September 11, 1903

LIB

William Alfred Galliher

Liberal

Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Yale and Cariboo).

Just a word with reference to the article quoted by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). As I am a member of the Manitoba bar, I may be pardoned for saying a few words in reference to this matter. I have had the pleasure of Mr. Ewart's acquaintance for the past twenty or twenty-two years, and I can bear testimony to the fact that he is a very estimable and an exceedingly able counsel. The point made by my hon. friend from East Grey in his quotation was that in the address of welcome to the Hon. Mr. Justice Perdue on his accession to the bench, Mr. Ewart's expressions represented the feeling of the entire bar of Manitoba. I dispute that, and I think Mr. Ewart himself would be the very first gentleman to say that in so far as his expressions are concerned, as to the appointment of judges on commissions, he was simply voicing his own views and not the views of the bar of Manitoba. It must be clear to all those who are members of the legal profession, that Mr. Ewart departed so radically from the usual routine in such addresses, that this in itself affords sufficient proof that he was simply speaking for himself and not for the bar.

Topic:   YUKON-TREADGOLD COMMISSION OE INQUIRY.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

Was I not justified in assuming that he was speaking for the bar when he expressly said so himself and when the other members of the bar, who, I presume, were present in large numbers, did not undertake to state that he did not express their views.

Topic:   YUKON-TREADGOLD COMMISSION OE INQUIRY.
Permalink
LIB

William Alfred Galliher

Liberal

*Mr. GALLIHER.

If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) were a lawyer, he would understand the matter. It is quite true that Mr. Ewart, as a leading senior member of tlie bar, was deputed to make this address of welcome to the judge. There is no doubt that Mr. Ewart says that he tenders congratulations on behalf of the bar, but will any one contend that what he said afterwards was an expression of opinion of the whole bar ?

Topic:   YUKON-TREADGOLD COMMISSION OE INQUIRY.
Permalink
CON
LIB

William Alfred Galliher

Liberal

Mr. GALLIHER.

Whether my hon friend feels that he is right in putting that interpretation on it or not, it is for him to say, but there can be no question in the mind of any hon. gentleman who is a member of the bar, that the very fact that this address departs so far from the nature of any other addresses of the kind that have ever been delivered, is evidence on the face of it that it is Mr. Ewart's own expression of opinion. I know Mr. Ewart sufficiently to say that if he himself were asked if those were his own expressions- of opinion or those of the bar of Manitoba, he would very candidly say that they were his own and his own only.

Topic:   YUKON-TREADGOLD COMMISSION OE INQUIRY.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Osborne Davis

Liberal

Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House; but I think it would only have been fair on the part of the liou. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) when he read this political speech made by Mr. Ewart, to have read at the same time the reply made by Mr. Justice Perdue. The hon. member for East Grey has tried to make out that Mr. Ewart spoke for the bar of Manitoba. The fact is that Mr. Ewart himself stated that he had waited long for this opportunity. If he had been waiting long, the whole bar of Manitoba had not been waiting to give him an opportunity of making this campaign speech. Here is what Mr. Justice Perdue said on that occasion :

Judge Perdue, in reply, after thanking Mr. Ewart and the bar for their congratulations, and asking for their forbearance and assistance in Ms duties, went on to say :-

1 I agree with much you have said, Mr. Ewart, as to the duties of judges. Of course, I am too newly-appointed to say much about these duties ; remarks of that nature would corns more properly from a more experienced judge ; but I think I might go this far and say that I agree that a judge should avoid as far as possible being involved in an inquiry or any commission which would mix him up in any political controversy, and that he should not accept from any party or from any person or corporation that may possibly at some time he a suitor before him any favour or consideration which might have the appearance of influencing his mind.

' In regard to what you have said with respect to Mr. Justice KilJam presiding over a certain commission, I must say that I cannot agree with you in that. The commission to which you refer was for the revision of the Statutes of Mani-

toba, a most important work, in which the bar and the public were all interested, deeply interested, and I know of no one who could preside over such a commission in a better manner than so able and so experienced a jurist. A judge's leisure time belongs to himself, and if Mr. Justice Killam, in his leisure time, performed duties in presiding over that commission revising the statutes, I do not see myself anything wrong in the government remunerating him for giving up his leisure time to the public service. Besides, there are precedents for it in England. My recollection is that judges have presided over these commissions there, and I have not heard of any objection being taken to that course. With regard to judges being influenced by receiving any such work, I do not see thgt they are likely to he influenced by that as coming from any political party. We must bear in mind the fact that judges are appointed by governments, and these bodies always belong to one particular political party otr the other, and I think it would scarcely be said that a judge appointed by the government of the day must necessarily be bound by feelings of gratitude towards that party, so that his judgment will be biased ; I trust that is not the case.

' I thank you very mu5h again for your congratulations, and will promise you this, that I will give the subject-matter of your remarks my most careful consideration, and always bear It in mind.'

So that you see Mr. Justice Perdue did not agree with Mr. Ewart in the statements he made. I do not see how the hon. member for East Grey can argue that judges cau keep out of political matters. What about revising voters' lists ? What about recounts ? What about election trials ? The thing could not be done; and it is absurd to suppose that a judgment must be biased because the judge at one time happened to be a member of parliament. The knowledge which the people of this country have had of our judges for thirty years past will not bear out the statements made by bon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.

Motion (Mr. Monk) to adjourn negatived.

Topic:   YUKON-TREADGOLD COMMISSION OE INQUIRY.
Permalink

REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.


House in Committee on Bill (No. 06) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.-The Prime Minister. On item : Ontario, the county of Brant.


CON

David Tisdale

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

The other night I made an exhaustive analysis of the division that I thought should be made of the county of Brant. I do not propose to add to or repeat that discussion; but I propose to move one resolution, or two, according to the result of the vote in the committee. If the vote is adverse to the first proposition which I shall presently have the pleasure of submitting, it will necessitate my moving a secoud one. The proposition which I submitted the other Mr. DAVIS.

evening, and which I called the city plan, was the proposition of the council and the board of trade of the city of Brantford, as a fair division of the county. In order to show the relevancy of the proposition which I am about to introduce, I may call attention to tbe fact that the committee divided Brant into two ridings, one called Brantford and the other Brant. The facts in regard to the population are these. The plan of the Bill gave Brantford a population of 1,594 over Brant, by adding to the city the west part of the township of Brantford and the township of Oakland. The proposition made to the committee was to make the city of Brantford one riding and the rest of file county another riding, the one to be called Brantford and the other Brant. 1 took occasion to state then, and I repeat now, that under this plan Brantford would of course be much smaller than Brant; but if you omit the township of Tuscarora, which has a population of 3,170, all of whom are Indians, and which has not a voter in it, there would be under the city plan a difference in population between the two ridings of 1,732, making only a difference between tbe two plans of 13S.

1 move that section 27 be so amended that it shall read as follows :

The city of Brantford shall constitute the electoral district of Brantford and shall return one member.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

I followed the example of my hon. friend the other night in making my main speech on this question, and I do not propose to take up much time now. In the year 1882, when the famous gerrymander was made by the party opposite, there was no one in the city of Brantford who could be found to assume the responsibility of the injustice that was perpetrated on South Brant by the redistribution of that day. Every Conservative denied having had anything to do witli that scheme. It was born in darkness, but the present larraiiigement thas been discussed in tbe open. Tbe Brantford ' Courier,' tbe organ of the Conservative party, when it saw there was to be redistribution, argued in favour of giving the city of Brantford one representative and the county the other. The city council, in which the Conservatives have the majority just now, passed a resolution in favour of giving the city of Brantford a representative, and at a small meeting of tile board of trade a similar resolution was engineered through. I wrote at once to the city council stating that its scheme was impracticable, that the unit of representation was about 25,000, that consequently, as the city of Brajitford had only 10,000, the thing could not be dong, and that the best we could hope for would be to get two representatives for the county of Brant. That principle was conceded by our friends on the other side, and tbe committee unanimously agreed that the county of Brant should have two representa-

lives. It became then the duty of the committee to divide the county into two constituencies. i What my hon. friend now proposes is to give the city of Brantford, which has a population of 16,619, one representative, and give one to the county with a population of 21,521. Is that right on its face ? Can any one justify one portion of the constituency with 16,000 people being given a representative, while it requires 21,000 people in the other to elect a member ? The only way to bring about equality is to add to the city of Brantford contiguous portions of the comity, so as to equalize the numbers. We therefore add to the city the township of Oakland and that part of the township of Brantford south and west of Grand river. For fifty years West Brantford has been a portion of South Brant. Even the Conservatives, in 1880 and 1890, left West Brantford in South Brant, and in order to increase the number to the proper amount you must add tlie township of Oakland-which cannot be added to North Brant or the county of Brant in any shape-with a population of 785, and that gives 19,867 for the city of Brantford and 18,273 for the county. In other words, the proposition of the majority of the committee, which I endorse, shows a disparity of population of only 1,594, whereas the proposition of my hon. friend from South Norfolk gives a disparity of 4,902. It has always been the intention of tlie House, where there is a disparity in the population, to give the advantage to the rural constituencies, and we have invariably done it. But in this particular instance lion, gentlemen opposite want that policy reversed, and want to give 21,000 farmers the same political power as 16,000 residents of the city. If my hon. friend had been instructed by the Conservatives of South Brant to do the very best he could in their political interests, he would have taken exactly the course he has. There is no other plan you could devise by which you could better promote the political interests of the Conservative party, because in the county of Brant every constituency is Liberal except one, and that is eight miles away from tlie town, and there is intervening territory between them. There is no way of improving the chances of the Conservative party except by adopting the plan of my hon. friend, and that can be his only possible motive. There can be no other. There is no one who wants his scheme except a few Conservative ward heelers. For fifty years Brantford and Oakland have been in South Brant, identified with us politically, and they want to come back again, and we want them. The board of trade are of my opinion. All they wanted was thap the constituency should be called Brantford for commercial purposes. They said : Tack on whatever you like, look to your own political interest, so long as we get the name of Brantford ; that is all we want. Neither did the city

council care. There are only two or three political wire-pullers who want this thing against the manifest wish of the great majority of Brantford and the entire population of West Brantford and Oakland.

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

Andrew B. Ingram

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. INGRAM.

Who is C. H. Waterous ?

M. HEYD. He is one of the best friends and political supporters I have. He told me : I do not care anything about the resolution, so long as we get Brantford named as a constituency. I said to him : Did you realize that there was a political wirepuller behind that thing, and that you have been made a tool of? No, he said, I did not -see it then, but I see it now, and if you do what the Tory machine wants you to do, you are a bigger fool than I took you to be. That is his opinion. I do not think that the majority in this House are going to assist the Conservative party to gerrymander the county of Brant a third time after doing it twice. They will require better arguments than my hon. friend has presented.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Tisdale

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

The course taken by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Beyd) makes it necessary that I should speak again on this subject. As we have had a full discussion, it was no part of my wish that further time should be taken up, but it is impossible that the discussion can end here. I simply call attention to the hon. gentleman's course because some hon. members have spoken of gentlemen on this side obstructing the progress of this measure. If that was the object, I am quite as capable as the hon. gentleman is of repeating a speech that I have already made ; but that is not our object, so I shall not repeat myself more than is necessary. It is true the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) has not repeated all his speech, still he has said so much that I should be clearly failing in my duty if I did not deal with what he has said in order if possible to prevent the important city of Brantford being treated unfairly. The hon. gentleman speaks about Tory wirepullers and what they are trying to do. Now, Mr. Waterous is one of the gentlemen who are not satisfied with the proposals submitted here on behalf of the majority on this committee. Mr. Waterous is one of the best known men in Brantford. He is a Reformer, and has been a consistent Reformer all his life. I can tell the hon. gentleman that, notwithstanding the lightness with which he treats Mr. Waterous and those who think with him, he will find that these citizens of Brantford are in earnest. The hon. gentleman talks about Tory wire-pullers having a certain influence in Brantford. I would not say, nor would I allow any one in my presense to say uncontradicted with regard to my own town of Simcoe, that it is controlled by wirepullers on either side. There are as many men in Brantford in proportion to population as there are in Simcoe whom

wire-pullers cannot handle. If there is any wire-pulling or any attempt at dictation, those who are chargeable with it are those behind the hon. gentleman, or else the wire-puller is the hon. gentleman himself, for this is his scheme. The right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he introduced this Bill, told us that there was no eut-and-dried scheme. And the committee said that they had no figures and no fixed plans. But we find that, even before the Bill was introduced, the hon. member for South Brant wrote to people in the city of Brantford practically dictating what the division should be. I do not think Mr. Waterous will thank him for what he has said1. It will take a good deal to make Mr. Waterous vote against his own party, but I have confidence enough in him to believe that if he is satisfied that unfairness is being practised, he will vote on the other side. The hon. gentleman speaks of this movement on the part of the board of trade being due to the fact that some gentlemen in that body are easily influenced. Now, Mr. Waterous moved this resolution in the board of trade. He is a man who knows something, and one whose actions have some meaning in them. Here is a resolution unanimously passed by the board of trade of Brantford, which, like the board of trade all over the country is a non-partisan body.

At one o'clock, Committee took recess.

Committee resumed at Three o'clock.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Tisdale

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

When you left the Chair, I was making some remarks on the change in the form of the riding of Brantford, and was replying to some remarks of the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). He was setting out the population according to the Bill, and in his figures he included the Indians in the township of Tuscarora. That is the great point of difference between the plan proposed by the city of Brantford and the plan of the hon. gentleman, which a majority of the committee decided to adopt. I may say in addition, that the city proposition was moved in amendment to his proposition before the special committee to whom this Bill was referred, and it was defeated by a vote of four to three. Now I want to say in regard to the population question that in my view the hon. gentleman was hardly fair in respect to the rule that had been applied by that committee in dealing with an urban population. He said the other night, and repeated to-day, that in every instance the committee had stood by that rule, namely, that an urban population should be larger to entitle it to a member than a rural population. He ridiculed the idea of the city of Brantford with 16,000 asking for a representative, when it would leave a majority in the rural constituency, including the Indians. Now, with the Indians out, the disparity would be no greater than 138.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.
Permalink
CON
?

The POSTMASTER GENERAL.

Why leave them out ?

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Tisdale

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

In the whole township there is not a voter among them, they were deprived of their votes by an Act passed since these hon. gentlemen came into power. The number of voters in the riding of Brantford under this Bill is 1,298 more than under the other plan, though the inequality in the riding under their plan is only 1,594 in population. For the purpose of justifying their argument in respect to population, they put in this whole township. By extending the principle far enough you might have a riding with only half a dozen people in it who are voters, though you might have enough non-voters to come up to the unit. I do not mean to say that where you have a mixed population, where some are qualified to vote and others are not, that rule should not be applied ; but in the territory where the chief body of the people are wards of the government that rule should not apply.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

How many of them ?

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Tisdale

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

Three thousand one hundred and seventy. I admit that technically the law says you shall follow the census, but I do not think the law ever contemplated a case like this, and we are supposed to be dealing on a fair principle. I will give you an illustration. We all agree that we ought not to divide a municipality. But suppose a river runs through a particular township, yet it still remains a township, for municipal purposes. So with these reserves, which are outside the municipal law, governed by this government at Ottawa, totally unrepresented in a municipal way, I say it is a distortion of the principle to bring them into the representation. I think therefore that the city of Brantford had a powerful argument in their favour. Then there was another reason. We all know that a redistfibution lasts ten years, and for that reason it is not unfair unless there is a large inequality for people to look a little to the future. I do not mean to say it would justify a change, but keeping within the thirty or forty instances that I can find in the redistributions that have taken place in this parliament, it is not a thing to be laughed at, as my hon. friend did. No doubt he and his friends are masters of Brant. We know it is Liberal, and | I do not think any the less of it. But I do object that, instead of arguing, he merely talks of the people there and tells us that he and his friends are in the majority, and they will be responsible, they will do as they please. Now that is no argument. I hoped from the opening speech of the leader of the government that his supporters, at all events, would discuss matters in a way that would justify the principle that he had laid down.

Now it was known to the members for South Brant that a resolution bad been passed and steps had been taken by the city council to take in the urban population, because Brantford has grown so fast. No one is prouder than I am of the city of Brantford, it is one of our most thriving towns in the west, and the people are enterprising, and I think they ought to take in the urban population. So it was to his own knowledge that they had applied to the provincial authorities to take in these suburbs. Those suburbs were being taken in now, as is proper, not as an attempt to enlarge it for this particular purpose, but because it is an urban population. We all agree in that, notably the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman). I think it is well to have this urban population, as far as possible, together. This is another of our western towns of which we are all proud. That is, we are proud of it in everything except its politics, on which its people are a little off, but that 'does not prevent them being progressive and enterprising, and western Ontario is proud of such a city. Brantford has taken these steps although they did not have the amalgamation completed before the Bill was framed. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) who represents that city, knows the situation better than I do, and he knows that there is more underlying this action of Brantford than the wish of a few Tory wire-pullers. I believe there is an earnest sentiment there.

I am a pretty hard-skinned Tory, and it Is hard for me to go back on my party, but I say that there are questions on which I would deem it my duty to do so. These people are urban population and their pride is in their city. I think it is well that our centres of population should have that pride and that there should be no jealousy of the larger places, because we want both large and small communities ; they both serve a great end in developing the country, and we all agree that as far as possible in the different constituencies the urban population should be together. I desire to show what was done in Kingston, an exactly parallel ease, except that there the committee took exactly the opposite course. Kingston has a population of something over 17,800, and there as here they added a small rural town or village, the village of Portsmouth, they did what Brantford is going to do, but this only brought the population up to 19,000 odd. The government did not destroy the Reform majority in Kingston by taking Conservative districts from the balance of Frontenac and putting them in the constituency of Kingston to out vote the Liberals in that city ; they put 26,000 in Frontenac, as against 19.000 in Kingston.

I did not bring up this question. I was content to discuss Brant on its own merits, but the parallel of my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd) was unfortunate. My right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and

the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) must have been aware before this Bill was introduced of the intention and the desire of the city of Brantford in regard to this addition to their population, because I have no doubt the petition from the council laid been sent to them, but notwithstanding that they declined to accede to the request, and- therefore I say that it is hardly fair of them to accuse these people in Brantford of being the tools of Conservative wirepullers. Mr. Waterous, the president or vice-president of the board of trade of Brantford, is one of the leading men of that city, and a man whom, apart from his politics, I admire in all respects and his opinion in this matter is probably as correct as mine. It is, at all events, just as houest. The board of trade of Brantford passed this resolution unanimously, after my hon. friend's plans had been sent to them. Papers were sent to me, I presume my information is correct.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

I think I should correct the hon. gentleman there. I do not mind when he varies a little from the fact, but when he says I had written a letter before the board of trade passed a resolution, he is wrong. It was in response to their resolution that I wrote the letter.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

David Tisdale

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

What I intended to say was that before the Bill was introduced the hon. gentleman had written a letter.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.
Permalink

September 11, 1903