September 9, 1903

LIB
LIB
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

Lt.-Col. Hughes was the member, I understand. Under these circumstances, we can* quite conceive that when the committee approached the question of the division of Waterloo the view of the majority very largely conformed to the criticism which this hon. gentleman had placed on record. To go further into particulars, I wish to call attention to one or two facts. The county of Waterloo, as divided by the committee, is called North and South Waterloo. North Waterloo consists of the townships of Waterloo, the towns of Berlin, Hespeler and Waterloo, and the village of Preston. South AVater-loo consists of the townships of North Dumfries, AVellesley, .Wilmot and AVoolwicli, the town of Galt and the villages of Ayr, Elmira and New Hamburg. In the redistri-bU'tion of 1881, owing to the differences of population, it was not possible to make the division of the county which the committee has made now, and for this reason : In 1881, South Waterloo, as we propose to divide it, had a population of 26,909 and North Waterloo had a population of only 15,831. When the division was made in 1882, therefore, the conditions as to population were entirely different. There would have been a difference in the population of those two ridings, had the same division been made as now, of over 11,000, and such a division would have been unfair then in every sense of the word. In 1892 it was still not possible to make the present suggested division, for the reason that in 1891 the population of the south riding had only grown from 26,909 to 29,429, and the north riding had only grown to 21,035. If this division had been made then it would have involved a difference of 8,000 between the populations of the two ridings. But, Sir, in 1901 the population of the proposed south riding has fallen from 29 429 to 27,438, and the population of the so-called north riding has risen from 21,035 to 25.156. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the history of any redistribution it becomes possible to give the township of AAraterloo a member to itself, as I submit it is entitled to. The growth of population has in the last decade been confined almost entirely to the township of Waterloo ; in fact, the other part of Waterloo has decreased in population ; and, therefore, I think that the committee would hav.e done less than its duty if it did not give the township of Waterloo a member. If the committee had not done so, the people could well reproach this parliament for failing to give them a member, as they are entitled to one by population. Then, Sir, there is no riding in Canada, outside of a city riding, where the community of interest is as great as it is in the township of Waterloo. Those of us who are acquainted with

that township know perfectly wiell that there are the following large manufacturing towns in it: Hespeler, with a population of 2,457 ; Preston, with a population of 2,308 ; Waterloo, with a population of 3,537 ; Berlin, with a population of 9,747, or a total urban population in that township of 18,049. Iteanember that there is an urban population sufficiently large, if they were all in the one city, to entitle it to representation under the principle laid down by the leader of the opposition before the committee. In view of the community of interest ; in view of the large urban population in that township ; in view of the opinion of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), and with our knowledge of the growth, of population in one riding as compared with the other ; I cannot see how any serious attack can be made upon the committee's work in regard to that particular instance, unless we are prepared to accept the cutting in tw'o of townships as being justified in a general sense.

The other particular reference made by the hon. member (Mr. Monk) was with regard to the county of Middlesex. The county of Middlesex has a population of 92,702, and the general complaint made by the hon. member (Mr. Monk) was that that county, under this Bill, is given three representatives, whereas three or four other counties with a larger population are only given two representatives each. But how did the hon. gentleman arrive at the population of the county of Middlesex ? He took the total population of the county and deducted therefrom the population of the city of London, thus treating the city of London in an arbitrary wTajr, so far as its representation is concerned. Middlesex has a population of 92,702 and the city of London lias a population of 37,976. If you make two units of that, London with 37,970 and Middlesex with 54,726, the city of Loudon is entitled to two representatives and the county of Middlesex is entitled to two representatives. But the very rule which these hon. gentlemen opposite desired us to adopt in committee would have forced us to have given only one member to the city of London and two members only to the county of Middlesex. But why, in placing the members, should you deduct the population of the city from the total population of the county before placing these members ? If Middlesex has 92,702, surely it ought to be taken as a unit, and therefore it should get the number of members it is entitled to, taking into consideration the unit for the whole province. I am sure there should be no departure from that rule, and I feel quite satisfied that the House and the country will bear me out in laying down that proposition. I cannot discover why the city of London should be the only city in Canada which the members of the opposition upon the committee desire to treat in an arbitrary fashion. The

official amendment which hon. gentlemen opposite have given notice of, notwithstanding the fact that the city of London has a population of 37,976, still persists in giving to that constituency but one representative. It is only right and fair that the county of Middlesex, having a population of 92,702, is entitled to a representation of four members in this House, because taking the unit and applying the principle as laid down in the. committee, the unit entitles it to that representation. I take the responsibility on my shoulders very largely, as I represent a portion of the county of Middlesex, and the reason why we did not give London two members and the county of Middlesex two members is simply this: If you gave London, with its

population of 37,907, two members, the unit for the city of London would be a little under 19,000, and if you gave the county of Middlesex only two members the unit for the coipity of Middlesex would be something like 27.000. That would seem hardly fair, because the county of Middlesex at present is represented by four members, and as the city of London is represented only by one member, it did seem hardly fair that under all the circumstances we should take two members from the representation of Middlesex and give the city of London one extra member. These are the reasons why the committee dealt with the county of Middlesex in that particular way. .

Now, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) laid before the House one or two propositions. In the first place, he was kind enough to say that while the majority of the committee did all they could to benefit the Liberal party, the minority on the committee put aside partisanship, and they only tried in every possible way to carry out the wishes of the Prime Minister.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Oh.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

Yes ; that was the argument of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson). But the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) did not hesitate to say that, so far as he was concerned, he believed the committee tried-he used the word ' tried '-as far as they could to put aside partisanship ; and, Sir, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was a member of the committee, and as the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) was not a member of the committee, I prefer to take the opinion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier on that point.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would like for a moment to refer to the way in which the minority representatives on the committee, under all circumstances and at all times, put aside all partisanship. I must accept the word of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and I suppose that he means that that was the case. I am sorry he is not in

10,872

the House because I feel quite sure, after the reference which he made to one county a division of which I have in my hand, he will come to the conclusion that if the minority of. the committee put aside all partisanship they had a peculiar way of showing it. I have in my hand the division of the county of Lanark. That county has a population which entitles it to two members and the question of dividing it into two ridings was before the committee. For the purposes of representation in the local House the county of Lanark is divided by a line drawn directly across the centre of the constituency which makes a difference in the population of the two ridings of 2,760. South Lanark is constituted for the local as follows : The townships of Drummond, Bathurst, North Burgess, North Elmsley, Beckwith, Sherbrooke, Montague, and the towns of Perth and Smith's Falls. It has a population of 19,996. North Lanark includes the townships of Huntley, Ramsay, Packenham, Dalhousie, and North Sherbrooke, which are one; Lanark, Darling, Lanark, Havant, the village of Lanark, Almonte and the town of Carleton Place. It has a population of 17,230. When the majority of the committee looked at this local division they thought it was a fair division as there was a difference in population of only 2,760.

I may say that in almost every instance, the exceptions being one or two in which there were good reasons, the committee, for many well known reasons which it is not necessary for me to explain, wherever possible, accepted the divisions for the local House. The majority, applying that division to the county of Lanark, felt it was a fair division, involving as I have said a difference of only 2,760. But, Sir, the minority, these gentlemen who have put entirely aside all questions of partisanship, and who are strenuously labouring to carry out the desires and the wishes of the Premier as expressed in his remarks in introducing this Bill to the House, had another proposition to make. They said : Oh, no, do not divide Lanark in that way, but draw a line almost all the way across and then run one little corner up and take a part, not the whole, of the township of Dalhousie and North Sherbrooke and put it in South Lanark, take it from North and put it in the South. This was not justified by the population because, as I have shown, South Lanark had a population of 19,996 and North Lanark a population of 17,236. So they were proposing to take from the lesser number and to add to the larger number. Certainly you could not claim that it was any" more symmetrical because they were drawing a line seven-eighths of the way across and then running up and taking in the triangle. So we had to look for another reason and this was difficult to find, because I mav say that the interests of North Sherbrooke and Dalhousie, which are one township, are so united that it is almost impossible to ascertain their Mr. HYMAN. '

political complexion as manifested in any election in North Lanark. After some difficulty we found both. We found that the population of North Sherbrooke is 354, so from the standpoint of population you are taking from a population of 17,236 a population of 354 and addiding it to a population of 19,996. The result would be if Lanark had been constituted according to the plan which appears in the amendment laid be-for the House by the opposition, the population of these two constituencies would have been :

North Lanark 16,882

South Lanark 20,350

But, Mr. Speaker, there was apparently no special reason for any desire on the part of the opposition that there should be a difference of 3,468 when we, the majority of the committee, had already suggested, and when the Bill itself provided for7 a division which is fair and symmetrica] and involves a difference in population of only 2,760. So we had to look a little further for their reason. Taking the returns of the election of 1900 we find that South Lanark as at present constituted by the Bill had a Conservative majority of 897 and that North Lanark, as at present constituted, had a Liberal majority of 53. When we look into the political complexion of North Sherbrooke we found that in 1900, 88 votes were cast, and that of those 79 were Liberal votes and 9 were Conservative. Now, Mr. Speaker, in stating these facts I am simply illustrating to the House the way in which the Conservative minority of the committee can put aside all partisanship and bring in a proposition such as this.

I shall not delay the House for any length of time, but I have a few general observations which I desire to make on the Bill and some figures which I think should be placed on ' Hansard.'

I beg to submit the following summary of the population, of the different provinces and the units of representatives ;

Province Population. Members Unit.Ontario 86 25,383Quebec . .. 1,648.89S 65 25,367Nova Scotia .. 459,574 18 25,532New Brunswick.. . . .. 331,120 13 25,470Prince Edward Island.. 303,259 4 25,815Manitoba .. 255,211 10 25,522N. W. Territories. .. 158,940 10 15,894British Columbia . .. 17S.637 7 25,523Yukon 1

The House will understand of course that the North-west Territories was treated arbitrarily in accordance with the, motion brought down by the Prime Minister.

The right hon. the Prime Minister in the few remarks he made to the House referred to the number of agreements and the number of disagreements before the committee and I desire to refer to this somewhat more fully and to put upon record the fact-although I understand a formal notice has been laid

before the House in which it is proposed to do away with the findings of the committee and to have a reference to a judicial court- that out of two hundred and fourteen constituencies there were disagreements in only forty-nine, and in 165 instances the committee were practically unanimous.

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

Andrew B. Ingram

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. INGRAM.

Would the hon. gentleman object to say how many concessions the committee made to the opposition '!

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

Would the hon. gentleman give a list of those constituencies with respect to which the committee did not agree ?

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

If the hon. gentleman will -take the official amendments which the opposition put in and then take the Bill, he can get the information for himself.

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

Andrew B. Ingram

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. INGRAM.

Will the hon. gentleman answer my question ? I think I am perfectly within reason in asking how many concessions the committee made.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

I do not know exactly wliat the hon. gentleman means by concessions. Matters were generally discussed and very often the opinion of the majority was changed by the representations made by those who were not the majority. In Prince Edward Island there were four agreements and no disagreements. In New Brunswick thirteen agreements and no disagreements. In Nova Scotia seventeen agreements and no amendment. In the province of Quebec sixty-five agreements and no disagreements. In Manitoba five agreements and five amendments. In British Columbia five agreements and four amendments. In Ontario forty-seven agreements and thirty-nine amendments, but the thirty-nine amendments had reference only to sixteen constituencies. In the Yukon one agreement and no amendment. In the North-west Territories ten agreements and no amendment. The total number of agreements was 165, and the total number of constituencies affected by the amendments, which Avere handed in and are now before the Chair, is only forty-nine.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

In 1882 there was a very large number of agreements also. What does the hon. gentleman conclude from that ?

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

I am dealing Avith the Avork of the committee, and I think it is perfectly fair for me to point out that only with regard to forty-nine constituencies have the opposition handed in any amendment to the Bill. I have here an official return which I have just received, giving the population of the different constituencies, as constituted by the Bill which, with the permission of the House, I will hand in to ' Hansard ' :

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink

OFFICIAL POPULATION.


Summary. Population. Ontario 2,182,947 Brant 18'273 Ontario-Con. Carleton Dufferln Dundas ' Durham Frontenac Glei^garry Grenville Haldimand .Hatton Leeds ' " Lennox and Addington Lincoln Norfolk " Peel " Prescott " Prince Edward Russell Stormont ' .. Victoria Welland Wentworth Muskoka Nipissing Thunder Bay and Rainy River Parry Sound Bran tf ord BrockAdlle Kingston London Ottawa East Algoma West Algoma North Bruce South Bruce " West Elgin East Elgin North Essex South Essex East Grey \ North Grey South Grey East Hastings West Hastings East Huron South Huron West Huron East Kent West Kent East Lambton West Lambton North Lanark South Lanark East Middlesex North Middlesex West Middlesex East Northumberland West Northumberland North Ontario South Ontario North Oxford South Oxford North Perth South Perth East Peterborough West Peterborough North Renfrew South Renfrew East Simcoe North Simcoe South Simcoe North Waterloo South AVaterloo North Wellington South Wellington Centre York North York South York Hamilton East Population. 24,380 21,036 13,757 21,570 24,746 22,131 21,021 21,233 19,545 19,254 23,346 30,552 29,147 21,475 27,035 17,864 35,166 27,042 38,511 31,588 26,818 20,971 28,309 28,987 24,936 19,867 IS,721 19.788 37,976 57,640 25,211 17,894 27,424 31,596 17,901 25,685 28.789 29,955 23,663 24,874 21,053 26,787 32,504 19.227 22,881 19,712 25,328 31,866 26,919 29,723 17,236 19,996 20.228 16.419 18,079 20,495 13,055 18,390 22,018 25,644 22,760 29,256 20,615 16,291 20,704 24,556 27,676 29,845 26,071 26,399 25,156 27,438 26,120 29,526 21,505 22.419 20,699 24,000



Ontario-Con. Hamilton West Toronto Centre Toronto East Toronto North [DOT][DOT] Toronto South [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT] Toronto West Quebec Argenteull Bagot Beauce Beauharnois Bellechasse Berthier Bonaventure Chambly and VerchOres Champlain Charlevoix [DOT] [DOT][DOT] [DOT] * Chateauguay Chicoutimi and Saguenay.. . Compton Deux-Montagnes Dorchester [DOT][DOT] * Drummond and Arthabaska . GaspO Hoehelaga Huntingdon Jacques Cartier Joliette Kamouraska Labelle [DOT][DOT] Daprairie and Napierville.. . L'Assomption Laval Levis L'lslet LotbiniOre Maisonneuve Maskinongd MOgantic [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] Missisquoi Montcalm Montmagny Montmorency Montreal, Ste. Anne. city.. Montreal, St. Antoine, city Montreal, St. Jacques, city.. Montreal, St. Laurent, city Montreal. Ste. Marie, city.. Population. 28,634 43,861 40,097 40,983 [DOT] 38,108 44,991 1,648,898 16.407 18,181 43,129 21,732 18,706 19,930 . 24,495 , 13,397 . 24,318 , 32,015 . 19,334 . 13,583 . 48,939 . 26,460 . 14,438 . 21,007 . 38,929 . 30,683 . 56,919 . 13,979 . 26,168 . 22,255 . 19,099 32,901 . 19,633 . 13,995 . 19,743 . 26,210 . 14,439 . 20,039 . 65,178 . 15,813 . 23,948 . 17,339 . 13.001 . 14,757 . 12,311 . 23,368 . 47,653 . 42,618 . . 48,808 .. 40,631 Nicolet Pontiac [DOT][DOT] Portneuf Quebec Centre, city Quebec East, city Quebec West, city Quebec County Richelieu Richmond and Wolte Rimouski Rouville St. Hyacinthe St. Jean and Iberville Shefford Sherbrooke Soulanges Stanstead Temiscouata Terrebonne Trois-RiviSres and St. Maurice Vaudreuil Wright Yamaska 27,479 27,159 20,366 39,325 9,149 22,101 19,518 34,137 40,157 13,407 21,543 20,679 23,628 18,426 9,928 18,993 29,185 26,816 29,311 10,445 42,830 Nova Scotia 459,574 Annapolis 18,842 Antigonish 13,617 Colchester 24,900 Cumberland 36,168


LIB
CON
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

No. In the committee report include Gilbert Plains, omit Langford and parts of Rosedale, Lansdowue and Westbourne. I suppose the details of that will be discussed hereafter; I am simply giving the facts. With regard to Lisgar, the two propositions were exactly the same. In Marquette the only difference between the report and the amendment is that the Bill omits Gilbert Plains. As to Selkirk, the report includes Rockwood and part of Rosser and omits a part of the unorganized districts. In Provencher, the two are the same. In Minto, which the committee propose to call Souris, I am going to ask the Prime Minister, when "the Bill is in committee, to agree to an amendment which will make the Bill coincide with the amendment proposed by the opposition. In the constituency of Dufferin, or, as it is called in the Bill, Macdonald, the committee include South Norfolk and part of Portage la Prairie. They omit Rockwood and Posen. In Macdonald, called in the Bill Portage, the committee include Langford and parts of Rosedale, Lansdowne and Westbourne and omit South Norfolk and part of Portage la Prairie. These are practically all the differences in the province of Manitoba. In British Columbia, where there are seven electoral divisions, the committee agree upon the division of Kootenay, and practically upon Yale-Cariboo. In New Westminster, the only difference is on the question of including a part of the district of Yale. I may say that this particular part of the district of Yale extends over the mountain, and is contiguous in every way to New Westminster. The reason the committee had for adopting the division they did was that two members from British Columbia, the hon. senior member for Victoria (Mr. Earle) and the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Morrison), both appeared before the committee, and they agreed in saying that this is a proper division to make. In Vancouver the only question was the inclusion or exclusion of the suburbs of the city of Vancouver. And here again I may say, the committee were favoured with the attendance of the hon. senior member for Victoria. who agreed that it was right and pro-

per tliat the suburbs should be Included in making the constituency of Vancouver. In Victoria, practically the committee were agreed. In the constituency of Comox-Atlin, the only difference is as to the name, whether it shall be Cassiar or Comox-Atliu. This question has no political significance, So, to all intents and purposes, there is no difference between the report and the amendment so far as British Columbia is affected.

Now, I have taken up the time of the House for a considerable period. I will not refer to the several constituencies in Ontario, because when we get into committee we shall find what objection bon. members have to the propositions of the committee. and I hope we can meet them. The labours of the committee were certainly long and arduous. And, while the committee were not able to meet the views of ever]-member on either side, I think they can fairly claim for themselves that their report is an evidence of their desire to carry out the promises made by the Prime Minister in moving the first reading of this Bill.

Topic:   OFFICIAL POPULATION.
Permalink
CON

James Gilmour

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. JAMES GILMOUR (East Middlesex).

As I understood the hou. gentleman (Mr. Hyman), the way in which he arrived at the conclusion that there should be four members for the city of London and the county of Middlesex was by first including the population of London in that of Middlesex. Did he do that in other cases ? Did he do it. for instance, in the case of Hamilton and Wentworth?

Topic:   OFFICIAL POPULATION.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. HYMAN.

It does not make any difference with regard to any other county in Ontario, whether you do or do not add the city population before deciding the number of members.

Topic:   OFFICIAL POPULATION.
Permalink

September 9, 1903