a more intense feeling probably than might exist under other conditions and in other provinces. The Government, however, has taken the full responsibility of solving this question by proposing this limitation. In the province of New Brunswick, where now we have eleven representatives, this would prevent a reduction of their representation, no matter what the circumstances may be, below the number of ten. That same limitation would exist in Nova Scotia. It is to be hoped by every hon. gentleman in this House that the development of eastern Canada, which, at the present time, seems to be arrested- as indeed is the condition all over Canada -will be such that it will not be necessary to resort to this limitation, but that that portion of Canada will in future exceed its present representation in this House.


Mr. RHODES :: The hon. member for
Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) intimated at the outset of . his remarks his views with respect to the position of the Government on the question of a minimum representation of the Maritime provinces; and intimated, although he did not say so, that if the Government had not barred the door perhaps he might, have attempted to effect an entrance, or taken some other ground. The hon. member is not a man vyho is apt to be deterred by barred doors, particularly if they are barred by the party opposed to him. I do not rise for the purpose of attempting to make any political capital for the Government because of their attitude in connection with this matter; but I do rise for the purpose of having the record absolutely correct. It is true that the Prime Minister, in referring to Prince Edward Island, intimated that a certain course might be pursued. At the same time I wish to refer tny hon. friend to the remarks of his leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), on February 17, dealing with the manner in which the Prime Minister had referred to this very question. The right hon. gentleman says:
I have to represent to my right hon. friend that that is a matter upon which the committee cannot have any jurisdiction; it is a matter on which this House has no jurisdiction.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
Parliament in this matter is not a free agent; the whole question is simply a question of arithmetic.
Mr. McKENZIE [DOT]. Is that right ?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I concur in that. My
object in making reference to that statement is to point out that it cannot be said in later days that it was the fault of the present Administration that an attempt was not made to have the old original representation of the Maritime provinces rerestored. My sole purpose in rising to-day is not to make political capital, but to make the situation perfectly clear and to prevent any attempt at the making of political capital out of a question of this kind in the years to come. It is quite true, as the Postmaster General has said, that I proposed the motion that was accepted by the committee that no province shall hereafter have less members in the House of Commons than it has representatives in the Senate, and it was my wish that the

hon. member for Pictou should be the seconder of that motion. I observe that he nods his assent; I am quite content with that, because I was not quite clear as to whether or not he had been the actual seconder. I shall not delay the committee by expressing my regret that Prince Edward Island is to be prevented from having its original representation of six members;
I shall content myself with the few remarks which I have made in explanation of the attitude both of the Government and of the Opposition with respect to the minimum representation of the Maritime provinces.


William Pugsley: I want to take issue with my hon. friend the Postmaster General and also, as I do not often have occasion to do, with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, with regard to what took place some years ago when the boundaries of the province of Quebec were enlarged. This matter is of deep interest to the people of the province which I represent, and I offer that as my excuse for taking up a few moments of the time of the committee in order that my position may be placed on record. The question is going to come up again; I warn the Government that it will come up, not only because I shall bring it up, but because the provincial Government of New 'Brunswick will feel bound to bring the matter up in the interests of the people whom they represent. They and I do not agree politically, but I give them credit for an honest and sincere effort to secure the rights of- New Brunswick as one of the smaller provinces which cannot get any additional territory. Our contention is that when a large area was added to Quebec a few years- ago that was not a mere settlement, according to our contention-I say it with all respect, in view of the statements of the right hon. leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Militia-of a dispute as to what were the boundaries of Quebec; it was the giving of an enormous additional and valuable territory to the province of Quebec. In this conclusion I think we are fortified by geography and by authority of the very strongest kind. This matter is important to us in the lower provinces not only in the matter of representation but as to the compensation which should be paid to the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, to	which there is
no opportunity of	adding	additional
territory, by reason of the vast area which belonged to the whole Dominion of Canada,
which belonged to the people of New-Bruns-wick as well to as the people of Ontario and Quebec, and which has been given by this Parliament to the two great provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I understand that we cannot get much support, unless on moral grounds, from the people of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta because vast territories in the north have been added to those provinces and additions may be made in the future as well. But in the case of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, there is no chance for the addition of territory, and what we in New Brunswick do contend is that all that territory which was known as Rupert's Land, taking in all the territory north of the height of land; all the territory which was drained by the rivers which flow into the Hudson bay, belonged to the people of the whole of Canada. There is no question about the language of the old treaties which determined the matter, and I do submit, with all deference, that any one who looks into the question and examines these treaties must be forced to the conclusion that the first addition to the territory of Quebec was not the mere settling of a dispute; it was the adding of a vast area to the territory of that province. We may be wrong in this, but I should not be doing my duty as <a representative of my province if I did no-t bring the matter to the attention of the House and say that I do not believe that the representatives of the lower provinces will acquiesce in that view. I believe that they will continue to raise the point again and again until they secure what they believe to be justice. They have been promised by this Government that the matter would be taken into consideration. This afternoon we find the Postmaster General glossing the matter over and not giving us very much satisfaction with regard to it. I greatly fear that if we do not press our claims, they will get but scanty consideration. I regret that there is not a single member for the province of New Brunswick upon the Government side of the House present when such an important matter is under consideration. The Conservatives of New Brunswick promised the people over and over again that they would fight the battle of the people upon the question of representation and upon the question of compensation for the added territory whenever the opportunity arose. The opportunity

is here now, and I am sorry that they have found it impossible to be present, because I should like to have them add to my feeble voice their contention that the Government should give some consideration to the claims of the people of New Brunswick and the other Maritime provinces for justice in regard to these matters.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We are proceeding
with resolutions which are assented to by both sides of the House, and surely my hon. friend will admit that it is hardly fair to say that the members for New Brunswick on the Conservative side should be here to take part in the discussion. This may be a good political move, but I think my hon. friend will agree with me that he is going a little too far.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will
agree with me that we in New Brunswick who feel so deeply on this question; who feel that an injustice has been done and who have been appealing to this Government from time to time to do justice, may be pardoned even if even at inopportune times we raise our voices to urge that justice should be done. I am not blaming gentlemen supporting the Government for being absent; I merely express my regret that they have found it impossible to be present when there is an opportunity of discussing this most important question, in respect of which they have pledged the people of New Brunswick that on every occasion and at every opportunity they would urge their claims for justice in this Parliament.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend the Postmaster General refers to the unanimous report of the committee. The pronouncement of the Government on the introduction of this Bill was to the effect that they did not purpose introducing any legislation dealing with the difficulties that exist in the Maritime provinces. Those of us who were members of the committee deahng with this question of dividing the constituencies regarded the policy of the Government as the policy of the majority of the committee and acted accordingly.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The records speak for themselves.
Resolution reported and read the first time.
Mr. PELLETIER moved the second reading of the resolution.
Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, Prince Edward Island) moved in amendment:

That the resolutions be not now read a second time but that the same be referred back to the committee with instructions that they have power to amend the same as follows :
(4b) Prince Edward Island shall be entitled to be represented in the House of Commons by six members, the representation to be increased under the provisions of ' the British North America Act, 1867.' Prince county shall constitute one district to he designated ' Prince county district ' and return two members. Queens county shall constitute one district, to be designated ' Queens county district ' and return two members; and Kings county shall constitute one district to be designated ' Kings county district ' and return two members.
Amendment negatived, motion agreed to, and Resolution read the second time and concurred in.



THE PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a communication from the Governor General's Secretary announcing that H. R. H. the Governor General, would proceed to the Senate Chamber on the 12th of June at three o'clock for the purpose of proroguing the present session of Parliament.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill 62, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, Mr. Blondin in the chair.
On section 5-'interpretation:
William Pugsley: I would like to ask some gentleman on the committee if, in considering the population of Canada, they took into account the population of the territories?


Robert Laird Borden: I think that that question was investigated before the Bill was introduced. My recoillection is that it will not affect the representation of any province to the slightest degree. The population of the territories is very small.


William Pugsley: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in a case I had the honour to argue before them, left unsettled the question as to whether or not the territories should be included in the word 'Canada' or provinces of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: I am quite sure the question was investigated, and that the conclusion arrived at was that the territories would not affect the result in the slightest degree. My hon. friend will remember that the population of the territories at the presept time is very small.


William Pugsley: Yes, a good proportion of the territories has been added to the ' provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: It might have affected the question ten years ago.


William Pugsley: Or even two years ago, when a considerable area was added to Manitoba.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I wrote to Mr. Blue asking him to give me a statement of the population in the unorganized territories. I made a computation, and the Prime Minister is quite correct in his statement that it will not affect the situation at all this year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the schedule-Ontario:
Mr.   MAGDONALD@: In the absence of my hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Pardee), perhaps the Minister of Customs will explain the significance of the first clause of the schedule?


Wilfrid Laurier: This is based
on the Ontario law of 1897?


Mr. J. D. REID:: Yes, it is based on the Ontario Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I think this language is probably taken from the Act of 1903.


Mr. MURPHY:: Yes, it is.


Robert Laird Borden: Has there been any amendment to this Act?


Edmond Proulx: The Ontario legislature passed an Act last session changing the electoral map of Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: Even if there has been any amendment, I assume that this Act formed the basis upon which the committee agreed to act.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Act of 1897 was the basis upon which the committee acted.
On section 2:
The county of Carleton, exclusive of that part of the city of Ottawa hereinafter provided as constituting the electoral district of Ottawa, and the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode.


Charles Murphy: I would suggest that the word 'of' be inserted after the word 'and' in the third line of subsection 2, so as to make the exclusion more apparent.


Robert Laird Borden: I move that the word 'of' be inserted after the word 'and' in the third line of this subsection.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Dundas:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is a change.


John Dowsley Reid: The county of Dundas remains the same with the exception that the townships of Finch and Osnabruck, and the village of Finch, have been taken from the county of Stormont and added to the county of Dundas.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: What population will they have?


John Dowsley Reid: It raises the population of
what will constitute Dundas to 25,000 and a few hundred.
Durham:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the change there?


John Dowsley Reid: The county of Durham remains as it is; there will be no change.
Glengarry and Stormont:


John Dowsley Reid: In this case the county of
Glengarry has added to it the eastern half of Stormont and that takes the two townships of Cornwall and Roxburgh and that part of the town of Cornwall within the township of Cornwall.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That disposes of
Stormont?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the western half goes
into Dundas and the eastern half into Glengarry.
Leeds:


John Dowsley Reid: There is a change here. The town of Brockville is joined to the county of Leeds.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is this language apt to include in the county of Leeds all that formerly constituted the constituency of Brockville? I think that constituency formerly included not only the city itself but some outside points.


John Dowsley Reid: The constituency of Brockville formerly included the township of Elizabethtown, Yonge and Escott. The city of Brockville is in the township of Elizabethtown.


Robert Laird Borden: Are the townships parts
of the county of Leeds?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.

Lanark:


John Dowsley Reid: In this case North and South Lanark have been joined. The constituency is all within the county boundary.
Northumberland :


John Dowsley Reid: In this case East and West Northumberland have been put together. No changes have been made except that the two ridings have been united. Formerly the township of South Monaghan was placed in one of the other ridings and it is now excluded because it is on the opposite side of a lake and is attached to one of the Peterboroughs.


Charles Murphy: It is in one of the
Peterboroughs?


John Dowsley Reid: It always has been.
Victoria, with the provisional county of Hali-burton:


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the meaning
of 'provisional county'?


John Dowsley Reid: That is a local term.


Robert Laird Borden: I imagine that is the
expression used in the Act-that is alluded to in connection with this paragraph.


John Dowsley Reid: It is left exactly the same
as it was before.


Wilfrid Laurier: That must
mean that no population has gone in there yet, that it is still provisional.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.
Muskoka:


Charles Murphy: Ts that, new?


John Dowsley Reid: Muskokr. remains exactly
the same.
Nipissing:


Wilfrid Laurier: Is Nipissing
divided in two?


John Dowsley Reid: Nipissing is divided in two, one riding being called Temisliaming and the other Nipissing. There is a portion that was formerly in one of the Algomas away up along the Grand Trunk Pacific and that is put into Temiskaming. There seemed to be no way of getting up there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does that take in
Porcupine district?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. Nipissing is divided
into north and south.


Charles Murphy: It is the other way.


Mr. NESBITT:: The line runs east and
west instead of north and south?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and the Porcupine district, which is really part of the Nipissing district, is put into the northern part.


Wilfrid Laurier: In what township is the Porcupine district?


John Dowsley Reid: It is in Algoma.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, but
Nipissing is absolutely distinct and is divided into townships.


Robert Laird Borden: I gather that Temiskaming is in the northern part and that the Porcupine district will form a part of Temiskaming.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In regard to Nipissing, it is quite clear that the whole electoral district of Nipissing is included. That can be seen by looking at the map. Are Renfrew and Sudbury to remain?


John Dowsley Reid: The part of Renfrew mentioned is what was in Nipissing before. There will be no change there. The only change made is that what was the Nipissing riding before is divided into two r; flings, with this exception .that the portion away up in Porcupine that cannot be reached except by coming around in this way has been added to the north riding. I would suggest that Timiskaming and Nipissing stand until after recess.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice that the name of Timiskaming is given to one of these constituencies. I would draw my right hon. friend's attention to the fact that there is a constituency in the province of Quebec by that name.


Robert Laird Borden: It really would not make any difference, because they are for different houses.
City of London:


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the hon. minister
state briefly what this cuts out of London?


John Dowsley Reid: Under the old Act the city
of London was composed of the whole of the city of London with the exception of the suburbs that were a part of East Middlesex. When this section: says ' the city of London exclusive of the portions thereof described as follows,' it gives a description of those parts of the suburbs that are. in Middlesex. Therefore so far as the constituency of London is concerned, there is no change now from what it was formerly with this exception, that some little por-

tion was taken in of the suburbs that really are a part of London. We call it ' all that part of London with the exception of that portion that is in Middlesex.'
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
County of Kent:


Mr. McCOIG:: Last night, when the minister (Mr. Rogers) introduced this Bill, he asked hon. members to look over the different constituencies carefully. I notice that the county of Kent has been created one riding. I do not think it will be necessary for me to mention to the House that this makes an extremely large constituency, with a population of from 55,000 to 58,000. I feel satisfied that it is the desire of the Prime Minister to have the ridings as equally distributed as possible in regard to population. I hope that the hon. minister is willing to give this matter his best consideration to see if it would be possible to have it so arranged that the population in the county of Kent might have a fairer representation. I hope the hon. minister can do something to adjust the situation in this particularly large riding.


Mr. ROGERS:: As my hon. friend is aware, we had this matter under consideration yesterday, when the final arrangement was closed, and we were waiting to hear from the hon. member for East Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong), as his constituency was being affected. I now beg to move:
That on page 3, section IT, after the word 'Kent,' insert the words 'exclusive of the town* ships of Zone and Camden.'


Archibald Blake McCoig: That would include the towns in those townships?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Might I ask what is the population of these two townships?


Robert Rogers: I think six thousand odd hundred.


Robert Laird Borden: Are there any towns in
the township?


Robert Rogers: Dresden.


John Dowsley Reid: I might say that this Bill, as stated by the hon. member, mentions the county of Kent. At the time we were discussing this matter I stated that, of course, the hon. member lor East Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) would have to understand the matter before we corrected it, and the Minister of Public Works advises me
that he has communicated with that hon. member, who has no objection.
County of Russell:


Charles Murphy: I would suggest to my hon. friend that the language of the Bill of 1903 be adhered to, * the county of Russell, with the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode, and Rideau ward of the city of Ottawa.'


Robert Rogers: I move that:
After the word ' Osgoode ' strike out what follows and insert the words ' and Rideau Ward of the city of Ottawa.'


Mr. CHABOT:: I think that Rideau
ward should be taken into the city of Ottawa. It is a natural part of the city and has been annexed to it for years; and 1 feel that in federal elections that ward should have the same representation as in municipal elections. As the ward belongs to Ottawa, I think the people should vote as the other citizens


Edmond Proulx: The Rideau river is a
natural dividing line, and I think Rideau ward should be included in Russell.


Charles Murphy: I understand the min-
.ater's amendment merely gives effect to what the committee agreed upon.
Electoral district of Nippissing:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is there any change in Nipissing from what was made in the first draft?


John Dowsley Reid: It is exactly the same.


Charles Murphy: Will the hon. gentleman explain where these townships were previously, mentioned as being in the county of Renfrew?


John Dowsley Reid: The townships are part of
Renfrew. The last electoral district of Nipissing included these three Renfrew townships. In other words, the two Ren-frews have not been changed in any way. The same reading that was in the former statute for North and South Renfrew is supposed to be in this Bill, and the Nip-issing district has been divided, putting these Renfrew townships in whatever portion-


Charles Murphy: In one of the new divisions?


John Dowsley Reid: In one of the new divisions.
City of London:


John Dowsley Reid: I explained before the House rose at six o'clock about the city of London. There has been no change whatever,

unless there has been a little of the city of London that may have been added within the last ten years. The city of London is in the centre of the new district of East Middlesex, so that it does not affect either constituency in any way.
City of Ottawa:


John Dowsley Reid: We have a change to make there. This subsection reads :
The city of Ottawa, exclusive of that part thereof described as follows :
The description is the part that is in the county of Carleton. We have to add to that the words 'also exclusive of Rideau ward.'


Robert Rogers: I move that after the word ' Mechanicsville ' on the second last line of subsection 32, there be added the words ' and also exclusive of Rideau ward.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Territorial districts of Thunder Bay, Kenora and Rainy River:
John Dowsley Reid: These districts have been divided into two ridings. The committee went over this very carefully and the descriptions that are made here are as approved by the committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Which one of these constituencies adjoins the Manitoba boundary?


John Dowsley Reid: The Fort William and Rainy River district. The Port Arthur and Kenora district is from Port Arthur east.
On subsection 38 :


Thomas Simpson Sproule: After the word 'Dundalk ' in the second line of paragraph b there should be inserted the word ' Flesh-erton.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BELAND:: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that your riding is preserved?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I regret to say it is not.


Wilfrid Laurier: You are not alone.
County of Lambton.
Mr. ROGERS moved to amend subsection 41 by inserting in the second line of subsection a, after the word 'Euphemia Zone', and Camden.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these in that county or the adjoining county?


John Dowsley Reid: They are in the adjoining
county of Kent.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps we had better
let them stand. What occurred to me is that if section 41 declares the county of Lambton to be divided into two ridings there should be a statement that the additional townships are in another county otherwise it might not be so understood.
Section stands.
West York:


Mr. WALLACE:: I beg to move that after the word ' Weston ' in the second line of subsection b, the words 'New Toronto' be added. This is a village which was incorporated some time ago.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
South York:
William Findlay Maclean: I see that the town of Leaside has been omitted from this definition.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not really necessary to include the towns, but as it has been done in some cases perhaps it would be as well to do it in all.


William Findlay Maclean: Although this definition is one of the shortest', one unacquainted with the district cannot understand it without reading the other definitions, because it says ' those portions of the city of Toronto not included in the ridings of West York, Parkdale,' etc. South York, as thus defined, will include all the growing portions of the city of Toronto and of the metropolitan township of York, the population of which has grown from 25,000 to 100,000 in ten years, and I hope it will continue growing at the same rate. I would tell the Postmaster General if he were here that he will have to devote a good deal of his attention in the future to increasing the postal facilities of the city of Toronto and the riding of South York. I would like to have seen some of the trouble of looking after the postal arrangements of these new districts surrounding Toronto distributed over two or three ridings, but I suppose we shall have to accept the arrangement that has been made; but it puts on the member for South York, whoever he may happen to be, the responsibility of looking after postal arrangements for these growing portions. I would like to have seen the constituency of South York defined by metes and bounds rather by a process of elimination as in the Act. I beg to move that after the words ' township of Markham,' the words ' the town of Leaside ' be added.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hamilton:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is there any change
in this?


John Dowsley Reid: It is the same as it was before; the part that is excepted is in Wentworth.
Ottawa:


Mr. FRIPP:: I beg to move that the committee revert back to paragraph 32 for the purpose of reconsidering the boundaries of Ottawa. I understand that the city of Ottawa was taken up during my absence and that a portion of the city, which is just as much a part of the city as any part of the city of Hamilton is, has been put in the county of Russell. I therefore beg to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Garland), that the committee reconsider the boundaries of the city of Ottawa.


Charles Murphy: The hon. junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot) was here when the matter was discussed and the committee was informed as to the situation in regard to the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Fripp).	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend refer to Rideau ward?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I would like to say, for the information of members of the committee, that Rideau ward has 'been a part of the city of Ottawa for the past twenty years and there is no more reason why it should be eliminated from the city than there is why Central ward should be taken out and placed in another electoral division. It was put into Russell, away back before 1896, for electoral purposes, but the city of Ottawa has grown in the meantime. It is really of no advantage to the county of Russell. Russell has a large enough population without any portion of the city of Ottawra being added to ft and it is not fair to the electors living in Rideau ward, which is just as much a portion of the city as the central portion of the city, that they should be compelled to vote in the county of Russell. If county and city boundaries are to be adopted I submit that this is a departure from that principle and I would therefore beg to move that Rideau ward be left in the city of Ottawa where it is situated and that clause 32 of the Bill be reconsidered.


Charles Murphy: I just wish to correct a misapprehension. Possibly my hon. friend
(Mr. Fripp) was not conscious of misstating the facts when he stated that Rideau ward was put into the $sounty of Russell. Rideau ward was always in Russell. It has always formed a part of the township of Gloucester, and when New Edinburgh, as it then was called, was made a ward of the city of Ottawa for municipal purposes, it nevertheless remained in the county of Russell for electoral purposes, and it has always remained so. It has never been taken out of Russell county. It is not a case of putting it back but it is a case of leaving it where it has always been.


Robert Laird Borden: The city of Ottawa, as my hon. friend (Mr. Fripp) knows, has a very large electoral unit. Does not the same condition prevail with reference to the county of Carleton? The city of Ottawa has grown out into Russell and into Carleton, and if for municipal purposes portions of these counties have been taken wdthin the city limits, nevertheless, for electoral purposes, they have been regarded for a number of years as properly appertaining to the adjoining counties that I have mentioned. The same condition prevails in the city of Toronto, as my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) mentioned just now.


William Findlay Maclean: Three enormous portions of the city of Toronto are put into the ridings of York. They were always in the ridings of York, but they are now substantially portions of the city. Nevertheless, I would like to have the other principle recognized.


Robert Laird Borden: I believe the same thing prevails in regard to the county of Middlesex and the city of London. I think that some portions of Middlesex that are parts of the city of London are nevertheless included in one or other of the ridings of the county of Middlesex.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: With reference to the city of Toronto, as I understand it, it is necessary to include portions of that city in the adjoining electoral divisions in order to make up the necessary population or to equalise the population as far as it is possible of the constituencies in the Toronto district. But the same reason does not apply to the city of Ottawa. The mere fact that Rideau ward was at one time a part of the township of Gloucester, which is within the electoral district of Russell, does not apply with any more force than does the fact that a portion of the town-

ship of Gloucester, which is known as Ottawa South, is included, by this Bill, in the city of Ottawa, because it is geographically in the city of Ottawa. My hon. friend from Ruesell (Mr. Murphy) knows well that the township of Gloucester is geographically within the county of Carleton, and that Rideau ward is in the township of Gloucester. Before 189d the township of Gloucester, which is situated in the county of Carleton, was added to the county of Russell.


Charles Murphy: No, no.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: This change deprives the voters of Rideau ward of the opportunity of voting in Ottawa, the same as they do in municipal elections, without any reason whatever. It is of no advantage to the county of Russell, as far as population is concerned. People residing in Rideau ward, because Rideau ward is a part of the city, have the right to vote in the city just as much as the people residing in any other portion of the city. We have taken the western part of Ottawa, formerly the village of Hintonburgh, to make up the population of the county of Carleton, which is quite fair and equitable, but I submit that 300 odd people who live in Rideau ward, or what was known as New Edinburgh, have a right to vote in the city of Ottawa where they belong.


John Dowsley Reid: I would have liked to have seen Rideau ward remain in the city of Ottawa, and it was proposed that it should be made a part of the city, but we finally agreed that the electoral divisions should remain as they were, and that we should submit our report to the House and let the House decide. That is the reason why the committee have made this amendment. It is for the House to decide. The electoral division of Russell has a very large population. Personally, I would like to have seen Rideau ward placed in the city of Ottawa, but, in putting Russell -back in the list, the committee unanimously decided that w-e would bring down the report and let the House decide whether Rideau ward should be in the city of Ottawa or the county of Ruesell. I think the committee would not have objected to reporting that Rideau ward should.be made a part of the electoral district of Ottawa. I do not think it really makes much difference either way. I really think myself that, as Rideau ward is geographically located in Ottawa, it should be there for electoral purposes.
	.


William Findlay Maclean: The principle involved is that of community of interest, and this principle has been violated in Ottawa and Toronto. More consideration should have been paid to that principle in connection with these two cities. We have put large portions of these cities into the adjacent townships, resulting in a violation of the principle of community of interest. It may be that convenience suggests the adoption of the plan of combining urban and suburban communities in one electoral district, but, certainly, it is a wider departure from the principle of community of interest than that 'which has prevailed in the past.


Charles Murphy: With all deference to the view of my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), I wish to point out that he is in error in regard to the position of New Edinburgh in relation to the city and county. In the redistribution of 1892, New Edinburgh, or Rideau ward as it was called, was allowed to remain in the county of Russell. In the redistribution of 1903, it was again allowed to remain in the county of Russell. One of the reasons that led to that decision was the desire to preserve the geographical boundary of the county, the Rideau river being the western boundary oif the county, and Rideau ward being situated on that side of the Rideau river which is in the county of Russell.
Amendment (Mr. Fripp), lost on division.


John Dowsley Reid: Before we leave Ontario, the law clerk has just asked me to amend section 44, subsection a, on page 12, in regard to the county of Oxford. I there*-fore beg to move:
That section 44	(a) be amended as follows : by inserting after the words ' city of Woodstock * the words * that part of the village of Tavistock situate in the town of East Zorra.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: There is also a change to be made on page 12, in section 45, subsection b. I beg to move:
That section 45 (b) be amended by adding after the words ' St. Mary's ' the words 1 and that part of the village of Tavistock situate in the township of Easthope south.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: In regard to section 41, the law clerk suggests that where it reads ' the county of Lambton into two ridings ' it should read ' the county of Lambton and the townships- of Zone and Camden

in the county of Kent into two ridings.'
I would therefore beg to move:
That section 41 be amended by adding after the words ' the county of Lambton ' the words * and the townships of Zone and Camden in the county of Kent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. MoCOIG: Does that cover the part of the county put in P
John Dowsley Reid: That is putting the townships of Zone and Camden into Lambton.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Has it been arranged to connect them with East Lambton ?


Robert Laird Borden: That has already been done.


Archibald Blake McCoig: When these townships are added to East Lambton, the towns of-Botli-well and Dresden and the village of Thamesville, which are in these two townships, will also be included.


Robert Laird Borden: The Bill follows that of 1904 in providing specially in section 4 that all places within the territorial limits shall be included. There does not seem to be any reason for enumerating these townships at all.
Quebec-Electoral district of Rimouski:


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not quite understand this section. Rimouski is to be divided into two ridings, as follows:
(a)	One which is to be called Rimouski and which shall comprise all that part of the present county of Rimouski situated west of the Metis river together with the whole of the parish of Ste. AngSle de M6rici.
(b)	One called Matane comprising all that part of the present county of Rimouski situated east of the Metis river less that portion of the parish of Ste. Angele de Mgrici which is situated east of the Metis river.
The point is that apparently the parish of Ste. Angele de Merici is on both sides of the Metis river.


Robert Laird Borden: The section does not seem to be consistent.


Wilfrid Laurier: Better let it
stand.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for
Beauce (Mr. Belaud) might explain it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think there is a mistake there. Instead of ' West ' it should be ' East '


Wilfrid Laurier: You might
imagine from the way it is here that the parish of Ste. Angele de Merici is on both sides of the Metis river.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is.	,
Sir	WILFRID	LAURIER:	Then	the
section is not properly drafted.
Mr.	BELAND:	It is	situated on	both
sides of the river.
Mr.	BORDEN:	Some	such	wording as
this should be used, ' Together with that part of the parish of Ste. Angele de Merici which lies west of the Metis river.' We will let it stand.
Section stands.
4. The parishes of St. Tite, St. Fgrgol, St. Joachim, Chateau Richer, Ste. Anne and the village of Ste. Anne shall be detached from the electoral district of Montmorency and shall be transferred to the electoral district of Charlevoix, and together with the said electoral district of Charlevoix shall form one electoral district. to be called Charlevoix-Montmorency, and shall return one member.


Robert Laird Borden: That does not strike me as' quite the correct way of expressing' what is intended-that these parishes shall be detached from the electoral district of Montmorency and transferred to the electoral district of Charlevoix. When the old Act is repealed there is no electoral district of Charlevoix.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is none.


Robert Laird Borden: When this Act is passed it repeals the old Act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If you read the first paragraph you will notice it states:
The electoral districts of the province of Quebec shall continue to be constituted and represented in the House of Commons, as at present, except


Robert Laird Borden: It may be all right.
Electorial districts of Quebec East, Quebec West and Quebec South.


Mr. A. LACHANCE (Quebec Centre):: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, the redistribution of the seats in the city of Quebec does not appear to me to have been carried out in a spirit of fairness, either as regards the territory itself or the population included within its limits. I trust, however, that the House will believe me when I say that my criticism is not suggested by the blotting out of the constituency of Quebec Centre in the new arrangements. No, the data supplied by the census of 1911 rendered necessary a change in the limits of the various constituencies comprised within the bounds of the old city. The best evidence of my good faith in making the statements I am about to make in

this House, is my abstaining from any appeal to the Government for the restoration of that electoral district of Quebec Centre, though I would be delighted if it were restored.
Of course, and it goes without saying, I was greatly attached to that constituency, which I have had the honour of representing here since 1905, one of the finest constituencies of the province, and possibly of the whole of Canada. Its population is one of the most amiable and courteous that it is possible to meet; it comprises, in large numbers, all classes of society: men of the professional, business, commercial, industrial, labouring, merchant and banking occupations; and it is with sincere regret that I will have to sever my political relations with them all, Liberal and Conservative, as well; for the latter, though they opposed me strenuously, have always acted ae gentlemen towards me; and in regard to all of them I retain only the best remembrance. Indeed, from the honourable place which I occupy in this House, I wish to thank this evening once more my electors for the generous and full confidence which they reposed in me for the last nine years.
Now, reverting to my remarks in connection with this matter, I stated that the redistribution was not justified on the basis of the population comprised in each one of the new constituencies. As a matter of fact, the constituency to be designated Quebec South will have a population of 17,000 souls, while Quebec East and Quebec West, will have 20,000 souls. Why that difference of nearly one-half between the population of one of these constituencies and the two others? That discrepancy might have been easily avoided.
To carve out Quebec South, the constituencies of Quebec West and Quebec Centre are jointed, after eliminating, however, from the latter constituency St. John's ward, which is annexed to the new Quebec East; besides the parish of Sillery is detached from the county of Quebec. There were, nevertheless, two means available towards avoiding that disproportion between the various groups; the first means was to take in the parishes of Ste. Foye and Cap Rouge, which would have given a total population of 18,000 or 20,000 souls.
The second means was even more simple of application; it consisted in joining together Quebec Centre and Quebec West, which are contiguous to one another over the greater part of their length. That was

certainly the most rational, the most logical division which it was possible to adopt.
Why has St. John's ward been eliminated? Because, I imagine, that ward had been for many years the Liberal hive in Quebec Centre, and might have rendered very doubtful the chances of the Conservative party in the new constituency in Quebec South. It remains, however, that the carving out of these two constituencies has been accomplished in a most arbitrary manner, and though it may be considered of paramount importance to insure the safety of the Conservative party, such a procedure is inexcusable.
St. John's ward, which is annexed to the future Quebec East, might have been replaced by either St. Sauveur or St. Valier wards, which are included in the proposed constituency of Quebec West. As regards Quebec West itself, why was it not made out of one of those two wards of St. Valier or St. Sauveur, together with the Stadacpna and St. Malo wards, Petite Riviere, and the parishes of Sillery, Ste. Foye and Gifp Rouge? And if that was not enough, was it not possible to further take in one or two parishes of the county of Quebec, which on all sides borders and surrounds the city of Quebec. It may be alleged that the division proposed as regards the new constituencies of Quebec South and Quebec East was desirable inasmuch as it secured an increase of population sufficient to allow the city of Quebec to retain its three seats in the House of Commons. But it will be found impossible to justify on the same ground, or any other ground, the taking in of the parishes of St. Augustin, Ecureuils and Neuville (Pointe aux Trembles) detached from the constituency of Portneuf to complete the proposed electoral district of Quebec West. The inclusion of these three parishes will have the effect of creating an urban constituency thirty-one miles long, a county which will reach out as far as the parish of Cap Sant6, the county town of the second next rural constituency to the west of Quebec.
There was one very simple thing to do: take over from the county of Quebec one or two parishes, since that county is contiguous to the city on every side, and since, in many respects, its interest are identical with those of the city, and its population in daily intercourse with ours, and constantly found within the city limits on business of various sorts.
It seems to me, therefore, that the bound-

aries which are proposed are out of harmony with the principles of the most elementary justice. It is generally known that the electors of these parishes of the county of Portneuf have been found as a rule on the Conservative side of politics, and the intention, no doubt, was to have that influence to bear on the new constituency of Quebec West. There does not seem to be any other plausible explanation. So, I would be justified in drawing the conclusion that the taking in of these three parishes of Quebec West is a sort of political manoeuvering under the cover of the law, and I deem it my duty to voice my protest against such a course.
In conclusion', I call on the Government to amend their Bill in that respect and to replace these three muncipalities of the electoral district of Portneuf by municipalities comprised in the county of Quebec, for the reason I have stated.
The hon. Postmaster General has already given himself a free hand with the constituency of Montmorency; let him take another slice to replace what is to be taken off his county, and he may rest assured that in so doing he will not incur the ill-will of the hon. member for Charlevoix, who has been favoured with another section of that same county of Montmorency and has accepted that gift rather coldly, if rumour is to be credited.
On resuming my seat, I once more express the hope that the Government will modify the boundaries of the future county of Quebec West in the way I said yesterday.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: (Translation.) The
principle which underlies the wording of this clause as well as the understanding we have come to, the hon. member for Beauce and myself, is the following:	it
seemed to us most unfortunate that the good old city of Quebec should lose a seat, and that was what was going to happen conformably to the data supplied by the last census. If the unit of representation was to be strictly adhered to, the city of Quebec was destined to have henceforth two representatives only. I endeavoured to find outside the city a proper group of population which might be taken in, so as to make up a constituency populous enough to allow of our dear old city of Quebec retaining the three seats which she has had for so long a time. With that object in view I myself made sacrifices, though I could not help regretting to have to part with three parishes of my county,
where, since my election, I have had constant intercourse of a most pleasant nature with my constituents. Two of those parishes will be added to Quebec West, and the third to Quebec South.
To make up Quebec South, we have been obliged to increase its area considerably. What is designated to-day as Quebec West -a designation which did not answer very well its geographical situation-had only about 9,000 of population. Barring Soul-anges, it was the county of the province of Quebec having the smallest population. It was impossible, therefore, to leave matters in that condition. In order to make up a constituency having something like the unit of population required, we were bound to look elsewhere, and we succeeded in grouping a population as numerous as that represented by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in his own division. But in order to increase that population, and to do away with any undue disproportion, we took in all that made up the old division of Quebec West, and added thereto the wards of Quebec Centre.


Arthur Lachance: (Translation.) You
have taken in everything except St. John's ward.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: (Translation.) My
hon. friend is right. In order to secure to the new constituency of Quebec South a population of about the requisite number, we were obliged to include in Quebec South nearly the whole of my hon. friend's constituency; only one ward was left out. Henceforth that division will comprise a good number of the city's wards; and then we had to take in also the parish of Sdllary, in the county of Quebec, where I obtained a large majority, and to include it in the new county of South Quebec.
Working on the same lines, we transferred St. John's ward to the division now represented by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and which in the future will be made up of the St. John, Jacques Cartier, St. Roch and Limoilou wards. It is still the constituency having the largest population. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition had 48,000 people in his constituency, while another division of Quebec had only 9,000. In order to do away with that great discrepancy, we took away from the present constituency of Quebec East the wards of St. Sauveur, St. Valier, Stadacona, St. Malo and Petite Riviere. However, Quebec East will still have a larger population than Quebec South and Quebec West.

In the ease of Quebec West, we had to take in two parishes of my county and three parishes of the county of Portneuf. Thus did we succeed in doing away with undue discrepancies between the populations of these constituencies, and in sparing to the city of Quebec the loss of one seat. The hon. member for Beauce agreed with me and acknowledged that it was the best arrangement that could be made.
The hon. member for Quebec Centre spoke in the same strain that I would have myself spoken, had I been in his place; but, .after considering the matter, we came to the conclusion that we could not do any better.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.) I regret
as deeply as my hon. friend from Quebec Centre that this constituency, which he has represented with so much honour and ability for a good many years past, should disappear. But in a committee appointed to define the boundaries of new electoral divisions in a country eo vast an. area as Canada, there are interests which should be safeguarded, geographical and electoral requirements which must be taken into account. There are also joint interests which should not be lost sight of.
We had before us three divisions, one of which had a population of 9,000 souls, and the general wish of the committee was that the old city of Quebec should retain its three seats.
The constituency of Quebec West, as it now is constituted, having only 9,000 of a population, it was necessary that we should increase that number, and the only means at our disposal was to transfer part of the population of Quebec Centre to the new constituency of Quebec South. We took the division of Quebec Centre in whole, minus St. John's ward, and we transferred it to the present constituency of Quebec West, and both together make up a fairly large unit for the constituency of Quebec South.
As regards the constituency of Quebec West, which will comprise the wards of St. Sauveur, St. Valier, Stadacona, St. Malo, Petite Riviere, to which are added the parishes of Ste. Foye and Cap Rouge in the county of Quebec, and the parishes of St. Augustin, Ecureuils and Neuville, it may seem odd to some people that we should have made that selection. Possibly we might have detached from the county of Quebec some parishes to form Quebec West and thus leave where they now are
[Mr. Pelletier.^
the three parishes of the county of Portneuf. But, as I have just stated, there are always interests which it is necessary to safeguard on either side.'
The hon. Postmaster General thought it advisable to take these three parishes from the county of Portneuf and annex them to the new division of Quebec West. I agreed to that because, as I stated a moment ago, it cannot be expected that negotiations can be carried on in a friendly way, for a length of time, between members of a committee such as ours, unless there is some give and take on both sides.
I realize that the Postmaster General is intent on getting one of his political friends elected in Quebec West, but twixt the cup and the lip there is often many a slip, and I am satisfied he will not succeed.
More than any one else, possibly, I regret the cutting out of Quebec Centre; but I am comforted at the thought that my hon. friend may easily secure his return in one of the new electoral divisions of Quebec, or outside Quebec. It would be a real pity if the House were to be deprived of the acquirements and experience of my friend Lachance, who has represented Quebec Centre with such ability since 1905. But I repeat it, a committee of that kind cannot accomplish anything if both parties are not willing to make concessions in exchange for advantages secured.
In this, case, it may seem strange that some parishes of the county of Portneuf should be transferred to the constituency of Quebec West. However, it is by that means that we succeed in retaining three electoral seats within the city of Quebec. True, one of those divisions extends some distance into the country, but I trust that on the whole the people will be satisfied. Some parishes might have been taken from the county of Montmorency and transferred to that of Quebec, while some parishes of the last-mentioned country might have been transferred to Quebec West. But, I reiterate my former statement: in matters of that kind, mutual concessions are in order, though they may seem odd at times. On the whole, I am confident that the interests of the. city of Quebec have been well served.


Wilfrid Laurier: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I fully realize what are the feelings of my hon. friend from Quebec Centre (Mr. Lachance) and they are largely mine, for, while being luckier than he is, I do not see my constituency wiped off, the map, it was not without regret that I wit-

nessed its d is rnemib e r m e nt. .as I have been its representative, not for a iperiod of nine years only but for close on thirty-seven years; it will toe fully thirty-seven years in December next. Of course when the time comes to choose between St. Roch and St. Sauveur, it will be a difficult matter to decide, and distressing in any case.
The reason given by the Postmaster General that it was necessary to effect such a dismemberment in order to retain for the city of Quebec the representation it has always enjoyed since Confederation is not quite correct, for the situation in 1903 was the same as in 1914, though in the meantime the unit increased soimewhat. So I believe it would have been possible to effect the redistribution without laying hands on those old historical constituencies.
I shall not go any further. I know that my hon. friend from Beauce, who many a time talked the matter over with me, has given to this matter his best judgment and much thought. It is a case of dura lex, sed lex. That is the only explanation which can be given on behalf of my hon. friend and on my own.
Island of Montreal:


Mr. AMES:: There is a slight clerical
error here. Mount Royal park is spoken of as being part of the electoral district of Jacques Cartier. That is not the case; Mount Royal park is a part of St. Antoine district, so that the words ' and Mount Royal park ' should be omitted and the word ' and ' inserted before the words ' Mount Royal ward.'


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is that Model City!'


Herbert Brown Ames: It is the park on the mountain. Only ten or a dozen people live there, chiefly gardeners of the park.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When my hon. friend
mentions Mount Royal park, does he include the two small mountains?


Herbert Brown Ames: No. Mount Royal park extends from Durocher street on the east to Cote des Neiges road on the west.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Electoral district of Cartier:
Henri Sévérin Béland: There is a district here
by the name of Cartier and as there might be some confusion with Jacques Cartier, I would suggest that the electoral district of St. Louis and St. Jean Baptiste be called Dollard. It is an historical name, and I 3.35
think my hon. friend the Postmaster General should have no objection to the change.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We think that the memory of Sir George Cartier should be commemorated by giving his name to one of the Montreal divisions; that is the object we had in view in giving the division this name.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why not call it George Etienne Cartier?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is a good suggestion.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I quite realize that it is desirable that an electoral division should bear the name of the great Canadian statesman ; I merely made the suggestion in order to avoid confusion, as there is a riding called Jacques Cartier. George Etienne Cartier would be a suitable name.
Mr. PELLETIER moved that the words ' George Etienne ' be inserted before the word ' Cartier ' in the first line of paragraph c.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. C. A. WILSON (Translation.) 1 wish to enter my protest against the way the new division of Maisonneuve is made up. Really, I do not very well understand why Jesus island has been taken out and replaced toy a town, the town of Maisonneuve. Jesus island is ascribed to the county of Two Mountains in view of a political advantage, assuredly, and not because of its population, for Jesus island always gives a Conservative majority of one hundred against me. It is obvious that the Government intended to secure the defeat of my excellent friend Mr. Ethier, the present member for Two Mountains. Moreover, you strike off the name of Laval and you change the present county of Laval into the county of Maisonneuve or else into Montreal No. 12.	.
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Both parties have
agreed to sign the present arrangement.


Mr. WILSON:: Mr. Chairman, I protest. I have never been consulted and I do not know that the Hon. Dr. Beland, the member for Beauce, is the Liberal party. I consider that, from a .material point of view, that is, with respect to real estate, the inhabitants of Jesus island will suffer to a great extent. We must not forget, Mr. Chairman, that the Quebec Government has bought the Viau bridge and the Lachapelle



bridge for the price of one hundred and forty thousand dollars in order to facilitate the communications between Jesus island and the metropolis of Canada; and the new subdivision will be detrimental to the inhabitants of Jesus island to a great extent. In fine, Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter my eolemn protest against this new subdivision being made, and I can take no responsibility with respect to its being made, because I was not consulted.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I understand that the hon. member regrets the disappearance of the former division of Laval which he represents; but as was said by my hon. friend from Beauce in the case of the city of Quebec, we have done our best in the present also, and I can only repeat the words of the hon. leader of the Opposition. Dura lex, sed lex. I may add that we have retained the name of Laval.


Charles Avila Wilson: As far as history is concerned, you did well. Perhaps the hon.
minister will be surprised to hear that Jesus island bore, formerly, the name of Montmaguy island and belonged to the Sul-picians. It now belongs to the seminary of Quebec, which gets the annuities coming from that property. As a consequence of a certain difference between the Jesuits and the Sulpicians, the latter gave the island away to the Jesuits. Even though Jesus island gives a Conservative majority against me, I would have been pleased, really, to see that the county of Laval was [DOT]left as it was before. The mayor of Pointe-aux-Trembles, Mr. Ladouoeur, a Conservative leader, came here .as a delegate-I introduced him to you myself and he protested against those changes. Why did you withdraw Jesus island from the county of Laval?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Because we are bringing it into the county of Two Mountains.


Charles Avila Wilson: Then, I will ask my hon. friend why he gave me the whole of Maisonneuve?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Because my hon.
frend is able to grasp a good deal.


Charles Avila Wilson: Grasp all, lose all.
Mr. 6EGTJIN (L'Assomption): (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I heard the hon. Postmaster General say, a moment ago, in answer to the hon. member foir Laval, that a delegation had come here from L'Assomp-tion to ask him not to parcel out the county

of L'Assomption and not to annex part of it to Montreal island and the balance to the county of Montcalm. That is true. But let me remind the hon. minister that this delegation did not ask exactly what the Redistribution Committee thought proper to do when they decided that the counties of Montcalm and of L'Assomption should be united together. The object of the delegation was to prevent the parcelling out of the county of L'Assomption and to obtain that this country, which is one of the most beautiful, if not the most beautiful in the province and in the whole Dominion, should be left in all its integrality with na addition nor subtraction. However, I must say, in all justice, that the delegates expressed the opinion that they preferred to see it united to its neighbour, the county of Montcalm, rather than to see it divided. I understand that by deciding in favour of the union, the committee made a slight concession to the delegation which I had the honour to introduce to the Postmaster General. But, after all, is it very fair to deprive those two counties of theiT respective and separate existence which gave them two representatives, and to unite them into one county with but one representative? Mr. Chairman, I deem that, by so doing, the Government will have committed a very ugly injustice, and I protest with all my might against such determination. It is claimed that the representation of Montreal must be increased because the population of that city has increased, and that, as a consequence of this, some of the rural counties must he struck off the list. This kind of reasoning might bring about, after a few years, a result which would be most nefarious and somewhat absurd. In fact, there being a [DOT]steady and prodigious increase in the population of Montreal, a time would come when most of the rural counties should disappear and when other counties should be substituted for them An the city, because the number of counties in the province of Quebec is limited to sixty-five.
For my part, Mr. Chairman, I deem that the population of a city, being very numerous and very thick, wants less representation than does a population scattered out in the country, and that it is easier to represent fifty thousand electors in a city than to represent fifteen thousand in the country. The representative of a city is in daily contact with his constituents, and at two hours' notice he can bring them to-

gether to consult them and to submit the questions which may be of interest to them. It is not so with the representative of a country population. He has to travel painfully over long distances and on rough roads if he wishes to come in contact with his electors. Therefore, I blame the committee and the Government, the author of this Bill, for weakening in thie way the influence of the countries to the benefit of the cities. [Moreover, if some of the rural counties must disappear, why should they unite L'Assumption to Montcalm rather than Brome to ,Missis-quoi or to Stanstead? L'Assomption has a larger population than Brome. They could just as well have united together some other counties in the province, where the population is less than in L'Assomption or in Montcalm. But those two counties are branded with the hot iron and they must go. The Government wi l1 make but one opponent out of the two which they had, and that is how thes-e gentlemen understand justice.
As I world not like to take too much of the time of this House, I shall resume my seat, -but before doing so I protest anew, wth all my might, before this House and before the country, against the injustice which this Government will perpetrate by destroying, in a trice, the respective existence of the counties of L'Assomption and of Montcalm, and by enacting that, in the future, these two beautiful counties will make but one.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make on the question of uniting the counties of Montcalm and of L'Aesomption. -First of all, I think it my duty to protest -against the union of those two counties. Therefore,
I fully concur in the remarks which the hon. member for L'Assomption has just . made. When the electoral divisions were formed, at the time of Confederation, the number of counties in the province of Quebec was limited to sixty-five, and this number was never to be increased nor reduced. To-day, the representation of the cities is being increased and the rural representation as gradually disappearing by the fact that the number of rural counties is reduced.
I think I have already stated that the representation -should be territoral rather than individual; in other words, the area of -a county -should be represented, and not the number of its inhabitants. In large 3354
divisions as we find in Montreal, the area of the division is limited and it is easy to discuss matters of public interest there, whereas it is -quite different out in the country.
The county of Montcalm has an immense area, with no good roads, and it takes months to go round this county. The representative of a city has enough of two meetings in a vast hall to reach all his con- * stituents. It matters not if they are twenty or a hundred thousand. He is liable to no more trouble, work or expense in the one case than in the other. He takes his automobile and he scours his division in a two hours' drive. It is not so with the representative of -a rural county. Out in the country the autos are scarce and the roads are bad, especially in the county of Montca'lm. Now, I say that you should not do away with the representatives of rural counties in order to giv-e the large cities a more numerous representation. By such a -system you are weakening the influence of the French-Canadian element, because most of the rural counties -are inhabited by French-Canadians. It is all very well to tell the farmers that they should remain -attached to the soil and not leave the country for the city; but at the same time you are depriving them of their representatives. That may be your way to protect the farmers, but it is not the right way. You want those honest people to remain in the country, and so do I; but then, why should you deprive them of their representatives? The country people are proud to meet a minister or even -a deputy, to entertain them at home and to treat them with honour. They invite the deputy to the gala meetings, to the meetings of the agricultural -association, to the ploughing matches, to the corn picking parties; they invite him to ring the bell and to drop something in the salver. When a wedding takes place, the deputy is first to kiss the bride.
Mi.-. PELLETIER: You should be -satisfied when I am giving you two counties and arranging matters so that you will have many more brides to kiss?
Mr. LAFO-RTUNE: When there are too many it is more difficult to get at them.
There is a distance of one hundred miles from Saint-Donat to the river of L'Assomp-t'.on, which is at the far end -of the county.
I have done my best to m-eet my consti-

tuents, but I was not .aib'le, so far, to go round the county, 'because the roads are not good, and because I was detained by my work and also by illness. And you are going to add another county to this one? You will be doing me a great honour, for the county of L'Assomption is the one where my forefathers were horn and where they lived, .and where the late Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Launier, was horn also. But I cannot .approve the principle which was followed. I fail to see why we should strike off some of the rural counties in order to increase the representation of the cities. The dity .people hold practically the whole world in their hands. Every morning the newspapers make them aware of what has happened the world over.


Charles Avila Wilson: Even at Saint-Jer6me.


David Arthur Lafortune: Yes, even at Saint-Jerome, which is a very peculiar place; but, out in the country, it is a good deal more difficult to get mews from every part of the world.
My constituents are not satisfied with this change. To go round those two counties is a task which it would take four months to fulfil. Meetings cannot be held on week days, people are 'busy everywhere, we can meet them only on .Sundays, after high mass or vespers, or at might. The county of Montcalm numbers thirteen parishes and the county of L'Assomption eleven, twenty-four parishes in all. Therefore, it would take twenty-four Sundays to go round both counties-about half of the year, because as we figure it, the year is composed of fifty-two weeks. Is that fair? I say it is not. The leading commercial houses, the leading industries, the banks, the great companies, the capitalists are to be found in the large cities. Now, are not all those people in a position to protect themselves and even to exert a great influence? We very seldom see a minister out in the country, whereas in the city is all the reverse. In many cases the great centres supply the deputies to the country, and those deputies exert their influence in the great centres where they live.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: With the county of L'Assomption added to your own, where you will be elected, you will have a better chance to become a minister.


David Arthur Lafortune: If you happen to disappear, as I hope you will before long, perhaps I shall have a chance. But I con-

fes-s that I never sought after this honour. My ambition does not go beyond representing my constituents worthily, beyond doing my duty towards them. I reside in the county of Jacques Cartier, but I am in Montreal every day. I am quite disinterested, as you -see; but I submit that the electors out in the .country are not protected and cannot protect themselves as these who reside in the cities.
I cannot approve the principle according to which those counties are being coupled together. I do not (know whether I shall be elected in this double constituency. The present member for L'Assomption, who represents this division in a worthy manner, may be called upon to represent those united counties. I do not find amiss, nor shall I discuss this choice, which will be a happy one as far as merit goes. But I am voicing the sentiment of my constituents, who say that they have no use for the uniion of those counties. If I am here, I owe it to my good behaviour, to my work, and I have no other ambition than to serve the public honestly.
Having made those few remarks, which, I know, will have no influence, because everything has been arranged beforehand, I feel that I shall be able to meet my electors and to tell them that I have done my best, that I have protested, that this change was made against my will. Then, I shall be able to add this: The Government is powerful, they said the change was necessary. Well and good. But I have some doubt as to whether it was necessary.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: You must not forget to add also that both parties are agreed.


Charles Avila Wilson: No, I protest against that, the House was not much consulted about those changes.


David Arthur Lafortune: I shall be fair, I do not need to alter the truth, to be a candidate, and if I plead my case well, I shall win it. There is a compensation to everything, and if the union of the two counties is sanctioned, I shall come back to the blessed and sacred land of my forefathers. My family has always lived at L'Assomption. If I am called upon, later on, to seek the suffrages of the electors of that county, I shall feel perfectly at home, and this will be a great solace to me.
The hon. member for L'Assomption (Mr. Seguin) has precedence of me. He came here before me, and as a matter of justice, I might perhaps acknowledge that preee-

dence in fact and let him go ahead, which I will not regret to have done. Believe me, nobody can go through an electoral contest without leaving some of his woo1! on the field. That^ind of fight costs a great deal of work, a great deal of sacrifice, and in many cases it wil make a man poorer in the end than he was at first. I know by experience what life is, and I have something else to do than to deal with politics. I shall continue as Crown Attorney, as long as the Quebec Government remains in power. I have bread in reserve and I do not dread the rainy days. I have been saving, working and fighting so much that I finally succeeded in gathering up some property. I do not dread the future. If I am a lawyer, 'like the Postmaster General, I owe it to my persevering work.
I shall now conclude those observations by thanking the hon. members for having listened to me with so much benevolence. I shall support the chances of war. If both counties are united together and if I am not chosen as a,candidate, I shall submit to the decision rendered, for there is no resistance to offer against might.
Wright and Labelle:


Mr. DEVLIN:: Representing the electoral district of Wright and a great portion of the territory which will fall under the electoral district of Hull, I think I am voicing the views of the electors in that division when I say that they will welcome two members where they only had one before; but I am somewhat at a loss to understand just why the townships along the river Lievre have been attached to the new electoral district of Hull. Of course, I am very glad to see those townships attached to the electoral district of Hull, but for the coup vCnience of the people of those townships and of the people in the new district of Hull I fail to see just why the townships of Portland East and West, Derry, Bowman, Villeneuve East and West, Blake, McGill, Bigelow, Wells, Wabasee, and Dudley should be put into Hull. According to the last municipal census, the city of Hull had a population of over 20,000.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It must be making
immense strides.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I have asked the officials at the Hull city hall as to the population, and they assure me that it is over 20,000, and thai simply includes the city of Hull. According to the last Federal census, Hull
city has a population of 18,220: the township, 3,626; the town of Buckingham, 3,133; the township of Buckingham, 1,394; L'Ange Gardien, 993; and Gatineau Point, 1,751. So that according to the last census this district has a population of 32,681, but personally, I think it must now be nearer 40,000. You would have had ample population there to form a county without the necessity of taking in those other townships. When the old county of Ottawa w,as divided into Wright and Labelle in 1896, these townships were joined to the county of Labelle on account of the facilities of transportation existing between them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, as in the memorable knight, I see that I am forced to vote my own death without a phrase. The county of Rouville disappears officially from the electoral map; but before I take leave of my constituents, I must thank them heartily for the so generous support which they have given me in September 1911, and I must .assure them that they may depend upon my devotion and my sympathies in the future as they did in the past.
I do not complain of the legislation by which Rouville is being coupled with Saint-Hyacinthe. Upon consulting the .statistics of the census, I find that my county does not possess the electoral unit fixed as the basis of representation. A smaller population is to be found only in Soulanges, Quebec West and Vaudreuil. But I hasten to say to my electors: Non nuimerantur, sed ponderantur. If they are not the number, they are the weight.
The old historical county of Rouville is one of the richest in the land. It is the pride of the valley of the Richelieu. In fact, as far as education, or wealth, or progress goes, Rouville ranks first. If its population is not increasing, it is due to the special configuration of that county, the fertile territory of which is confined between the Richelieu river and the Yamaska river.	[DOT]
I must say that my opponents were willing to be easy-going towards me. They officiously offered me a county of Rouville enlarged. I was asked to cut out right and left in that district so downright Liberal. I could thrive at my neighbours' expense, hut by practising egotism I would have led my friends from Missisquoi and from Bagot into danger. I refused that Grecian gift,

and the Liberals of Rouville, whose traditions of fair play and of political honour are known, will approve me.
Ii	I regret, personally, the disappearance of Rouville, I must, however, do homage to the spirit of justice shown by the members of the commission. My hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Belaud) gave heed to the wishes of my county. In fact, the disappearance of Rouville made the union with Saint Hyacinthe logically inevitable. The relations between those two counties were always cordial from the very beginning.
Whatever may be the fate awaiting me at the next election, I proclaim, once more, and proudly so, that my constituents of Rouville may always depend upon my devotion. The new county of Rouville-St. Hyacinthe, I may assert it without boast, will remain true to the great Liberail tradition.
The parish called L'Ascension, in the county Richelieu, is transferred to the electoral district of Yamaska.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why was this addition made?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This was asked by the members for those two counties at the time. The people concerned desired it and the members for those two counties had no objection.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This was agreed to by the committee?


Mr. BEL  AND@: Let- me point out to the committee that the parish of Saint-Marcel is located on the east side of the river, which is the natural limit. Moreover, the . county of Yamaska has a much smaller population than the county of Richelieu.
The parish called 1/Ascension, in the county of Montcalm, is transferred to the electoral district of Labelle.


David Arthur Lafortune: One would be perfectly right in saying that it was necessary that this parish should be cut off the county of Montcalm and added to the county of Labelle. It is far away from Montcalm and one must travel through Labelle to reach it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This parish appears on the electoral map of the province of Quebec as being in the county of Labelle.


David Arthur Lafortune: I fully approve of this change, which was necessary.
[Mr. L,emieux.j
New Brunswick:


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand that all the provisions respecting New Brunswick are according to the agreement reached between my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) ?


Robert Rogers: Yes, entirely.
Nova Scotia:	Digby and Annapolis :


Mr. JAMESON:: Mr. Chairman, I desire to address a few remarks to the committee on this section inasmuch as it refers to the constituency which I represent. The measure that is before the committee is based upon the report of a joint committee composed of hon. members from both sides of the House. Their report, I understand, was practically unanimous and I have no doubt that this legislation will eventually be pdopted by this Parliament. Indeed, it is very obvious from the manner in which the various clauses affecting the redistribution in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have been adopted this evening that such will be the case. By this Bill the province of Ontario loses four seats, New Brunswick two, Prince Edward Island one, and Nova Scotia two. Quebec holds its present number of seats, though many Changes are made, and all western provinces gain seats. But in all there are nineteen seats throughout Canada wiped out by this Redistribution Bill. The Bill seriously affects the constituency of Digby. At the present time, in western Nova Scotia, there are three electoral divisions, Yarmouth, Digby and Annapolis, and it is proposed to divide Digby, attaching the municipality of Clare to the county of Yarmouth, uniting the municipalities of Digby and Annapolis, and forming the constituencies of Yarmouth-Clare and Digiby-Annapolis. When, some time ago, it was persistently rumoured that the constituency of Digby was liable to be effected toy this redistribution, I conferred with my 'hoe. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), who was the Nova Scotia representative on the Redistribution Committee and I then presented my views to him and 'he noted my objections. At a subsequent time I wrote my hon friend restating my objections in this matter.
I have no doubt that the Redistribution Committee has acted according to its best judgment. I am sure that its responsibilities were great; that its difficulties were many, and that amidst con-flicting interests it had its own troubles; but, Sir, of course any member of this House, whose constitu-

ency is materially and prejudicially affected, naturally dislikes the situation, however necessary it may be to make changes of that kind in order to effect a redistribution in this country. In common with a large number of other members in this House from the province of Ontario and Quebec and the Maritime provinces whose constituencies are affected in that way, I must therefore express my deep regret that the committee has found it necessary to make this arrangement. The fact that the Maritime provinces lose five seats in this redistribution is a matter which I regret as well, as in the last two preceding redistributions those provinces have suffered considerable loss. But I believe that the Maritime provinces are to-day on the eve of a very considerable development, and that further redistributions may, in some measure at least, redress the losses which are now being sustained. In the meantime, this Parliament is confronted with the provisions of the British North America Act, with the result of the last census and with the necessity of passing a Redistribution Bill. In this situation of facts, I can merely re-state the regret which I have expressed, that it has been found desirable or necessary to make a redistribution which will so materially effect the constituency which I have represented in this House during the past two Parliaments.


Robert Laird Borden: I share with my hon.
friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) the regret that the representation in the Maritime provinces has to be reduced under the provisions of this law, but as the law embodies the constitution of the country, we must observe it, and therefore it has been necessary to take this course. In view of that necessity, we had	to consider
in Nova Scotia, as elsewhere, the counties which would have to be altered. The county of Digby, adjoining on the one side the county of Yarmouth and on the other the county of Annapolis, is divided into two municipalities, namely, the municipality of Digby and the municipality of Clare. Adding the municipality of Clare to the county of Yarmouth, one gets 32,097, or just a little more than the electoral unit. Adding the municipality of Digby to the county of Annapolis, one gets practically 30,000, or almost the exact electoral unit. The population of Digby is partly Acadian, and partly of British origin; and in the adjoining county of Yarmouth the Acadians of Clare will, of course, have
associations with a great many of their own race who live in the county of Yarmouth. I have no doubt that the committee took these matters into consideration. It is absolutely impossible to make a redistribution in any province in Canada that will be thoroughly satisfactory to every one. The only thing at which the committee can aim is to take practically the best course; and it seemed that it was necessary to make this redistribution of the western part of the province of Nova Scotia, as well as to join the counties of Antigonish and Guysborough in the eastern part of the province.
My hon. friend the member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) has a splendid position in this House; and I am sure we all appreciate the service that he has rendered not only to his constituents, but to the country during his service as such member. I am absolutely sure that his constituents are as convinced of that as are the members of this House, who have seen his work in this Parliament and who know it. I can only say that I very deeply regret that it has been found necessary to take the course with regard to his constituency which the committee have recommended; but I am sure that he will appreciate that they have done so only by reason of the fact that they thought, on the whole, it was the proper and the best course to take under the circumstances.
Antigonish and Guysborough:


Mr. SINCLAIR:: With the consent of the Prime Minister, I think it would facilitate the discussion if this section stood until we reach the other section on which it has a bearing.
Section stands.
North Cape Breton and Victoria:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the term 'county of North Cape Breton ' strictly legal? As a matter of fact there is no county of North Cape Breton. It occurred to me, when the Bill was being drafted, that the proper thing to do would be to call it ' the electoral district of Cape Breton ' or ' that portion of the county o'f Cape Breton.'-


Robert Laird Borden: The section follows the
same words as those used before.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is following the
words of the statutes of 1892 and 1903. Each of these counties are counties of the province of Nova Scotia. Of course, when two are joined together, they form an electoral district.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The only thing is:
Where is 'the county of North Cape Breton' defined by law?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I see.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is no statutory definition of the county of North Cape Breton.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the best thing
to do would be to strike out the first three words ' the county of.' Then the section would read:
North Cape Breton and the county of Victoria shall together form and constitute the electoral district of North Cape Breton and Victoria, and shall return one member.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Act of 1903 reads as follows:
There shall be an electoral district consisting ot the northern portion of North Cape Breton in the county of Victoria, to be called the electoral district of North Cape Breton and Victoria.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What are the boundaries of the district so defined?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The said electoral district shall consist of the county of Victoria, the districts of Boisdale, Boularderie, East Bay (North), French Vale, George's river, Grand Narrows, and Little Bras d'Or, and the towns of North Sydney and Sydney Mines.


Robert Laird Borden: The section would have
to have the same form as in the statute.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. Is there any necessity of referring to it at all? It is in a settled state of existence now just the same as any of the other counties of Nova Scotia. My own county is in existence now, and we are not interfering with it by this Bill. It might be that, on account of the county having been constituted by the statute of this Parliament previously, we would have to reiterate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Would it not do to remove that section and have it included as the present district of North Cape Breton and Victoria, together with the remaining counties in the last paragraph of the Act? I intend perhaps at a larger stage to move an amendment.


Mr. BOUDEN:: If the same procedure were followed as in the case of Quebec, it would simplify matters. The preamble of the Quebec section is as follows:
The electoral districts of the province of Quebec shall continue to be constituted and represented in the House of Commons, as at present, except in the following particulars.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That would be the best way.
[Mr. Rhodes.)


Robert Laird Borden: If we adopted that wording for Nova Scotia, it would save a long amendment. I move to insert the words at the commencement of Nova Scotia:
The electoral districts of the province of Nova Scotia shall continue to be constituted and represented in the House of Commons, as at present, except in the following particulars.
That will simplify it, leaving section 1 as it is; section 2 as it is, subject to discussion; it will eliminate section 3 altogether, and section 4 could read: 'The electoral district of South Cape Breton and the county of Richmond'; and sections 6 and 7 will be eliminated altogether.


William F. Carroll: We could not use the woTds 'as at present,' because we have sixteen members now. The same wording would not apply in the case of Nova Scotia as in that of Quebec.


Robert Laird Borden: This would only give sixteen. I think that is right.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think so, yes.


Robert Laird Borden: We have more than fourteen members.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, sixteen.


Robert Laird Borden: Fourteen ridings. iSection 1 stands, also section 2, subject to discussion-we are only settling the form now. Sections 3, 6 and 7 will be eliminated. In section 4 substitute for the word 'county' the words 'the electoral district of South Cape Breton.' I think that settles the form.


George William Kyte: Before this section is
accepted by the committee I desire to offer a few observations with respect to the subject of redistribution as it affects the counties of Richmond and South Cape Breton. It is rather unfortunate that this important legislation has been delayed until this late hour of the session. In many respects it is more important than any other legislation that has been introduced into Parliament during the present session. The Bill was brought down by the Prime Minister on the 10th February and received its second reading on the 17th February; and here we are in the last hours of a five-months' session of Parliament endeavouring to give consideration to this important question at a time when one might almost hear the booming of the guns on Nepean Point as they salute His Royal Highness, who comes to prorogue Parliament to-morrow afternoon.
I desire to point out that, with respect

to the distribution in Nova Scotia, it is absolutely unfair and unjustifiable. For some time since Parliament met, and when it was known that the Redistribution Bill was to be introduced at the present session, newspapers supporting the Conservative party were assiduous in their efforts to create the impression that there would be, on this occasion at all events, a redistribution that would be so absolutely fair and just to all parties concerned that it would receive the unanimous consent and approval of the House. Further than that, some days ago we were informed that, unless the Redistribution Bill was accepted by the minority, and they signed away all right to critise or censure it, they would be punished by the withholding of this Bill during the present session, and one would be brought down next session which would be less defensible and more inequitable than the one we are discussing to-night. I have here a quotation from the Regina Daily Province, under date of June 4, 1914. This is what it says with regard to redistribution, and this is the threat that it holds out to the Liberals of the House of Commons if they refuse to fall down and worship the creation of the Minister of Public Works and the majority of the Conservatives upon the Redistribution Committee. It says:
Among the Conservatives, while there is a feeling of disappointment that the work of the committee has been in vain, there is also a feeling that the concessions made were too great, oeyond what could have reasonably been expected, and that next session such great concessions would be unnecessary. Many Conservatives say they are thankful the committee has disagreed, as they were receiving much the worse of the deal.
To the fairness of Hon. Robert Rogers, Liberals pay the highest tribute. They say that in every case of dispute he stood for absolute . fairness to the minority. Many of them say that next to the non-acceptance of the proposed measure their greatest regret is that his efforts to get a fair redistribution have not been rewarded by the success they merited. There is still a possibility of the measure becoming law as the fair Liberals wish it, and they are using every effort tonight to have their party accept. They will likely prevail, but it will then depend upon the Conservatives whether they be permitted another opportunity to accept a redistribution, which for the first time in Canada, gives the advantage to the minority.
There is not a veiled but an open threat that unless the Liberals in this House accept the redistribution which the Minister of Public Works and his colleagues on the committee feel like giving to Parliament, the Liberal party would suffer in the
redistribution next year. I have here a quotation from the Montreal Star, dated June 8, which says:
In view of the fact that apart from redistribution, all the big Government Bills have passed the House and are being facilitated in ' the Senate-save the Farmers Bank Bill-the predominant desire is that the week-end should see prorogation, but to the Star to-day, it was plainly stated by the highest authority that if there is no more progress than of late, and no more disposition to accept redistribution as it stands, an adjournment is quite probable.
* We have spent three months in an effort to please the Liberals over redistribution,' said a Cabinet Minister to-day. * When next we take up the Bill it will be with the intent of pleasing ourselves.'
As I stated a moment ago, the Redistribution Bill was introduced in this House on the 9th day of February and received its second reading on February 19. The bringing down of the report was postponed from day to day and from week to week, until only in the dying hours of the session is the Bill brought down, when there is no proper or adequate opportunity of discussing its features. Notwithstanding the threat which was held out by our Conservative friends in this House, and by the Conservative newspapers in the country that if the Liberals constituting the minority of the committee did not sign a unanimous report, redistribution would be postponed until next year and i much more iniquitous Bill would be brought down for the approval of Parliament; to the credit and to the honour of the minority of the committee be it said that it did not propose being dragooned or browbeaten into what in their judgment was not a fair or proper measure to be adopted by this Parliament. It is not unusual for the members of the Opposition to be called into consultation with the members supporting the Government in the matter of redistribution. It is a well-established practice in Great Britain. It is well known that in 1884 when Mr. Gladstone introduced his Redistribution Bill, he invited to the deliberations of the Redistribution Committee Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote. These two distinguished leaders of the Conservative party accepted the responsibility of taking part in the preparation of the Redistribution Bill, but it was only on the condition that they should not, by their taking part in the work of the committee, surrender their right to criticise the report when it came up for consideration in the House of Commons. But the genius who presided over the Redistribution Com-

mittee in this House thought that he could improve upon the methods of Mr. Gladstone, and while Mr. Gladstone very readily assented to the proposal that members of the majority taking part in the Redistribution Committee should be free to criticise the report when it was brought down, some of the members representing the majority in the committee thought that in this particular case the Opposition should be gagged; that there should be no criticism and no censure with regard to the unfavourable and improper features of the Bill, and that the penalty of criticism, would be the bringing down of a more unjust measure at the next session of Parliament. It is fortunate that the hon. Minister of Public Works was able to bring down a redistribution which evoked as little criticism as the Bill which was
11 p.m. brought down yesterday afternoon, but I have no doubt that members representing the minority in the committee, although they were not getting fair-play and the kind of redistribution to which they were entitled, felt that probably it was a good deal better than they had expeoted, in view of the experiences that are so well known as to the election methods that prevail in other parts of Canada.
There are certain interests and certain conditions existing in this country that every person at the head of a government desiring to govern this country in such manner that the rights of all may be pr&-served and that equal justice may be meted out to all, cannot overlook. While this country is divided between different classes, religions and interests; while newspapers discuss these differences and while almost every condition of life is regulated according to those conditions, I am not one of those who think that thi3 House of Parliament should be the only place in Canada where consideration of these divisions ought to be tabooed. We are brought face to face day by day with the fact that in this country there are different religious beliefs, there are majorities and minorities, and that being the case it is the duty of the representatives in Parliament to bear these in mind and not be deterred from standing by what they regard as the rights of minorities solely because they may be charged with discussing matters the bringing up of which might be said to be not in the interests of peace and harmony. Some few years ago in another branch of

this Parliament the Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright, discussing a proposal to amend the constitution of the Senate, made use of the following language:
Then there is another and somewhat more delicate matter. Our Senate, as constituted, allows for recognition in the body politic of certain classes who, from various causes have not been able to obtain proper recognition on the floor of the House of Commons. In my own province of Ontario, I am bound to say that In the whole course of my long political experience I have felt it as more or less a reproach to the province and to my fellow-countrymen there, that the Catholic element in Ontario never did receive full recognition or representation on the floor of the House of Commons.
In Ontario to-day there are about 400,000 Roman Catholics-good subjects of His Majesty: nevertheless, although they comprise from one-fifth to one-sixth part of the whole population, there are to-day on the floor of Parliament- and they are better represented in this Parliament than I have ever known them to be before to the best of my recollection-there are but seven men representing these 400,000, and two of these are gentlemen of French extraction who represent almost purely French constituencies. Now, that is not quite fair. It is only too true that there are a great many constituencies in the province of Ontario as to which party managers on both sides will tell you there is no use in running Roman Catholic candidates. That is not the fault of the leaders on either side. For very good and excellent reasons, the leaders on both sides would he exceedingly glad to see an adequate representation of this important element.
Let us compare the case of the province of Quebec. In Quebec there are just one-eighth Protestants to seven-eighths Catholics. These one-eighth Protestants return, I find, twelve members out of the sixty-five. In other words, in Quebec, one-eighth of the population are able to return nearly one-fifth of the representation ; in Ontario, from one-fifth to one-sixth return one-twelfth to one-thirteenth of the representation.
Sir Richard Cartwright was net afraid to discuss this question in another branch of the legislature, and having established that precedent I feel that I am justified in ad verting to that particular aspect as it affects the Redistribution Bill which is now under consideration.
This Redistribution Bill provides for the elimination of two representatives from the House of Commons. That is done by virtue of an obligation cast upon the Government by section 51 of the British North America Act, which is as follows:
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and at 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 sixty-five 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 papulation (ascertained at such census) as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the poplation of Quebec (so ascertained).
3.	In the computation of the number of members for a province 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 number.
4.	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 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.
5.	Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing Parliament.
There is the authority by which the Prime Minister brings down his Redistribution Bill to Parliament. Under the census of 1911 and by the application of the rules laid down in the section I have quoted, Nova Scotia stood to lose two representatives. The selection of the two constituencies that are to be eliminated from the political map of Nova Scotia was determined by the committee. In their wisdom they thought well to unite the counties of Antigonish and Guysborough, and they divide the county of Digby between Yarmouth and Annapolis. Having done that, I contend that the obligation of the committee and of the Government ceased; there was nothing more to be done, the w'ork of the committee was ended. But the majority of the committee, having eliminated the two members from Nova Scotia as required under the census and by virtue of the British North America Act, went to the island of Cape Breton, the only portion on the Maritime provinces where the population has increased in the last decade, and brought about a condition of affairs which virtually eliminates a third constituency. I submit that there is absolutely no justification or excuse for any such interference with the constituency of Richmond.
I said a moment ago that we are bound to observe certain differences and certain divisions which exist with respect to the population of this country. At the present moment there are in the province of Nova Scotia three constituencies which are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, three constituencies where Roman Catholics might be
elected at any time should the electors prefer representatives of that denomination. These three constituencies are Antigonish, Richmond and the county of Inverness. By this Redistribution Bill Antigonish, one of the three Roman Catholic constituencies, is practically eliminated by its union with Guysborough. They go into the island of Cape Breton and blot out Richmond as a Catholic constituency by merging it with Cape Breton, so that there remains, after this Bill goes into force, practically only one Roman Catholic constituency in Nova Scotia. I do not mean to say only one constituency having a majority of Roman Catholics, but I do say that this Redistribution Bill has the effect of wiping out two of the constituencies of Nova Scotia heretofore known as characteristically Roman Catholic, and leaves only one, Inverness.
What has been the history of the county of Richmond? I said a moment ago it was one of the three characteristically Roman Catholic constituencies in Nova Scotia. I have not the census returns previous to 1867, so I cannot give the proportion of Roman Catholics to members of other religious denominations before that time; but in that year there was elected to this House from the county of Richmond a Roman Catholic, William Croke. In 1869, out of 14,268 inhabitants of the county of Richmond there were 10,243 Roman Catholics; that is to say there were more than two Roman Catholics for every one of any other denomination. In that year the county of Richmond returned to the House of Commons Mr. Levesconte, an Anglican. In 1874, with the same proportion in respect of population, Mr. E. P. Flynn, a Roman Catholic, was returned. In 1881, when according to the census of that year the population was 15,121 of whom 10,722 were Roman- Catholics, the Hon. IT. N. Paint, a Baptist, was returned. In 1891, when the population was 14,339 the Roman Catholics numbered 10,238 and they elected Mr. J. A. Gillies, a Roman Catholic. In 1900 the population was 13,515, of whom 9,505 were Roman Catholics. In that year Mr. Joseph Matheson, a Presbyterian, was elected to this Parliament. In 1904, Mt. D. Finlayson, now Judge Finlayson, was elected. In 1908, I myself was elected to represent the county of Richmond in Parliament. So, taking the whole history of the county since 1867, there were four Catholics and four Protestants elected to represent the county of Richmond, notwith-

standing that the proportion of Catholics in that county was more than two to one. I say this to show to the committee the tolerance that has prevailed in Richmond at all times as regards political matters. Two years ago we had a question up in thiis House with respect to the rights which the Maritime provinces should enjoy in relation to the natural resources of the territory of the Northwest which it was proposed to add to the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. It was argued by some hon. members in this House that a certain portion of those lands should be set aside and a fund be derived from the sale of these lands which should go to the credit of the Maritime provinces by way of increased subsidy. It was contended by other hon. gentlemen that inasmuch as the Maritime provinces had no added territory from which they could derive any additional revenue, it would only be fair and right that something should be done to prevent a further decrease in the representation of tire Maritime provinces in this Parliament. It is within your knowledge as that of every gentleman of this committee that for the past ten years a very considerable agitation has existed in the Maritime provinces with respect to the continued decrease in the representation in this House. In 1903 a stated case was sent to the Supreme Court of Canada with a view of testing the contention made by the Premiers of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island as to whether or not the Maritime provinces should be subjected to any decrease of representation arising out of the census of 1901 and the case was decided adversely to the contention of the Maritime provinces in the Supreme Court. It was sent to the Privy Council. The Privy Council dealt with that matter with the result that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was confirmed and no remedy was therefore found from the imminent decrease in representation of the Maritime provinces, a further instalment of which we are suffering at this moment. I have here the memorandum prepared by the Premiers of the Maritime provinces in the month of October last which was submitted to the federal Government with a view to the amelioration of certain complaints that were alleged to exist in the Maritime provinces.	[DOT]
The question of the legal right of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to retain

their original representation was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1903, and was decided against these provinces. On appeal to the Privy Council, the answer of the Supreme Court to the question submitted was held to be correct.
We must bow to this decision so far as the strict interpretation of the written contract is concerned, but this was not the expectation and belief of the delegates at the time of the negotiation of the terms of union, for the Hon. George Brown in moving the resolution fixing the number of representatives which each colony should have in the House, stated: * 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 representatives. It keeps the House within a reasonable limit.' And the Hon. A T. Galt, in a speech delivered in Sherbrooke on November 23, 1864, shortly after the termination of the Quebec conference, and reported in the Montreal Gazette of that time, declared: ' The House would never have less than one hundred and ninety-four members.'
Representation by population while accepted as a guiding principle in fixing the representation of each province in the Dominion Parliament, was intended to be made subservient to the right of each colony to adequate representation in view of its surrender -of a large measure of self-government. In consideration ol surrendering its independent colonial status, each colony was entitled to such a representation in the federal parliament as would be sufficient to guard that right.
A self-governing colony was something more than the number of its inhabitants.
The principle that population was not ths sole consideration in fixing representation was recognized in the cases of Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island when these provinces respectively entered the Union.
Manitoba with a population less than one unit of representation was given four, with a provision that after the "census of 1881 its representation should be ' readjusted ' under the terms of the British North America Act.
When the Maritime provinces entered Confederation it was impossible for them to have foreseen the extent and effect of the development of western Canada. They never imagined that in the days to come the growth of the West would strip them of their influence in the councils of the nation. Though the times were not over prosperous they contributed their share to the cost of purchasing the lands from the Hudson Bay Company and equipping them for settlement; bore their part of the cost to Canada of the Canadian Pacific railway and all the other vast expenditures that went to link together the far-flung provinces of Canada, and to convert the wilderness into thriving communities out of which have developed the splendid prairie provinces of to-day.
But most of all, they gave their sons and daughters to the West. Prom Manitoba to the Pacific coast the Maritime provinces people form an important element of the population who have played no small part in the development of these new lands.
Theirs also is a potent influence in binding together the east and the west with bonds of sympathy ' light as air though strong as iron.'
All these contributions the Maritime provinces have cheerfully made in the interests of



II, 1914

[Stage Direction]
Canadian unity and progress, but they feel it a cruel exaction of the strict letter of the bond which will impose a lasting penalty upon them for the sacrifices they have made in such a cause.
Another ground upon which the Maritime provinces claim consideration in respect of their representation is that they had as good a right to share in the public demesne of Canada as had those provinces upon which it was bestowed. It is true that the Maritime provinces have claimed a share of the value of these lands, but that does not touch the question now under consideration. The territories added out of the public demesne will increase to a limit not now possible of calculation the representation of these provinces in the federal Parliament.
The Maritime provinces, situate as they are, could not well obtain their share in actual territory, but it is surely just that they should not by reason of the aggrandizement of the provinces more favourably situate be compelled to accept a representation decreased not only relatively but absolutely in the Canadian Parliament.
I read this for the purpose of pointing out how strenuously the representatives of the Maritime provinces fought against the decrease of representation, but they never contemplated that the right hon. gentleman the First Minister would bring down a Bill to Parliament during the present session which would provide not only for the actual decrease necessary under the British North America Act, but which would virtually result in a decrease altogether outside of that required by the British North America Act. In the session of 1911, there was some discussion in the House with regard to the question of the natural resources of the Dominion and the share which the Maritime provinces were entitled to. On that occasion, the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) took part in the debate, and speaking with respect to the enlarging of the boundaries of the provinces of the West he said:
During the time my hon. friend was Attorney General of New Brunswick, he was asked to place before the Privy Council at London the question of the loss of representation suffered by the province of New Brunswick by reason of her population not being able to keep pace with the growth of the population of Quebec, and one of the strong points in the argument he made before that court was that, by reason of the fact of the boundaries of Quebec having been increased, we in the Maritime provinces should have a readjustment of the British North America Act, so that we would not lose our comparative representation, the added territory of Quebec allowing her to have an increased population. That was one of the arguments. That same argument would apply in the case of Ungava bo*ing added to Quebec, as was proposed under this agreement.
Referring tq the hon. member for St. John, he proceeds:
So there is a chance for my hon. friend to repent. I am glad to see he is repenting, and I welcome him again to the fold of those loyal and .patriotic men in the Maritime provinces who are always prepared to stand up for the interest of those provinces. Although I am a supporter of the Government, I shall oppose any resolutions that come down here giving territory to the western provinces-
Mr. HAZEN:: Who is my hon. friend
quoting from?
Mr. KYTiE: The hon. member for Kings and Albert.


John Douglas Hazen: He was not a supporter of the Government, was he?


George William Kyte: This was in the session of 1911-1912. I think we have some evidence that he is supporting the Government. The hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, says:
Now, Sir, I agree with the hon. member tor Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) that the members of the Maritime provinces should not consent to any addition to the territory of Manitoba unless some quid pro quo is given to the Maritime provinces.
During that discussion the question turned upon whether or not the Maritime provinces were entitled to any consideration in respect of the amendment to the British North America Act so as to prevent any further decrease of representation, and from the turn the debate took, I think I am fairly inteirpreting the language of the hon. member	for	Kings and Albert
when I say that, when he spoke of the consideration to which the Maritime provinces were entitled before the Dominion lands were divided among the western provinces, he had in mind something with respect to fixing the representation of the Maritime provinces so that no further decrease should take place. In 1906, the hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island, moved a resolution in the following terms:
That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, King Edward VII, praying that he may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be submitted to the Imperial Parliament, for the purpose of amending the British North America Act, so that no province of the Dominion shall at any time have fewer representatives in Parliament than it was given when it entered Confederation.
There was considerable discussion on that resolution, and, on a motion to adjourn the debate, the leader of the Opposition, now the right hon. Prime Minister, said:
The subject is one of great importance, and it is desirable that it should he discussed and

brought to a conclusion, and not buried. Therefore, I trust the adjournment of the debate does not mean that we shall have no more of it.
At that time the present Prime Minister had a very kindily interest in the subject of the representation of the Maritime provinces, and he was fearful that the adjournment of the debate might result in no action being taken upon the resolution moved by the hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island. We had hopes that the right hon. gentleman would find some means out of the dilemma on which the people of the Maritime provinces find themselves, but, inasmuch as he has not seen a way to restore to us the representation we formerly had, and in view of the sympathetic sentiments he expressed on more than one occasion for any proposal that might bring about that end, I extremely regret that the Redistribution Bill which he has presented to the House results not only in decreasing the representation of the province of Nova Scotia, as provided for by the British North America Act, but practically means the obliteration of three constituencies from the province of Nova Scotia.
In the county of Richmond, which I represent, we have a population which is made up almost entirely of farmers and fishermen. Our people live upon the soil and upon the sea. Our population is fixed. There is no moving about from one place to another, and we receive no accession to our population by reason of immigration. Our population has interests not in common with the population of the county of South Cape Breton. By this Redistribution Bill it is proposed that the county of Richmond shall be added to South Cape Breton, which, as is well known, has a very large industrial population at the present time. They have their coal mines, their steel works and other industrial concerns, and the population of South Cape Breton have sympathies and interests far different from those of the people of Richmond county, which I represent at the present moment. The county of Richmond is the only county in Nova Scotia that has a majority of French Acadians. We all know how much the people of Nova Scotia are indebted to the enterprise of the Acadians, who form such a large proportion of the population in that province. Their lives are pure, they live happily together; for the most part they remain at home and give their time and industry to the upbuilding of the
[Mr. Kyle. 1
community in which they live. The description which Longfellow gives of the Acadians of Grand Pre applies absolutely to the Acadians of Richmond :
Men whose lives glided on like rivers that water the woodlands
Darkened by shadows of earth but reflecting an image of heaven;
Alike were they free from
Pear that reigns with the tyrant and envy,, the vice of republics;
Neither locks had they to their doors nor bars to their windows ;
But their dwellings were open as day and the hearts of the owners;
Then the richest was poor, and the poorest lived in abundance.
This is the condition that exists in Richmond county, and has existed for many years. The people of that county have always had the privilege of sending a representative to Parliament to represent their modest wishes, ambitions and aspirations, but that right is about to be taken away from them, and Richmond is to be merged with the large population of South Cape Breton for the purpose of making a double constituency. The reason given for joining Richmond with South Cape Breton under this Redistribution Bill is that the population of Richmond is only 13,273 and it is not to send a representative to Parliament when the unit of representation at the present time is 30,000. Let us see how that works out in respect to other constituencies in other provinces of Canada. The Redistribution Bill retains the constituencies of Argenteuil, Brome, L'Islet, Maskinonge, Mississquoi, Montmagny and Yamaska in the province of Quebec. I will give the population of these constituencies:
Electoral Division.	Population.
. Argenteuil	 16,766
Brome	 13,216
L'Islet	 16,435
Maskinonge		16,509
Missisquoi	 17,466
Montmagny	 17,356
Yamaska	 19,511
You see how the principle of fairness which has been heralded abroad by the Conservative newspapers for the last three months applies to this Bill. Brome, with a population of 60 less than that of the county of Richmond, is to send a representative to Parliament, but Richmond must be annexed to, and merged into, the constituency of South Cape Breton. Now, let me give the population of some of the ridings in Ontario that will continue to send representatives to Parliament.

Electoral Division.	Population.
Brant	 19,250
Dufferin	 17,740
Dundas	 18,165	[DOT]
Elgin East	 17,597
Grenville	 17,545
Ontario North	 17,141
Perth South	 18,947
Peterborough East	 15,499
Prince Edward	 17,150
I do not imagine that any great value can be put upon a difference in population as between two constituencies of one or two thousand. Peterborough East, in the province of Ontario, has a population of 15,499 and the constitution, as incorporated in the British North America Act, receives no wrench by reason of that riding sending a representative to Parliament in the future, but the very heavens will fall if Richmond, with 13,273, should continue to do the same. I quote these figures for the purpose of showing that there appears to be no principle upon which the county of Richmond has been added to South Cape Breton. Brome, in Quebec, with a population smaller than that of Richmond, is retained upon the electoral map and will continue to send a representative to Parliament, and East Peterborough, with a population very little larger than that of Richmond, will continue to send a representative to Parliament, whereas Richmond will practically cease to exist.
Let us see what the result of the union of these two counties is as respects territory. The electoral division of South Cape Breton has an area of 722 square miles and the electoral division of Richmond has an area of 500 square miles, making a total of 1,222 square miles in the combined counties of Richmond and South Cape Breton. The distance between Point Tupper, which is the extreme western limit of Richmond, and Scattarie, which is the extreme eastern limit of Cape Breton, is 140 miles. The width of the united constituencies is from twenty to fifty miles. Between Richmond and Cape Breton there is absolutely no communication. Should this union take place, the candidate, when he starts out from Sydney, will be obliged to drive sixty miles before he reaches a railway. There is no communication by rail between these two parts of the riding that is now formed.
1 stated a moment ago that there is no community of interest. At the time when the Ontario schedule was under discussion to-night the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) pointed out that one
of the principles which should guide in the delimitation of constituencies, and in the union of different parts of a constituency, is that of community of interest. I stated a moment ago that there is no community of interest between Richmond and South Cape Breton. Can you imagine the cost of running an election in this large constituency which is now formed, a constituency of 222 square miles and extending over a distance of 140 miles?
I shouia think that the principle that was laid down on a former occasion with respect to redistribution ought to prevail more particularly in this redistribution than it has at any other time. One of the principles laid down was that of community of interest. But there is another principle which has been acted upon in this and other redistributions, and that is the doing away of double constituencies as far as possible and particularly the doing away with double rural constituencies. There is not a double constituency from the Pacific ocean until we come to the city of St. John. It was proposed, I understand, to form a riding in Ontario with two representatives, but it was found to be contrary to that principle, which they felt to be a desirable one, and instead of creating one double riding they created two single ridings. The same thing happened in regard to Vancouver; in arranging the representation of Vancouver, the idea of a dual constituency was not entertained and two constituencies have been created in that city. The population of the county of Richmond, as I stated a moment ago, is 13,273. The population of the county of South Cape Breton is 43,350. The population of the county of Richmond is entirely rural, made up, as1 I said, of fishermen and farmers. The population of South Cape Breton, is largely industrial: 10,000 rural population and 33,350 urban. Therefore it is perfectly manifest that there cannot be very much community of interest between the county of Richmond and the riding of South Cape Breton.
Let us see what was done in the matter of counties falling below the unit of representation on other occasions When redistribution Bills were considered by the House of Commons. In 1891, the unit of representation was 22,000. The following counties in the province of Nova Scotia were at that time below the unit:	Annapolis, 19,-
350; Digby, 19,897; Antigonish, -16,114; Guys-borough, 17,195; Queens, 10,610; Richmond, 14,399; Shelburne, 14,956; Victoria, 12,432. At

that time it was necessary to reduce the representation of the province of Nova Scotia by one, so the committee united the counties of Shelburne and Queens, thereby reducing the representation as required by the census; but they did not interfere with other constituencies that were below the unit. At that time Victoria had a population of only 12,432, but it was not suggested that Victoria county should be united with another county because its population was less than the unit. Sir John A. Macdonald was the Premier of Canada at that time, and it is regrettable to say that he was fairer to the people of the province of Nova Scotia in the matter of redistribution than is the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government at the present time.
In 1901, the unit of population was 25,367. The following counties in the province of Nova Scotia were at that time 'below the unit: Annapolis, 18,842; Antigonish, 13,617; Colchester, 24,900; Digby, 20,322; Guys-borough, 18,320; Hants, 20,055; Inverness, 24,353; Kings, 21,937; Richmond, 13,515; Shelburne and Queens, 24,428; Victoria, 10,571; Yarmouth, 22,869. In that redistribution it was necessary to decrease the representation in the province of Nova Scotia by two. The committee took away one of the representatives from the county of Bictou, which up to that time had sent two representatives to Parliament; and for the other they added the county of Victoria to North Cape Breton. As I quoted from the figures given by the Government to the committee, the county of Antigonish and the county of Richmond were both far below the united of population which entitled them to representation in Parliament in 1901, but in that redistribution the leader of the Government of that day, the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition, was fairer to Nova Scotia than is the right hon. gentleman, who (belongs to Nova Scotia and who is now leading the Government, because my right hon. friend the present leader of the Opposition was content to leave the representation of Antigonish and Richmond at it was, feeling that his duty was done when he reduced the representation according to the requirements of the census by virtue of the British North America Act.
In 1911, the unit of representation was 30,000. The following counties in the provinces of Nova Scotia are now below the unit: Annapolis, 18,581; Antigonish, 11,962; North Cape Breton and Victoria, 29,888; Colchester, 23,644; Digby, 20,167; Guysbor-ough, 17,048; Hants, 19,703; Inverness, 25,-

571; Kings, 21,780; Richmond, 13,273; Shelburne and Queens, 24,211; Yarmouth, 23,220. Therefore it will be seen that, even after Antigonish and Guysborough are united, and Digby is divided up between Yarmouth and Annapolis, and Richmond is added to South Cape Breton, there will- still be several constituencies in the province of Nova Scotia well below the unit of representation. It is absolutely impossible to arrange a redistribution in this country so that every constituency shall have a population up to or within the neighbourhood of the unit, and I contend that the British North America Act never contemplated that there should he an equalizing of population in all the constituencies of Canada. All the obligation cast upon the Government at the present time or cast upon any government is to reduce the representation of each province according to. the section of the British North America Act which I quoted.
In the beginning of my remarks I read a quotation from a speech delivered by the Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright in the Senate with reference to the representation of Roman Catholics and Protestants in Parliament. I have here some figures which i propose to place upon 'Hansard'.
The population of the province of Nova Scotia is 492,398. There are 144,991 Roman Catholics, or 30 per cent of the whole population. There are in Parliament to-day from the province of Nova Scotia fourteen Protestants and four Roman Catholics; that is, although the proportion of population of Roman Catholics in the province of Nova Scotia is 30 per cent, they have only 22 per cent of the representation.
The population of the province of Prince Edward Island is 93,728. There are 41,994 Roman Catholics, or 44.9 per cent of the whole population, but the Roman Catholics in the House of Commons from that province constitute only 25 per cent of the representation.
The population of the province of Quebec is 2,003,232. There are 1,724,683 Roman Catholics, or 86.6 per cent of the whole population, 13.4 per cent of the population being Protestants; and of the representatives, the Roman Catholics have 83.1 per cent, and the Protestants 16.9 per cent, or three and one-half over and above that to which they would be entitled by a strict application of the proportion with respect to the Roman Catholic denomination in the province.
The population of the Province of Ontario is 2,523,274. There are 484,997 Roman Catholics, or 19 per cent of the whole popu-

lation; but the Roman Catholics in the House of Commons from the province of Ontario only constitute 5.8 per cent of the total representation from that province.
The population of Manitoba is 455,614. There are 73,994 Roman Catholics, or 16.6 per cent. There are ten representatives from Manitoba in the House of Commons, only one of whom is a Roman Catholic; that is, while the Roman Catholics have 16.6 per cent of the total population of the province of Manitoba, they have only 10 per cent of the representation in the House of Commons.
The population of the province of Alberta is 374,663. There are 62,193 Roman Catholics, or 16.6 per cent. There are seven representatives from Alberta in the House of Commons, of whom one is a Roman Catholic; that is, while the Roman Catholics have 16.6 per cent of the population, they have only 14 per cent of representation in the House of Commons.
The population of the province of Saskatchewan is 492,432. There are 90,092 Roman Catholics, or 18 per cent of the population. Out of ten representative from Saskatchewan, there is not one Roman Catholic.
The population of the province of (British Columbia is 392,480. There are 58,397 Roman Catholics, or 15 per cent of the population. There are seven members of Parliament for British Cbluimbia, and there is not one Roman Catholic.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not give these figures for the purpose of showing that these provinces made a mistake when they sent these estimable gentlemen to Parliament who are not of the Roman Catholic faith; they made no mistake in sending here the representatives that they have. I merely point it out to show that, as a matter of fact, the Catholic representation in the House of Commons is very much less than it is entitled to be, having regard to the total percentage of Roman Catholics throughout the Dominion. I have no right or authority to speak for the minorities in other provinces. As I said a moment ago, I am well satisfied with the hon. gentlemen who come from these provinces of Canada to Parliament, and I am sure that the electors of those provinces, both Catholic and Protestant, are well satisfied with the services which these gentlemen render to their constituencies. But I put these figures on ' Hansard ' for the purpose of showing that at the present time we have not the full proportion of reptresentation to which we are entitled, under ouir population; that according to the census returns of 1911, while we in Nova Scotia are entitled to six (Roman Catholics in the House of Commons we only have four. I am not blaming that to any spirit of intolerance upon the part of any section or denomination in this country, and I should be very sorry indeed to convey any such impression. I showed a moment ago how widespread was the spirit of tolerance in the county I represent, when four Protestants and four Catholics have been elected since 1867; and the spirit that exists there exists in other parts of Nova Scotia. I say I have no right to assume that there has been any deliberate attempt on the part of any denomination to debar from public life men of the Roman Catholic faith; nevertheless I say it is not becoming on the part of the Prime Minister to	bring	down to	Parliament a
Redistribution Bill that will have the effect of further increasing unfairness and injustice with respect to the representation of the Roman Catholic body in this House from the province of Nova Scotia.
The question might be asked as to how the union of Richmond and South Cape Breton could possibly affect the religious representation of that county in the House of Commons. I wish to point out that dual representation ought to be avoided whenever it is possible to do so. I pointed out that double constituencies had been abolished throughout the whole of the Dominion except in the cases of the cities of St. John and Halifax, and having reduced the dual constituencies throughout Canada to these two cities, it seems to me rather extraordinary that under this Bill an additional double constituency should be created in the island of Cape Breton. When we have dual representation we have dual interests, and questions sometimes arise that are awkward and difficult to deal with; whereas, if those constituencies were separate and apart, and there was one representative for each, these complications would be arrested.
It might be stated that, inasmuch as the present hon. gentleman who represents South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), and I, are Roman Catholics, there is no reason why the same representation by denomination, if not by individuals, should nolt be maintained. My answer to that is, that we have an instance in Nova Scotia where in a constituency where there



is dual representation, the matter of denominational representation has not altogether worked out to the satisfaction of the members in that community. I refer to the city of Halifax. In Halifax, for forty years there was an unwritten law whereby there should be elected one Protestant and one Roman Catholic to represent that city in the House of Commons. That law was observed well, and it worked well until 1896. But by some accident,	owing,	I will assume to
the superior character and the high in-lect of the two gentlemen who were candidates, who did not profess the Roman Catholic faith, these two gentlemen were elected to the House of Commons to represent Ha'ifax. In 1900, if my recollection serves me, of the two representatives elected neither was a Roman Catholic. In 1904, there was one Catholic and one Protestant elected; in 1908, one Catholic and one Protestant; in 1911, there were two Protestants elected to represent the city and county of Halifax in this House. I state these circumstances to show that there is always danger that results might not be, as we all hope and wish that they should be, as regards the fair representation in this House of all religious denominations. I desire, Mr. Chairman, not to be misunderstood with regard to this matter. As I have already said, I find no fault with the county of Halifax for electing the Prime Minister-we are all proud he was elected in the city of Halifax, and that he comes from our province-neither do we regret that Mr. A. K. Maclean was elected to represent that county in 1911. These gentlemen were probably the best men to select, and they were selected. Nevertheless, a certain feeling that both religious denominations ^should be- represented in the House of Commons has given rise to some disappointment on account of the failure to carry out the unwritten law, which was for so long observed in Halifax.
As I said in my opening remarks, it is contended by gentlemen supporting the Government, and contended in the newspaper press supporting the Government, that this was an eminently fair redistribution, and one which ought to receive the unanimous support of this House; but, as time went along, it appears there was something in this Redistribution Bill which appeared to justify the minority members of the committee from joining in the unanimous report so much desired by the 
majority of the committee and people began to inquire as to what the bone of contention really was. The Montreal Star on June 9, had the following article on redistribution.
If redistribution is as near a settlement as is rumoured, it would be far better for tbe parties to call in an impartial referee to decide the couple of points at issue than to leave tbe whole subject over to be wrangled about during tbe high tension of the last session before an election. Experienced politicians should remember that it is at least twice as easy to get a bi-party agreement this session as it will be next. They may, indeed, find next session that some of the points, on which they are now agreed, have become points of difference by reason of the inflaming effect of an approaching general election.
The committee has worked a practical miracle in getting so near a * settlement by consent ' as it is now. It would be a thousand pities if that achievement were to be spoiled because of two minor differences at the last moment. It is not as if we could calculate upon the lapse of time and the calm of the recess removing these differences. As we have pointed out, the area of dispute is far more likely to increase; and the whole Bill may be wrecked next session. If, then, they cannot hit upon any plan for now making the miracle complete and presenting to the country a full and final ' settlement by consent,' they should-as we suggested-call in a referee.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the very excellent advice of the Montreal Star was not followed by the right hon. Prime Minister, because I would be willing to submit the matter to any referee of good common sense he would name, and abide by the result. If any referee, apart from the majority on the Redistribution Committee, had bad this matter submitted to it, I am bound to say that Richmond county would not, under the circumstances, have been united to the county of Cape Breton. What is the alternative proposal, it may be asked? It is not for me to suggest any alternative proposal; but I can suggest a solution which has been very effective in the matter of removing -difficulties with respect to the proposed union of other constituencies during the present session.
It would have been very easy, I think, for the committee to have taken the census returns and to have increased the population of the county of Richmond by taking in some of the rural districts in Cape Breton county, thus providing two separate constituencies without having the same disparity of population as that which exists at the present time between these two ridings. It would have been fair and reasonable, I think, to have treated the

county of Richmond as the counties of Brome and East Peterborough were treated, and leave it to send a representative to Parliament ae heretofore.
It has been contended that the redistribution is fair because it wipes out the Conservative county of Digby and the Liberal county of Antigonish. Upon the face of it, that appears to be reasonable, but no person knows better than the hon. member for Digby how precarious is the tenure by which he holds the representation of the count of Digby in this House. So that my genial friend from the county of Digby is, perhaps, entitled to not so much credit for self-effacement as would appear on the surface of it when he resigns himself with such fortitude to the wiping out of his constituency. Having eliminated a Liberal constituency and a Conservative constituency the result is practically to eliminate another Liberal in the island of Cape Breton under circumstances which, I believe, are entirely unjustified. Under the section of the British North America Act which I read, the only obligation cast upon the Government was to reduce the representation in the province of Nova Scotia by two, and, having done that, I submit that their work was done. It would have been fair, I am willing to say generous, on the part of the committee if they had been willing to leave the county of Richmond as it is, as the Government of Sir John A. Macdonald, in 1871, left several counties in the province of Nova Scotia which were below the unit of representation, and as the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition in 1901 allowed several other constituencies in Nova Scotia which were far below the unit to remain as they were, without wiping them out for the professed purpose of equalizing the population in those constituencies as far as possible.
I stated in the earlier part of my observations .that the question of representation in the Maritime provinces was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1903, and from there appealed to the Privy Council. A good deal of money was spent for the purpose of devising some means whereby the Maritime provinces should not suffer any undue decrease in their representation. Both parties were absolutely honest and sincere when they took what appeared to them to be the only reasonable and proper steps to avoid the calamity which was apparently overtaking the Maritime provinces. The 3361
late Government, having gone so far to preserve the representation of the Maritime provinces as they did in 1903, does it not seem extraordinary that the present Government should go out of their way further to reduce the representation, as is done . with respect to the county of Richmond under the Redistribution Bill which we are now considering? During the course of the evening, when this Bill was under discussion, the hon. Postmaster General said:
I believe In dealing with the smaller prov~ inces in the fairest possible way.
He had reference to the ^presentation of the Maritime provinces in Parliament. I should like to ask the right hon. Primet Minister to take those words to his heart-It is not yet too late for him to revise thd determination which he has come to and to adopt some means whereby the county of Richmond shall not be blotted off the electoral map, as will undoubtedly be the case if this Bill goes through in its present form. The Postmaster General, I am sure, was sincere when he expressed this desire to deal fairly by the smaller provinces, and I hope and trust that, as I have said, the right hon. Prime Minister will take his words to heart and find some means whereby he may allow the representation of the county of Richmond to remain as it is until another redistribution comes round.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the first place, let me say that as a member of the Redistribution Committee it was with deep regret that I observed the necessity of dividing the constituency of Digby, represented by the hon. member (Mr. Jameson) who sits on this side of the House. He protested to me verbally and by letter as well against the dismemberment of his constituency, but I think from my experience with this committee that it may be laid down as an axiom that if members of the committee were to heed the representations made to them by either friend or foe, no redistribution could be effected, because we have yet to find any constituency which desires to be effaced or affected in any way whatever. Under the terms of the British North America Act, it was necessary that the representation of the province of . Nova Scotia should be reduced by two members. There was no option on the part of the Government or of Parliament as to the course to be taken; an imperative duty was imposed upon them, and that duty was delegated to the committee to work out in the best possible way. The committee do not pre-

tend that they have brought down a perfect measure of redistribution, but I think that we have endeavoured-and what I say with respect to Nova Scotia is true of every province-to work out a fair measure of redistribution; a measure which will echo in Parliament the voice of the people of the country.
I do not for a moment propose to traverse all the ground covered by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), nor do I intend to touch upon many of the topics with which he has dealt, because, with all due deference to him, the major portion of his remarks were absolutely not germane to the matter at issue. He spoke at considerable length on the representation of the Maritimes provinces. With that we have nothing whatever to do. As I said at the outset, it was imperative that we should reduce the representation of the province of Nova Scotia by two members; it remains for us to discuss the manner in which that is to be done, not to deal with the larger question as to whether it is right and proper that representation of any province in this House should be reduced.
The hon. member complained in the first place that the Bill had been introduced on February 10, and that we are only now, in the dying days of the session, met together to consider the Redistribution Bill. From that he drew the conclusion that the Government were to be blamed. As a matter of fact, the reverse is the case. The delay was due to the fact that the Government were seized with a desire to bring down a measure which would be agreeable to both parties. If it had been their intention to bring down a measure which would please only this side of the House, that could have been done in very short order; by the use of the brute majority in the committee we could have brought down a Redistribution Bill two or three weeks after the committee was named, rather than at this comparatively late date.
The hon. member read quotations from the Daily Province and from the Montreal Star to the effect that the threat had been made that if hon. gentlemen
12	m. opposite did not accept any measure of redistribution proposed by the committee, next year they would get something which would not be quite so palatable. I have heard of scrapbook orators and scrapbook oratory, but this is the first time that I have heard anybody in this House or outside of it indict the whole Government upon extracts

taken from two newspapers out of the many hundreds that are published in this country.
I am very sorry that my hon. friend from Richmond dwelt upon the question of religion. I have 'been brought up in the province of Nova Scotia, I have lived there all my life. I have personal friends who are Roman Catholics and who are Protestants; I have members of my household who are Roman Catholics and who are Protestants; I have suporters who are Roman Catholics, and Protestants; I have gone to school with Catholics and Protestants. I never bad it brought home to me that the question of religion ought to be discussed in connection with representation as it has been to-night by the hon. member for Richmond. I regret very much that he mentioned it. I do not believe that it was necessary, I do not believe that the people who sent him here from his constituency will believe it necessary. I do not believe the people of Nova Socotia will believe it is necessary. But since he has chosen that ground I must, with all tolerance, meet him there. I shall not elaborate on that feature of the situation as I believe that any gentleman in the country who will inquire into the proposed measure of redistribution as respecting Nova Scotia will say that it is eminently . fair to all people in Nova Scotia, Protestants as well as Catholics. The hon. member has stated that the Roman Catholics represent something like thirty per cent of the population of Nova Scotia. That is approximately right. If he had told the whole story to the House he would have said ' There is the constituency of Inverness which remains undisturbed and which is, by an "overwhelming majority of more than two to one, a Roman Catholic constituency. It would be competent for that constituency to return a member of that religion if it so desired. In connection with the dual constituency which it is proposed to create of South Cape Breton and Richmond, there will be a total population of 66,000 and of that number 36,000 will be Roman Catholics and 30,000 Protestants. I am using in all cases round figures. That is a Roman Catholic constituency by a majority of 6,000. If there is any virtue in the argument presented by the hon. member for Richmond what we are doing is this: The constituency of South Cape Breton has a Protestant majority. By adding to if the county of Richmond, which is largely Roman Catholic, we make a two member constituency with a Roman Catholic majority of 6,000 and, if they care to do so,

it will be perfectly open for them to return two Roman Catholics and ensure an increased Catholic majority from this province.


William Chisholm: I do not
believe they will do it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I agree with the hon.
member for Antigonish. I believe that the constituents of Richmond are broader than the man who represents them in the House at the present time, and that the effect of this dual! constituency will be what we have no hesitation in saying it was designed to be, to return one Roman Catholic and one Protestant, which would be a fair representation of the county.
Coming to Guysborough and Antigonish, there will be there a Roman Catholic majority of 2,550, so that, if there is any virtue in the argument of the hon. member for Richmond, there is another constituency where a member representing that faith can be returned. That makes three. The hon. member refers to the unwritten law which has been followed year after year in connection with Halifax, where there are two members at large. In the main they have returned one Roman Catholic and one Protestant. It is not for me to go into the reasons why that arrangement has not been carried out in each instance but I think, covering a period of years, we may normally expect that the representation from that constituency, carrying out the old tradition there, will be one Catholic and one Protestant. Thus I have enumerated four Roman Catholic members whom it is reasonable to expect from that province. In Yarmouth-Clare there will be a Roman Catholic majority of 4,799 which means, if they in their wisdom choose to return a member of this House of that religious belief that the normal number of Roman Catholic members for the province of Nova Scotia to return will be five, which would be a little morfe than the full quota of members, that ia the 30 per cent, the proportion which the Roman Catholic population bears to the total population. Only a short time ago I was shown the Orange Sentinel wherein there appeared an article protesting in the most vehement fashion against the addition of the district of Clare to Yarmouth because it changes the complexion of Yarmouth and makes it a Roman Catholic constituency. I mention that to show that a member of the committee gets criticism both ways.


William Chisholm: What do you think of Mr. Crowell's letter?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not approve of it, I do not agree with his sentiments. I have no hesitation lin saying that I believe if we are to have a united country we want to be able to obliterate the religious question absolutely as affecting public questions in Canada. I believe that the tendency is in that direction. I do not believe that the people have the same religious or racial prejudices, in the same degree at all events, as in years gone by and I believe the tendency is to get away from that sort of thing.


Edmond Proulx: Ask the hon. member for North Perth.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend wants to make a speech he will have an opportunity when I conclude. There is one ether circumstance in connection with joining Yarmouth with the municipality of Clare. We have in Nova Scotia a French Acadian population of some 51,000. Up to the present time they have not had an- opportunity, or if they have had an opportunity they have not exercised it, of having a French Acadian representative in this House. Under the arrangement now proposed it is possible for our French Acadian fellow citizens in Nova Scotia to return to this House a member of the French Acadian race. I would not have made allusion to this circumstance or to this phase of this question, because I believe it ought not to enter into the question, but I have no hesitation in discussing it freely and frankly now that it has been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Richmond.
There is only one other feature of this question to which I wish to allude and that is that the constituency of Richmond, in returning as many Protestanite as it has Roman Catholics, has shown a far greater mint of religious tolerance than my hon. friend from 'Richmond in making his objections. He is afraid that possibly he may not get a chance to return to this House under this arrangement.
In order to further his own personal ends he brings in a question of religion which ought never to have been discussed in this House. In the last analysis, I say without fear of successful contradiction that his whole fear is that possibly he cannot carry the convention of the joint constituency of South Cape Breton and Richmond as

against the hon. member for South Cape Breton.
I will confine my remarks to justifying the union of these two constituencies for the reason that the committee have agreed upon the other features of redistribution as affecting the province of Nova Scotia. In the last decade, the province of Nova Scotia made a total gain in population of some 32,000, and of that gain 24,479 took place on the island of Cape Breton, which is divided into the four constituencies of Cape Breton North and Victoria, South Cape Breton, Inverness and Bichmond. The population of Cape Breton North and Victoria in 1901 was 24,650 and in 1911, 29,888, making a gain of 5,238; the population of South Cape Breton in 1901 was 35,087, and in 1911, 53,352, making a gain of 18,265; the population of Inverness in 1901 was 24,35.3, and in 1911, 25,571, making a gain of 1,218; the population of Richmond in 1901 was 13,515, and in 1911, 13,273 or a decrease of 242. I need hardly say that the present constituency of Richmond is contiguous to the constituency of South Cape Breton and we have this condition: in the constituency of Richmond, there is in round numbers a population of 13,000, and in South Cape Breton a population of 53,000; or to put it in a more striking way the population of South Cape Breton is 40,079 greater than the population of Richmond; that is, it is the unit plus 10,000. If the wishes of my hon. friend from Richmond were met, it would mean that four voters of South Cape Breton would have to go to the polls to counteract the vote of one elector in the constituency of Richmond. That is to say, he asks the miners, the mechanics and professional men of South Cape Breton to have one-quarter the say at the polls in that constituency that one fisherman or farmer-he tells us that his constituents are all fishermen or farmers- would have at the polls in Richmond. Is that an equitable arrangement?


Mr. EE LAND:: Those iniquities exist in Quebec in a worse way in favour of the English population.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite properly so. I am glad my hon. friend has referred to that. After redistribution, the only constituency in the whole Dominion of Canada which will be smaller than Richmond is to-day is the county of Brome, and it has only 59 less.


William Chisholm: What about Nelson? It has only 11,973. Yukon is
TMr. Rhodes. 1
another constituency smaller than Richmond. My hon. friend had better revise.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was referring to the older parts of the Dominion. The conditions in the West are entirely different from those in the older portions of Canada, and, for purposes of comparison, you have to confine your attention to the eastern section of Canada, or to Quebec and Ontario, if you choose. Yukon may be away below the unit, but it would not be wise to disturb its representation if it had only a population of 500, because it has an immense area of territory and peculiar interests, which call for special representation in this House. Coming back to the constituency of Brome, which is the only one in Ontario or Quebec or the Maritime provinces which is smaller than Richmond, and that by 59, there are good reasons why we should leave that constituency as it is, which are known to every hon. gentleman in this House, and which it is not necessary for me to discuss.
Mr. KYTiE: What are they?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are well known to the hon. gentleman.


George William Kyte: Is it a German minority constituency?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman
knows perfectly well. I am not evading discussion of that feature, but I do not wish to labour this question for one and a half or two hours.


George William Kyte: Would my hon. friend object to my referring to minorities in Nova Scotia? Why is Brome preserved?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not preserved for religious reasons, as my hon. friend knows.


George William Kyte: I would like to know the reason.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was agreed that
Brome should remain as it is, and that the constituency of Argenteuil, which is much larger than the constituency of Richmond, should also remain as it is for peculiar and sufficient reasons. The hon. gentleman says that we have reduced the representation of Nova Scotia by two members by uniting Antigonish and Guysborough, and by splitting Digby up and adding part of it to Annapolis and part to Yarmouth. If that argument is good, we could not have touched the representation of Quebec at all, as there are sixty-five members there already. These changes have been made

because we wished to have reference to the well known principle of equality of population, and that is why we want to join Richmond with South Cape Breton, and even then the two counties together will have a population in excess of the unit.
iMr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM: How is it that out of eighty-one ridings in Ontario forty-five are under the unit of representation, and that of the sixty-five ridings of Quebec forty are under the unit?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are various reasons. In the first place, there is no county in Ontario which in any way compares in smallness to the constituency of Richmond. In the second place, it is a well known principle that rural constituencies shall not be disturbed unless they are away below the unit. My hon. friend entirely misapprehends the reason for the union of Richmond and South Cape Breton. It is not because Richmond is so much below the unit, although that would be ample justification, but also for the reason that South Cape Breton is much beyond the unit and that by uniting the two constituencies we get a constituency returning two members, each of whom will represent more than the unit of population.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Did any board of
trade or any other public body in South Cape Breton ask for this change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot Tecall that I have received, as a member of the committee, any representations or protests in regard to this change, from any public body in South Cape Breton or Richmond. I have received dozens of letters and telegrams from prominent citizens of both Richmond and South Cape Breton approving of this arrangement. I have had many men speak to me commending the arrangement. I think the most eloquent testimony of all that the proposition is eminently fair and satisfactory to the people of both constituencies is in the circumstance that I have yet to receive a protest, either verbal or written, in respect to the arrangement except that which comes from my hon. friend from Richmond, and I have given the reason of his opposition.
The hon. member for Richmond has spoken of the objection to dual constituencies. He is the last person in the world who can broach an argument of that kind with any show of logic or reason. We have eighteen constituencies in Nova Scotia; every one of which is represented
by two members at large, and has been ever since Confederation. Two of these have three members. Only the other day the local Liberal Government in Nova Scotia brought down a redistribution measure which added two members to Halifax, making five members at large; one to Cumberland, making three members at large; and two to Cape Breton, making four members at large. Every constituency in Nova Scotia is a dual constituency and has been since Confederation. My hon. friend is a supporter of the Administration that is responsible for that proposition, and sat as an officer in the local House for many years under that condition. But we have in the province of New Brunswick a condition which is practically analagous to the condition that we have under consideration; in fact, I was going to say that it is a little more than analogous in that it is considerably stronger than the condition found with reference to Cape Breton and Richmond. I refer to the dual constituency of the city and counties of St. John and Albert. I think that for twenty years we have had the constituency of St. John city and the constituency of St. John city and county. Under this very Bill that is now before the committee there is a new constituency to be called the district of the city and counties of St. John and Albert having two members at large, and this proposal has been accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite. In that constituency you have St. John city with a homogeneous population of 42,511, and if ever there was an opportunity in the world to have one constituency it is here. But, notwithstanding that, hon. gentlemen opposite have agreed to the proposition to form the city and the county of St. John and the county of Albert into a constituency having two members of Parliament despite the fact that you have here the rural constituency of Albert between which and the city there is no more community of interest than is to be found between Richmond and South Cape Breton. In the city of St. John you have a homogeneous population of 42,511 in a compact city, whereas you have no such condition in South Cape Breton. You have Sydney, with a population of something under 20,000-


William F. Carroll: Over 20,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -over 20,000; you have the city of Glace Bay, with a population of 16,000 situated many miles from Sydney, with a separate corporation and other in-

terests quite distinct, and largely identified with coal mining, whereas the predominant interest at Sydney, is manufacturing and shipping. Then you have the smaller districts of Port Morien, Bridgeport, Dominion No. 6, and so oh. There you have not that homogeneous population, compact condition and common interest which you find in the city of St. John. Yet, hon. gentlemen opposite have agreed to the proposition to form one constituency of the city and county of St. John and the county of Albert with two members at large.


William Pugsley: What does my hon.
friend mean toy that? I happen to represent the city of St. John and when I was spoken to in regard to the matter I expressed my disapprobation of the proposed arrangement. I thought that a better arrangement could have been made in New Brunswick, but I understood the committee had agreed to it, and I had nothing further to say. But I do think that a better arangement could have been made.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not object to the hon. member for St. John interrupting me, but I do object to him making a speech in the middle of my remarks.


William Pugsley: You are putting me in an unfair position before my constituents and the people of New Brunswick.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish to reiterate what I have said notwithstanding the pleasant and plausible interruption of my hon. friend from St. John.


William Pugsley: It is a direct contradiction of the hon. gentleman.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, and I want to say that his direct contradiction is perfectly wrong and that it is contrary to the principle which exists in the constituency known as St. John city and county. Under this Bill, which was agreed to unanimously to-night and the schedule passed, there is a dual constituency known as the city and counties of St. John and and Albert with two members at large. Therefore, I am absolutely correct when I say it was agreed to unanimously and without a word of protest from hon. gentlemen opposite. It is futile for the hon. gentleman to say now that he made his honeyed protest against the proposal to create this constituency with two members. With respect to the question of dual representation, there is a further instance of a riding with two members at large in Halifax, and

I have yet to learn that that condition has been objected to by hon. gentlemen opposite. It has obtained for years. It is proposed that that condition shall continue, and yet there is a constituency which could have been divided, because Halifax is a compact city with a homogeneous population and with interests peculiar to itself, and it might have been represented by one member at large, while the county might also have been represented by one member at large. When we consider these various circumstances and the absolute inconsistency of the acceptance of dual representation in these different places, the hon. member for Richmond is absolutely estopped from making any objection to the same condition obtaining in South Cape Breton and Richmond.
The hour is very late, and I do not wish to detain the committee at any very great length. There are several features that I could discuss with interest to myself, if not to the committee, and which I would like very much to discuss, but I will only occupy the time for a moment longer. I was struck upon reading the speech of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, on the first reading of the proposed Redistribution Bill brought down by his Government in the year 1903, and particularly with this paragraph. He had referred to the suggestion that, the Government having power in its hands should wield that power to its advantage and possibly to the detriment of the people of the country. He said:
I grant that this is a matter in which the temptation is great to the party in office to abuse its power, to take an unfair advantage of its opponents, and to so arrange the constituencies as to secure the return to Parliament of more members of its own political faith than the actual political opinion of the country at large would warrant.
He had, being in power at the time, some knowledge of the importunities which come to men having power to abuse it to the advantage of the Government then in control.
Having regard to that quotation by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who at that time spoke as a man having knowledge, and having regard to the circumstance that this committee had to deal with even a larger number of constituencies than the Government of that day, because we have a larger number of seats covering the whole Dominion of Canada with a comparatively small population of divers interests spread

over a large territory, I think that the fact that out of 234 seats in this House we have come to a practically unanimous agreement on 233 is a very great tribute to the, shall I say, charity or generosity or fairness-whatever you choose to call it-of the present Government.
I would like to touch upon one or two ether phases of the question; but out of consideration for hon. gentlemen who perhaps would like to retire before breakfast, I shall allow this to suffice for the present moment.


George William Kyte: The hon. member for
Cumberland stated that the Government were under no obligation to change the constituencies in the province of Quebec unless they so desired. They had to provide for additional members for the city of Montreal owing to the enormous increase in population there; and as the number of representatives from Quebec is limited to 65, it was necessary to change the rural constituencies. My hon. friend is surely not without having that in his mind.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the British North America Act the province of Quebec has 65 members. Upon my hon. friend's argument we would let the matter cease there; but I went on to say that the question of equalization of population had been taken into consideration; and that for that reason constituencies were rearranged in the province of Quebec, although there are incongruities no doubt. There will naturally be incongruities in any measure framed in Parliament; but as far as possible the desire has been to equalize population, having regard to county boundaries, community of interest and so forth.


George William Kyte: Owing to the increase in the population in the city of Montreal, the representation had to be increased there.
In regard to dual representation in the province of Nova Scotia, we have had a system of representation in that province from the time that Parliament was first established there over 150 years ago. At the last session of the legislature, the Premier introduced a Bill for the purpose of arranging certain constituencies in. that province with a view to increasing the representation in the Assembly. The committee did not recommend whether the constituencies should continue to send representatives at large, or whether they should be divided into separate representative districts; but when the Premier proposed to change the system of representation and divide constituencies into ridings, so that there would be one representative for each riding, certain members of the Opposition in the House stated that they would keep the Premier there until the snow flew again, if he attempted to do anything of the kind. Therefore, my hon. friend from Cumberland will have to settle that matter with his political friends down in the province of Nova Scotia if he thinks it is wrong to perpetuate the dual representation there. With respect to the question which I raised as to denominational representation and which he said should be tabooed from this House-although I cannot understand why it can be discussed in any other phase of life but should not be discussed here-if my hon. friend wants me to tell him who first suggested there was something of that kind in the doing away of the county of Richmond, if he will come out in the corridor with me, I will whisper in his ear who it was who first suggested why Richmond should be wiped out.
I beg to move:
That section 4 of the schedule referring to the province of Nova Scotia he struck out.


William Chisholm: In view of the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), and because of the fact that I am one of the members affected by the Bill before the House, I deem it my duty to make a few observations. I am sorry at this late hour to have to detain the House while I express my views in regard to this matter. I am not making any apology for so doing, because I consider I have a perfect right to do so, and if the House is detained by reason of my remarks, the responsibility is on the other side for bringing down legislation of this kind at this stage of the session.
In the first place I feel that I am in distinguished company this evening. Some are born to greatness; some achieve greatness; some have greatness thrust upon them. I come in the last class, inasmuch I am legislated out of my seat in this House by this Act of Parliament. That is quite a distinction; when I look around me and see the men who are martyrs to the glorious cause, it seems to me I have reason to be proud. This legislation, if it goes through, will mean the wiping out of Antigonish county. Therefore I suppose it would be in order for me to deliver a valedictory; but

it so happens that I am afraid I could not deliver a valedictory on this occasion that would be quite in accord with the idea of a valedictory. My notion of a valedictory is, kind words and appreciative sentiments. So far as my experience goes, in the nine years that I have been in Parliament, with hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House and with the officers of the House, it has been of the kindliest character, and I might be able to deliver a valedictory so far as that is concerned; but so far as the county that I have the honour to represent is concerned, this Government, that must take the responsibility, is guilty of a grave injustice, and I regret to say that I cannot express any sentiments of kindness or appreciation with respect to the Government as such that is attempting to wipe out the county of Antigonish by the legislation now before the House.
In the course of my remarks I shall refer a little more fully to some of the arguments and observations made by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes). On the whole I may say that the hon. member has presented his side of the case very fairly, and I do not know that I have very much exception to take to his remarks in the main; but when he comes to apply his remarks to the conditions that are found in Nova Scotia and to the conditions that exist in other parts of the country, I think possibly he will find reason for revising some of his statements.
As far as the counity of Richmond is concerned, -after hearing the defence-very clever -from the point of view of the hon. member for Cumberland-do the legislation that is proposed, I consider that the legislation is absolutely indefensible. The hon. member for Cumberland has not attempted to show one single reason why the county of Richmond should be treated in the manner proposed by this legislation. I-f it were necessary to eliminate the county of Richmond in order to bring down the representation to what is required by the British North America Act, then whilst the people of this county might feel aggrieved, yet everybody would say that no injustice was done. The people of Richmond county would simply have to take their medicine like little men and make no fuss over it; but I cannot for the life of me see the sense of -adding Richmond county to Cape Breton county and giving two members. I did not happen to be present when the Prime Minister was introducing this legislation; but my recollection of it, from reading ' Hansard ', is that he stated

that the principle of dual representation was one that was to be tabooed as far as possible. If that be the ease, why in the name of common sense do you want to add Richmond county to the county of Cape Breton and then -give two -members?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember making any allusion to the subject at all.


William Chisholm: I stand subject to correction. I accept the hon. gentleman's word; but I remember reading ' Hansard ', and it struck me -at the time that he laid down the principle that there should be no dual representation where it was possible to avoid it.
Now, this is a case where it should have been avoided. The county of Richmond is largely French Acadian and Roman Catholic; they are distinctive in their character and characteristics. Why did you want to add that constituency, which is supposed to be represented by that body in the province of Nova Scotia, on to the county of Cape Breton, and then give two members? I could readily understand that if it became necessary to reduce the representation of the province, Richmond county should be eliminated in order to carry out the terms of the Confederation Act. But that is admitted to be unnecessary, for you have reduced the representation without touching Richmond county.
-So far as the county of Antigonish is concerned, I feel, Mr. Chairman somewhat keenly on the bill now under consideration. At the political! obsequies of the county that I have the honour to represent it is expected that I should say something of and for the departed. After this Parliament, if the legislation now before the House is carried into effect, as I fear it will be, there will be no one to speak for Antigonish again as such. We will be joined to the bigger partner, the county of Guysborough, and, naturally, Guysborough will likely have the last say in matters in which Antigonish is concerned. In this connection I am reminded of the story of a clergyman, who was called upon to preach a funeral oration. He did not know very much about the life and character of the deceased, so he interviewed his man servant and after a conversation with him, and getting a few facts which he thought would assist him in preaching the eulogy, he said:	' By the way, what were
the last words of the deceased?' ' Well,' replied the man servant, 'as a matter of fact he had no last words, his wife was with

him to the end.' When it comes to the last word for Antigonish there will be the other partner Guysborough to say the last, word. Therefore, I feel that it is my duty upon this occasion to say something of and for the county I represent. I may say that I have made some notes, and if I follow them more closely than the rules of the House permit, it is with a view to shortening my remarks, and I trust the House will excuse me.
The objection that is made to the county of Antigonish holding its representation is that it is small in size and population. Well, Mr. Chairman, since first the county of Antigonish became known by that name in 1863, it was just as small in size as it is in this year of grace, 1914; yet it was big enough and important enough to toe represented by Hon. Wm. A. Henry, one of the fathers of Confederation, a delegate at the Charlottetown meeting in 1864, the object of which was to bring about the Confederation of the British North American provinces, and who was a delegate also at the Quebec conference, when the draft of our constitution was prepared, and later a member of the London conference, which fornjulated the plan of confederation, and one of the two members who on this last occasion actually prepared the original draft of the Confederation Act, the palladium of the rights and privileges enjoyed by all classes and creeds in this Canada of ours; a statesman, who, after having declined a seat on the Nova Scotia bench, offered tooth by Liberal and Conservative Administrations, afterwards was elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1875, a position which he adorned until his death. His first entry into politics was as a member of the Local Legislature for what was then called the county of Sydney, which included what is now Antigonish, in 1840, and he sat in that Legislature till 1867.
Autigonish was big enough and important enough to be represented by Hon. Hugh McDonald from 1867 until the downfall of the Macdonald Administration in 1873, who sat for a time in the Cabinet, first as President of the Privy Council, and afterwards as Minister of Militia and Defence; a delegate with Messrs. Howe and Annand to England, who succeeded in securing better terms for Nova Scotia, when the Confederation scheme was under consideration in 1866-67; a Judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia from November 5, 1873 till his retirement in 1890.
It was big enough and important enough to toe represented in this Parliament by
Hon. Angus Mclsaac from December 1873 to September 1885, when he was appointed County Court Judge for Judicial District No. 6 in Nova Scotia, and then toy that brilliant and distinguished statesman, Sir John S. D. Thompson, from the autumn of 1885 until his tragic death at Windsor Castle in 1895, during which time he was Minister of Justice, and also Premier of Canada. All these great men have been gathered to their fathers; but, if they could speak to-day, they would lift their voices in unison against the political extermination of that county, which they loved so dearly, and they would boldly and confidently declare that, notwithstanding the fact that the population does not reach the unit of representation, it is contrary to the true spirit and intent of the Confederation Act, and a proper conception of the principles underlying the doctrine of representation by population, to wipe it off the political
map.	They would protest against destroying the political entity of that constituency, not because of the natural objection of its people to being degraded to the status of only a small part of a constituency, but because of the fact that that constituency occupies a position unique in its relation to the rest of the province, and is representative of a class in that province and the country at large which gives it a claim for special consideration in the adjustment now before the House. This I shall explain a little later on.
So far as the British North America Act goes, there is nothing in it that calls for equalization of the population to be represented in this Parliament. My hon. friend from Cumberland has admitted that. It provides for a certain representation. The number of members for Quebec is fixed and unalterable at 65; the number for each of the other provinces changes to bear the same proportion to their respective populations as the number of 65 bears to the population of Quebec. By dividing the population of Quebec at the last decennial census by 65, we get the unit of representation. That unit of representation in the redistribution that took place after the census of 1871, was 18,331; after the census of 1881, it was 20,908; after that of 1891 it was 22,900; after that of 1901 it was 25,367, and, under the present redistribution, it is 30,819. Whilst the Act provides for the reduction of the number of a province's representatives where the growth of its population does not keep pace relatively with the increase of the unit of representation, and the number of members

to which Nova Scotia will hereafter be entitled has therefore to be reduced from 18 to 18, as the hon. member for Cumberland stated, yet it does not require that a county, to be entitled to a representative, must have any certain minimum population. There is nothing in the law to prevent this Government passing a redistribution giving one or more members to a county with a population of 10,000 inhabitants, if it should see proper to do so. There have been scores of counties throughout Canada in the past that had each a member, although their population was much lower than the unit of representation ; whilst, on the other hand, there were very many constituencies with a population far in excess of double that unit that had only one representative. The city of Montreal, with a population now almost as large as the whole province of Nova Scotia, has had seven representatives in this Parliament since the last redistribution, whilst the province had 18 members. Now, I might also refer to the remark that I made when the hon. member for Cumberland was speaking. I find that, under the proposed Redistribution Bill, there axe in the province of Quebec the following counties whose populations are below the unit of representation: Brome, 13,216; L'Islet, 16,435; Maskinonge, 16,509; Argenteuil, 16,766; Montmagny, 17,358; Missisquoi, 17,466, which is practically half the unit of representation. In Ontario the population of East Peterborough is 15,499; North Ontario, 17,141; Prince Edward, 17,150; Grenville, 17,545; Dufferin, 17,740. In Manitoba I find that the new division of Nelson has a population of only 11,973. The point to which I direct attention is that the unit of representation is in no way a determining factor as to whether a county shall or shall not have a separate representative.
Now we come to the county of Antigon-ish. At no time since the first redistribution under Confederation has Antigonish county had the unit of representation; yet it always had a separate member in this House. The census of 1881 showed a population of 18,060, while the unit of representation in the redistribution that took place thereafter was 20,908. I have prepared a statement showing the population of the county of Antigonish under the various censuses since Confederation and the various units of representation. It is as follows:
Unit of
Census.	Population, representation.
1871	
16,512	18,3311881	
18,060	20,9081891	
16,114	22,9001901	
13,617	25,3671911	
11,962	30,819
The census returns are not always an invariable guide as to population. For example, at the last^ census the enumerator was required to take into account every member of the household who happened to be found at home on the day of the visit of the enumerator. If one or two members of a family happened to be temporarily away; if they were in the States or employed in some city or town, they were not taken into account, on the assumption that they would be enumerated wherever they happened to be residing at the time. In this way the rural districts suffered very much in the census, whilst the cities and towns gained. In the census of 1891, I know as a fact that members of a family who were residing in the United States for years, and who had no intention whatever of returning to the province in the near future, were enumerated as if at home. It will be seen, therefore, that it makes a very great difference whether the system adopted in taking the census is what is called the de jure system or whether it is the de facto system. Whilst the de facto system was supposed to prevail in the last census and the census preceding the last, yet as a matter of 'fact the de facto system was only followed in the last census, and in the census of 1891 the de jure system was followed. At any rate, I am perfectly safe in saying that the actual population of the county of Antigonish in 1911 was within 500 or 1,000 of the actual resident population in 1891, although the census shows a very much larger falling off. But this is a digression. The point I was trying to make, and it cannot be controverted, is that the population of Antigonish county was always, after the first Redistribution Bill in 1872, considerably below 1 a.m. the unit of representation; yet it was permitted to enjoy full representation under Conservative and Liberal Governments alike, and the people of the county, Conservatives and Liberals alike, are naturally very much aggrieved and humiliated at the action of the present Government in depriving them of that right and privilege hitherto enjoyed by them. Why is it that all those years from the time of Confederation, although the county

of Antigonish was mu eh below the unit of representation, it was allowed to have its representation in Parliament? The reason is apparent. It is that in that constituency and some other constituencies which I shall mention later, a minority element, a Roman Catholic body, a French Acadian body, were justly and properly recognized. Besides Antigonish county, there are other counties which fall far short of the 31,000 in round numbers which is the unit of representation. The last census gives the population of some of these counties as follows: Richmond, 13,273; Annapolis, 18,511; Digby, 20,167; Kings, 21,780; Colchester, 23,644; Queens and Shelburne, 24,211; Inverness, 251571. You will observe that these counties range in their (populations from forty-three to eighty-three per cent of the unit of representation for Canada; yet only one of them is deprived of its representative. As I have already stated, whilst the population is a determining factor in limiting the number of representatives in every province except Quebec, it is neither by law nor by the practice that has obtained since Confederation, necessarily an element in settling the distribution of that representation in a province. The terms of the British North America Act call for a reduction of the number of members for Nova Scotia from eighteen to sixteen on account of proportionate loss of population by that province since the census immediately previous to the last; but there is no law to determine or suggest in what part of the province that reduction shall be effected. That is a matter for the Government of the day, having due regard to all the classes, conditions and elements of population, to settle. The underlying principle of true democracy, of popular government, of fair representation, is that all classes, industrial, commercial and agricultural, all creeds, and nationalities shall, as far as possible and practicable, be represented in the Government of the country. That proposition has been repeated and admitted over and over again in this discussion, and similar discussions on like occasions, and is universally accepted. When it becomes necessary to make reductions by uniting constituencies, or carving them up, community of interest is an important matter for consideration. When this test is applied to the union of Antigonish and Guysborough, we find that although for a considerable distance they lie side by side, yet there is no more community of interest
between them than there is between Inverness and Yarmouth. The trade between these two counties is practically nil. The farmers of Guysborough county practically do all their business in Guysborough and Sherbrooke in that county; and the farmers of Antigonish have virtually no truck or trade with Guysborough. Commercially, Antigonish is as far away from Guysborough, and vice versa, as it is from Sydney, Cape Breton, or even St. John, New Brunswick. In the union of these two counties you have created a constituency which no man can represent and give his constituents any proper attention. Just think of it, a constituency extending all the way across from Northumberland strait to the Atlantic ocean. Book at the map and observe the distance from Cape George in Antigonish to Canso in Guysborough, or from Cape Jack in eastern Antigonish to Point Ecuin Secum. The distance in the former case is over 100 miles and between the two latter points it is 170 miles.
It is true that we are below the unit of representation, but so are one-half the other constituencies in Canada. The same thing may be said of many constituencies in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and the same may be said of Quebec and Ontario. Referring again to this memorandum I have, I find that in Ontario, where there are 81 ridings, there are 45 that are under the unit of representation. In Quebec in the 65 ridings, there are 40 which are under the unit of representation. New Brunswick has 10 ridings and 2 are under the 30,000. In Nova Scotia, with 14 ridings, there are 8 under the unit of representation. In Manitoba, with 15 ridings, 7 are under the unit of representation, and in British Columbia, with 13 ridings, 9 are under the unit pf representation. That ought to dissipate the argument that the unit of representation has anything at all to do with the question whether any particular county shall or shall not have a representative. There is another aspect of the case, that is the average population per square mile. I find that the average population per square mile in Nova Scotia is 22.98. Antigonish county, which is entirely a rural constituency, has a population per square mile almost up to the average, and a larger population per square mile than any other agricultural community in the province, with the exception perhaps of Kings. Just a few figures with reference to the population per square mile. Here they are:

Poplation
per
Square mile.
Antigonish	 21.51
Digby	 20.17-
Inverness	 18.15
Colchester	 1631
Hants	 16.03
Annapolis	 14.04
Queens and Shelburne	 11.97
Guysborough	 10.29
If you take the census returns showing the production of agricultural products of various kinds, grain, vegetables, horses, cattle, sheep, etc., it will be seen that for her size Antigonish takes second place to no community in the province. The county is, as I have said, almost exclusively agricultural. True, there is considerable fishing done there, but every fisherman is a farmer on a larger or smaller scale. This fact that it is par excellence an agricultural country, and that farming is the backbone of the country, ought to be matter deserving of serious and most favourable consideration, particularly when the question of production is in this country at present of such vital importance, and should induce the Government to leave that county her representation. Antigonish is only about half, and in many cases, less than half the area of these other counties I have enumerated, but she is just as big or just as small, as you like, as she was at the time of Confederation, when she first received representation in this House; and she leads all the counties that have not large industrial centres in the population per square mile and in her production per square mile, with one exception.
My hon. friend from Richmond referred to the religious aspect of this matter and the hon. member for Cumberland deplored that reference. It is just as well to call a spade a spade. I cannot understand why men will not discuss religion when they will discuss politics or a man's qualifications of any kind. What is there in it that a man should be ashamed of? The trouble is that people are too fond of talking of matters of this kind outside of the House but will not discuss them in the House. The hon. member for Richmond was quite within his right in discussing this matter and calling a spade a spade and giving expression to his views. The hon. member for Cumberland should not take exception to what he said. We know the hon. member for Cumberland is too big, too broad and too generous to have any sectional or small view on any subject, and particularly is he above the prejudices

that unfortunately exist in this country. But there is no reason why the matter of religion should not be discussed, if an argument can 'be based upon it, as freely as any condition, agricultural or commercial or otherwise, that prevails in this country. I propose to deal plainly and frankly with this matter and to give my opinion. If I am wrong in the matter, then hon. gentlemen who hold a contrary opinion can put me right, or, at all events, they have the right to hold a contrary opinion. It is true that, generally speaking, in our provinces, the relations between the various denominations are most cordial. The people of that province, being generally intelligent and enlightened, the various denominations knowing their separated' brethren, and having an opportunity of seeing that all the good, all the loyalty, all the public and private virtue is not found in one claes or creed to the exclusion of all or any of the others, bigotry and intolerance, the natural offspring of ignorance and irreligion, are comparatively unknown to us in that province. But even there, we have the Pringles and the Burgesses and others of that mischievous stripe, who, in season and out of season, instead of preaching the Gospel of charity and brotherly love, and peace and good will, seek to create suspicion and distrust, bitterness and enmity, all in the name of religion, and for the extension of the Kingdom of Heaven. They seem particularly busy just now, their latest grievance being the imaginary encroachments of the Pope of Rome on our free school system, hitherto regarded as an imperishable monument to the genius, foresight and statesmanship of Sir Charles Tupper, and those who were associated with him in the movement when that system was introduced in 1864. When demagogues and mischief makers require a field for their activities, a school question is the theme best suited for their wicked purposes.
It has been said that in a big country like this, with diversified conditions as to religion and nationality, considerations of this kind should have no place, that the paramount, indeed the only consideration should be to remember that we are all Canadians. I do not unqualifiedly agree with that view. The millennium is yet far distant, and if you would have a happy, peaceable and contented people, you must give all classes and creeds their just and proper recognition. You must respect contrary opinions and honest prejudices. Those who say the lamb and lion should lie side by side, too frequently

mean that the lamb should be found lying inside the lion.
When this Government was formed, the Prime Minister recognized this principle. It is true he was disappointing in his selections. Instead of taking reasonable, moderate and patriotic Conservative Catholics from the province of Quebec as his associates in the Cabinet he chose men from the ranks of the Nationalists, who are regarded as extreme, fanatical, and in many Conservative quarters, disloyal Canadians. Instead of choosing men representative of the sane, loyal, fair-minded Christian Protestantism of Ontario, he preferred the aggressive, intolerant-and judging from recent events in connection with their attitude towards Carsomsm and Home Rule for Ireland, the disloyal element controlling or controlled by Orangeism in that province. But he recognized the principle that he must find a place in his Cabinet for the various elements of race and creed. Again in the appointment of even judges to the Bench, care is taken that a just balance be maintained among the various creeds and nationalities; and so on all through the various phases of administration, from the Premier selecting his Cabinet down to the people selecting their candidate, these considerations properly and necessarily are not ignored. Let me just give an extract from a speech from the present Prime Minister himself on September 18, 1901. ' Han-said ' reports him on the question of representation and redistribution, then under consideration as follows:
There is another consideration which has had much weight in other constituencies, but which does not seem to have had any weight ... in the division of Cape Breton. We know that in various constituencies in Canada, the county of Halifax, the city of Ottawa, I believe, and the county of Cape Breton as well, this has been a sort of custom or unwritten law, which has been very faithfully carried out, and which amounts to this. That as the population of these different constituencies is divided so far as matters of religious faith are concerned-
Here the right hon. gentleman was interrupted in his remarks by a noise in the Chamber, and he addressed himself to the Chair protesting against the disorder, so his sentence was not completed. After he had succeeded in subduing the recalcitrant members he went on:
As I said, this custom has been carried out in good faith and in a very friendly and harmonious manner in the constituencies to which I have referred . . . and while I do not attach too
great importance to a matter of this kind, we should be somewhat careful of the feelings of the people with regard to customs of that character, which have prevailed in some of the constituencies of Canada for something like a quarter of a century.
I find the late Finance Minister, Hon. W. S. Fielding, giving expression to similar sentiments on the same occasion. He said:
As to what I may call the religious side of the question which has been referred to by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, that is a matter which should never be entirely lost sight of.
The Finance Minister in his remarks on that occasion recognized, to quote his own language, that 'A rule prevails whereby it is supposed that both of the great denominations secure representation'. My hon. friend from Cumberland will see that it is not improper to introduce a matter of this kind into a discussion of this nature, particularly when such men as the present Prime Minister and the then Minister of Finance felt that this principle ought to he considered. Now, Sir, let us apply the principle. In the province of Nova Scotia, the Catholics are 34 per cent of the whole population. Of a population of 492,338, as shown by the last census returns, there were: Catholics, 145,000; Presbyterians, 110,000; Baptists, 84,000; Anglicans, 75,000; Methodists, 58,000. Following that proportion, one would expect the Catholics to have six representatives in this Parliament. When the reduction to sixteen seats is made, the Catholic population should be entitled to five seats. But the proposed redistribution takes away that representation in a most ruthless and inconsiderate manner. And notwithstanding the assurance of my hon. friend from Cumberland county, I venture to prophesy that you will not see three Catholics returned to this House from the whole province of Nova Scotia after this Bill comes into effect.
The Catholic counties of that province may be classified as follows, according to the last census figures: Antigonish with a population of 11,962 has 10,306 Roman Catholics or upwards of 86 per cent. Richmond with a population of 13,273 has 9,836 Roman Catholics or upwards of 74 per cent. Inverness with a population of 25,571 has 17,019 Roman Catholics or upwards of 67 per cent. Digby with a population of 20,167 has 10,454 Roman Catholics or upwards of 50 per cent. Leaving those counties as they are, the number of recognized Catholic seats would still be one short of their proportion. I agree with my hon. friend from Cumberland that these seats should not as a matter



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
of representation. Is it because such union would have the effect of unduly reducing the fair and proper Protestant and English-speaking representation from that province? If so, I approve the action of the Government in leaving those counties their several representatives, but in doing so, I implore the same justice and fair treatment for the Catholics of Nova Scotia.
You may say that my remarks would probably ibe more properly addressed to the committee but I had no opportunity of addressing myself to the committee for the reason that the committtee was of a private character and I was not invited to be present. In any event I did not consider it proper that I should make any representation to the committee lest it might be said that I had prejudiced the case or the county. It was common talk in the constituency that our Conservative friends there who have hitherto posed as the champions of Catholic rights were taking steps to see that the facts of the case were properly laid before the committee and the Government. There was an assurance given that Antigonish county was not going to be disturbed.
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Given by whom?


William Chisholm: Not by the Government, I admit. The assurance given was pretty much like promises that are made with respect to public works, post offices, and that sort of thing. I did not feel like going before the committee lest it might he said that I had prejudiced the case and that I ought not to have interfered in the matter at all.


John Dowsley Reid: We would have been glad to have seen you.


William Chisholm: If such were the case I would have thought you would have extended the courtesy of an invitation if you knew that Antigonish was to be wiped out. You ought to have known that the county of Antigonish, which you were obliterating from the political map, was a distinctly Catholic county and the people of Nova Scotia are as jealous of their rights as are the English minority in the province of Quebec. While the English and Protestant minority in the province of Quebec have no anxiety that any Catholic is going to do them any injustice they still are, and properly so, jealous of their rights. So it is with the Catholic minority in the province of Nova Scotia. The representative of the county of Antigonish in the local legislature
EDITION	-

is invariably a Protestant and offices are divided between Catholics and Protestants, and we never have any fear or anxiety about our Protestant fellow citizens in that county. They are stalwart believers in the Protestant faith, but they always stand for justice and fair play. I would implore the Government, in view of the situation, in view of the fact that the province of Nova Scotia is being denied its proper representation, that Antigonish is peculiarly and particularly Catholic by reason of its population being divided between Catholics and Protestants in the proportion of ten to one, that it is the seat of a Catholic university, that it is a diocesan see with the largest Scotch Catholic diocese in the world, that it is a small, compact county with a larger population per square mile than that of any other agricultural county in the whole province of Nova Scotia, that the census shows that its production is greater per square mile than that of any other county in Nova Scotia with one exception, to reconsider its determination and to leave the county of Antigonish intact.


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, before
this Bill becomes law, I desire to enter a protest against it in so far as the county of Guysborough is concerned. The people I represent are almost invariably opposed to this measure without distinction of party. I would not be doing my duty as their representative if I did not voice tlheir sentiments here to-night. Speaking for the Liberal party of Guysborough county, I would say that they are proud of their political history. They have fought many a hard battle in the past with their opponents, and they were generally able to win. They are proud of their record in this respect, and they would like very much to perpetuate it and continue it in the years that are to come.
It is quite true that the county I represent has not a sufficient unit of population to entitle it to a representative under the law as it exists to-day, and I am sorry to say that of late it has been decreasing in population to a .small extent. But what has happened in other rural districts of Canada has happened in the county of Guysborough. The people are deserting the farms and the country, and deserting the fishing boats, and crowding into the cities and industrial centres. In my county a good many are leaving for the United States. The policy of the present Government has only aggravated that situation, 
as its effect has been to drive population away from the constituency rather than to keep it at home.
But I shall be told that we are up against the terms of the British North America Act, and who is to blame for that? I have no desire to open up old sores; but once in a while it becomes necessary to place the responsibility where it belongs. The terms of the British North America Act were settled at the conference at Quebec. That conference was self-constituted so far as the province of Nova Scotia was concerned. Sir Charles Tupper professed to represent the people of Nova Scotia at that conference; but he acted without the authority of the people, and he was backed up by only a very small handful of extreme partisans at that time. We are now reaping what the Tory party sowed on that occasion. My right hon. friend will ask me what has he to do with this? I will point out to him that he is the lineal descendant in the direct line of succession of Sir Charles Tup-p>er; that he stands in his shoes at the present time, and that in that sense he is responsible as the leader of the party.
When British Columbia was admitted into the union, the representatives of that province were astute enough to provide that, whatever happened in the rest of Canada, the representation of British Columbia would not be any less than it was at the time it came into the union. Why did not Sir Charles Tupper make the same provision as regards Nova Scotia?
Apart from that, my right hon. friend has to accept some responsibility on his own account. What has the Prime Minister done to prevent this condition of affairs as regards the province of Nova Scotia? I might be asked:	What did the Liberal
party do at the time of the last census? But in so far as Nova Scotia was concerned, the circumstances were very different on that occasion. At that time it is true that we lost two members; but we had dual representation in the counties of Pictou and Cape Breton, and we were able to adjust the matter without very much inconvenience to anybody; but under the terms of this Bill we are disturbing the representation of seven counties in the province of Nova Scotia, namely, Digby, Annapolis, Antigonish, Guysborough, Yarmouth, Richmond and Cape Breton. Therefore, you will see that it is going to make a very great disturbance in that province.
My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has made a very strong case; and in

my opinion, his case has not been answered by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), or by any person on that side of the House. In my opinion, the proposal in regard to the county of Richmond is absolutely unfair. There is no good reason for it, and no good reason has been shown. It is quite true that the county of Richmond is small; but that is not a reason for wiping it out, and that reason does not prevail in other parts of the country, as has been pointed out by my hon. friend from Richmond and my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm). If we are to carry out that principle, I would ask my hon. friend from Cumberland what he would say about uniting his own constituency with the adjoining constituency of Colchester. I find on looking at the census that the population of the county of Colchester is only 23,364 and the population of the county of Cumberland is 40,543. It would be just as reasonable that the counties of Cumberland and Colchester should be put together and that they should return two members, as that the counties of Richmond and Cape Breton should be put together and return two members. If it suited the interests of the Conservative party to do that, they would be just as willing to do it in the one case as in the other, because the populations when the counties are united are about the same. The disparity between Cumberland and Colchester is very striking. They are adjoining counties and could very easily be put together, but there is no proposal of that kind. The county of Hants might be joined with the county of Halifax for that matter and return three members, because the county of Hants has only 20,000 people whereas the county of Halifax has 80,000 people. It is not an argument to say that, because the county of Richmond has a slightly smaller population than have some of the other counties in Nova Scotia, it should be treated differently and joined on to the county of Cape Breton. There is no pretense that this is done in the public interest. It is done in the interest of the Conservative party and for the purpose of attempting to wipe out another Liberal county in the province of Nova Scotia.
The question arises as to whether or not this 'reduction in the representation of the province of Nova Scotia could have been prevented. It certainly could have been prevented, as I will show.
The Prime Minister was urged in the session of 1911-1912 to amend the statute so as to prevent the result that has overtaken 3371
us at the present time. In that session the Prime Minister led us to believe that he was going to do something. My hon. friend from Pictou on that occasion was referred in a discussion on the boundaries of Manitoba, to this question, and he pointed out to the Prime Minister the importance of taking such steps as would preserve the representation of Nova Scotia before the time came for dealing with the question of redistribution. Here is what the Prime Minister said. His words will be found on page 4713 of ' Hansard ' of 1911-1912:
I can assure my hon. friend from Pictou and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), who take a great interest in this question, that all of us from the Maritime provinces are just as deeply interested in it as they are, and I can assure my hon. friend from Pictou that it will have the earnest and careful consideration of the Government.
That was the promise made by the right hon. gentleman on that occasion. He went on to say:
One suggestion is that a minimum representation should be established for the Maritime provinces. Another suggestion is that the British North America Act should be amended to the effect that in estimating the 1.20 diminution which is required under subsection 4 of section 51 only the four original provinces should be taken into consideration so far as any diminution of the representation of those provinces is concerned.
He appeared to agree with the view put forward at that time. Then on April 10, .1913, the matter was again up, and my hon. friend from Pictou urged the Prime Minister to deal with this question of redistribution. The Prime Minister said that no satisfactory progress could be made in dealing with the question of the Maritime provinces until a conference of the provinces should be called. He then said:
In the meantime I shall bear in mind the suggestion which my hon. friend from Pictou has offered, that action of some kind ought to be taken during the present session.
The conference of the provinces was held in October of last year; and I have not been able to find, in looking over the minutes of that conference, that the Prime Minister did anything in the way of implementing his promise to the House that, when this conference took place some proposal at all events, would be placed before the Premiers of those provinces and some attempt made to adjust the matter with the Maritime provinces. Did my right hon. friend do anything? Did he

attempt to find any remedy? What is the ' use of promising careful and earnest consideration if it is only empty words, and they are forgotten as soon as they are uttered? Every one who has studied this question knows that there is more than one way of escape. Section 51, subsection 4 the British North America Act was intended to meet this case. When the construction of this subsection was submitted to the courts, the decision was adverse to the contention of the Maritime provinces; but there are strong reasons at the same time to take the other view. This subsection reads as follows:
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 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.
The whole question depends upon the construction of the word ' Canada.' Does it mean the four additional provinces of Confederation, namely, Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, or does it mean the nine provinces that compose Confederation at the present time? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the fathers of Confederation had in their minds Canada as it existed at the time that that subsection was written?
Now, if the word * Canada ' in that subsection was declared to contain the meaning that it referred only to the original four provinces, the reduction would not be made in the present redistribution; I mean that the Martitime provinces would not lose their representation. It was open to the Prime Minister to introduce legislation declaring that that was intended to be the meaning by the Fathers of Confederation, and that, notwithstanding the decision that has been given by the courts, that was the fair, reasonable and just meaning of that clause of the Confederation agreement, and in that case the reduction [DOT] of the representation of the Maritime provinces would not have taken place.
In protesting against the present measure, in so far as the county of Guysborough is concerned, I do not wish to be understood as objecting in any way to a union with Antigonish. If Guysborough is to share its representation with any other county in Nova Scotia there is none more suitable than that county. I am speaking for a

moment just to put before the House and the country the view of the people of Guysborough county, which I have the honour to represent. I have no right to speak for the people of Antigonish, but we have been assured by the hon. member who has a right to speak for them, that they are just as opposed to the union as are the people of Guysborough. All I can do is to enter my protest in virtue of the overwhelming majority on the other side of the House. That is all that it is possible to do on this side, to lay the blame where it properly belongs, at the door of the Conservative party.


Robert Laird Borden: Just two or three words before this resolution carries. I am inclined to congratulate this committee very sincerely, because I know that in some respects their task has been a difficult and, one might almost say, a thankless one, in attempting to come to an agreement in respect to a matter which usually in this country has been the cause of severe political controversy. The fact that they have succeeded in agreeing in 233 constituencies out of 234 is distinctly a credit to the spirit with which they entered upon their duties, and to the manner in which they have carried them out.
Hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House this evening have alluded to the only case in which there has been a difference of opinion in the committee, and in the House itself. Do not let those hon. gentlemen imagine that there are not men on this side who have cause to complain, and who have made very strong appeals for a consideration which, under the circumstances, it was impossible to give. I have no doubt that the same thing has occurred on the other side of the House in respect of men whose voices have not been raised here to-night.
However, the hon. gentleman from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has seen fit to make a very strong criticism of the Conservative members of the committee and of the report which they have brought in with regard to the county of Richmond and the electoral district of South Cape Breton. He has endeavoured to make it appear that the action of the Government majority on the committee was designed to, affect unjustly and unfairly a certain portion of the community in Nova Scotia. I need hardly pause to notice a suggestion of that kind, made for an obvious purpose, and I will not dwell upon it except to say that I think it was most effectively answered by the hon. member



XI, 19X4

[Stage Direction]
from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes). I do not think it redounds very much to the credit of the hon. gentleman who made that attack, and 'Who used the astonishing arguments with which he supported it, that he should have taken the course he has seen fit to pursue. He has spoken of the county of Richmond, and other hon. gentlemen has spoken of it; they have asked a number of questions with regard to it, and they have given a number of illustrations. Let me give them a few illustrations of the manner in which the committee unanimously dealt with many counties in Ontario .and Quebec, whose population was very much larger than that of either Richmond or lAmtigonish.
Let us take, for example, the county of Brockville, with a population of IK,531; it absolutely disappears by the unanimous consent of the committee as an electoral division, and is merged in the county of Leeds. Let us look at the three Greys: those constituencies have respectively a population of 19,650, 26,991 and 19,250; one of these constituencies disappears and the three former constituencies become two. Let us look at the three Hurons: As at present constituted they have respectivelv populations of 16,289, 19,508 and 17,186; one of them disappears and the three ridings are merged into two. Let us look at the ridings of North and South Lanark, the one with a population of 14,624 and the other with 19,751, merged into one riding by the provisions of this Bill. I say that every one of those would have just as much and more right to put forward criticism with regard to the unanimous action of the committee concerning them as any argument which has been put forward to-night by hon. gentlemen opposite.
William Chisholm: Is there not a community of interest in those ridings?


Robert Laird Borden: stituencies the majority of whose electorate were of an absolutely different religious belief. We have examples of that in the province of Ontario. A very distinguished Roman Catholic, Hon. J. J. Foy, represents in the provincial Legislature the con-' stituency of South Toronto, which, if I remember correctly, is a strong Protestant and Orange constituency; yet if the Hon. J. J. Foy in the course of the redistribution in the province of Ontario had happened to have the constituency of South Toronto interfered with, I suppose one would hardly say that that was intended as an injustice against the Roman Catholics of Ontario. This constituency, although strongly Protestant, very properly and worthily elected Mr. Foy, a prominent Roman Catholic, to represent it in the provincial Parliament. It elects IMr. A. C. Maedonnell, a prominent Roman Catholic, to this House.
With regard to diversity of interests and lack of communication, I desire to tell the hon. gentleman that my own constituency, the county of Halifax, is 140 miles in length. Its people make their livelihood by almost every means and occupation. We have an urban population in the city of Halifax of about 50,000, engaged in industrial and mercantile activities, in shipping and in all that pertains to shipping. We have mining districts, fishing districts, agricultural districts, and, more than that, we have absolutely no railway communication from east to west, although a railway is now in process of construction. When going to different ponds in the county, it is more convenient to take a steamer allong the shore; if one takes the road he must drive. Take the riding of North Cape Breton and Victoria, in which industries, mining, agriculture and fishing are extensively carried on; there is just as great a lack of communication and just as great a diversity of interests there as any that will arise by reason of the union of the present electoral divisions of South Cape Breton with the county of Richmond. Take the constituency of .South Cape Breton itself, as it is constituted at the present time. There we find a large industrial population, a large mining population, a large population engaged in agriculture and, I presume, a considerable population engaged in fishing. There is a considerable lack of communication in parts of that riding. Take the case of the riding of the hon. member for Pictou, where there is great variety of occupation. You cannot in making redis-
tribution secure complete uniformity of conditions; indeed, I am not absolutely sure that it is desirable that you should do so.
Let us look for a moment at the population and voting power of these constituencies. The population of Richmond is 13,273.
The population of South Cape 2 a.m. Breton is 53,352. In Richmond there are 3,489 and in South Cape Breton 15,404 names on the electoral lists. That is to say, South Cape Breton has on its electoral lists the names of 2,000 more persons than are included in the entire population of Richmond. In Richmond 2,251 persons voted at the last election, and in South Cape Breton 10,257. Under those circumstances the hon. member for Richmond contends that although these ridings adjoin and are contiguous to each other, we should leave them as they are and we should give to every elector in the riding of Richmond about five times the voting power allowed to each elector of the riding of South Cape Breton. It does not seem to me that that is a reasonable proposal. Why should we not join them? To supplement the illustrations which were given by my hon. friend the member for Cumberland, let me remind the committee that in addition to the city and county of Halifax, which, have always returned two members, the county of Pictou also returned two members to this Parliament. We had also the county of Cape Breton returning two members. They were cut down to one member eventually for the reason that the representation in the province of Nova Scotia in this Parliament had to be reduced. But as long as the representation of the province of \Nbva Scotia remained at twenty or twenty-one, we had not only the constituency of Halifax but the constituencies of Pictou and Cape Breton each returning two members at large. And then, in the adjoining province of New Brunswick, in the riding of the city and county of St. John joined to Albert, we have a dual constituency returning two members. The same thing is true of Ottawa. As the member forOumberland pointed out, it has been the universal practice both in federal and provincial redistribution in Nova Scotia, ever since Confederation, to have members at large and not to divide up counties; and that is *he course which we thought it best to pursue in this case. The electoral district of South Cape Breton and Richmond will have a population of a little over 66,000. They have a little over the unit which would entitle them to two members.



XI, 1914

[Stage Direction]
Then with regard to Guysborough and Antigonish, I would point out to the hdn. member for Guysborough and the hon. member for Antigonish that the recommendation of the committee with regard to the union of those counties was unanimous and I have not heard anything from these gentlemen as to what should otherwise have been done. They were the two counties with the smallest population, they were the two counties that lay contiguous to each other, and I do not know what the alternative suggestion would be.
John Howard Sinclair: My contention was
that there should be an attempt to adjust the law so as to give the Maritime provinces the representation they had at the time of the union, or the representation they have now.


Robert Laird Borden: I will come to that in a moment. We have to deal with conditions as they are; we cannot amend the British North America Act, although my hon. friend suggested, perhaps unwillingly, that we had the power to do so.


William Chisholm: I contended that there were other constituencies in N'ova Scotia where there was a community of interest that could well be united and thus obviate the union of these two that have nothing in common.


Robert Laird Borden: The counties of Guysborough and Antigonish are both agricultural to a large extent, are they not? They are both fishing counties to a large extent, are they not? I do not know why there is not a community of interest. I do not think there is any hostility or any unfriendliness or ill will between the counties of Antigonish and Guysborough. I believe they will get on very well indeed and, further than that, hon. gentlemen seem to imagine that because the county of Richmond is to be added to the county of South Cape Breton, or because An-ti-gonish is to be added to Guysborough, these constituencies will lose all influence in the councils of the nation. I do not think any such thing as this is to be apprehended.	When	the county ofQueens was	added	to the countyof Shelburne	the	united county
was represented in this House for fifteen years by a man who occupied an exceedingly prominent place in the life of this country, the Minister of Finance in the late Government, Hon. W. S .Fielding. Is there any reason to suppose that the electors of Queens and Shelburne did not exercise a
legitimate and reasonable influence in the councils of the nation here in Parliament when they were represented by Mr. Fielding? What reasons are there to suppose that either Richmond or Antigonish or Guysborough will not have in the future legitimate and proper influence in the Parliament of Canada by the representation which it will now have. I do not know what else we could do with Richmond unless we left it as it is. Is it desired that we should unite Richmond and Victoria? We can do that and leave Cape Breton to return two members as it did years ago. Would any hon. gentleman find any objection to Cape Breton being represented in this Parliament by two members? Would it be necessary to divide Cape Breton? If it would not be necessary to divide Cape Breton, if it would be an eminently proper thing to leave Cape Breton to be represented in this Parliament by two members' as it was for a veTy long period, what is the strong objection to having the south riding of Cape Breton and the county of Richmond united into one riding and returning two members to this Parliament? I must confess that the attitude which my hon. friends have taken with regard to this matter is one that has surprised me very much, and one which I think will not be supported by public opinion.


William Chisholm: What is the objection to having two separate ridings with two separate members instead of one riding with two members?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not make the report and I am not responsible for it. I suggested that very thing myself in the early stages when I knew that there was some difference of opinion. So far as I can gather from information obtained from members of the committee, there was a good deal of difficulty in doing that on account of the population being largely grouped around the cities of Sydney and Glace Bay. Further than that, the suggestion which I made did not receive any encouragement. In 1903, I think I suggested in this House that Richmond might be united with Victoria. It was not received with favour by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I did not press it unduly. I did not put it forward this time because hon. gentlemen, as I understood, had some marked objection to it. In. view of the enormous preponderance of population in the adjoining riding and in view of the fact that dual representation has been the custom of the people of



COMMON8

[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia for many years, in the past, it was the proper thing to join the electoral district of South Cape Breton and the county of Richmond into one riding and have that riding return two members, just as would have been done if Cape Breton had been restored and were allotted the two members in this Parliament that it formerly had.
The hon. member for Guysborough has endeavoured to raise some question in the way of criticism upon the Government and especially upon myself because the British North America Act has not been so amended as to give to the province of Nova Scotia a representation of 18, 19 or 21 members. Perhaps he alludes to the number we had when we entered Confederation. He has heard his own leader in this House declare over and over again that when our province came into Confederation it came in upon a distinct and settled principle of representation by population and that that principle was embodied in express and distinct terms in the British North America Act, and it being so set forth and expressed in the British North America Act, Parliament should not depart from it.
John Howard Sinclair: Why should we depart from it in the case of Prince Edward Island?


Robert Laird Borden: We are not departing
from it seriously in the ease of Prince Edward Island. We are departing from it by adopting a principle which has been accepted unanimously by the hon. gentlemen's own political friends upon the committee, that no province in Canada shall be represented in the House of Commons by a smaller number than in the Senate.


John Howard Sinclair: You are doing it for the express purpose of giving one more member for Prince Edward Island.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend object to that?


John Howard Sinclair: I am not objecting to it but if you are going to stand by the principle, stand by it. You are not standing by it.


Robert Laird Borden: We may be departing
from the principle to that very limited extent by reason of another principle which I think is entitled to certain consideration, namely, that it was not intended or foreseen by those who laid the foundations of the Confederation Act that any province fMr. Borden.]
should have a smaller representation in the House of Commons than in the Senate. That view impressed itself upon the committee and upon the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, although he stands firmly to-day upon the ground that the Confederation Act embodies a convention or treaty between the four provinces which entered into Confederation, and that one of the terms of that convention or treaty was that the representation of these provinces in the Parliament of Canada should be based upon population. I would like to ask my hon. friend whether or not in 1903 any steps were taken to remedy this unsatisfactory condition so far as the Maritime provinces are concerned? He knows perfectly well they were not, and he knows why those steps were not taken. The suggestion that we can undertake legislation on that behalf is of course absolutely futile. We could only pass an address, and if my hon. friend had seen fit to do so this afternoon when the resolution with regard to representation in the House of Commons was before us, he could have made such a motion, but I venture to say that he would not have got a great deal of support from his own side- of the House if he had done so. My hon. friend smiles his acquiescence in the statement I have just made. He knows perfectly well the reason he did not make it; he knows his own leader would not have supported him. The . arrangement made at Confederation was an arrangement based upon the understanding and agreement to which I have alluded. I am very sorry to have been obliged to inflict myself upon the committee at this hour, but as a good deal of criticism has been directed not only against the Government but against myself personally, I thought it due to myself and due to the House that I should make this explanation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As a member of the Redistribution Committee, and coming from the province where the question which has been discussed to-night at such length has arisen, I think it is only due to the men who have raised this question and to the House that I should say a word or two.
I am free to say that the desire of the members of the committee from the Government side of the House in dealing with this matter was apparently to deal with the question in a fair manner. I think that the Chairman in any disputes that arose between the- members acted very fairly, and it is a matter of regret that the' issue which raised the question we have

been discussing to-night should have arisen in regard to the province from which my right hon. friend comes. The case of Richmond county and its connection with South Cape Breton is an isolated and peculiar case, and constitutes one proposal in this Bill for which, to my mind, there is no justification whatever. My right hon. friend has referred to what has been done in Ontario. What occurred in Ontario was this: By reason of the fact that the census showed an increase in the population in northern Ontario and an increase in the population of the city of Toronto, it was necessary, having regard to the fact that Ontario's representation in addition was affected to the extent of four seats, to readjust the population within the province so as to make eight seats disappear and to provide eight new constituencies. The constituencies of Grey, Huron, Middlesex, Stormont, Lanark and the others to which my right hon. friend has referred were constituencies that had to be dealt with on account of their small population in order to provide for the disappearance of the eight seats and the creation of eight new constituencies. The same situation arose in Quebec. The increased population of the island and city of Montreal involved the disappearance of constituencies in the rural parts of the province in order to provide for representation where the bulk of the population was. In Nova Scotia we have this situation. Under the law we had to provide for the disappearance of two constituencies. The Government members on the committee proposed that Antigonish and Guysborough be united and that Digby be divided.


Mr. MORPHY:: I understood my hon.
friend to say that Ontario lost eight seats, and that eight new seats had to be provided in their place. Did the hon. gentleman intend to convey that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What I meant to say was that Ontario lost four seats under redistribution, but by reason of the increased population in Northern Ontario and the city of Toronto it was necessary to provide for the disappearance of eight seats in order to create four others. In regard to Nova Scotia, I think the division of Queens and Shelburne would have been better than dividing up Digby. It would have been more satisfactory to the counties involved, as Shelburne and Yarmouth have closer business relations than Shelburne and Queens and the northern portion of Queens is in very close communication with the county of Annapolis. Having provided for the disappearance of two seats by combining Antigonish and Guysborough and dividing Digby an additional proposition was made for the disappearance of the county of Richmond and the creation of a double-member constituency coimposed of the constituencies of Richmond and South Cape Breton. To my mind there was no warrant or justification for that proposal whatever. There was no necessity for the committee to make any such report. We had gone over all this country from the Pacific to the Atlantic dealing with redistribution, and we had not found it necessary to create another double member constituency.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What about St. John?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: St. John is different. I am not going to discuss the question of dual representation at this hour of the day, as its merits and demerits would involve a very long discussion. I think the best judgment of those who have given this matter serious thought is that it is not desirable to have dual representation. The suggestion that we should have a dual member constituency because in Nova Scotia we have had counties represented by two and three men since Confederation is of no value, because under the Act of 1867 a certain number of seats were provided and the conditions naturally lent themselves to double representation at that time. The general sentiment of the country, however, is against dual representation and the fact that we had dealt with this question of redistribution in every province except Nova Scotia without creating another double member constituency was one that ought to have been regarded.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We have one at St. John.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: St. John already
existed. The peculiar conditions in regard to the city of St. John and St. John city and county practically demanded dual representation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not at all. There is a
separate member for St. John city and a separate member for St. John city and county:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend
knows very well that a man who lived in the city of St. John had two votes. He elected, at the last election, Mr. Pugsley and Mr. Daniel, who is now in the Senate. But the man who lived in St. John county could only vote for one person. Practically

you had dual representation. In the case of Albert county, the committee were doing nothing more or less than dealing with a situation that already existed. This was the only case in which dual representation was found to be necessary on the part of the Government. My right hon. friend represents Halifax city and county which has been a county in Nova Scotia from time without memory, and which as far as bounds go, existed at Confederation, the capital county of the province, with diversified interests, with all the occupations of its people, and in that county you had a condition which was peculiar in. its way. But that is not an argument to be made in regard to establishing a new constituency in the island of Cape Breton. The suggestion that Richmond should go with Victoria is not a practicable one because you have the Bras d'Or lakes separating the two of them. The Acadian who lives at Isle Madame has nothing more to do with the Highlander who lives at Iona than he has to do with a man who lives in Yarmouth. What was proposed by the Government was to create a new constituency stretching from Sydney harbour down to Point Tupper. Why? Because Richmond had 13,000 of a population. I took [DOT]strong ground in the committee against it [DOT]and I still take strong ground against it. [DOT]I say that it is an anomaly, that it is [DOT]entirely unnecessary and there is no justification for it. I say that Richmond with its 13,000 people has as much right on account of the fact that it is a typical minority constituency in our province to be *represented in the House of Commons as the county of Brome in the province of Quebec. That is the position I took before the committee and that is the position I take here and now. The men who have grown up and have been associated with the county, and with its peculiarly interesting history for over half a century, have a right to be represented. They have always been represented since 1867. They have not varied very much in their population. There was no harm to be done by allowing them to go on as they were while there is a great deal of injury to be done by making this change. My right hon. friend pointed to the conditions that exist in my own county. There we have eight or nine coal mines in the centre of the county.
The farmers and fishermen of my county do business with these coal mines. They

sell their produce to them and their sons go and work in these industries. But the man who lives at Isle Madame does not go to Glace Bay or Sydney to do business; he has far more interest in the constituency of my right hon. friend in the city of Halifax where he sells his fish and produce than in Glace Bay or Sydney. What harm was there to be done?


Mr. FOWLER:: Is my hon. friend aware that between St. John county and Albert county there is not even a highway road?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Quite so.


George William Fowler: The only way to get there is to pass through two or three other counties or to go by boat along the coast.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Royal, as we shall have to call him after this-
Mr. FOWLER i Not yet.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: -knows very well the problem that had to be solved; he knows that Albert county was peculiarly isolated and there was nowhere else to put it. Once it was decided that Kings and Queens were to be put together and that Sunbury was to go with York, Albert was left stranded like a child without a father and because it was stranded it was taken into the constituency of the city and county of St. John. But that is not the condition in regard to Richmond. Albert had no separate entity, it was only the fifth wheel to the coach of Kings county. But Richmond has always had a separate entity. It has as many people as Brome and it has within two or three thousand as many as Argen-teuil which is represented by an important member of the Government. It is typical in our province of the same conditions as those which exist in Brome and Argenteuil in Quebec. Being representative of a minority in our province, both in race and religion, there was no justification for the Government making the proposition that it should be destroyed. Its connection with South Cape Breton is entirely anomalous and were it not for other conditions that exist, were it not for the aspirations of certain individuals in South Cape Breton, I venture to say that it would never have been suggested that this union should be made. That is the only reason it ever was suggested.
I regret that the deliberations of this committee, which, on the whole, have been fairly satisfactory, should be marred by this blot upon its record with regard to the


province of Nova Scotia. I opposed the settlement of this question along these lines in the committee, I oppose it now;
I say it is unfair to the constituency, that it is unfair to the minority in our province, and that it creates an anomaly which ought to be removed at the earliest possible day. I am sorry that the right hon. gentleman did not accept the proposition which we have made, because otherwise we would have been saved this debate, and my right hon. friend would have had the satisfaction of putting through a redistribution without any question being raised as to its fairness.


George William Kyte: It Was well known months ago that certain gentlemen in South Cape Breton, who failed of election either in South Cape Breton or Richmond, weTe predicting that there was a new deal in prospect whereby it was hoped that either one of them, and perhaps both, might be able to squeeze his way into Parliament. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) is, no doubt, quite innocent of any such undertaking as that which was entered upon by the gentlemen I speak of.	My hon. friend from Pictou (Mt.
Macdonald) has put the matter in a way that 'I will not attempt to put it in view of the lecture which was read to me by the hon.	member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) and the right hon. Prime Minister. Brome, a minority constituency, representing a minority race, is preserved in Quebec; Richmond, in the island of Cape Breton, a minority constituency, representing a minority race and religion, is wiped out. Does any person believe foT an instant that the Government would have done that if it were not for the fact that there are political exigencies to be taken into account; that there are in the island of Cape Breton men who have political ambitions, but who, up to the present time, have not had a sufficient public opinion behind them to enable them to secure a seat in Parliament?
Amendment (Mr. Kyte) negatived on division.
Prince Edward Island:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would my right hon. friend the Prime Minister permit me to say a word about Prince Edward Island? Supposing that the Imperial Parliament passes the Act which we asked them to pass to-day, and the result of the passage of that Act would 'be to provide for the additional representation of Prince Edward
Island, what would be the condition? Whether there is to be a general election or not is entirely a matter within the knowledge of my hon. friends opposite, but there does not seem to be any reason why we should not provide in this Bill for the additional representation of Prince Edward Island immediately upon the Imperial Act passing. I would, therefore, propose to amend the clause by adding at the end of the section relating to Prince Edward Island the following:
Provided, that if the British North America Act, 1867, should be amended by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in accordance with the address of both Houses of Parliament of Canada in that behalf, passed at the present session, immediately upon the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom amending the said British North America Act, 1867, in accordance with such address coming into force, there shall be in the province of Prince Edward Island three electoral districts defined as follows:
(1)	The county of Kings shall form and constitute the electoral district of Kings and shall return one member.
(2)	The county of Prince shall form and constitute the electoral district of Prince and shall return one member.
(3)	The county of Queens shall form and constitute the electoral district of Queens and shall return two members.
That would provide for the existing condition of things immediately upon the Imperial Act coming into force. I see no reason why it should not be done.


Robert Laird Borden: And save legislation next year. Perhaps my hon. friend will let it stand and have the Bill read the third time to-night, and I will consult with the Minister of Justice in regard to the matter. I do not see any objection to the proposal; it seems to me rather appropriate. I do not know whether my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island has considered it or not.


William Findlay Maclean: I was not sure whether the resolution would pass in the Senate, where it now is; and if it did not, I supposed that the Bill would pass as it is, and that the amendment, if it were necessary to move it, would require to be moved to-morrow on the third reading. That is the reason I did not move it to-night. I had the matter in mind, but did not consider this the proper time to move my amendment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I consulted with the right hon. the leader of the Opposition before he went away, and he was desirous of facilitating the passage of the Bill after this controversial subject was discussed.


Robert Laird Borden: This will only take a moment if it is dealt with in the morning, and therefore it can stand.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to turn to the Ontario schedule, section 2, in regard to the county of Carleton. I heg to move:
That in section 2, line 3, after the words ' district of Ottawa ' the words ' Rideau ward of the said city and of the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode ' be inserted.
The reason I am asking that Rideau ward be put in there is on account of an amendment moved to-night to put Rideau ward into the county of Russell.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. McKAY:: I would like to draw attention to section 4 of the Bill, which reads:
Every town, village, township or place-
This does not include cities. Taking that section into consideration and referring to the districts in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta which have cities in their electoral districts not mentioned in the descriptions, for instance, the electoral district of Brandon which has the city of Brandon in the electoral district as described, I think it would be well to insert the word ' city ' after the word * every ' in the section.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think it would be necessary if there is any such case. I presume the reason it was not included before was that at that time there were no cities included within the electoral districts.


James McKay: Yes, there are very few cities in the East included in the electoral districts, but in the West there are small towns that we call cities included. That obtains in my constituency and in several constituencies in Saskatchewan. I would therefore move:
That the word 'city' be inserted after the word ' every ' in section 4.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 147, to amend the Post Office Act.
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House doth agree to the amendment made by the Senate to the Bill No. 147, an Act to amend the Post Office Act, with an amendment as follows: Strike out the words * and shall not take effect 
until so revised or ratified,' at the end of said amendment, for the following reason:
Because these words would have the effect of preventing the Post Office Department from collecting postage.
And as a consequential amendment the words * one cent ' be inserted in the blank between the words ' exceed ' and ' for.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Postmaster General if toe has consulted the press associations about this amendment which he suggests, because I am informed that the press is satisfied, only with the proviso that the Bill shall not take effect until so revised or ratified; that is, as to the rates. In other words, the press would like to be under the control of Parliament as regards the rates, whilst the contention of my hon. friend is that he should have that control, that is, the Treasury Board.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is the way it is intended.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is too late to discuss this matter, but I simply state that, as the press is most affected regard should be had to their objection, and my hon. friend should not object to maintaining the old order of things. The rates have always been under the control of Parliament. Why should my hon. friend appropriate to himself the right to dictate the rates, without Parliament having its say? It seems to me an extraordinary power, and I make the objection on behalf of the Associated Press. My hon. friend may not perhaps succeed in convincing the Senate; at all events, he is taking a risk.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It would be too bad to see this Bill fall through. It provides for an increase in salaries for the railway mail clerks, and I take the view that the Senate has no right to amend what is a money Bill. They proposed an amendment to which I agreed, and after they had voted that amendment it came down, and the gentlemen of the press asked us for further concessions, which we consented to. When the Bill went back to the Senate, the Senate went back upon its first amendment. I understand that there is some desire that this should be made right, and I am moving that a message be sent to the Senate for that purpose.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the sections of the Bill affecting the railway mail clerks could very well stay, if this agreement is lost between my hon. friend and the Upper House. There is no connection between an increase of salaries and the rates of postage.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is a money Bill and the Senate has no right to amend a money Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No objection has been taken there.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But it was over-ruled. At all events, I wish to state that the only objection to the Bill is that my hon. friend assumes powers which until now have always belonged to Parliament-Otherwise there is no objection to the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 221, to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1894.
Robert Laird Borden: This is an amendment the effect of which is to provide that certain property of the Montreal Harbour Commissioners not within the limits of the harbour shall remain as it is at present, so that there may be jurisdiction exercised by the city of Montreal in respect to taxation, as I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 2.55 a.m. Friday.
Friday, June 12, 1914.