September 9, 1903

LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. CHARLES S. HYMAN (London).

Mr. Speaker, I think that you and the members of this House can only come to the conclusion that, although the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was specifically critical in many of his remarks, yet, in the general sense he commended the actions of the committee. As his strongest complaint was about the lack of rules given to the committee in the first place, and against the want of rules which guided the committee in the division of the different towns and cities. I will, for a moment, refer to that part of his speech. In the first place, I fail to see how it can be possible that any more than a general rule can be laid down for the division of a constituency. But the hon. gentleman complains that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) did lay before the committee certain rules under which we were asked to divide the constituencies in Ontario, and that the committee refused to adopt those rules. I purpose taking these rules one by one, and I think that I can give to the House and the country good and sufficient reason for the non-adoption of those rules by a majority of the committee. On June 26th, at a meeting of the committee, the leader of the opposition, as reported in the report of the committee's proceedings, page 146, said :

Mr. Chairman, the resolutions which are being proposed with regard to Ontario are practically the same as those which have already been suggested at the informal meetings of the committee. The only difference, I think, is the calculations with respect to the unit having been made as they were made when the proposition was presented in the first instance. At that time, the unit was not worked out ; ill this it is worked out.

He tlaen handed in the following resolution respecting the distribution of Ontario :

In accordance with the principles laid down by the Prime Minister in the House on the introduction of the Bill, the municipal county boundaries shall be observed.

I have only to say, in regard to that rule, that while the committee were quite prepared to accept that rule in a general sense and prepared to say the county boundaries should be adhered to, they were not prepared to accept that rule in the full sense. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) put the matter fairly in saying, as he did :

I do not know that we should bind ourselves, if we found we were doing an unfair thing to a certain section of the people. But I understand that the intention of the Prime Minister was, that municipal county boundaries should be adhered to, and not departed from for the purpose of political advantage.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) permit me to ask him-how many constituencies are there in the Bill we are now considering in which county boundaries have not been adhered to ?

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

I shall come to that point in a moment. Had we adopted the rule proposed by the leader of the opposition, we should have found ourselves unable to depart, in any instance from the county boundaries. But at almost the next meeting, the committee unanimously decided to depart from county boundaries in one or two instances. So far as the county of Renfrew was concerned, it was felt by the committee that the three townships of Clara, Head and Maria should be removed from Renfrew and placed with Nipissing. This was not done for political purposes, and it was unanimously agreed to. Then, it was decided that the townships of Osgoode and Gloucester should be taken from the county of Carleton and placed in Russell, and not only the members of the government side, but the members of the opposition concurred. The only other instance which I can recall in which county boundaries were departed from was the township of South Monaghan, which is municipally connected with the county of Northumberland, and which was, for the purposes of representation in this House, placed in Peterborough. That also was unanimously accepted by the committee as a fair proposition. So, the majority saw nothing to be gained by refusing to adopt the rule proposed by the leader of the opposition ; they simply did not want to stultify themselves when they came to these three particular instances which nobody could charge were done for party purposes, and they did not wish to bind themselves hard and fast.

Rule 2,

Where separate representation is given to cities, municipal boundaries in such cities shall be observed.

Now, see the hair-splitting here. Why observe boundaries in cities when they have a representation themselves ? Why not observe the boundaries of all cities ? Why simply say : Observe the boundary of a city which has a special representation, but if the city happens to come under the unit of population, we won't observe the boundaries ? For that reason, and I think the House and the country will bear me out.In the statement, the committee were right not to coniine themselves to that hard and fast rule. Nor could the members of the opposition upon the committee be so confined, they must have looked ahead for when they came to the county of Elgin they themselves proposed to divide the city of St. Thomas, and their proposition is before the House in the shape of one of the amendments introduced by the leader of the opposition. Well, why should St. Thomas be divided and why should the city of Toronto not be divided ?

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
L-C

Andrew B. Ingram

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. INGRAM.

I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that there seems to be-a mistake. The hon. gentlemen themselves who were on the committee had four propositions, none of which were made by any of the Conservatives.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

I am speaking subject to correction, but I understand that the official proposition which is made from the opposition involves the division of the city of St. Thomas.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

That is certainly what we understood the hon. gentleman to say.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

We understand him now to say that there was a proposition from the opposition.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

No, I say there must have been something in the minds of hon. gentleman when they laid this rule down, which I think is not general in its application.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

We understood him to say a minute ago that a proposition emanated from this side of the House, or from the committee representing this side of the House, that the city of St. Thomas should be divided.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

I think that does emanate from the opposite side of the House ; I may be wrong.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
L-C

Andrew B. Ingram

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. INGRAM.

I wish to point out to the hon. gentleman that there were four propositions before the committee, all of which emanated from the Liberal party. Seeing that the Liberal party proposed to divide St. Thomas, then the opposition suggested a way by which they could do it better than the one the Liberals proposed.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

I am glad that the mem-I bers of the opposition sometimes accept good

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
L-C
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

I do not wish to discuss that matter, these amendments were accepted, anyway. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have given reasons why the committee would not adopt rule 2. Now let us take rule 3 :

The municipal county boundaries shall be those set forth in chapter 3, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1897, and that the word * county ' herein shall include any provisional county or territorial district established by the said Act.

Those are the very words which appear in the Bill, which is the official report of'the committee, and which is now before the House.

Rule (b.) The separate representation to be allotted to cities of Ontario shall be first fixed and determined before proceeding with the representation of the rural constituencies.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that rule must be taken in connection with rule (d.) :

The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the county within which it is situate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. gentlemen who brought these rules into the House understood their effect, for they might just as well have said that in the county of Middlesex you must exclude the city of London from the population of the county before you apply representation to that county, because that rule applies solely to the county of Middlesex, it is not general in its application. There seems to have been something hidden under it, and for that reason I think the Minister of Public works very properly said, although the opposition seemed to think he was wrong :

Mr. Chairman, I can hardly say, as a member of this committee, -whether I would agree to dissent to this proposition. It is a long document, involving one can hardlv tell what unless it vras worked out.

I think he was perfectly right, because this is not general ill its application at all, it ap-Mr. HYMAN.

plies only to one county when worked out, to the county of Middlesex and to the city of London ; and for that reason I think the committee were perfectly justified in refusing to be bound by a hard and fast rule of that kind.

Rule (c.) The unit of representation for such rural constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population of Ontario the combined population of the said cities, and by dividing the remainder by the total number of seats to be allotted to rural constituencies.

Well, what is involved in this rule ? It involves the division of all the cities of Ontario in an arbitrary manner. Now, it hast been well said that there is just one city ir Ontario, the city of Toronto, which the com mittee have treated arbitrarily, and it was felt by the committee that in fixing the unit of population, the city of Toronto only, as being the only city treated arbitrarily, should be deducted from the total population and then the division should be made by the number of members allotted to the province deducting the five members for Toronto. For that reason the committee refused to adopt that rule. I may say that in working out this rule, the unit was adopted unanimously by the committee, and the unit of representation in Ontario was fixed at 24,381. fixed unanimously by the committee, and fixed by deducting from the total population of Ontario the population of Toronto, and dividing the remainder by the number of members that remained for Ontario, namely, 81.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
?

Mr. CLARICE@

Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the committee were unanimous in applying the arbitrary rule to the city of Toronto ?

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

No, I made no such statement. The next rule reads as follows :

The redistribution of the representation of Ontario shall then be determined as follows -

Counties having a population below the unit

(a.) Each county having a population of not less than two-thirds of the unit shall be entitled to one member.

I may say that the rule was followed out in every instance by the committee.

Rule (b.) Any county not entitled to one member shall be added to that adjoining county to which it is related as a judicial district, or with which it is connected for judicial or municipal purposes, and the representation of such combined counties shall be dealt with upon the principles already and hereinafter stated.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a reference to the population of the different counties in Ontario would have been a very simple thing, and! it would have been found that there was only one county in Ontario which lias less than two-thirds of the unit which would entitle it to representation, and that county is the provisional district of Haliburtou. So that the rule might just as well have read that the provisional district of Haliburtou

should be joined to the county of Victoria, because it happened to be judicially connected with that county. Now, that is not a general rule. It is a rule which is vague in its meaning, and I think the Liberal members of the committee were perfectly right in not adopting these rules until they saw how they would work out. In that case, it meant joining Haliburton to Victoria, and by so doing, giving Victoria a larger representation in this House than it is entitled to if left by itself. For that reason we did not see our way to adopt that rule.

Rule (a.)-Each county or combined county having a population of not less than fifty per cent and not more than one hundred and fifty per cent above the unit shall be entitled to two members, and each county or combined county having a population of not less than 150 per cent and not more than 250 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to three members.

Afterwards that rule was practically carried out.

(b.) If after applying these principles it is found that any seats remain to be allotted, such seats shall be allotted to the counties or combined counties approaching most closely to the conditions which, under the above rule, would entitle them to additional representation.

That rule was practically adopted. The next rule is as follows :

In the division of cities or counties into ridings the geographical limits of such ridings shall be as symmetrical and compact as may be possible, always having regard to equalities of population.

I think that when the Bill is before the Committee of the Whole House it will be found that that rule has practically been carried out. Now, there were eleven rules before the committee. The hon. member for Jacques Carties complains very bitterly that we have failed to comply with these rules In making a summary of these rules I find that five rules which were of general application were acted upon by the committee, that there were three rules which treated large cities other than Toronto in an arbitrary way as far as representation is concerned aud which were not in accordance with the wishes of the committee. Therefore these three rules were not accepted. Two of the rules were not general in their application, one affecting solely the county of Middlesex and the other affecting solely the county of \ ictoria and the majority refused to adopt them. The remaining rule was the rule which the committee afterwards unanimously departed from in the cases in which it departed from county boundaries to which I have referred. I am perfectly prepared to leave the whole question as to whether these rules should have been accepted by the committee or whether they should not have been accepted with the reasons I have given to the judgment of the House and of the country and I feel quite sure that the House and the country

will conclude that we have done nothing unfair in regard to these rules and that we have not made any departure from any of the principles laid down by the right lion, leader of the government in moving the second reading of this Bill. Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, after making some general statements, made two or three particular references to the division of counties in Ontario. As the hon. gentlemen who have already spoken have only referred to Waterloo and Middlesex, with the exception that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier made some reference to the county of Hastings, I suppose it is only fair to presume that the opposition think that in regard to these two counties, or possibly in regard to these three counties, they have the greatest cause for complaint. I can only give to the House the reason why, in the first place, the division that was made of the county of Waterloo was agreed to by the majority of the committee and I feel quite sure that the majority of the House will admit when I have given the reasons to the House that the committee under all the circumstances did only that which was right and fair and just by the county of Waterloo. In^the first place the whole matter depends upon the question whether this House is prepared to lay down the principle that in the redistribution of the constituencies of Ontario, townships shall be cut in two. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier lamented the fact that the House had not laid down more principles when the Bill went to the committee, but what would have been, said by the hon. gentleman without having any knowledge of the division likely to be made in the county of Waterloo if the right hon. leader of the government had laid it down as a principle upon which the committee might act that it might cut townships in two ? I feel quite sure that the hon. gentleman on reflecting for a moment will see quite plainly that to lay down such a principle would be unfair. When this matter of the division of the county of Waterloo came before the committee, in so far as I am concerned and in so far as the majority of the committee is concerned, we felt that we should not carve aud cut a township in two where it was possible to make a fair representation, without so doing. If you lay down the principle that a township shall not be cut in two,

I do not think there is one hon. gentleman in this House who can raise one single exception to the division of the county of Waterloo as embodied in the report of the committee which has been brought before this House. I do not think there is any other possible way to divide the county of Waterloo providing you lay down the principle that a county shall not be cut in two. In considering the question of the division of the county of Waterloo I happened to be reading over one of the old debates of 1892 and I read from the remarks made by a

very prominent member of this House. 1 am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in his seat at the present moment. I refer to the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes). The hon. gentleman was good enough this morning to call across the House and ask whether the hon. member for London had seen the division of the county of Waterloo. I would ask the hon. member for North Victoria if he were here if lie has seen the division of Waterloo because he is reported in ' Hansard ' of June 8, 1892, as' having made certain references to the division of that county. He spoke as follows :

Hon. gentlemen also see the fantastic shape of South Waterloo

When I refer to South Waterloo, I am referring to the South Waterloo which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier so theatrically placed on the Table this morning.

Hon. gentlemen can also see .the fantastic shape of South Waterloo. That the House may properly appreciate how South Waterloo is doctored up and to what extremes these purists of the Liberal party will go to gerrymander a county, I shall read you a description of the county of Waterloo from the Revised Statutes of Ontario.

Unfortunately the hon. gentleman was not aware of the fact that the division of Waterloo for provincial purposes and the division for representation in tiiis parliament was exactly the same. I think we may say under these circumstances that we have a fair and honest opinion and we will give the hon. gentleman credit for having given a fair and honest opinion. He proceeds :

I shall read you a description of the county of Waterloo from the Revised Statutes of Ontario, and you will notice that, not content with dividing the municipalities, they even divide lots, and in some places where there is a good old Tory with four or live sons, they draw a line around his lot and hedge him off into another riding in order that he may not do any injury by his vote to the Reform party. This is the description of the county from the Act itself.

And then follows the description of the county.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
?

The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).

Who said that ?

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

The POSTMASTER GENERAL.

Surely not.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

Surely, in view of the condemnation of the very division of the county of Waterloo which the opposition lay before the House at the present moment, not only the condemnation on general principles but the condemnation of the party who cut Waterloo in two, I would ask what position the committee were in.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink

September 9, 1903