September 9, 1903

CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

That, to my mind, is not so important a matter as is another point involved in what has fallen from the lips of my hon. friend (Mr. Hyman). I do not think it was necessary to propose amendments in that conference in order to safeguard all rights. It was done as a matter of precaution, but it was not necessary to safeguard all rights.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

Is there objection to the division into three, as it is now divided ?

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

There is, certainly. There is objection to the number of members allowed to Middlesex, and as to the way in which it is divided, as my hon. friend will see when the details are entered upon. In regard to the strange map which is now on the TTfble, hon. members of the House will find that, in the division of Hastings there is a line which does not run as eccentrically, perhaps, as the line dividing North and South Waterloo, but there is a deviation in the middle of the line dividing Hastings carving a square out of the neighbouring ridings of the county, for which no reason satisfactory to me, -it least, was given. But I leave the discussion of tie details of that division to those who are better informed with regard to it than I am. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there i re counties in the province of Ontario-and this is a vital point-where these difficulties occur, and with regard to which, I submit, the majority was not guided by the lofty principles laid down by my right hon friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and applied successfully in England, that there should be absolute justice, absolute equity in the proceedings. These defects in our work- and serious defects they are-will be pointed out by hon. members of the House. And it will lie impossible for any disinterested man not to come to the conclusion that, although on a number of matters we have been able to agree, there are some matters in regard to which a real gulf exists between us. The proper place to discuss our difficulties is in this House. And it is the duty of this House, if it finds that the minority of the committee were in the right, to modify the conclusion at which the majority of the committee arrived. I do not propose to treat particularly with the city of Toronto, because that city is very ably represented here by some of my hon. friends who are quite competent to discuss what was done by the committee in regard to that city. In order to save time I will say nothing further as to Toronto except that on. that important subject there was not that unanimity in the conference which, I think, would have irresistibly prevailed had we adhered to certain rules pre-enunciated and mutually agreed, and departed from those rules only in the case of evident necessity.

In the same manner, Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to discuss the maritime provinces nor the west, because, in my estimation, although I followed attentively the discussion in regard to those parts of the country, it would take up uselessly time which would be better employed by allowing those more conversant with the subject to speak about it. I say it again, it seems to me that if we desire to carry out the suggestions made by my right lion, friend when he introduced this Bill, if it is our desire to do as was done in England, to agree almost unanimously as to the divisions, we must, before Mr. HYMAN.

we take up the study of the controverted questions in regard to redistribution, agree upon certain principles. Let my right hon. friend, realizing that in that part of the work where we do not agree, the cause of that disagreement may have been that we were not bound by the rules of equity laid, down before-let my right hon. friend enunciate to us certain rules which should have guided us in regard to that work, and if those rules appear acceptable to the House, the work still before us of applying those rules will be greatly abbreviated, I have no doubt. In proof of that, I can say that when the question regarded merely the province of Ontario, where the municipal divisions contemplated by my right hon. friend exist, to apply those principles we experienced, comparatively speaking, little or no difficulty. If that is not done, if we are called upon to sanction such divisions as the proposed division, for instance, of the county of Waterloo-and there are others- if we are to do that without fully knowing what are the reasons which have led my right hon. friend to divide that constituency, to innovate, to change what had existed for over half a century, we are not fully convinced that those reasons should be weighty enough to sway our minds in taking such an extraordinary step as that to which I refer. Then, what my right hon. friend has said when he introduced bis Bill, falls, in my opinion, absolutely to the ground. There is no reason for saying that this method of proceeding, different from the method adopted in 1882 and 1892, is a method calculated to give satisfaction to everybody. It will remain a ground of complaint that what is commonly called a gerrymander, although that gerrymander has not been carried out in the same way as it is alleged it was carried out previously, we can say that in this instance it. lias been carried out in a veiled and concealed manner. But veiled and concealed though it may be, it offers no redress to this House, and does not afford any reasons against the objections which were so strenuously urged before the committee.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

The motion before the House is that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the Act to readjust #he representation of tlie House of Commons, as reported by the special committee appointed for that purpose. I have followed with great interest the speech of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) to which we have just listened. I followed it word by word and sentence by sentence, with the expectation that at last he would reach some conclusion. But after speaking for about an hour and a half, and after having shown us that in this instance, as well as in the others, impossible things did not obtain, that there was a difference of opinion in the committee, my hon. friend sat down

without having stated what he wanted. Is he for or against the motion that we should go into-Committee of the Whole to consider this Bill ?

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

My right lion, friend asks me a question. That will depend. I would object to going into a study of the details of the Bill unless, as I stated more than once, my right lion, friend would say wliat are the proper rules to be observed in the cases which I have brought before his uotice.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

My kon. friend does not give me any more satisfaction . than he did before. He cannot say at this moment whether we ought to go into Committee of the Whole or not. We have a Bill introduced a few months ago, which was referred to a special committee by the unanimous consent of the House. Not a word was raised against it ; on the contrary, not only was a division not taken, but it was carried by the unanimous consent of this House. That committee has done its work. I do not understand the objections of hon. gentlemen opposite. I proposed this Bill myself after a conference with hon. gentlemen opposite, who agreed to sit upon the committee. I a sited them to name the members of the committee, and they did so. AVlien the second reading of the Bill had been carried, we had an amendment proposed, not germane to the chief portion of the Bill, moved, I think, by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), to this effect merely :

That the Bill be not now read the second time, but that the second reading thereof be deferred until after a judicial determination has been had with respect to the numbers of members to which the respective provinces are entitled under the census of 1901.

That was on the 14th of April. At thac time certain doubts existed in the minds of some members as to the number of representatives to which the provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia an'd Prince Edward Island were entitled. This point was referred to the Supreme Court to be decided judicially before the Bill was proceeded with. There was no necessity Oif acceding to that motion of the hon. member for East Grey, and after it was voted down, the motion for the second reading was carried unanimously : ' Amendment

(Mr. Sproule) negatived, and motion agreed to.' Then I moved the following resolution :

That the said Bill be referred to a special committee composed of Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Sutherland (Oxford), Hyman, Davis, Borden (Halifax). Haggart and Monk, with instructions to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return members to this House.

There was exception taken by the leader of the opposition as to the number of mem-340

bers to be appointed, but my motion was agreed to without a word of dissent otherwise. The committee has done its work, and even in face of the criticism which we have just heard, I believe I can say it has done its work satisfactorily. Of course a decision could not be arrived at unanimously ; nobody expected that in a committee composed of a given number of members of both sides, a unanimous decision could be reached concerning the boundaries of 214 electoral districts. But a unanimous decision has been arrived at concerning the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and the North-west Territories. In the province of Nova Scotia the committee has been unanimous in regard to seventeen constituencies, and there has been a difference of opinion only in regard to one. In regard to the province of Ontario, I find that the committee has been unanimous in regard to thirty-nine different constituencies. The total representation of the province of Ontario under this Bill is eiglity-six, and the committee has agreed unanimously and at once without any serious difficulty or opposition in regard to thirty-nine different constituencies. These constituencies are as follows : Carieton, exclusive of Ottawa and the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode; Dufferin, Dundas, Durham, Fron-tenac, exclusive of Portsmouth: Glengarry, Grenville, Haldimand, Ilalton. Lennox and Addington, Lincoln, Norfolk, Peel, Prescott, Prince Edward, Russell, with townships of Gloucester and Osgoode, and Rideau ward; Stormont, Welland, Wentworth, exclusive of Hamilton; Muskoka, Nipissing, with Clara, Head and Maria; Parry Sound, Thunder Bay and Rainy River; Kingston, with village of Portsmouth; Algoma and Manitouliii, 2; Oxford, 2; Renfrew, 2; Wellington, 2; Wentworth, 2; London, 2; Ottawa, 2; Peterborough, 2. These are the ridings in regard to which there has been a unanimous agreement on the part of the several members of the committee. There has been a difference of opinion in regard to forty-seven constituencies. I have looked at the ridings cited by my hon. friend, and I find that in the) greater number of cases the difference of opinion lias been very minute indeed. In tlie face of such a condition of things I think my hon. friend has stated just what we ought to do. He has stated that there lias been an injustice done in certain constituencies. He referred to the county of Waterloo. I am not prepared to say without further explanation and discussion whether or not the division that has been adopted in regard to Waterloo is fair or unfair. That is a question to be debated. My hon. friend stated also in the course of his speech that injustices had been done by the committee which the House ought to correct.

I agree with him, that, if the House comes to the conclusion that there are some defects in tiie Bill which ought to be removed, that is the work of the House. But how is

that to be done ? It is to be done only by the House going into Committee of the Whole and there taking up riding after riding, considering the objections that may be taken and then coming to a conclusion. My hon. friend invited us to do this work, and the only way to do it is to agree to the motion, then go into Committee of the Whole, and take up one after another of these objections which have been made in the committee. My hon. friend has stated the case of Waterloo, of Hastings, of Middlesex and of Toronto. In these different cases it may be that the position taken by my hon. friend is right and it may be that it is wrong, but in reference to these four constituencies which he has named, and in regard to which there were differences of opinion in the committee, who will say that the proposals of the majority are right or whether the proposals of the minority are right ? It seems to me that the only way to proceed at the present moment is simply to affirm the motion before the House that we shall go Into Committee of the Whole so as to examine minutely tht objections which have been mentioned.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

Would my right hon. friend allow me to ask him this question ? Does he approve or disapprove of the rules which we proposed should guide the conference, which I named at length and which were proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition the moment we approached the question in regard to Ontario ?

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

So far as I have read it, I will approve of this disposition of the representation as made by the report of the majority until I am shown bv the discussion that I am wrong.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Rainier) has made a reference to the proceedings in the House at the time this Bill was introduced iind has spoken of the suggestion made by himself at that time as one of the appointment of a committee. I think that the House never had any understanding that it was to be a committee in the ordinary sense of the word. It was a conference, so designated by the right hon. gentleman himself, simply of a few members of the House to meet together and confer with each other. But, for my part, I never understood, nor do I believe other hon. members of the House understood, that the finding of the conference was to be treated in the same sense as we treat the reports of the Com-linttee on Railways and Canals or any of the other committees of this House. 'The right hon. gentleman says that the committee has done its *work satisfactorily. I as-*sume that he intends to convey the idea that four lion, members representing the government side of the House did all they could ^to secure what they thought would be a Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Bill in the interest of the government. The other members of the committee did their work satisfactorily inasmuch as they did all they could to secure what the right hon. First Minister said he desired-a fair measure. In that sense only was the result, to my mind, satisfactory. The right hon. gentlemen tells us that the object of this Bill is to correct injustices. It has been alleged time and again that in the redistribution of 1882 an injustice was done to the Ribera! party.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

So there was-some lion, gentlemen say. I will just take the opportunity of pointing out the injustice and perhaps hon. gentlemen will change their minds on that question. I confess that T. never could see where the injustice was done to the Liberal party.

Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

Some hon. gentlemen say ' Oh, oh.' They are simply carried away by something they have heard but they have never looked into the matter. They have never investigated the question. Ii! the late Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald had intended to pass a Bill that would give the Conservative party of this country an advantage over their opponents he never made a greater mistake in his life in the result. Let us briefly review the result and we will judge of the intention of the leader of the government in 1882 by what followed in the election of 1882. I will deal with the constituencies affected by the redistribution extending west of Toronto, or to be more particular, from the county of Ontario westward. I believe that was the portion of the province of Ontario which was most affected by the redistribution. I am not aware, in fact, that there were any material changes made in the ridings east of Ontario county. I will take Bothwell, which was a riding in 1878 and which was dealt with by the redistribution of 1882. What was the result ? The riding of Bothwell in 1878, before the redistribution, elected one Liberal and in 1882 it elected one Liberal member. No change. I will take the county of Brant, which was dealt with in the redistribution of 1882. In 1878 that riding elected two Liberal members, and in 1882 it also elected two Liberal members. No change-no evidence of an injustice done to the county o! Brant. Then, we will take the county of Bruce. It was dealt with by the Redistri bution Bill. Prior to that time it had only two members. In 1882 it was given three members, because an increased number of members had to be provided for and the county of Bruce was given an extra member. Before the redistribution in 1S78 the county of Bruce sent to this parliament one Conservative and one Liberal, but in 1882 it sent one Conservative and two Liberals. Where

was tlie injustice to the Liberal party there ? The riding of Cardwell has existed since confederation, if my memory serves me, and it 'sent one Conservative to parliament in 1878, and in 1882 it still sent one Conservative. The county of Elgin, consisting of two ridings, in 1878 sent one Conservative and one Liberal to this parliament, but in 1882, under the so-called gerrymander, it sent two Liberals and no Conservative. Is that what the Liberals call an injustice- a redistribution that gives them the power to send from the county of Elgin two Liberals where they had only one before ? The county of Grey in 1878, was represented in this parliament by three Conservatives, and in 18S2, under this very unfair redistribution that we hear the Prime Minister speak so much about, it sent to this House only one Conservative and two Liberals-another evidence of injustice, but this time It is injustice to the Conservative party. The county of Haldimand in 1878, was represented by one Liberal, and in 1882 it continued to send one Liberal-another injustice done to the Liberal party. The county of Huron in 1S78 sent one Conservative and two Liberals, and in 1882 it sent one Conservative and two Liberals also. Is there any injustice to the Liberal party there ? The county of Kent, in 1878 sent one Conservative, and in 1882 it also sent one Conservative. The only injustice to the Liberal party there was that the people were allowed to exercise their franchise in a proper manner, and to send a Conservative to this parliament in 1882 as they did in 1878. The county of Lambton formerly had one member, but in 1882 it was given two members. In 187S it sent one Liberal to this parliament, and in 1882 it sent two Liberals. Where is the injustice to the Liberal party there ? The Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald gave the county of Lambton two members, and that county gained one member for the Liberal party. The county of Lincoln, in 1878 sent one Conservative, and in 1SS2 it sent one Conservative also. The county of Middlesex, to which reference has been made this morning, in 1878, sent two Conservatives and one Liberal to this parliament, and in 1882-after this very unjust measure, as gentlemen opposite say-it sent two Conservatives and two Liberals ; a gain to the Liberal party notwithstanding the exclamation of 'Oh,' and of surprise from gentlemen on the other side. I tell them they have never investigated this matter ; they do not know what they are ' Ohing ' about, but I intend to inform them. The riding of Monk sent one Conservative in 1878, and in 1882 it still sent one Conservative, after this unjust redistribution. Muskoka, in 1878 sent one Liberal, and in 1882 it sent a Conservative-I must confess there must have been some injustice here, because in 1882 instead of Muskoka sending a Liberal it sent a Conservative to this House, but he only had a majority of four.

The county of Norfolk in 187S sent one Conservative and one Liberal to this parliament, but in 1882 it was so thoroughly gerrymandered by the Conservatives that it sent two Liberals-another case of injustice to the Conservative party. The county of Ontario in 1878 sent two Liberals, and in 1882, after it was given three ridings instead of two, it sent three Liberals to this parliament. Is that an injustice to the Liberal party ? I fail to see any indication of it. The county of Oxford, in 1878 sent two Liberals, and in 1882 it also sent two Liberals, and I presume it will always send two Liberals.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

Possibly I may be wrong, and I hope I am.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

Edward Cochrane

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE.

You will get more intelligence on that point later on.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

The county of Peel,

in 1878 sent one Conservative, but without the unjust redistribution it sent a Liberal in 18S2. I am glad to say it has since come hack to its old love again, and I have no doubt it will remain there. The county of Simcoe, in 1878 sent to this House two Conservatives, and in 1882 that old Conservative county sent two Conservatives, but along with them one Liberal. The Redistribution Bill of 1882 so arranged the ridings, that the old Conservative county of Simcoe sent a Liberal to represent one of them, and that is what they call an injustice to the Liberal party. The county of Welland sent a Conservative to this parliament in 1878, and it also sent a Conservative in 1882. What is the matter with that ? The people of Welland were still permitted to send a representative holding the same political views as their representative of the previous election. In the county of Wellington hon. gentlemen opposite complain that a great injustice was done; but let us see. In 1878 two Conservatives and one Liberal came from Wellington, but in 1882 the order was reversed, and they sent one Conservative and two Liberals.* Where is the injustice to the Liberal party in that ? Has the First Minister ever investigated this matter ? I do not think he has been speaking by the book at all. I think he has simply been taking the statements of hon. members around him, who simply raised the cry, having nothing better than a cry to go to the people with.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

Edward Cochrane

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE.

It was a shame to deceive the Prime Minister that way.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

Then we come to the county of Wentworth, and in 1878 it sent two Liberals, and in 1882 two Liberals also. There is no injustice there. The county of York, in 1878 sent one Conservative and two Liberals, and in 1882 it sent one Con-

servative and two Liberals. How much injustice do you find on that whole sheet, that was perpetrated against the Liberal party ? And what was the result in Western Ontario of this redistribution of 1SS2 '! It resulted in a Liberal gain of 11 and a Conservative gain of 1, or a net gain to the Liberal party of ten members. Henceforth, we had better not hear anything more about the injustice of the gerrymander of 1SS2.

Now the right hon. the First Minister is authority for the statement that he proposed to introduce a fair measure. Let us see what he said :

We certainly intend to undo the evil.

He didn't know w'liether there was an evil. He thought there was an evil and he was going on the assumption, but there was no evil.

We certainly intend to undo this evil, but while that is the case, let me say at once, that though we intend to undo the injustice perpetrated at the expense ot the Liberal party, it is not with the view or intention ot perpetrating a similar injustice at the expense of our opponents.

What fine words ; what beautiful words these are :

What we have in view, and what we desire is to introduce a fair measure.

Dwell on the words ' fair measure.' They should not be forgotten during this discussion. It was to be a ' fair measure.'

What we desire is to introduce a fair measure, that will give all the parties an equal measure of justice, freedom and responsibility.

And, Mr. Speaker, you see the result of this fair measure from the map of the county of Waterloo laid on the Table this morning, where a deliberate attempt has been made to hive the Scotch in one section and the Germans in another. What's the matter with the Scotch that their liberties should be taken away ? Why should the Scotch of Galt and Dumfries be hived simply because they are Liberals ? It is not necessary to have an election up there at all now-under this Bill we will do the electing for them here. It is the same with the Germans in the north part of that riding. They are told that they are not fit to send a representative to this parliament and that parliament is going to do it for them. The effect of this measure is simply to have parliament elect two members for the county of Waterloo, one to represent the Germans and another to represent the Scotch, and neither the Scotch nor the Germans are to have a word to say in the matter, parliament is going to do it for them. I do not think that is what we ordinarily understand by a fair measure. One word with reference to this riding of Waterloo. The hon. gentleman tells us he is going to correct an injustice of 1882. Was the county of Waterloo interfered with in 1882 ? It was not ; it has never been in-

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

terfered with since it was organized into two ridngs, which was in 1853, if my memory serves me right. It was then divided into two ridings, it has remained so up to to-day, and is the same for the local legislature at Toronto as for the Dominion parliament. No change whatever has been made,^no injustice was done to either party in 1S72, no injustice was done to either party in 1882, no injustice was done to either party in 1892, but I am sorry to say I cannot say as much for the proposed redistribution of 1903.

At one o'clock, House took recess.

House resumed at three o'clock.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at one o'clock, I was making a reference to the county of Waterloo, in the province of Ontario, and to the manner in which it is being dealt with under the Bill which we are now considering. We were told by the right hon. First Minister that his purpose in this Act was to undo the injustice that was perpetrated at the expense of the Liberal party in the redistribution of 1882. I was drawing the attention of the House to the fact that if that was the primary object of this measure, the Bill should not be applied so far as the county of Waterloo was concerned. The county of Waterloo, in 1851, under an Act of the old parliament of Canada, was united to what is now known as the county of Wellington and the county of Grey. These three counties formed one electoral district, which was called the county of Waterloo. The district sent one member to the parliament of Canada. Not until 1853 was there a representative for the county which is now7 known as the county of Waterloo. In that year an Act of parliament of the province of Canada was passed, know'll as ' An Act to enlarge the representation of the people of this province in parliament.' I shall read a portion of the recital of that Act, which w'ill show the intention :

Whereas the increasing population of this province, and the necessity of providing for its growing wants and the development of its resources, render it imperative to enlarge the representation of the people thereof in the legislative assembly, and to apportion that representation more fairly

Observe the words * more fairly.' That is the proposition at the present time.

-and -with this view-to alter the limits of certain counties and other electoral divisions-to divide certain counties into ridings-to erect certain other counties and to adopt other legislative provisions in the behalf aforesaid. ~

Now, under that Act of parliament passed on the 14th of June, 1853. more than fif.ty years ago. it was declared, in section 10, chapter 152, 16 Viet., that :

The county of Waterloo shall be divided into two ridings to be called respectively, the north

i0857

riding and the south riding. The north riding shall consist of the townships of North Waterloo (including the town of Berlin), Woolwich and Wellesley ; the south riding shall consist of the villages of Galt and Preston, and the townships of South Waterloo, North Dumfries and WTilmot.

Then a definition is inserted in the Act of what is meant by the township of North Waterloo and the township of South Waterloo, as follows :

The present township of 'Waterloo being divided, for the purposes of representation only, into two townships, to be called respectively the township of North Waterloo and the township of South Waterloo.

Then it defines by bounds the limits of the township of North Waterloo, and leaves the remainder of the township of Waterloo to be called South Waterloo. That Act, as I have said, was passed in 1853, fifty years ago. and at no time since then have the ridings of this old historic county been interfered with in any way. They remain to-day with the same limits as in 1853. Not only did that county remain the same for the purpose of representation in this parliament, but the same boundaries have been adopted by the legislature of the province of Ontario and down to the present time the ridings of North Waterloo and South Waterloo are the same for both local and Dominion purposes, and the same as were established in the year 1853. Surely mv right lion, friend the First Minister cannot say, as far as this old historic county is concerned, that any injustice was perpetrated in 1872, 1882 or 1892, and therefore, as there is no injustice to undo, this Bill should not be applied to this county, that is, if we are going to carry out the principle for which it was declared this Bill was introduced.

I think there are strong reasons why this county should not be interfered with.' In 1882 the object of the government was to regulate the constituencies on the basis of an equalized population, as far as practicable. and at the same time have regard to community of interests. But no attempt has been made in this Bill to carry out that principle. Instead, another principle has been applied, the principle of county boundaries, but I regret to say that that principle has been departed from very materially. However, I propose to leave that part of the subject to be dealt with by other hon. gentlemen more conversant with it. I fail to see why any member of this House should represent 19,000 only, when another member represents 38,000, and when both represent rural constituencies. But, following its usual course, the Liberal party have completely set aside the principle of representation by population which was their great plank some forty or fifty years ago. There are strong reasons why this Bill should not apply to the county of Waterloo. Historically, the boundaries of that county should not be interfered with. For fifty years the people in the north riding and 'the south riding respectively have been voting together. The same people have been meeting together at their Dominion and provincial elections and voting together for half a century, and no doubt expected that they would never be interfered with. The northern portion of this county consists largely of a German population. The southern part has a Scottish population.' In the north riding the Germans have their own language and customs and religion. They are a community of people who have been long associated- together and in the habit of voting together, as well as transacting business with one another. In the southern part of the riding we find a different class of people, largely Scotch, the descendants of the pioneers who came to this country to the township of Dumfries and Galt, from Scotland, and these people are just as desirous as those of German descent in the north of maintaining their historic boundaries. to which they have been accustomed for the last fifty years. In the north riding the Germans have a hospital supported by their contributions, and to which they send their sick. That hospital belongs to the north riding of Waterloo, but to which riding will it belong now ? In the south riding there is also a hospital. Practically the county is as now, divided for more purposes than electoral. In each riding there are all these associations which bind the people together. There is also the agricultural society of North Waterloo and the agricultural society of South Waterloo. Why all these rights and privileges and associations in these respectable and industrious communities should be interfered with, it is impossible to imagine. The only reason that can be given is in order that one more Liberal may be sent to this parliament. I believe that the people of Waterloo will resent this interference, and I trust that the right hon. the First Minister will redeem his pledge that this redistribution, at any rate, will be fair, by not allowing the present division of Waterloo to be changed.

I was more than pleased, when my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) placed this map on the Table this morning, to hear the right hon. the First Minister lead the House to infer that the matter was possibly not concluded, so far ns the counfy of Waterloo is concerned. Although the right hon. gentleman was not very definite, still his remarks would imply that fair-play would yet be dealt out to the people of Waterloo.

As regards population, let us see how the matter stands. In 1891 the population of the north riding was 25,325, and of the south riding 25,139, being a difference between the two of 18G. Surely, as far as

population is concerned, it would not be possible to bring tlie two divisions of the county nearer tlian they were in 1891. In 1901 the population of North Waterloo was 27,124 and of South Waterloo 25,470, or a difference of 1,054 in favour of North Waterloo, which, I suppose, is largely attributable to the fact that North Waterloo has industries fostered by the national policy of the Conservative party, which the Liberal party dared not absolutely destroy. But the increase was not large enough to- warrant any disturbance in the boundaries of the two ridings. As proposed by this Redistribution Bill, South Waterloo will have a population of 27,438 and North Waterloo a population of 25,150, according to the census of 1901, making a difference of 2,282. The difference is greater than it would be were the two ridings allowed to remain as they are, and another reason why it was not necessary to disturb all these old historical relations which have existed so long. I desire to put on record, in order to show more plainly the injustice that is being done to these people, the population of these various municipalities which will compose the new division of North Waterloo and the new division of South Waterloo. I confess that I am very much at loss and may be somewhat mixed on the question as to which is North Waterloo and which is South Waterloo. I understand that the portion in the centre is to be called North Waterloo. That is certainly a misnomer.

The name ' North Waterloo ' does not apply to this riding any more than it would apply to the other division, because there is a portion of the new division called ' South Waterloo ' which will extend far north of the most northerly part of the riding which it is proposed to call ' North Waterloo.' I say, therefore, it is a misnomer. It should be called ' Centre Waterloo.' And if you were to ask me to give a name to the other division of Waterloo, I would simply decline to attempt it. I could not find a word that would designate it properly. We might call it ' Fair Play Division.' That would be applicable, perhaps, because it plays all round the other. There is some play in it, there is no doubt about that. I think the government are playing with the whole matter. And X believe the people will resent it by playing with the government. The riding of South Waterloo, as proposed under this Bill, will be constituted as follows : Elmira village, population 1,060; Wellesley, 5,051 ; Woolwich, 4,318 : Ayr, 827 ; North Dumfries, 2,164 ; Galt, 7,866 ; New Hamburgh, 1,208 ; Wil-mot, 4,944 a total population for the riding of South Waterloo of 27,438. The proposed riding of North Waterloo consists of the following : Berlin, population 9,747 ;

North Waterloo, 3,411 ; South Waterloo, 3,696; Waterloo town, 3,537; Hespeler, 2.457 ; Village of Preston, 2,308-being a total for the riding of North Waterloo of Mr. HENDERSON.

25,156. This is a difference of 2,2S2 of population between these two ridings, whereas, as I said before, the difference between North and South Waterloo, as they exist uowT, according to the population of 1901, would be 1,654. If an attempt has been made to equalize population, surely it has been a failure. It has not brought the population of the two ridings nearer together, but the reverse, by something over 600. Looking at this w-hole question, I must say that I am disappointed in the measure that has been brought down by the' government. If the professions of fair play, or freedom and responsibility are to be considered, where is the freedom of the people-in North and South Waterloo ? Where is their responsibility ? They have none. We to-day, if we pass this Bill, practically elect a Liberal-Conservative for North Waterloo, and Liberal for South Waterloo, and the people will have no voice in the matter. It is a principle I am absolutely opposed to, that of this parliament so arranging the constituencies that it becomes an absolute impossibility for the people to have their views fairly represented in this parliament.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink

September 9, 1903