That is exactly what I say.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
My hon. friend stated that it was a matter of compromise.
I say it was not.
My hon. friend need not get angry. It is a misunderstanding. I never intended to intimate that it was a matter of compromise.
I said it was in accordance with the rule which had been laid down.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
I will tell my hon. friend why there was a compromise in the case of Carleton. It was because after we had accepted, for the purpose of endeavouring to arrive at some agreement, the proposition which my right hon. friend had laid down in introducing this measure, we were told that certain united counties were going to be carved up without regard to their actual county boundaries for the purpose of inflicting a gerrymander on the Conservative party if we did not compromise ; and, having to choose one of two evils, we saw fit to give away our rights in the county of Carleton, because otherwise we w'ere threatened with that gerrymander. We understood that section one of chapter three of the Revised Statutes was to be adopted. Instead of that, afterwards, when it was seen that it would suit the purposes of my right hon. friend somewhat better, we were referred to section three and were told : Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry form a united county ; we will carve it up as we see fit, and give you a dose of some thing you will not like very well. Leeds and Grenville, Northumberland and Durham, Prescott and Russell will be treated in the same way. That was the proposition with which we were threatened, and on account of which we consented to give up our rights, so far as Carleton is concerned. My hon. friend has suggested that this committee- conference, he called it in the first instance; committee he calls it now-was designed to effect and did effect a very fair redistribution. Well, I do not know of one important proposition, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, emanating from the minority, which was accepted by the majority. I am willing to be corrected if any member of the committee here has a different recollection, but at present I cannot recall one important proposition from the minority which was accepted by the majority of the committee. It was not a conference but simply a partisan committee, upon which were four Liberal members and three Conservatives; and the Liberal members were perfectly frank about it. There were certain matters about which there could not possibly- be any disagreement, but, when we came to places where there could be a little
carving, we soon found out what was the disposition of our lion, friends on the other side. My right lion, friend calls this a conference and has been congratulating himself just now on the fairness of the redistribution. Let me, at the risk of wearying the House, run over the formal proceedings of the committee for a moment. If this were a conference, one would naturally suppose that, to avoid the difficulties referred to by my right hon. friend, arising from pressure from one part of the country or the other, a particular course would have been laid down and certain principles formulated, and the committee would proceed on these, regardless of pressure from any [DOT]quarter. I moved, in the first instance, a series of resolutions, which I think will commend themselves to the judgment of any fair minded man. What were these resolutions ? They were these :
1. In accordance with the principle laid down by the Prime Minister in the House on the introduction of the Bill, municipal county boundaries shall be observed.
2. Where separate representation is given to cities the municipal boundaries of such cities shall be observed.
3. (a.) The municipal county boundaries shall be those set forth in chapter 3, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, and that the word ' county ' herein shall include any provisional county or territorial district established by the said Act.
(b.) The separate representation to he allotted to cities of Ontario shall be first fixed and determined before proceeding with the representation of the rural constituencies.
(e.) 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 he allotted to rural constituencies.
(d.) The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the county within which it is situate.
(e.) 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.
(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.
Counties having a population larger than the unit.
(a.) Each county or combined county having a population of not less than 50 per cent and not more than 150 per cent above the unit shall hs entitled to two members, and each county or combined county having a population not less than 150 per cent and not more than 250 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to three members.
(b.) If after applying these principles it i; 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.
Division of cities or counties into ridings.
In the division of cities or counties into ridings the geographical limits of each riding shall be as symmetrical and compact as may be possible, always having regard to equalities of population.
Would the hon. gentleman point out to the committee how many clauses in these rules were not adopted by the committee ?
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
I will tell my hon. friend how the resolutions were disposed of. The motion being put, it was negatived-Messrs. Borden and Haggart voting for it, and Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Sutherland and Davis voting against it.
Wlint I asked the hon. gentleman was to point out what propositions laid down in that motion were not adopted by the committee or had not previously been adopted by it.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
They were adopted by the committee when they agreed with the scheme which the majority of the committee had in view, and when they did not, they were not adhered to. My hon. friend himself said that while he did not see any particular reason why he should not agree to those rules, he did not want to agree to them because he did not know exactly how they would work out. We then went on with the redistribution of Ontario, and this conference, as it is called, proceeded to deal with that province. On the question coming up of the electoral division of Brant, it was moved by the Minister of Public Works that Brant should be divided in a certain way, and Mr. Haggart moved in amendment that it should be divided in a certain other way. The amendment was negatived and the propositon of my hon. friend adopted. We went on to the electoral division of the county of'Ontario. The Minister of Public Works moved that Ontario should be divided in a certain way, and Mr. Haggart moved that it be divided in a certain other way. The amendment was negatived and the motion agreed to. We came then to the electoral division of Leeds and Grenville, regarding which a certain division was moved by the Minister of Public Works and a certain other division by Mr. Haggart. The amendment of Mr. Haggart was negatived and the motion agreed to. We came next to the county of Perth. The Minister of Public Works moved that it he divided in a certain way. to which Mr. Haggart proposed an amendment. The amendment was negatived and the motion agreed to. We came afterwards to the electoral division of North York, which was reserved for further discussion. Then we came to the division of Simcoe, concerning which the Minister of
Public Works moved that it be divided in a certain way and Mr. Haggart moved in amendment that it be divided in a certain other way. The amendment was negatived and the motion agreed to. In the case of the electoral division of Bruce, the same thing occurred. The amendment of Mr. Haggart was negatived and the motion of the Minister of Public Works agreed to.
Then we come to the county of Northumberland, and the division of that constituency was agreed to, subject to the right to move an amendment at a later date. This amendment was proposed. It was to the effect that this should stand in the list of constituencies returning one member instead of two, and was voted down. Then we came to the county of Essex. My non. friend the Minister of Public Works moved that there should be a certain division of that county ; and there was a reservation of the right to move an amendment afterwards. My recollection is that the amendment was afterwards moved. And, the question being put upon the amendment, it was declared lost, and the main motion of my hon. friend was declared carried. Then we came to the county of Grey. My hon friend the Minister of Public Works moved that Grey be divided in a certain way, which is set forth in the proceedings of the committee. Hon. Mr. Haggart moved that the division should be otherwise. And the question being put upon the amendment, it was declared lost, and the question being put upon the main motion, it was declared carried. Then we came to the county of Elgin, about the division of which, I think, there was no great difference. We came then to the riding of West Peterborough, as to which the right to move an amendment was reserved. Then we came to the city of Toronto, as to which a proposition was made by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, and subsequently another resolution was moved by Hon. Mr. Haggart or myself, proposing an entirely different division. And, the question being put upon the amendment it was declared lost, and the question being put upon the main motion, it was declared carried. Then we came to the county of Kent. The Minister of Public Works moved that it be divided in a cerain way, and Hon. Mr. Haggart moved that it be divided in a certain other way. And, the question being put upon the amendment, it was declared lost, and the question being put on the main motion, it was declared carried. Then we came to the county of Huron. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works moved that Huron be divided in a certain way. Hon. Mr. Haggart moved that It be divided in a certain other way. The motion being put on the amendment, it was declared lost, and, the motion being put on the main motion, it was declared carried. Then we came to the county of Waterloo. My hon.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ture of the proceedings before this committee. It is true that in several instances, In a great many instances in the province of Ontario, the result in single constituencies works out the same under the rules which we adopted as it does work out under the report of the majority of that committee. But I want my right kon. friend to understand that that is the case because we adopted certain rules, and because, working out those rules, we arrived at practically the same result. I want him to understand that on all real questions of difficulty and difference between the two parties, the will of the majority of that committee prevailed in every case, and that there was not an acceptance in any material or important respect of the suggestions made by the Conservative members of that committee with regard to the redistribution of the province of Ontario.
My hon. friend opposite has appealed to us on more than one occasion for a little useful information ns to why it is that we on the Liberal side of the House think that we have some justification for making a trifling alteration in the distribution which has prevailed for the last twenty-two years In the province of Ontario, under which distribution I take it upon myself to say that the the province of Ontario, during twenty-two years, has been most vilely misrepresented on the floors of this parliament. Now, Sir, I have here the list of the actual total vote which was cast in the last general election of 1900, and I find that, setting on one side the city of Toronto, the actual results were these : The Liberal party in the eighty-eight constituencies outside of Toronto cast 190,407 votes, and the Conservative party cast 189,777 votes ; with this practical result that the 190,000 vote had 36 of the eighty-eight constituencies, and the 189,000 votes had fifty-two constituencies out of the eighty-eight. Such was the state of things which prevailed at the last general election, such and worse perhaps, because at former elections a very large vote was brought in, as everybody knows, of people who had for a long time ceased to have the slightest interest in Canada or to care one straw what the government of Canada was doing, numbering to my certain knowledge many thousands in the province of Ontario, and many thousands in the other provinces. But, Sir. in 1882, in 1887, in 1891, and in 1896, the practical result of the gerrymander which we are now trying to undo was that the province of Ontario, as I have stated, was utterly misrepresented on the floor of this House. Sir. I say it with knowledge. I say it with the knowledge of those who know anything at all about the practical working of the representation in the parliament of Canada, that the Conservative party were able to retain power in 1S87 and in 1891 Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
solely and wholly by virtue of the gerrymander. Had there been an honest representation in 1887, Sir John A. Macdonald and his party could not have retained power for three months ; in 1891 they would not have retained power for three weeks if there had been an honest representation of the province of Ontario.
In the kon. gentleman's computation of the vote, what disposition has he made, for instance, of West Elgin and of South Waterloo ?
South Waterloo and Norfolk neutralized each other, for they returned members by acclamation in each case. But if the hon. gentleman wants to know, I will tell him right here what was done in 1896. In that election the Liberals in Norfolk had 2,142 votes, and the Conservatives, 1,589. In the case of North Waterloo, in 1896, the Liberals had 2,397 and the Conservatives 2,706. If my hon. friend will add these figures together, he will find that in those two constituencies put together the Liberals were slightly ahead. Now, Sir, it is perhaps as well that I should place on record the actual vote which was cast in 1900, and if the House will bear with me, I will read these figures. That gerrymander, by virtue of the action of the Senate, we were obliged to submit to at the last general election.
Federal election of 1900.
Liberal and Conservative vote in the following counties :
2.706 2,517 2,288 1,886 1,806 2.065 1.513 1.484 1.611 2,562 2,376 1,661 1.637 3,076
2,386 2.456 1.200 1,778 1.475
2.707 2.803 2.375 2,102 2.379 5,466 1.815 2.426 2,094 1,8621,526 2.106 3.173
Brant, S 2,494
Brockville * 1,665
Bruce, E 1,763
Bruce, N 2,064
Bruce, W 2,147
Cornwall and Stormont 2,411
Durham, E 1,450
Durham, W 1,597
Elgin, E 2,925
Uloin w / 1,180 \
vv I 1,765 I
Essex, N 3,046
Essex, S 2,539
Grenville, S 1,351
Grey, E 2,342
Grey, N 2,834
Grey, S 2.231
Haldlmand and Monck 2,239
Halt on 2,233
Hastings, E 1,744
Hastings, N 1,771
Hastings. W 1,252
Huron, E 2,002
*Huron, S. (elec. 1896) 1.S31
Huron, W 2.199
Kingston . .. 1,879 1,687
Lambton, E 2,637
Lambton, W 2,110
Lanark, N . .. 1,839 1,845Lanark, S .... 1.626 2,010Leeds and Grenville, N.. . . .. 1,267 1,590Leeds. S 2,472Lennox 1,570Lincoln and Niagara, 3,120London Ind. 236 2,812 2,265Middlesex, E . .. 1,889 2,619Middlesex, N. . .. 2,008 2,221Middlesex, S . .. 2,020 1,264Middlesex, W . .. 1,989 1,813Muskoka and Parry Sound. . .. 2.515 2,637Nipissing tNorfollt, N. (elec. 1896).. . . .. 2,142 1,589Norfolk, S . .. 2,200 2,472Northumberland, E. . .. 2,086 2,452Northumberland, W. . .. 1,506 1,371Ontario, N . .. 1,839 2,357Ontario. S . .. 1,970 1,876Ontario, W 1,2314,897 1,115Oxford, N . .. 2,717 Oxford, S . .. 2,042 1,226Peel . .. 1,592 1,705Perth, N . .. 2,838 3,118Perth, S . .. 2,171 2,161Peterborough, E.. . . .. 1,876 1,702Peterborough, W.. . . .. 1,399 1,750Prescott (1,596) ' " ' 1,177 / 1,049Prince Edward.. .. . .. 2,080 2,148.. . 2,299 2,167 1,796Renfrew, S . .. 2^149 Russell . .. 3.089 2,550Simcoe, E 3,486Simcoe, N 1,936Simcoe, S . .. 1.409 2,331Victoria, N . .. 1,417 1.546Victoria, S 2,337tWaterloo, N. (elee. 1806). . .. 2,397 2.706Waterloo, S 2,70SWelland . .. 2,777 2,557Wellington, O . .. 2,079 2,364Wellington, N.. .. . .. 2,428 2,4592,649 961Wentworth, N. and Brant . .. 2,059 Wentworth, S . .. 2,428 2,584York, E . .. 3,489 4.131\ork, N . .. 2,007 1,710York, AV.. . .. 4,306 5,126190,465 189,777
* Acclamation in 1900.
t Acclamation in 1900. t Acclamation in 1900.
Now, as I have stated, in eighty-eight constituencies in Ontario, outside of Toronto, we have a total of 190,465 Liberal votes actually recorded as against 1S9,777 Conservative votes, with the practical result that we got about one-third and the Conservatives two-thirds of the total representation in parliament outside of the city of Toronto, and I do not grudge hon. gentlemen opposite the four seats they have obtained in Toronto. No doubt they had a good majority there.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Would the right hon. gentleman kindly repeat the totals ?
The totals by the actual returns which include the votes given in 1896 in constituencies where members were returned by acclamation in 1900 were 190,465 Liberal votes as against 189,777 Conservative votes. If you strike, out Norfolk and Waterloo which were acclamations respectively for the Conservative and Liberal candidates you then have a total Liberal vote of 185,926 as against a total Conservative vote in these eighty-eight constituencies of 185,482.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
For what year ?
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
For the Commons ?
For the Commons. These figures are compiled from the official records to be obtained in the library of parliament by the hon. gentleman. I will call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that I do not take the double vote of Hamilton and Toronto and Ottawa into account, but that I take the highest number of votes in each case.
What year does Nipissing count for ? ,
Nipissing went by acclamation. I have not taken the credit for the total vote there as I might have done. I left that entirely om one side.