8709
July 4, 1905
These are the figures as given by the government.
 I do not think they are absolutely Â
correct; I compiled figures on my own account, but I find my figures and the government
figures sufl'iciently near to enable
me to accept the government figures as
sufliciently accurate for the purpose of the
argument which I propose to make. In the
original schedule proposed by the government there was an average of 1,328 votes
cast in each electoral district in the south,
while there was only an average of 571
votes cast in each electoral district in the
northern constituencies. It would be seen
therefore that considerably more than
double the representation to which they
were entitled was given to the people in the
north. according to the original schedules,
than was given to the people in the south.
There was also an average of 1,856 names
on the voters' lists of each constituency in
the south as compared with an average of
1,036 nameson the voters' lists in each constituency in the north. Under the proposed
original distribution, also, there was
according to the census a population of 4,067
in each electoral division in the south and
an average population of 2,076 in each electoral division in the north. I wish to
put
this on record as showing the way in which
the original distribution proposed by the
government worked out.
Mr. SPROULE. One man in the north
seemed to be equal to two in the south.
Mr. LAKE. Under the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister which has
been laid on the table of the House and
which gives sixteen seats to the south and
nine to the north, instead of fifteen seats
to the South and ten to the north as originally proposed, I find that, taking the
census
of 1901, there was an average population for
each of the twenty-five constituencies, omitting Indians, of 3,222. Taking the votes
polled on the 3rd November, 1904, there
would be an average of 1,026 to each of the
twenty-five constituencies, and an average
of 1,529 names on the voters' lists of each
constituency.
We find that the distribution provides for
sixteen seats in the southern portion. There
are to each of these constituencies, according to the population of 1901, omitting
Indians. 3,813 persons ; according to the votes
polled on the 3rd of November, 1901, 1,245
votes; and, according to the number of
voters on the list at the same date, 1,740
votes. In each of the nine constituencies
in the northern portion of the district. the
old district of Saskatchewan, there is according to the population of 1901. omitting
Indians, an average of 2,307 persons, an
average of votes polled on the 3rd of November, 1904, of 635, and an average number
of votes on the list, 1,151. These were
the three main bases on which the government proceeded' with the distribution of
8709
8710
the post office guide I estimate that the
number of post offices in the northern portion of Saskatchewan is about 100, and the
number in the southern portion 285. The
number of schools was also taken into consideration. I find that in the northern poro
tion of Saskatchewan there are, roughly
speaking, 200 schools, and in the southern
portion 575. As further corroborative evidence, the number of local improvement districts
in Alberta was quoted. I am informed by a telegram which was sent to me
yesterday by Mr. Bulyea of the Public
Works Department at Regina, that in the
northern district of Saskatchewan there are
only eight districts organized, as against
151 in the southern portion. He goes on to
say:
A large portion of Saskatchewan is eligible
for organization, but information and petitions
come too late for action this year.
We were told that the number of homestead entries should also be taken into consideration
as evidence of the trend of population. I find that in the nine northern constituencies,
from 1901 to May or June, 1905,
there were 17,424 homestead entries, and in
the southern portion 31,611, which also
goes to show that there has been a larger
immigration into the southern portion of
that district than there has been into the
northern portion. It will of course be readily understood that when a new population
comes into a new district, practically
everybody who goes in takes up a home.
stead. I well remember that in the early
eighties, when the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway first opened up the
Northwest, practically every man who came
to the country and was eligible to take up
a homestead, made his entry. It cost him
only $10, and he could take up a homestead
quite close to a town. A great many of
these entries were subsequently abandoned.
I fancy that this will be found to be the
case very largely in the northern part of
Saskatchewan. Almost every railroad man
who came into that country took up a homestead. as it might become very valuable to
him if he could keep his hold on it without
goingupon it and putting in his settlement
duties. In the last three or four years
matters have been very ditterent. In the
southern portion of the province it has
been practically impossible to get a home
stead within a reasonable distance of the
railway. People have been going into the
older and well known districts, where it II
known that farming can be satisfactorily
carried on. As they have purchased land,
we do not of course find their names among
the homestead entries. A great number have
also come in to work for farmers. These
have not been able to find homesteads near
at hand. and we do not find their names
among the homestead entries. A great
8711 COMMONS
number of business people have come to
settle in the towns, and their names are
not among the homestead entries. So that
I think an examination of the homestead
entries will be found to bear out my contention that the larger proportion .of the
immigration has been going into the southern
portion as against the northern. However.
it is not necessary to the argument which I
wish to place before the House, to press
that point home. Even supposing that a
larger proportion of immigration has not
been coming to the southern portion, it will
be found that the distribution of seats will
show that a most unjustly excessive proportion of the representation is being given
to the northern portion of the province of
Saskatchewan.
Mr. SCOTT. What dividing line is my
hon. friend adopting as between north and
south Saskatchewan?
Mr. LAKE. I am taking the dividing
line as shown by the constituencies in the
 amended schedule.
Mr. SCOTT. Of course, certain constituencies as proposed by the amended map lap
over from Saskatchewan into Assiniboia.
and vice versa.
Mr. LAKE Yes, but I have no doubt that the hon. member for Saskatchewan will endorse what
I say when I say that the figures were given by the officer of the government for
each of the amended constituenceis. At least, he had them so on his statement.
Mr. LAMONT. I am not disputing the figures at all, but that does not meet the
point which the hon. member for Western
Assiniboia raised. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Lake) is classing them as north and south.
There is no north and south according to this
schedule. and what the hon. member for
West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) wanted to get at
was on what basis the hon. gentleman was
speaking of northern seats and southern
seats? Where does he make the dividing
line? According to the amended schedule,
some constituencies extend down to Assiniboia, and vice versa.
Mr. LAKE. I thought I had already made
that plain. There are nine seats which are
entirely or mainly in the old district of Saskatchewan. Six of them are entirely in
the
old district of Saskatchewan. and three of
them extend some little distance into the
old district of Assinlboia. Those are what
I call the northern seats. and those which
are entirely in the old district of Assiniboia
I call the southern seats.
Mr. LAKE. In this statement numbers
17 to 25 comprise the nine seats. All of
them are either entirely or to a very large extent in the province of Saskatchewan.
The
other sixteen seats are entirely in the old
district of Assiniboia.
8711
8712
Mr. SCOTT. Would not Saltcoats and
Yorkton be as fairly classed as northern districts? I find the southern boundary line
of Yorkton is only eighteen miles further
south than the southern boundary at Batoche, Saskatoon and Battleford.
Mr. LAKE. They are entirely in the district of Assiniboia.
Mr. SCOTT. Yes, in the old district, but
they are in a federal district made two years
ago in this House, which we looked upon as
a northern district. the district of Mackenzie.
Mr. LAKE. I am not dealing with a
federal district. I am using this for the
purpose of argument, to show that what has
always been considered part-of the present
province of Saskatchewan has been given an
undue amount of representation, and 1 take
the seats which are entirely or mainly in the
province of Saskatchewan. These we call
northern seats, and the seats entirely in
the old district of Assiniboia I would call
southern seats. Â
Mr. FOSTER. Just as well call them 9
and 16. The inequality would be just the
same.
Mr. LAKE. I have given the vote and
population to each seat, and I would like
the matter looked at from another point of Â
view. Instead of giving nine seats to the
north and sixteen to the south, if a fair
division were made, based on the population
as given by the census of 1901, there would
be six and a quarter seats, to be exact, in
the north and eighteen and three—quarters in
the south. If it had been based on the votes
polled and the Minister of the Interior said
this was necessarily the basis in the distribution in Alberta—then there should be
only
five and a half in the north and nineteen
and a half in the south.
Mr. LAMONT. If it were based on the
Haultain redistribution in 1902, what would
you be entitled to ?
Mr. LAKE. If it had been based on the
Haultain redistribution, we should have had
a fair distribution of the seats, and there
never would have been a word raised on this
side.
Mr. LAMONT. You said that that was a
fair redistribution in 1902 ?
Mr. LAKE. We are not dealing with Mr.
Haultain's redistribution at present ; but as
between the districts of Assiniboia. Saskatchewan and Alberta, it was the fairest
possible redistribution which could have
been arrived at. Had this government
adopted a redistribution anything like that,
there would be no dissatisfaction.
Mr. OLIVER. What Was the basis of that
redistribution ?
Mr. LAKE. The population of 1901.
took place within a year of that census.
8713 JULY 4, 1905
Mr. OLIVER. We gave the district of
Edmonton 2,500 and Cardston 611.
Mr. LAKE. Does the hon. gentleman
know how many votes there were then in
those two townships ?
Mr. LAKE. There is considerable difference between 1901 and 1905. The Minister
of the Interior will admit that there has
been a slight change in the number of people
living in the Northwest.
Mr. LAMONT. What is the difference
between the votes cast in Moosejaw in 1902
and the votes cast in Batoche on this fair
redistribution ?
Mr. LAKE. I am not dealing with the
Haultain redistribution of 1902. I think the
hon. gentleman's cross-examination on that
point is entirely irrelevant. I have made the
statement that if as fair a redistribution had
been made in this case, there would not have
been a word said.
Mr. OLIVER. Will the hon. gentleman
show how fair that redistribution was ?
Mr. LAKE. If the hon. gentleman will
bring up that question later on, if he thinks
it relevant to the point at issue, I will have
the figures and satisfy him as to the fairness
of that redistribution. I was comparing the
effect of the various grounds upon which the
distribution was made in Alberta if applied
to Saskatchewan when I was interrupted.
If the distribution had been based on the
names on the voters' list there should be
only 6 3/4 seats in the north and 18 1/4, in the
south. If based on the number of schools,
or post offices, or local improvement districts
or homestead entries, there would be about
the same results. We claim also, apart
from the fact of this very undue representation being given the north, that the distribution
of seats among the various constituencies is exceedingly uneven. Compare, for
instance, the district of Humboldt with the
district of Maple Creek, each of them very
large in area.
Mr. SCOTT. If the hon. gentleman insists upon treating the province in sections—
for instance he classes a certain part as
north and a certain part as south—does he
not think it unfair to make a comparison
between a district in the south and a district in the north? Let him compare districts
in the same section or compare the
whole south with the whole north. It is not
fair to take districts out of the south and
compare them with districts in the north.
Mr. LAKE. I can see absolutely nothing
unfair in showing the incidence of this redistribution. To compare one district with
another and one constituency with another
is the only way in which the House can be
thoroughly seized of the fact of the distri
8713
8714
bution under consideration. Compare Humboldt with Maple Creek. Humboldt had
198 votes polled on the 4th November last
and has an area of 7,657 square miles. Maple
Creek had 846 votes polled and has an area
of 20,669 square miles.
Mr. LAMONT. Is that any greater variation than the difference between Batoche
and Moosejaw at the last local election,
which you say is fair ?
Mr. LAKE. These hon. gentlemen apparently have been brooding over the distribution of 1902
and cannot throw it off.
Mr. LAKE. We will have ample time to
consider that redistribution later on, if the
Chairman considers it relevant to the question at issue. Batoche had 1,659 votes polled
on November 3rd, and its area is 3,746
square miles. Souris had 2,544 votes polled
on November 3rd and its area is 3,190 square
miles. Let us group a few of these constituencies together and see how it works
out. If you take Humboldt, Prince Albert,
Prince Albert city, Redberry and Batoche ;
the total vote polled in these five amounted
to 2,140. They are to have one member
each. Compare this with Souris, which, under this distribution, is to return only
one
member. Souris polled 2,544 votes, over
400 votes more for this one constituency
than were cast in these five northern constituencies. With two exceptions, every one
of the sixteen southern constituencies polled
more votes in the last election than the
northern constituencies. The question might
well be asked : How comes it that the voter
in the south is not considered equal to the
voter in the North ?
I find that there has been a radical departure, in the case of the province of Saskatchewan,
from the rule laid down by the
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) in regard to the representation of cities. The
hon. gentleman was very positive that certain principles ought to be adopted in dealing
with rural populations as compared with
urban populations. As reported in 'Hansard,' page 8300, the hon. gentleman said :
Mr. OLIVER. Population is one thing and
there are many others. But there is one universal principle and it is that a purely
rural
population, a population of producers creating
wealth in the country is always given a greater
share in the government than an equal number
of consumers.
Mr. HAGGART. That is so in no place.
Mr. OLIVER. In every place. On what other
grounds are the cities of our country so unjustly treated by comparison of population
in
being under-represented compared with the
rural constituencies ?
Later on he said :
The rule has always been applied throughout
the provinces of the Dominion, and it is being
applied in the Northwest now, and it would be
improper it it were not so applied.
8715
Now, this is a very definite statement of
policy. How is that policy applied in the
province of Saskatchewan? It is applied
in the case of Alberta in a way that may be
quite satisfactory to the hon. gentleman himself. But in Saskatchewan we find that
the government propose to give one member each to the city of Regina, with 740
votes polled on November 3rd. and 933
votes on the list ; Moosejaw, with 786 votes
polled and 1.000 on the list; and Prince
Albert, with 542 votes polled and 740 votes
on the list. Why should these three cities
be given separate representation, when you
have such thickly populated rural constituencies in the province? Compare any of
these cities with the district of Souris,
which polled 2,544 votes and had more than
3,348 names on the list, the area of this
constituency being upwards of 3,000 square
miles. Or compare any of them with South
Qu'Appelle. with 1,930 votes polled and 2,692 on the list. Or compare it with Saltcoats
with a population of 11,004 according
to the last census, with 1,478 votes polled,
and 2,327 names on the list. If these
three cities are to be given separate representation why was not the town of Medicine
Hat treated in the same way ? The town
of Medicine Hat has a larger population, a
larger number of votes on the list and a
larger number of votes polled than has the
city of Prince Albert. If Prince Albert
is to be given one member, why should
not the town of Medicine Hat also be
given one member ? But we find that it has
not suited the Minister of the Interior or
the government to carry out in its entirety
the principle so definitely laid down in
the case of Alberta. It seems to me that
in every single particular, they have departed from their principles in distributing
the seats for the province of Saskatchewan.
It will be within the memory of the House
that, a few days back, the leader of the
opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) stated that
in view of the fact that the Prime Minister had stated that it had been his desire
on one occasion to have the distribution of
seats submitted to a conference to the Northwest members 'on both sides of the House,
be (Mr. R. L. Borden) was perfectly willing and anxious to have a conference in regard
to the distribution of the seats in the
province of Saskatchewan, if it was not
too late. This suggestion was acted upon by
the Prime Minister. The committee met and
discussed the situation generally, I was one
of the members of that committee, but, of
course, I do not speak omcially for the
committee in any way. In the discussion it
was found that the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont) took an uncompromising
position. He took the position that
upon no consideration would he agree to
fewer than nine members being given to
what I have described as the northern part
of the province.
8715
8716
Mr. LAMONT. Was not the position
taken by the hon. member for Qu'AppeIle
(Mr. Lake) just as uncompromising, that
he would not give nine members to that district ?
Mr. LAKE. I will come to that presently.
But the position that I have described was
taken. The suggestion was then made by myself that although the northern portion was
not even entitled to as many as seven members, I was prepared to give way to this
extent—I would compromise on eight members for the north. I said: If you will come
down one member I will compromise, I
will take what I consider something a little
better than you propose to give and I will
compromise on eight.
Mr. LAMONT. The hon. gentleman is
aware that I stated the government had
already come down from ten to nine according to the government's first proposition.
Mr. LAKE. The government had come
down apparently because they found their
position too untenable even for their following on that side of the House. They
had come down of their own accord. Then
this conference was to take place and surely
if the conference had been arranged there
should have been some give and take on
both sides. The member for Saskatchewan.
however, took that position and I was not
backed up by the other gentleman who was
present at that time, at least not to the extent of voting down the member for Saskatchewan,
and consequently it resulted in
a deadlock. As to the distribution of representation between the northern seats and
the southern seats I made the offer to compromise although from the figures I have
shown. the northern portion was not entitled to seven seats, still I was prepared
to
say: We will settle this matter without
further dispute, let us say eight.
Mr. LAMONT. Which of the northern
seats would the hon. member cut out?
Mr. LAKE. Of course there would have
to be a general rearrangement of the northern seats made after mutual discussion of
the counties. This, as I say, limited the discussion just to the limits of the constituencies
in the north and the limits of the constituencies in the south. I took the position
at that time. and I took it strongly, that
cities of such comparatively small population should not be given separate representation,
that they should be thrown in
with the rural constituencies. I took the
position that a member for a city in the
legislative assembly of Saskatchewan will
have very little to do, that, as is well
known, the members for rural constituencies
have a very large amount to do in connection with the representation of their districts;
they are constantly applied to in regard to public works and many other matters of
local interest. I took the ground
that the city members would have little to
8717
JULY 4, 1905
do, and it would be better to put the cities
in with rural constituencies and to redistribute these rural constituencies, and to
give every member of the legislative assembly a certain amount of country to look
after. I thought that would be the fairest
distribution to ask, but this was met with
a positive refusal and a statement that it
was impossible to go back and take away
the representation which had now been pro
mised to the difierent cities.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend is aware
that it is only to cities which are incorporated by the legislative assembly, of which
until recently he was a member, that the
members are being given. There are only
five incorporated cities in the Territories
and each one of these has been given a
member.
Mr. HAGGART. What difference does the
incorporation make?
Mr. SCOTT. It shows that they are people of great enterprise.
Mr. LAKE. It shows a certain amount
of ambition, nothing else. The member for
West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) then proposed
to group certain constituencies together to
provide for a seat which appeared to be
very badly needed in the southern portion
of the province. I disagreed with him in
reference to one of his proposals, but I am
prepared to agree to such a redistribution
if a suggestion which I made would be accepted. I do not know whether the hon.
member is prepared to bring a suggestion
based on that.
Mr. SCOTT. Is my hon. friend prepared
to say that his suggestion would bring
about that equality for which he is arguing
this afternoon ?
Mr. LAKE. It .wouid be bringing it
about considerably better than by the plan
proposed by the member for West Assiniboia. He proposed to take Moosomin,
Whitewood, Grenfell and Wolseley, four
of the oldest constituencies in the country,
which are filled with the pioneers who have
made that country, to group these together
and give them three seats and to take the
seat we thus save and place it where I
think a seat is badly needed, along the Soo
line. I proposed that this seat should be
provided for in another way.
Progress reported.
At five o'clock, House took recess.
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST.
House again in committee on Bill (No. 70)
to establish and provide for the government
of the province of Saskatchewan—Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On section 12, Legislative Assembly.
Mr. LAKE. Mr. Chairman, I was referring this afternoon to the proposal which had
been made by the hon. member for West
Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) in regard to grouping four constituencies on the main line
of
the Canadian Pacific Railway, adding to
them small portions of two constituencies,
which lie to the north, making three new
constituencies out of the original four and
giving the one constituency which has been
thus saved to the 800 line. While I am
strongly in favour of a constituency being
given to the Soo line, I object to the constituency being formed in that way. I held
that these four constituencies on the main
line were settled in the earliest stages of
the country. The greater part of this area
is occupied by people who are amongst the
oldest settlers, who have exercised their
franchise for years and who have contributed largely to the building up of the country.
In addition to that I have another
objection, and it is that these four seats
have a larger average voting population than
8719
the average voting population which the
whole of the province has as obtained
by the even distribution of the voting population of the province into 25 different
seats.
I find that the average number of names on
the voters' lists in these districts is 1,554,
while the average for the whole of the province would be 1,529. I suggested as an
alternative. provided there was a positive refusal to grant the extra seat from the
northern
portion of the province where I consider it
should come from. that the three Regina
seats should be altered as regards their area
and that one of the seats, the south Regina
seat, or a portion of it, should be given to the
800 line. I found that the three Regina seats,
Lumsden or North Regina, Regina city and
South Regina, on the average had only 1,344
voters on the voters' list, and I thought that
the adoption of my suggestion would be a
proper way of finding an additional con«
stituency to provide for the people along
the SOO line, who, I think, are justly entitled to have a representative of their
own.
They have forwarded to me a copy of a
resolution. which they have also forwarded
to the hon. member for West Assiniboia
and the hon. Minister of the Interior. on the
subject. During the discussion which took
place in this committee I submitted a tentative suggestion of my own showing how
the constituencies might be divided up in the
new provinces in such a way as to give a
fairly even distribution of votes to each constituency. I did this for the purpose
of demonstrating that it was possible to make a comparatively even distribution, a
distribution
based on existing conditions, that is to say,
by preserving as far as possible the constituencies as they exist at the present time
and
giving additional representation where the
additional population and the additional
number of votes on the list appear to demand.
This distribution which accounted for
seven seats in the northern portion of the
district and eighteen seats in the southern
portion, even then gave an advantage of
8 per cent to the northern constituencies.
The suggestion was, of course, purely tentative: it was drawn up after a pretty
close examination of the vote that was
polled and was marked on the map which
I had in my possession, but without any
very prolonged consideration of the matter.
On the whole, I think it met the purpose
fairly well, and I believe it could have been
made into a very good distribution indeed
if the committee had discussed the details
and had made alterations here and there
Where the local conditions would appear to
demand them. Although I left the map
with the constituencies marked in it and
the figures showing the vote of each constituency with the Liberal members of that
committee, I have heard nothing more on
the subject from them since; it appears to
have been ignored. I would like to put on
record the constituencies which I proposed.
the area of each and the number of voters
in each according to the lists, as near as I
8719
8720
could estimate. I first proposed to divide
the present constituency of Souris into two
constituencies. one of which, the old district
of Souris, would have 1,684 voters on the list
and an area of 1,188 square miles. The
second, constituency—to be named as the
committee might decide—would have 1,593
voters on the lists.
Mr. SCOTT. Would the hon. gentleman
say how many votes were cast last fall in
the proposed district of Souris ?
Mr. LAKE. It was absolutely impossible
to say how many votes were cast in any of
these constituencies; the government may
be able to find that out by some method
unknown to me.
Mr. SCOTT. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Lake) took the responsibility of preparing
a map based entirely on the vote polled last.
fall. He has contended strongly that the
vote cast last fall, and that alone. was the
proper basis for this distribution.
Mr. LAKE. I have never contended it
was the proper basis. I have said it was
not the proper basis on every occasion I
have had an opportunity of speaking on
this question.
Mr. SCOTT. Was not that the plan on
which my hon. friend prepared the map ?
Mr. LAKE. Certainly not ; it was based
on the number of voters on the lists. How
is it possible for any one to say how many
votes were cast in each of these districts ?
It constantly happens that a polling division which was created for the purpose of
the Dominion election lies in two different
local constituencies. We could tell exactly
how many voters there were on the lists
in each of these constituencies, but it is
practically impossible to tell how many of
them cast votes unless you get at the returning oflicer's book, which, I believe,
is
under seal in the hands of the Clerk of the
Crown in Chancery. I do not know if that
is the way in which the government have
got at the figures they have submitted; I
have taken the figures of the government all
through, not that I think they are absolutely reliable, but at all events sufficiently
so to enable one to make a comparison. I
said that the second constituency into which
the old constituency of Souris is divided
would have 1,593 voters on the list and
1,836 square miles. A part of Cannington
would also go to a new constituency, which
would take in the Regina-Arcola branch,
from Arcola some little distance westward.
Cannington would have 1,460 voters on the
list and an area of 1,332 square miles. The
other Cannington constituency would have
1,456 voters on the list and 2,340 square
miles of area. The old district of Moosomin would have 1,895 voters on the list and
an area of 1.165 square miles; Whitewood
would have 1.357 voters on the list and an
area of 1.335 square miles; Grenfell would
8721
JULY 4, 1905
have 1.497 voters on the list and an area of
1,440 square miles ; Wolseley would have
1,441 voters on the list and an area of 1,120
square miles ; Saltcoats, 1,663 voters on the
list, area, 2,736 square miles ; Yorkton,
1,711 voters on the list, area, 2,484 square
miles ; North Qu'Appelle, 1,541 voters on
the list, area. 4,536 square miles ; South
Qu'Appelle, 1,655 voters on the list, 900
square miles ; North Regina, 1,600 voters
on the list, area, 3,780 square miles ; South
Regina, 1,600 voters on the list, area, 540
square miles ; Soo, a new constituency
along the Soo line, which was to take in
a portion of South Regina, South Qu'Appelle,
Souris and a small portion of Cannington,
would have 1,504 voters on the list and an
area of 8,016 square miles. I proposed to
divide Moosejaw, and instead of giving a
city constituency and a country constituency
I proposed two constituencies which would
probably meet in the near vicinity of the
city of Moosejaw. North Moosejaw would
have 1,313 voters on the list and an area of
8,820 square miles ; South Moosejaw, 1,550
voters on the list, area, 5,184 square miles ;
Maple Creek, 1,303 voters on the list, area,
28,152 square miles. This will give an
average of 550 voters on the list of each one
of these eighteen constituencies in the south.
Then I proposed to divide the northern constituencies as follows : Kinistino, 1,385
voters on the list, area, 22,716 square miles.
Mr. LAMONT. I do not think that is
right ; you are not taking in all of the
district.
Mr. LAKE. It is not the old original district of Kinistino ; a good many of the constituencies
I propose are slightly changed.
Mr. LAMONT. You are not taking in the
whole division of Kinistino according to
your own map ; you are not including Athabaska.
Mr. LAKE. Of course, this is exclusive
of Athabaska, and the figures which were
given this afternoon were also exclusive of
Athabaska. In regard to Athabaska, as
the Prime Minister said, there are only a
few wandering hunters and Indians there,
and I thought that for such a purpose as
this it would be unnecessary to include that
area. I continue : Prince Albert, 1,427 voters on the list, area, 7,572 square miles
;
Batoche, 1,551 voters on the list, area, 10,908 square miles ; Rosthern, 1,601 voters
on the list, area, 950 square miles ; Saskatoon, 1,535 voters on the list, area, 1,280
square miles ; Redberry, 1,200 voters on the
list, area, 14,292 square miles ; Battleford,
1,279 voters on the list, area, 15,552 square
miles. This is the division of constituencies
I proposed, given in tabulated form :
8721
8722
|
Voters on list. |
Area exclusive of Athabaska. |
| Souris .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,084 |
1,188 |
| Alameda.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,593 |
1,836 |
| Cannington .. .. .. .. .. |
1,460 |
1,332 |
| Forget.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,456 |
2,340 |
| Moosomin.. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,895 |
1,165 |
| Whitewood.. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,357 |
1,335 |
| Grenfell.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,479 |
1,440 |
| Wolseley .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,141 |
1,120 |
| Saltcoats .. .. .. . |
1,663 |
2,736 |
| Yorkton.. .. .. .. .. . |
1,711 |
2,484 |
| North Qu'Appelle.. .. .. |
1,541 |
4,536 |
| South Qu'Appelle.. .. .. |
1,655 |
900 |
| North Regina.. .. .. .. |
1,600 |
3,780 |
| South Regina.. .. .. .. |
1,600 |
540 |
| The Soo.. .. .. .. .. .. . |
1,504 |
8,016 |
| North Moosejaw.. .. .. |
1,313 |
8,820 |
| South Moosejaw.. .. .. .. |
1,550 |
5,184 |
| Maple Creek. .. .. .. .. |
1,303 |
28,152 |
| Average 1,550. |
|
|
| Kinistino.. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,385 |
22,716 |
| Prince Albert.. .. .. .. .. |
1,427 |
7,572 |
| Batoche.. .. .. .. .. |
1,551 |
10,908 |
| Rosthern .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,601 |
950 |
| Saskatoon .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,535 |
1,280 |
| Redberry.. .. .. .. .. |
1,200 |
14,292 |
| Battleford .. .. .. .. .. |
1,279 |
15,552 |
This will give an average of 1,425 voters
on the lists of each of these Saskatchewans,
or I should say northern constituencies.
I have avoided as much as possible using
the word Saskatchewan as applied to the
old district of that name, for fear it should
get confounded with the name of the new
province. As I said before, the distribution
which I propose does give an advantage of
about eight per cent in favour of the northern constituencies. This is practically
unavoidable, because the number which would
be given under a fair distribution based
on the number of voters on the list would
give a fraction of a constituency both north
and south. As I have said, I do not consider that the proposal which I made was in
any way perfect. I thought, however, that
I should not go to this committee prepared
only to criticise the existing schedules, but
prepared to make an offer of something
which I considered to be a fair distribution,
and I hoped the committee might take this
as a basis for working out something that
would be satisfactory to all the members
of the committee. However, that apparently was not to be, and I have heard nothing
more about that proposal. It seems to me
that the result of the conference is one
which was to be expected under the circumstances, when certain members took an
absolutely uncompromising attitude which
made it impossible to arrive at anything
useful in the way of readjustment. It seemed to me that the only possible way to get
a fair distribution of seats was by an independent commission, and I am very sorry
that the government did not take this opportunity, which I consider was a very good
one, to initiate this principle of distribution by commission. I think it would have
been much to the credit of the great party
now in power if they had been the first
8723
to take practical steps in that direction.
I greatly regret that from the action taken
by the government it seems impossible for
us to obtain that independent commission
for this purpose. There is just one thing
further I want to say, that is, that I have
been making this argument on the basis
of the votes polled. I consider that that
was the only fair way to look at the matter, because the Minister of the Interior
had told us most distinctly that that was
the basis upon which he had made the distribution.
Mr. SCOTT. That is the point I questioned my hon. friend about a few moments
ago—whether he had not made his map on
the basis of the votes cast.
Mr. LAKE. I made that map on what I
considered to be the fairest basis—the number of voters on the list. I have made my
criticism of the government's proposal on
the basis of the number of votes polled, because that was the basis on which they
had
made the distribution. In criticising their
distribution, it seems to me to be only fair
to take the basis they set for themselves.
This is what the Minister of the Interior
said :
The definite division of the constituencies is
based on the vote actually polled on the 3rd
November as the closest and most recent date
upon which reliable information can be got.
I myself consider the fair basis on which
to make the distribution is the number of
voters placed on the list for the election of
the 3rd of November last. The enumerators
who drew up those lists were government
employees of the administration here at Ottawa, and I presume that they would endeavour
to do their duty to the best of their
ability. At any rate, they would endeavour
to put as large a number or names on the
list as possible of persons entitled to vote.
That was the nearest I thought we could
get to a fair distribution. I do not pretend that that would be an absolutely positive
standard. It is imposible to declare
that of any basis, except a census taken
within a month of the drawing up of the
schedule, because of the rapidity with which
the population of the Northwest is changing
at the present time. I do not think I need
add anything further to what I have said
With regard to this distribution. The figures which I have read, provided by the government
in regard to the schedules which
they have submitted to the House, speak
for themselves far more eloquently than I
could possibly hope to do.
Mr. LAMONT. Would the hon. gentleman state which of the northern constituencies he objects to,
or which he has cut
out in his distribution ?
Mr. LAKE. I handed the hon. gentleman my map a couple of days ago, and he
knows exactly what it is.
8723
8724
Mr. LAMONT. I am at liberty, then, to
lay that on the table ?
Mr. LAKE. I have no objection at all.
He can put it anywhere he likes ; he can
put it on ' Hansard ' if he likes. I am prepared to stand by that distribution as
a
far fairer one than that presented to us by
the government, I merely desire to point
out and to accentuate the fact that in spite
of the statement of the Prime Minister that
the prime object was as far as possible to
give equality of numbers in the different
electoral districts, and in spite of the statement of the Minister of the Interior
to which
I have just referred, that the definite division of the constituencies was based on
the
votes actually polled on the 3rd of November, I find that the schedule has apparently
been drawn up with an absolute disregard
of all the principles which were laid down
as those which guided the government in
making the distribution. A distribution has
been made based, it seems to me, if it was
based on anything at all, on the vaguest and
most sanguine estimates of the prospective
population of the northern part of the province, and less sanguine estimates of the
prospective population of the southern portion of the province. This distribution
practically gives double the representation, man
for man, to the newer population who are
going into the newer country which is being
opened up to the north. That population is
composed largely of late arrivals who do not
understand the political questions of the
day in Canada, and who are far too busy,
as all men who go into a new country are,
in getting started, to study these questions
and to form personal opinions upon them.
And over this population it cannot be doubted that the Dominion government exercises
a considerable amount of influence. Only
half the representation to which they are
entitled on a fair distribution is apparently
given to the older settlements of the south
—the men who have built up the country,
who have taken such a leading part in governing it up to the present, and who, I think,
have governed it with a very fair amount of
success. The distribution shows the most
extraordinary discrepancies in individual
constituencies, varying from 178 votes cast
in Humboldt and 277 east in Redberry
in the recent election—and the votes cast
at the recent election is the basis upon
which these constituencies were constructed
—to 1,930 in South Qu'Appelle and 2,594
cast in the district of Saltcoats. That is to
say a voter in Humboldt practically exercises as much voting influence as fourteen
in the old district of Saltcoats, and a voter
in Redberry exercises as much influence
as seven in the district of South Qu'Appelle.
Mr. LAMONT. Will the hon. gentleman
say whether in his opinion those American
settlers have gone into Humboldt and Redberry in such large numbers, but who had
not been long enough in the country to vote
8725
JULY 4, 1905
last fall, are entitled to representation in
the local House ?
Mr. LAKE. Why did not the Minister
of the Interior make that the basis of the
distribution of seats ?
Mr. LAMONT. As a matter of fact, does
the hon. gentleman think they should be represented ?
Mr. LAKE. I certainly think the population of this country should be represented
in the legislative assembly no matter who
they are. One man's vote should be just as
good as another.
Mr. LAMONT. Even although they have
not been long enough in the district to vote?
Mr. LAKE. The hon. gentleman will have
an opportunity in a moment or two of making his speech. In one of his constituencies,
to which they are only given one member, and which cast a very large number of
votes last year, the district of Saltcoats,
there were upwards of 11,000 inhabitants.
Should they not have a proportionate say
in the representation of the country just as
well as the other new settlers. If the hon.
gentleman will take one basis and go on
that throughout, I am willing to support
him. I believe the fairest basis to be just
now the number of votes placed on the voters'
list by the officials of the Dominion government on the 3rd of November last. Here
is
another comparison I would like to make
before sitting down. Ten southern constituencies cast upwards of 1,100 votes each—
one of them as high as 2,500. There are
three northern constituencies which, grouped together, did not cast 1,000 votes among
them. That appears to me an extraordinary
condition of affairs. The three northern
constituencies are Redberry, Humboldt and
Prince Albert. Prince Albert city and Prince
Albert rural district get a very ample representation—far more than they are entitled
to on an even distribution. I might
refer to that question of Prince Albert
which I mentioned just now. Prince Albert, city and country together, cast 1,026
votes. There is another constituency in the
northern part of the district, the district
of Kinistino, which the government proposes
to form. That district has an area, outside
of Athabaska altogether, of 25,000 square
miles odd. The two districts of Prince Albert have between them only an area of
6,555 square miles. The vote cast in the
district of Kinistino was 1,029. That is
to say, even with that enormous area the
vote cast in the district of Kinistino was
in excess of that cast in the two
constituencies alongside, to which the government proposes to give two representatives.
I may have something more to say
on this matter later on. For the present I
shall content myself with submitting what
I consider a fair and moderate criticism on
the question before the committee.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend's criticism
on the Saskatchewan redistribution schedule
8725
8726
is very much milder than a great deal
of the criticisms we have seen in the Conservative press throughout the country during
the past three or four months, or some
of the criticisms we have heard in this
House. I think it was the hon. gentleman's
leader who said that he found in these distribution schedules the worst gerrymander
that had ever been perpetrated anywhere in
the world, even the United States.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I was not speaking
of this one. I was speaking of Alberta, and
may speak of this one presently.
Mr. SCOTT. I am very glad to find the
hon. gentleman much more disposed to agree
that the Saskatchewan schedule is fair.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) feels disposed to make his
criticism milder. He has within recent days
taken the responsibility of making a map
and has found that it is much more difficult
to make a proper distribution than offer
criticism. When he spoke a few evenings
ago in criticism of the Saskatchewan schedule, he was horrified to find the area of
the district of Maple Creek in comparison
with the area of the district of Rosthern.
I am surprised to find that in the map—
Mr. LAKE. The hon. gentleman is not
giving a fair estimate of my remarks on
that point. I compared the area and the
vote.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend asked the
committee to look at the area of Maple
Creek in comparison with the district of
Rosthern. I find upon his own map that
he has actually added to the area of Maple
Creek by something over 6,000 square miles.
And in the district of Rosthern he has cut
off a township or two and actually makes
it smaller than it is in the Schedule presented by the government. I find also that
one of his pet districts, the district of Wolseley, which is certainly not a very
large
district even upon the government map, he
has reduced by some three townships. Wolseley did not cast a very large vote either
last fall. They didn't have a large registered vote last fall. And, consulting other
statistics, we are led to believe that the
population of Wolseley has not been increasing as fast as that of other places.
Mr. LAKE. How many votes were cut
off the district of Wolseley ?
Mr. SCOTT. If my hon. friend (Mr.
Lake) found a district that was not exceptionally large, that was, in fact, rather
on the small side, which did not cast a
vote last fall equal to the average, what
was his purpose in reducing the size ? I am
not offering these observations in criticism
8727
of the hon. gentleman's map, but I am trying to show the committee, and particularly
my hon. friend (Mr. Lake), that it is much
easier to criticise a distribution map than
it is to frame one. We have had, as I have
already said, from the Conservative members, the most vehement denunciation of
these proposals. The leader of the opposition declared that the distribution of Alberta
was the worst gerrymander there had
ever been in the world—he could not find
anything to equal it in the United States.
When my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr.
Lake) was criticising the Saskatchewan distribution a few evenings ago, he referred
to
the last federal redistribution. It may not
be out of order for me to make some observations on the redistribution made by this
parliament in 1903. In the first place, who
made the federal redistribution of 1903, so
far as the Northwest Territories are concerned? Was it the bi-party committee of
which the hon. Minister of Public Works
(Mr. Hyman) was chairman ? No. We
have the evidence of the leader of the opposition himself that the matter of redistribution
of the Northwest was referred to a committee of gentlemen representing the Northwest
Territories, senators and members of
this House, representing both sides of politics. It did not take us more than fifteen
minutes to reach an agreement. Does the
hon. gentleman think that that redistribution was not a fair one? Does the hon.
member for Qu'Appelle claim that it was
unfair? Does the hon. member for Alberta
(Mr. Herron) claim that it was unfair?
Mr. SCOTT. I am speaking of the federal redistribution two years ago.
Mr. SCOTT. The hon. gentleman (Mr. M.
S. McCarthy) is willing to admit that it was
a fair redistribution —
Mr. SCOTT. Perfectly fair as between
the parties.
Mr. SCOTT. Yes, and for Saskatchewan.
And perfectly fair as between the north
and south. At that time those who made
that redistribution did not look upon it
as a matter involving a division between
north and south or any difference between
the parties. At that time the northern
part of the country was not looked upon
as more Liberal than the southern part.
I will recall to the memory of members of
that committee—and I think that they will
say that I am stating the facts correctly—
that prior to the 3rd of November, nobody
had any idea that the vote would be as it
proved. In fact many expected that the
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) was go
8727
8728
ing to be defeated in the district of Edmonton. On the other hand the Liberals were
just as confident that they would carry the
district of Alberta as they were that the
Liberals in the person of the Minister of the
Interior would carry the district of Edmonton. The 1903 distribution was not looked
upon as a disputed question between the
north and south or as between the parties.
There was in that sub-committee on redistribution no consideration of party or any
other advantage; we approached the work
with the simple desire to make a fair
and equitable distribution on the basis of
census figures, allowing for expected increase of population to take place within
the next few years. If hon. gentlemen will
look at the map of this federal distribution,
they will find that there were five southern
seats, as they may be called, south of the
north line of township 34 between the
Rocky Mountains and the elbow of the
Saskatchewan, being about north of Swift
Current, and the line north of township 24
from the elbow of the Saskatchewan to the
Manitoba boundary line. And as there
were five constituencies south of that line,
so there were five to the north. I think
every one will admit that that redistribution was perfectly fair in a party sense.
That being admitted, let us consider how it
was as between the north and the south.
We find that in two western ridings of the
north district there was a total of 11,000
votes in November, as against 9,000 in the
two ridings in the south district. So, there
was no unfairness to the southern part of
the country in that.
Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY. I pointed out, when
discussing this matter before, that the
constituency of Alberta did not go as far
east as the fourth meridian.
Mr. SCOTT. There were two constituencies in the western part of the north district and two
in the western part of the
south district. And the division of 11,000 votes
to the north and 9,000 to the south was
certainly not unfair to the south. I think
that it must be admitted that that redistribution as adjusted to the circumstances
then known, was a fair and equitable distribution. Now, as between the three
north districts in the proposed province of
Saskatchewan and the three south districts
in the same, there was a great disparity of
votes on the 3rd of November last. Nobody
expected anything else. Those who prepared this redistribution expected that there
would be a larger vote in the three ridings
of the south than in the three ridings of the
north ; and that expectation was realized. It
was also expected that the population in the
northern part would thenceforth increase
very much more rapidly than that in the
southern part. And if that expectation was
reasonable two years ago, it is more reasonable now, because two lines of railway
are
now being constructed across the northern
8729
JULY 4, 1905
part of the country; and everybody who
knows anything about that country and the
effect upon a new country of railway
construction knows that in the near
future there will be an enormous increase in the population of the northern
part. I venture to say that at this moment
there is very much less disparity between
the populations of the three northern federal constituencies and the three southern
federal constituencies than there was
last November. And it may be that
before this parliament dissolves the lines
will have to be recast, because of there
being a majority of people in the
north. Now, it is perfectly proper for
this committee to consider how this local
distribution fits in with the federal redistribution of two years ago. And, if we
keep in mind this line between the north
and south that I have given, it will be found
that twenty-six seats are given by this Bill
to the south five ridings as against twenty-
two to the north five ridings, the other two
going to the far north country which, up
to this moment has been unorganized territory. I may not be able to make that
as an absolute statement. If we split hairs
we may find a slightly different result.
I will take the calculation made the other
evening by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle
(Mr. Lake) who stated that the three south
ridings in Saskatchewan are given thirteen
and one-half seats as against eleven and
one-half to the three north ridings. It seems
to me that if the federal division of three
to three was a fair division two years ago,
and is a fair division now, and likely to be
fair up to the end of this parliament, it cannot be contended that there is unfairness
to the south in the present proposed distribution of 11 1/2 to 13 1/2. And as a matter
of fact the map has been amended taking one seat from the north and
giving it to the south. We have then, according to my hon. friend's calculation, 14
1/2
seats given to the three federal ridings south
of the dividing line as against 10 1/2 for the
three north of that line. I might call to
the attention of the committee the fact
that a portion of one of the south ridings is
taken away and put into the province of
Alberta, the Medicine Hat constituency.
Thus really the proper calculation would
show 15 1/2 to the south three ridings as
against 10 1/2 to the north three. So really
without splitting hairs it may be stated
that the south country, the old Assiniboia
district, is getting 16 seats while only 9 are
given to the north or Saskatchewan district. I ask any fair-minded person where
he can find unfairness in this new redistribution. In 1903 certain areas were
treated equally, and in this redistribution
any difference that is being made is largely
to the advantage of the south country. It
seems to me it is impossible for any person
to find any outrage in this. I do not think
the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Bor
8729
8730
den) will be able to find, in this Saskatchewan plan at all events, those evidences
of
gerrymander which seemed to bother him
so much in the case of Alberta. It seems to
me it will be difficult for any one to find
in this Saskatchewan redistribution traces
of that Italian hand, of the work of that
Italian gentleman of whom we have heard
so often, Monseigneur Sbarretti. I say that
no cry has ever been uttered in this country
with less justification than the cries in
regard to these plans of redistribution. I
had a brief dispute with the leader of the
opposition one evening with regard to the
question whether or not any parliamentary
body had ever considered the question of
area together with the matter of population
in making a redistribution. I asked my hon.
friend how he explained the disparity that
was permitted by this parliament when
Manitoba was first given representation, in
the year 1870. Manitoba was at that time
given four members, when the population of
the province did not entitle it to one member.
A few years later the Northwest Territories were given representation in this parliament
and although their population would
not have entitled them to one member, parliament made provision for four members,
and in like manner when British Columbia
was brought in provision was made for six
members when the population would not
have entitled that province to one third of
that number. My hon. friend took very
strong grounds ; he declared absolutely that
area was never made a basis of representation in a redistribution and he challenged
me to produce the contrary evidence. I
have gone to 'Hansard' of the year 1886,
and at page 1205, I find that in the case of
the Northwest Territories when the late Sir
John A. Macdonald brought in a Bill to
grant representation to the Territories he
uttered these words:
The population would scarcely allow of so
many members, but, although the settlers are
so few in number the country is large—
I think my hon. friend's predecessor was
considering the question of area.
—the country is large and has many different
interests requiring many legislative measures,
and following the example set by giving representation to the province of Manitoba,
many
years ago——
Evidently the same rule was applied in
Manitoba, area was considered.
—when it had a very slight population, we propose to give the Territories four members——
Now I wish to repeat that, in my opinion at all events, all this talk of gerrymander
that has been going on for the last three
or four months, since these plans were
brought down, is pure and arrant nonsense.
If any political advantage was to be found
in these schedules does my hon. friend think
the Liberal journal in Calgary would be
complaining or that the Liberal candidate
8731
COMMONS
in Calgary at the last election, Dr. Stewart,
would be complaining, or that that very pronounced Conservative journal, the Edmonton
'Journal' would be strongly maintaining
these schedules ? Would we see these
things if any political disadvantage was to
be found in the schedules against the interests of my hon. friends opposite ?
My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S.
McCarthy) took the responsibility one evening of saying that there was a gerrymander
involved in the dividing line selected,
the 4th meridian, but it remains for him or
any other person to show how the political
interests of the Liberals or Conservatives
are affected in any way by the selection
of that line or could be affected by any other
line.
Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY. The fact is, as
my hon. friend knows, that two Liberals
were elected in the northern part and two
Conservatives were elected in the southern
part. I made the statement that the line
had been moved too far west, further west
than the point they adopted when dividing
the country two years ago into federal
seats. That was done for the purpose of
throwing population to the north.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend thinks the
line should be placed further east?
Mr. SCOTT. That would not help his
friend in Southern Alberta. The further
east the line is put the more Liberals you
have. If Alberta had been placed further
east in the redistribution two years ago my
hon. friend (Mr. Herron) would not be
here. I make this proposition to the
hon. member for Calgary : He can
take the map and divide the country
in any way he chooses, he may apply a mathematical rule with regard
to area or with regard to population and
see what he gets. Or let my hon. friend the
leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)
set the best expert on gerrymander that he
has to work on these maps, and I venture to
say he cannot produce a map in any manner or shape which will not show a Liberal
majority in both provinces. What is the
use of charging gerrymander simply because possibly these plans when worked
out on last fall's vote show a Liberal majority in these provinces, if my hon. friend
cannot produce any map which will not do
so ? It is not only the northern part that
is Liberal, even by last fall's vote. It is
true the north gave a Liberal majority of
7,000, but the south also gave a Liberal majority, and the best possible proof that
there
is no injustice is that in the five south ridings
there was a Liberal majority of fully 1,000,
but nevertheless our friends opposite have
three members to our two. If the lines had
not been put just where they were some of
our hon. friends opposite would not have
been here. If you change Qu'Appelle in
8731
8732
almost any conceivable way, take off or add
on a range on the east, or take off or add
on a range on the west, or take off or add
on a line of townships on the north to the
district of Qu'Appelle and my hon. friend
would not be here. It is the same with regard to the member for Alberta, as I have
stated. If he had the whole southern part
of Alberta, the province as produced down
to the 4th meridian, he would not be here
at all. I got a considerably larger majority
in the Medicine Hat country in the province
of Alberta than the total majority upon
which the hon. member sits in this House.
I am going to say that, so far as I am
concerned, I do not propose to attempt to
justify this distribution by the plethora of
figures which were produced in the case of
the Alberta Bill. I shall not attempt to
justify the Saskatchewan schedule on such
a basis, in fact I was discouraged at the
commencement from going into figures by
the action of the hon. member for North
Toronto. The Minister of the Interior produced figures with regard to post offices,
school districts, local improvement districts
and all manner of things, but the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) at once
said that these were all nonsense and had
no bearing on the question. so I shall not
attempt to inflict the same figures on the
House.
Mr. SCOTT. I will say this, that there
never was a redistribution plan presented
in this parliament, or in any provincial parliament in this country, that could be
so
absolutely justified as that Alberta redistribution was justified by the Minister
of
the Interior. However, there was a very
material difference in the cases of Alberta
and Saskatchewan. In the case of Alberta
ten seats had to be added to fifteen, and it
was necessary to very largely recast the
lines of the old districts as they had existed
for the purposes of representation in the
legislature. In the case of Saskatchewan,
on the other hand. we were only compelled
to add five to twenty seats, making it a
very materially different proposition. Following the general plan which was agreed
upon at the outset, of giving incorporated
cities a seat, we found it possible, by allowing three of the five to go to the north
and
two to the south and by putting the two in
the south in the two cities of Regina and
Moosejaw, to leave the lines as arranged by
the legislature three years ago absolutely
untouched. There is not a single point of
material change in the whole district of
Assiniboia. I would say to my hon. friend
from Qu'Appelle that if we take his word
for it, and he has given us his word, that
the distribution made by the legislative assembly was as near perfection as it was
possible to make it, we will have to come to
the conclusion that the greater part of this
8733
JULY 4, 1905
plan—because the greater part applies to
Assiniboia—is perfection too. I would ask
the committee, fairly looking at the subject, looking at the maps and at the facts
before it if it is not fair to give the north
country three of these five additional seats
and the south country two of these seats ?
The fact is admitted by the committee that
we cannot afford to go on the census of
1901, that the changes since that time have
been too great, and I say it is not fair to
go exactly upon the vote of last fall, because there were in some parts of the country
large blocks of men who, although already in the country, had not been there
long enough to enable them to be naturalized, and were therefore not permitted to
vote. We must go to some extent upon
estimate, and the best estimate that can be
made in regard to that part of the country
will be somewhat speculative. I would not
take the responsibility of saying that the
government plan will work out absolutely
fairly. If we may be permitted in two, or
three, or four years hence to get the actual
population within these lines, it may be
found in some surprising ways that the plan
the government asks the House to adopt at
the present moment is not an absolutely
fair plan. I would not say that if we had
given Saskatchewan four of these additional members, as was proposed in the first
government plan, that would be found in
the end to work out unfairly, or if we turned the proposition around and gave the
three
additions to the south and only two to the
north, it might be that in two or three
years hence that would be found to be a
perfectly fair distribution. It must be remembered that we are providing for the
next four years. It must be expected that
the first legislature of the province of Saskatchewan will live out its life of four
years,
and keeping in mind the trend of immigration as we have had it in the past, as we
have it at the present time, and as we may
expect to have it, and remembering the new
railway construction in the northern part
of the country, I may say, as a southern
man, as a man who lives in and represents
a southern constituency, that I am prepared to agree to the giving of nine of the
seats under this redistribution to the north
as against sixteen to the south. The
point of difference between hon. members
opposite and hon. members on this side of
the House has come down to whether three
of the additional seats should go to the north
country or whether only two of them should
go to the north country, and it may not be
uninteresting for the committee to look at
the history of the Northwest Territories in
so far as representation is concerned. Some
of these figures that I am going to give to
the committee I would call the particular
attention of the hon. leader of the opposition
(Mr. R. L. Borden) to. He may finally come
to the conclusion that there has been in
past years in this country worse things
8733
8734
done than ever were done in the United
States in regard to gerrymanders. The first
plan for representation in the Northwest
Territories was based purely and entirely
upon population. That was for the election
of members to the old Northwest Council
prior to the creation of the legislature. It
was provided in the original Northwest Territories Act that as soon as any area of
1,000 square miles had 1,000 population it
should be made a constituency and elect a
member. Under that plan I find upon looking at the records that in the year 1885
Assiniboia had eight members in the Northwest Council, Alberta had four and Saskatchewan
had only one. In 1887 I find that
Assiniboia had eight members, Alberta five
and Saskatchewan one. The population of
Saskatchewan only entitled it to one member
in the Northwest Council. In 1888 this parliament created the first legislative assembly
in the Northwest Territories. A Conservative government was in power then, and,
strange to say, they made a redistribution
for that legislature. They did not refer the
matter to the courts. That redistribution
was made on this floor. Twenty-two elected members were provided for the legislature,
and of these eleven were given to Assiniboia, six to Alberta and no less than
five to Saskatchewan. What was the population ? The previous census showed that
Assiniboia had 16,408, Alberta 4,871 and
Saskatchewan 1,792, exclusive of Indians.
Those 1,792 people were given five members
as against only six members for the 4,871
people in Alberta and the eleven members
for the 16,408 in Assiniboia. Surely a terrible outrage was committed there. But
nobody seemed to think it. Nobody said
anything about it. Saskatchewan, in 1888,
was given five members in a house of
twenty-two members on a census population
of 1,792, or an average unit of 358 souls for
each seat ; Alberta was given six members
on a population of 4,871, an average of 812
per seat, or more than 100 per cent difference ; while Assiniboia, with eleven members,
had a population of 16, 408, with a unit
of roundly 1,500 as against a little more
than 300 for Saskatchewan. On previous
days we have been asked to point to a
parallel case of this parliament providing a redistribution for a new provincial
legislature. Here is a parallel case. This
parliament did exactly what we are doing now in 1888 when creating the first
legislature.
Mr. LAKE. In what year was the census
taken ?
Mr. SCOTT. Probably in the year 1885.
I may say that I have gleaned these figures
from discussions out of 'Hansard.' That
was a real and terrible outrage, and doubtless the first thing the assembly did when
they got an opportunity was to remedy this
outrage. Five members given to that popu
8735
lation ! Of course, they represented a very
large portion of the country, and possibly
area was considered, a very heinous offence
in the opinion of the hon. leader of the opposition. Surely the Conservative government
must have considered the area in
granting five members to 1,700 people.
Well, now, the legislature was convened,
but there was not a word said in the legislature, as far as I can find, about that
awful
outrage ; but, on the contrary, three years
afterwards, although the population of Saskatchewan had not increased probably any
faster than the population of other parts of
the country, the first legislature in their first
redistribution increased the representation
of Saskatchewan to six members. Possibly
in the year 1891 they had very recent
census figures to guide them. I find that
by the census taken in 1891 Saskatchewan
had a population of 11,150, Alberta 25,277
and Assiniboia 30,372. Saskatchewan was
given six members by the legislature, not
by this parliament, with an average of 1,858
souls per seat, while Assiniboia was
given eleven seats on a population
of 30,372, or an average of 2,531,
while Alberta was held down to 8 seats
with a population of 25,277, or an average
of 3,159, or pretty nearly 100 per cent there
again, done by the legislature itself. I find
that sixteen years ago this parliament gave
Saskatchewan a representation of 5 seats
out of 22, with a unit of only 358 population as against Assiniboia's unit of no less
than 1,500. And 13 years ago the legislature itself gave Saskatchewan a representation
of 6 out of a total of 26 seats with a
unit of only 1,858 as against Alberta's unit
of 3,159. Now we are giving the same district of Saskatchewan out of practically 50
—because keeping in mind the province of
Alberta we are dealing with the whole Territory—we are giving the Saskatchewan
area 9 seats out of a total of 50. I find
upon making a calculation—like my hon.
friend (Mr. Lake) I would not be willing to
swear to the last figure of this calculation,
but roughly speaking it is correct—we are
giving the Saskatchewan area 9 seats with
a unit of roundly 2,850 population as against
a unit of 3,250 for the balance of the Territory, if we take the last census, or a
unit
of 830 votes cast as against a unit of 930
votes cast in the balance of the Territories,
if we take the vote last fall. If there was no
outrage perpetrated by this parliament in
1888 and no outrage perpetrated by the legislature 3 years later, it seems to me it
will be difficult to work up an outrage
out of what is being proposed in this Bill.
My hon. friend (Mr. Lake) has referred to
some of the alternative propositions which
were made at this recent conference between himself and his leader and some
members on this side of the House. He
complained very grievously in his criticism
the other evening against the disparities
not only between the north and the south,
but against the disparities that existed in
8735
8736
the part of the new province which is composed by the old district of Assiniboia ;
or
at all events some of his complaints were
based upon discrepancies which we find do
exist even in that perfect distribution which
was made by the assembly three years ago.
He complained that Moosejaw had a very
large area and a disproportionately large
population. That is being remedied by this
Bill. A seat is taken from the north and is
given to the city of Moosejaw, leaving the
district of Moosejaw in a fairly average
position so far as population and votes cast
is concerned. He complained also that certain of the other districts, Souris, Cannington
and South Qu'Appelle, had disproportionate
votes compared with some other districts,
and what he said in that regard was perfectly true. But I think my hon. friend (Mr.
Lake) himself will be the first to admit that
there was no disadvantage to the Conservative party in any of these disparities to
which
he drew pointed attention. Take the district
of Souris and the district of Cannington,
which have a large population, these are the
parts of the country in which my hon. friend
from East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) got his
majority last fall, and even the fact that
Moosejaw had a disproportionate vote and
a disproportionate population did not involve any disadvantage to the Conservative
party, because Moosejaw is a part of the
country which never gave anything else
but a Liberal majority since it has existed. However, when the conference met,
recognizing very clearly that there were unfair disparities in the old district of
Assiniboia under the assembly's plan, and some of
these disparities being such that the people
of the local communities have sent down
grievous complaints, I took it upon myself
to suggest that even if we gave 9 seats to
the north and held the south down to 16
seats, that did not compel us to have these
disparities remain if we could arrive at an
agreement as to the remedy. I suggested
to my hon. friend (Mr. Lake) that there was
a part of the country on the main line of
the Canadian Pacific Railway to the eastern part of the province where the assembly's
redistribution left the area very small,
where also the vote last fall was comparatively small, and where the most reliable
information that we can get goes to show
that the population increase is almost infinitesimal in comparison with the increase
in other parts of the country. I suggested that there were four districts. Moosomin,
Whitewood, Grenfell and Wolseley,
which might very fairly be put into three
districts and that would enable us to provide a new district in the Soo line country
with regard to which my hon. friend has
made complaint. I may say that I have
taken the liberty of drawing a map showing these changes. The officials of the department
so far have been too busy to draw
up the schedule to describe this map, but
I think I can give in a very few moments
a brief statement of the changes I propose
8737
JULY 4, 1905
from the government map. Maple Creek
is an enormous district in area, and I think
it would be fair to cut it down a little, and
so I propose to take off three ranges from
the easterly edge and throw these three
ranges into the district of Moosejaw. I
think the district of Moosejaw can very
well stand the addition of these three ranges.
I change the northern boundaries of the
districts of Maple Creek and Moosejaw from
the north line of township 27 to the north
line of township 26, thus taking an additional line of townships off Maple Creek and
off
Moosejaw and adding that line of townships
to the northern districts, Battleford, Saskatoon and Batoche. Coming to the other
part of the map I propose to add a range
line to the district of Moosomin on the west
side, taking it off the district of Whitewood.
Coming over to the district of Wolseley I
propose to take a range line off Grenfell and
add it on to Wolseley, and then throw the
districts of Whitewood and Grenfell into
one. Thus I propose to make four districts
into three. I propose to remedy the grievance with regard to Souris and Cannington
by cutting off four ranges from the west of
these districts. Then I propose to draw a
line through the district of South Qu'Appelle on the north line of township 10.
These portions taken off the districts of
Cannington, Souris and the south part of
Qu'Appelle will form a new Soo line district, according to the suggestion of my hon.
friend (Mr. Lake).
Mr. LAKE. How far west does that district go?
Mr. SCOTT. I propose also to take two
ranges off the district of South Regina. By
this map South Regina would lose two
ranges on the east side up as far as the
north line of township 10. I have already
said that we should not go on the population
of last census as a basis, and I do not think
it would be fair to go entirely on the vote
last fall. I think the committee will agree
with me that possibly the fairest basis that
can be obtained is to take the census
population together with the homestead entries that have been made in the various
parts of the country since the census was
taken four years ago; calculate that each
entry is worth so many people, say three if
you like; multiply each homestead entry
by three, and by that means we will, arrive
fairly at what is the present population of
these various parts of the country. Does
my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle suggest that
that is not a fair method?
Mr. LAKE. Certainly it is not a fair
basis, to consider that a homestead entry in
a new district will bring as many people
into the country proportionately as a homestead entry in an old district. It is not
a
fair basis for showing the increase of the
population.
Mr. SCOTT. I think the committee will
agree with me that it is an approximately
8737
8738
fair basis. We cannot arrive at the absolute facts with regard to the present population
of that country. If we find a number
of homestead entries in a particular area,
and calculate that each entry will account
for a certain number of people, and apply
the same rule in all parts of the
country we shall not be very far out. I
find that in these four districts of Moosomin, Whitewood, Grenfell and Wolseley,
which my hon. friend thinks is so
unfair to suggest should be thrown into
three, there was a census population in
1901 as follows : Moosomin, 5,163 ; Whitewood, 3,733 ; Grenfell, 3,956 ; Wolseley,
4,059 ; making a total of 16,911. There have
been homestead entries in these four districts since the census was taken as follows
: In Moosomin, 631 ; in Whitewood,
690 ; in Grenfell, 1,038 ; in Wolseley, 1,131 ;
a total of 3,490. Now, I propose to multiply
these homestead entries by three, and I get
this result—that the homestead entries mean
an addition to the population in these four
districts since the census was taken of
10,470. Add that to the census population,
we get 27,421 as an estimated present population in these four districts. I may say
that
these four districts cast an aggregate vote
last fall of 5,071. If we make them into
three districts, we shall have a population
unit of 9,140, and an average vote cast last
fall in each of the three districts of 1,690.
Now, my hon. friend objected very strongly
to my proposition to make four districts out
of Souris, Cannington and Qu'Appelle. I
am going to present the same calculation in
regard to them. The census population of
these three districts in 1901 was as follows :
Souris, 5,704; Cannington, 3,485; Qu'Appelle,
5,530 ; a total of 14,719. There have been
homestead entries made in these districts
as follows : In Souris, 2,998 ; in Cannington,
2,354 ; in Qu'Appelle, 2,865 ; a total of 8,217,
as against a total of 3,490 in my hon.
friend's four districts. Multiply this total
of homestead entries by three, and we get
an estimated increase of population in these
three districts of 24,651. Add that to the
total census population of 14,719, and we get
a present estimated population for these
three districts of 39,370 as against 27,421 in
my hon. friend's four districts which I propose to make into three. Now, if I make
these three districts into four, there will be
a population unit for each of the four districts of 9,842 as against a population
unit
of 9,140 for each of the three districts which
I make out of the four districts of my hon.
friend ; and I find that last fall we had
an average vote in each of the four districts
which I make out of these three districts of
1,889 as against an average vote in each of
the three districts which I make out of my
hon. friend's four districts of 1,690. Does
my hon. friend tell me that that is not fair ?
Does he tell me that the suggestion he has
made is a more equitable one ? His districts
are less in area, less in votes cast, less in
8739 COMMONS
registered votes, less in homestead entries,
less in every respect, than the three districts out of which I propose to get an
additional district for the purpose of the
new population on the Soo line. My iron.
friend says these four districts are old
settlements. So they are; but what does
he propose to do ? He proposes to get a
district for that Soo line country from just
as old a settlement as the district he is
speaking about. He proposes to take the
district of Lumsden, which polled a vote
last fall considerably larger than the votes
polled in some of these four districts which
he has taken under his care, and which
has so large an area that you could put
almost the whole of those four districts
into it, and which had about four times
the number of homestead entries since
the census was taken of any single one of
those four districts of his, and he proposes
to take twenty-one townships just south of
Regina, the most thickly settled in the
Northwest Territories, and add them to the
district of Lumsden ; and he calls that fair.
He calls that leaving undisturbed the old
settled areas. I have occupied the attention
of the committee a great deal longer than
I should have done or than I had any intention of doing. As we sometimes do the
work in committee by conversation more
than by set speech, some of the other information which I have may more properly
be presented in that way.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The curious part
of the schedule proposed for the new province of Saskatchewan is that every one of
the arguments made by hon. gentlemen on
the other side of the House, and especially
by the Prime Minister and the Minister of
the Interior, in the case of Alberta, is absolutely destructive of 'the schedule now
proposed. In Alberta reliance was placed
by this side of the House upon the federal
distribution of 1903. A resolution based
upon it was voted down. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken relies upon it in
Saskatchewan. Reliance was placed by the
Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior on the principle that electors in
rural
constituencies should have a greater voice
in the legislature than those in urban constituencies. That principle has been shown
by my hon. friend from Qu' Appelle to have
been entirely cast aside in the proposed distribution. Reliance was then placed on
the
voters' lists, coupled with information derived from the number of schools, the number
of post offices, and the number of homestead entries. If you take the voters' lists,
the schools, the post offices and the homestead entries, you will find that this proposed
distributiop cannot be sustained as
an equitable divisron for one moment.
Take the census of 1901, which was relied
upon to some extent in Alberta, and apply
it to this, and you have most extraordinary
results. In other words. if you take all the
8739
8740
information and data, which were used for
the purpose of supporting the Alberta division and apply it to Saskatchewan,
you have the best possible argument to
show that the latter is absolutely unfair,
unjust and improper. My hon. friend from
Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) has gone over the
whole subject so thoroughly that not very
much needs to be said in addition. Let us
just take two illustrations—the district of,
Humboldt and the district of Souris. You
will find that by the census of 1901 there
were 582 souls in Humboldt and 5,704 in
Souris, or nearly ten times the population
in the one that is contained in the other.
Each one of these is given a member. If
you eliminate the Indians, you find the comparison still worse. Humboldt had in 1901
a population of 271 souls and Souris a population of 5,704. Each one of these districts
is now entitled to a representative. Take
the votes recorded—178 in Humboldt, 2,554
in Souris; votes registered, 298 in Humboldt,
3,348 in Souris. Between these two extremes you have every possibly variety of
constituency that can be imagined, both as
regards area and population. Another principle which has been absolutely cast to the
winds is the supposed principle, relied upon
in the case of Alberta, that the area was to
be taken. into consideration—that a constituency with a very large area might be entitled
to a representative although it had
a comparatively small population. Well.
observe numbers 16 and 17. Number 16,
Maple Creek, with votes polled to the number of 8-16 and registered to the number
of
1,198, and an area of 20,699 square miles,
is given one member. Humboldt, with
178 votes polled, 298 registered, and an
area of 7,057 square miles, or about one—
third the area of the other, is given one
member.
Mr. ADAMSON. Are you aware of the
present population of Humboldt ?
Mr. ADAMSON. I can state that the
present population of Humboldt is between
8,000 and 10,000.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. We are bound to
give the hon. gentleman's statement all the
consideration it deserves; but when we
are told that a population of perhaps 1,500
has increased in less than a year to 8,000 or
10,000, that affords the best possible reason
for having the delimitation determined by
a tribunal which could investigate the accuracy of such statements. We do not want
to delimit these constituencies according to what one or another may tell
us some unnamed person has told
him. We heard from the Minister
of the Interior that some unnamed person
had told him there were 5,000 persons, exclusive of Indians, in that portion of Athabaska
to be included in the new province
of Alberta. We have no evidence beyond
8741
JULY 4, 1905
that statement. I am willing to give my
hon. friend's statement every consideration,
but I have yet to learn that he is absolutely
infallible in these matters, which are matters of opinion and not of personal knowledge.
Mr. ADAMSON. I have been frequently
through that district on business. The
homestead entries will show there must have
been a large influx of settlers. There are
now four towns there.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Very good, let us
take the homestead entries, and we find a
very great discrepancy in the representation
given to the 16 and the 9 constituencies.
There are 31,000 homestead entries in the
16 constituencies in the south as compared
with 17,424 in the 9 constituencies in the
north, yet not very much regard seems to
have been attached to that consideration in
the making out of this schedule. Although
we have a population nearly three times
greater, according, to the census of 1901, in
the south we have 16 members allotted
to one portion of the province and 9
to the other. Assuming that the population has increased in the same ratio as the
homestead entries, we would not find any
change such as would justify the distribution the government proposes to make.
Mr. LAMONT. Is not the proportion of
9 members to 17,000 homestead entries just
about the same as 16 members to 31,000
homestead entries ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Suppose it is, that
would seem to indicate that the population
in the south has increased as much as in the
north.
Mr. LAMONT. Would not that also indicate that 9 members for the 17,000 is the
same proportion as for the 31,000 ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Not at all. The
population of the 9 constituencies, as I have
heard my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr.
Lake) give it, was about 26,000 according to
the census of 1901, out of a total of 90,000.
Mr. LAMONT. That would be for Saskatchewan, but these 9 take in a considerable portion of Assiniboia
as well, which
would not be considered as belonging to the
Saskatchewan population.
Mr. LAKE. The population was exclusive of Indians, 20,769 in Saskatchewan, and
61,008 in Assiniboia.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The difference to
which the hon. gentleman has just referred
would not very much affect the result of the
calculation. You have a population of
20,000 against a population of 61,000. You
have homestead entries in the north to the
number of 17,424 and in the south to the
number of 31,611. The inevitable result is
that if you base a distribution upon the
population, according to the census of 1901,
8741
8742
and according to the subsequent homestead
entries, you could not possibly arrive at any
such result as that which the government
is attempting to embody in the proposed
schedule. Let us take their number of post
offices, on which great reliance was placed
in the case of Alberta. There are 100 in
Saskatchewan and 285 in Assiniboia. Then
take the schools, upon which the Minister
of the Interior placed perhaps the strongest
reliance and so did the First Minister, when
dealing with Alberta—according to a return brought down to the House from the
government of the Territories, there are
200 schools in Saskatchewan and 575 in
Assiniboia. Base it on any information
you like, you cannot work out any such
result as that which the government desires to enforce in making its distribution.
I have looked over, with some interest,
the proposal which my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) has submitted to the
committee as a basis of what may be accomplished if you propose to distribute the
seats in Saskatchewan upon an even basis
of population. He has divided the province
into 25 constituencies. I observe that the
least number of voters which he gives
to any constituency is 1,200, and the
highest 1,825. The average in 16 constituencies in the southern part of the province
is 1,550, and in the 9 constituencies in the
northern part of the province, 1,425. There
is not, it is true, absolute equality of population. It would be difficult, if not
impossible to work that out. But when you consider 1,200 on the voters' list in the
lowest
division and 1,825 in the highest division,
and compare that with what is proposed by
the government with respect to Humboldt
and Redberry on the one hand and Souris
and South Qu'Appelle on the other hand, it
seems to me absolutely obvious that it is
possible without any difficulty, to make
a fairer and more equitable distribution of
seats in this province than is proposed by
this Bill. I regret that the efforts made to
bring about some compromise with regard to
this vexed matter have not been successful.
I am bound to say that I think that my
hon. friend from Qu'Appelle is not in fault
in that regard, because while he has strong
opinions on this question, I have always
found him moderate in his views and willing to accept any reasonable compromise.
I do not think that the distribution proposed
by the government in Saskatchewan is any
better than that in Alberta. I say that for
the information of the hon. member for
West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). I think that
they are very much alike, except that, if
possible, there is even a greater discrepancy
between Humboldt and Souris in Saskatchewan than any that is to be found in the
province of Alberta, if we accept the evidence of the Minister of the Interior as
to
the northern ridings of the province. It is
perfectly obvious that no principle was
selected in the first place upon which these
8743
8744
provinces should be divided into constituencies. There was a delimitation made of
Alberta, and then principles were sought
upon which to base that distribution. There
was a delimitation of Saskatchewan and
entirely different principles are invoked to
support it. It seems obvious that in each
case the redistribution was made first and
the principles to justify it sought afterwards.
Mr. LAMONT. The hon. member for
Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) has submitted to
this House a mass of statistics which, perhaps, have satisfied his mind that he has
a
grievance against this redistribution. He
has made a number of comparisons in order
to show that the schedule submitted by the
government works an injustice to the
south as against the north. He does
not complain that the government has
made a gerrymander in the ordinary
sense of the word—that is, that it
has hived the Conservatives in the north in
order to enable the surrounding districts
to return Liberals. His whole complaint
is against the representation given to the
north as against that given to the south.
And he has, as has already been stated,
submitted a schedule of his own under
which two seats which are given to the
north according to the government schedule
are taken away from the north and given
to the south.
Now, let us see where we stand in this
matter and what are the conditions fronting
us as a committee in distributing the districts of the province of Saskatchewan. We
find that the Northwest Territories are divided into two provinces, the dividing line
being the 4th meridian. In the province of
Saskatchewan, there were, according to the
territorial redistribution, twenty seats out of
thirty-five in the territorial legislature. And
we also find that, according to this Bill,
we are to give twenty-five seats to the new
province of Saskatchewan. So, the task
before us is to divide the province of Saskatchewan in such a way that it will have
twenty-five seats distributed as fairly as possible. My hon. friend (Mr. Lake) has
made
his comparisons as between the north and
the south, and he has taken as his dividing line the line between the old districts
of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Now, I propose to make several comparisons between
the north and the south, but I do not propose to follow the line heretofore followed
and take the district of Saskatchewan as
the north and the district of Assiniboia as
the south. It seems to me that that is a
most unfair way to divide the two districts into north and south. I am going
on another basis. I find that in the Haultain redistribution of 1902 there were
twenty seats in the new province of Saskatchewan. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr.
Lake) and the hon. member
from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) have
8743
COMMONS
stated to this committee that the Haultain redistribution of 1902 was absolutely fair
and just. Well, I am prepared to take it as a basis. I will take the ten southern
seats according to that
redistribution and the ten northern seats,
and then I will endeavour to ascertain into
which of these districts—the ten northern
seats or the ten southern seats— we ought
to put a majority of the new seats which
are to be given to the province of Saskatchewan. We have five new seats to be
added to the twenty under the Haultain
redistribution, and the question, to my mind,
is where should these seats be put in order
to make a fair distribution. Now, if the
ten northern seats show a vastly greater
increase in population than do the ten southern seats, it is reasonable that the majority
of the five should go to the north. If the
ten southern seats show the greater
increase of population, the bulk of the
five seats should go to the south.
The ten southern seats are as follows :
Souris, Cannington, Moosomin, Whitewood,
Grenfell, Wolseley, South Qu'Appelle, South
Regina, Moosejaw, and Maple Creek,
I call these the ten southern seats
for the following reason : They are the
ten seats which touch the southern boundary line of the new province or are the
nearest to it according to the Haultain distribution. They correspond practically
to
the three southern seats of the federal redistribution of two years ago. Maple Creek,
Moosejaw and South Regina are in the district represented by my hon. friend from
Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). The other
districts correspond very closely to the district represented by the hon. member for
Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) and the hon. member
for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). The ten
northern seats correspond very closely to
the northern seats as laid down by the
federal redistribution. Whatever difference
there may be is in favour of the south. I
find the actual difference to be that there
are 124 townships which should belong to
the north that are included in the south in
the eastern part of the territory, and 264
townships that should belong to the south
are included in the north in the western
part of the territory. So that there are
140 townships, according to that calculation
in favour of the south. Now then the
question is, do these ten southern districts
show a larger increase of population since
the Haultain redistribution than the ten
northern seats. I have based my calculation upon the census population of 1901
and upon the homestead entries since, for
notwithstanding what my hon. friend for
Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) may say, it does seem
to me that the homestead entries form one of
the soundest bases on which to calculate population. Have there been more homestead
entries since 1901 in the ten northern than
in the 10 southern districts ? I find the following :
8745
JULY 4, 1905
8746
|
Ten northern seats. |
Ten southern seats. |
|
(Not including Arthabaska.) |
|
Sq. miles. |
Sq. miles. |
| Area.. .. .. .. .. .. |
91,330 |
57,460 |
| Census population in 1901 . . |
50,818 |
38,369 |
| Homestead entries since
1901 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
30,576 |
18,449 |
Of homestead entries since 1901 we have,
roughly speaking, 30,000 in the north and
18,000 in the south. If that is a fair basis
—and I submit it is a fair basis—then the
fairest division of the five new seats we
can make is to give to those ten northern
seats, in which there is an increase of 30,000 homestead entries, three seats, and
to
the southern group, in which there is an increase of 18,000 homestead entries, two
seats. This is still giving an advantage to
the south. There cannot be any dispute as
to these figures, because they are official, and
there is a reason why the increased population should appear in the north. Those
who are familiar with the country unhesitatingly say that the increase of population
during the last three or four years has been
largely in the north, and the reason, as was
pointed out by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), is that in the north
two
lines of railway have practically been built
—the main line of the Canadian Northern
running right across the province, and the
northern branch of the Canadian Northern
from Erwood, which is now built up to
within a few miles of Prince Albert. Then,
too, the Grand Trunk Pacific line has been
surveyed there, and every one knows that
a great number of settlers have gone in
along that survey and taken up homesteads.
As a matter of fact, we know that the northern country has progressed much more
rapidly than the south. We know that from
the homestead entries, which demonstrate beyond question the fact that the settlement
in
the north is proceeding much more rapidly
than in the south. Therefore, taking the homestead entries as a basis, 30,000 as against
18,000, it seems to me that no fairer distribution of the additional representation
could
be made than to give three to the north
and two to the south. I have estimated the
population upon these figures, and have
taken the same basis as the hon. member
for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) ; for each
homestead entry I have allowed three persons, and I have added to that the census
population of 1901. I find, according to
that calculation, in the ten southern districts
the present estimated population is 92,254,
while in the ten northern districts the estimated population is 141,646. These figures
not only justify the distribution of three new
seats in the north as against two in the
south, but taking into cousideration its
prospective increase of population, it certainly would justify four in the north and
one in the south, as in the government's
first schedule.
I shall compare a few of the figures that
8745
8745
have been given for the northern and the southern seats. I might point out that my
hon. friend for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) proposes to allow four of the new seats to the
south, while to the ten northern seats he is only allowing one new seat. Comparing
the figures for the two groups of districts, I find that he has retained unaltered
according to his map, a certain number of seats in the south. I shall take
the districts of Moosomin, Whitewood,
Grenfell and Wolseley. He has pointed
out that these are old districts, and he
has objected very strongly to any lessening of their representation. These four seats
have a census population of 16,051. Since
1901 there have been 3,480 homestead entries made in these four constituencies. Allowing
to each of these homestead entries
three persons, those four constituencies have
at the present moment a population of 26,491, or an average for each seat of 6,622.
Compare these with the four districts in the
north which my hon. friend says are
so much over-represented. Take Saskatoon,
Battleford, Kinistino and Batoche according to Mr. Haultain's redistribution. These
four districts have a census population of
14,123, but since 1901 there have been 15,386 homestead entries made within their
limits. Comparing these with the four seats
in the south, which have a census population of 16,051 as against a population of
14,123 for these four districts in the north,
and we find that the four southern seats
have only added to their population, in so
far as homestead entries would indicate,
the population represented by 3,480 entries,
while in these four northern divisions in
the same time there have been added the population represented by 15,386 homestead
entries. Following the same
principle of allowing three persons to each
homestead entry, we have a present population in this northern district of 61,281
as
against 26,491 in the south, or, while in
these four districts in the south 6,222 people can elect a member, it requires 15,320
people in the north, and yet my hon. friend
says that the north is being over-represented.
Now, I need not follow out these figures.
My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle has submitted a map, and in so far as he lays out
the same divisions as are laid out in the government schedule I think we may take
it
for granted that the government schedule
is perfectly correct. I find that the hon.
gentleman has made some criticism in regard to Redberry, but according to his own
schedule he makes a district of Redberry.
which corresponds fairly with the government one ; Battleford is practically the
same ; Rosthern is made a little smaller ;
Saskatoon is made smaller ; Prince Albert
city is cut out altogether and Humboldt is
cut out altogether and added to Batoche. I want to call the attention of
the committee to the facts in regard to
Humboldt. The hon. gentleman says that
Humboldt should not have separate repre
8747
COMMONS
sentation because it only cast 178 votes at
the last election. Any one who knows anything about that district, knows that two
years ago a German settlement went into
Humboldt from the United States numbering 4,500 people, and, as has been pointed out
by my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr.
Adamson), there is to-day in that district a
population of from 8,000 to 10,000 people.
Mr. LAKE. How does the hon. gentleman get at that calculation? Is he just accepting the statement
of the hon. member
for Humboldt?
Mr. LAMONT. Just wait a moment and
I will show you how I arrive at that. The
census population of Humboldt in 1901 was
582. But since that time there have
been made 2,274 homestead entries. Following the same principle of allowing
three persons for each homestead entry
that gives as far as homestead entries
are concerned a population of 6,822,
and including the population of 582
as set out in the census of 1901, a total
population of 7,304 without counting any
of the town population, and everybody who
has gone over the main line of the Canada
Northern Railway knows that there are
very considerable towns growing up along
that line. Therefore, I think that my hon.
friend from Humboldt is well within the
mark when he says that there is a population in the district of Humboldt of between
8,000 and 10,000 people. My hon. friend
from Qu'Appelle thinks that population is
not entitled to one representative and that
Humboldt should be added to Batoche. Now,
I have here the figures which my hon. friend
has read showing the homestead entries
for the different districts, and I find that in
Batoche in 1901 there was a census population of 1,970 and in Humboldt a census
population of 582. In addition, in Batoche,
according to this list, there have been since
1901 2,594 homesteads entered and in Humboldt 2,274, making a total of 4,868. Following
the same principle of allowing three
persons to each homestead, we have a present population in the district to which my
hon. friend would only allow one member
of over 16,000 people.
Mr. LAKE. I had better say right here
to my hon. friend from Saskatchewan that I
think he certainly is not correctly describing the boundaries of any of the districts
which he has referred to as my distribution.
Mr. LAMONT. In order that I shall not
misrepresent my hon. friend I will put his
map on the table so that it may be seen by
any one who wishes to refer to it. I think,
Mr. Chairman, I ought to call the attention
of the committee to this map and to show
the committee the beautiful redistribution
of my hon. friend. Whether or not he felt
that the member for the Cannington district
would have some difficulty in getting to
Regina I cannot say, but he has built a
beautiful series of steps that look as if
they were calculated to assist him very ma
8747
8748
terially in getting there. It seems to me
that the only difference between my hon.
friend from Qu'Appelle and hon. members
on this side of the House is that he refuses
to consider that these citizens who are from
the United States or from Europe and who
had not been in the country for three years
before last fall so as to be able to get their
names on the voters' list should be entitled
to representation. We think they should be
entitled to representation. They are there
on the ground and developing the resources
of the country, and the fact that they are
yet American citizens is not in my opinion
a sufficient reason, although it may be a
sufficient reason in the opinion of my hon.
friend, for depriving them of a voice in
the affairs of this country.
Mr. LAKE. I have no intention of depriving American citizens of fair representation. They
are scattered through the
whole length and breadth of the country
from north to south.
Mr. LAMONT. My hon. friend cannot
deny, as the homestead entries prove beyond a doubt, that the number of new settlers
who have gone into the north far exceeds the number who have gone into the
south.
Mr. LAMONT. Well, I submit that the
homestead entries demonstrate that the ten
northern districts, according to Mr. Haultain's redistribution which my hon. friend
says is fair, shows 30,000 entries as against
18,000 for the southern districts. To my
mind that is conclusive. Even though a
very large number of these 30,000 people had not been in the country for three
years last fall, yet we know that they
are improving their farms, they are improving the country, they have come here on
our invitation and they require roads and
bridges and schools to as great an extent
and perhaps greater than the settlers in
the older districts of whose interests
my hon. friend has been so solicitous. In the older districts the settlers
have better roads than in the newer districts. Their interests have been looked
after in the past ; their schools are established and their roads and bridges are
practically built, and they will not require the
same amount of attention on the part of
the government that the newer settlers will.
It seems to me that this ground of difference
is the only one between us. The hon. gentleman has made a calculation of the
voters on the lists, but there were
thousands and thousands of settlers in
that northern country who had not
been there three years and were consequently not entitled to have their names on the
lists. The hon. gentleman cuts out Humboldt and Prince Albert. As the member
for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has said,
we have adopted the principle of giving to
incorporated cities a member, and if we
8749
JULY 4, 1905
give a member to Calgary, Regina and
Moosejaw, I do not see on what principle
Prince Albert can be cut out. There are a
few facts to which I will call attention in
reference to the Prince Albert seat. Until
the redistribution of 1902, which my hon.
friend (Mr. Lake) says was fair and just,
Prince Albert had two seats, East and West
Prince Albert, and the Haultain administration in 1902 cut out one of these seats,
putting a large portion of it into Prince Albert
West forming one seat, and putting the
polling divisions down the Saskatchewan
river into Kinistino. To my mind and
to the mind of the Prince Albert
people that was most unjust. It was
stated in the district, it was stated in
the legislature that it was an unjust gerrymander, and the votes cast at the next
election proved that to be the case. The Haultain government took away one seat from
Prince Albert and formed a new seat of
Saskatoon. Prince Albert at the next election had a vote of 771 while Saskatoon had
a vote of only 376. Between Prince Albert
and Kinistino was divided the extra territory which up to that time had been in
Prince Albert. Up to that time there had
been three seats, but by the 1902 redistribution they only were given two. These
two seats provided a vote of 1,453 at the
next election whereas the three other seats
in Saskatchewan in which elections were held
gave only 1,065 votes, so that the Haultain
administration divided 1,065 votes into three
seats, whereas they only divided 1,453 votes
into two seats, taking one seat away from
Prince Albert. Yet my hon. friend (Mr.
Lake) says that was a fair redistribution.
It was stated over and over again on the
platform and elsewhere that the reason for
cutting off one seat from Prince Albert was
because Prince Albert East and Prince Albert West returned two strong opponents of
the Haultain government, while Saskatoon
was supposed to be friendly, and at the
next election Saskatoon returned a government supporter, while in the two seats that
had been fused into one in Prince Albert the
government nominee lost his deposit. Now,
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up the
time of the committee further. It seems to me
that if we look at this question on fair and
broad principles, if we take the 10 southern and the 10 northern seats as laid out
by
Mr. Haultain—and in which distribution my
hon. friend (Mr. Lake) had a part—and if
we take the homestead entries in each of
these 10 seats since 1901 we are forced to
the conclusion that a fair distribution of the
extra five seats we have to add to Saskatchewan, would be 3 to the north and 2 to
the
south. In my opinion if we were to consider the prospective increase, it should
be 4 in the north and 1 in the south, but
certainly not less than 3 in the north and 2
in the south. I believe that before the next
local election, if the term of the legislature
runs four years, there will be a vastly
8749
8750
greater population in the north than there
is in the south.
Mr. LAKE. My hon. friend (Mr. Lamont)
has taken up a great deal of time trying
to prove what a terrible gerrymander was
made by the Haultain government in 1902,
but the opinion of the gentleman (Mr. Scott)
who sits beside him was very different at
the time the Haultain redistribution was
made. The Regina ' Leader ' of the 24th of
April, 1902, says :
The other matter is the Redistribution Bill,
in regard to which not even the faintest odour
of gerrymander could be detected. The prevailing idea in the distribution is the basis
of population and area combined, and the principle
acted upon is very similar to that in the Dominion Acts for a similar purpose ; these
have
the population of Quebec as a starting point,
and Mr. Haultain takes the population of Saskatchewan.
Mr. LAKE. The paper of the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. LAMONT. The hon. member for
West Assiniboia was a very strong supporter of Mr. Haultain's then, I would presume
from that article.
Mr. BARKER. But he would not say
what was not true ?
Mr. LAMONT. Read what the Prince
Albert 'Advocate' said about it and you
will get the other side.
Mr. LAKE. I was in the legislature at
that time, and I know that there was no
criticism to amount to anything of that distribution. It was generally accepted as
fair.
Mr. LAMONT. Did not Mr. Mackay state
on the floor of the legislature that it was a
very bad gerrymander?
Mr. LAKE. Mr. Mackay was the only
one who suggested the idea of gerrymander
at all, and he did it, not in a very determined
manner. He was a member of the opposition at the time and if the rest of the members
of the opposition had any idea that
there was a gerrymander, the Bill would not
have gone through as it did in the course of
a few minutes, accepted practically by the
whole House without discussion. In the
distribution, as the Regina ' Leader ' said,
Saskatchewan is taken as a basis and one
member was given for every 4,279 of the
population according to the census of the
previous year. In Assiniboia one member
was given for every 4,492 of the population,
and in Alberta one member for every 4,700
of the population. It was as even a distribution as it was possible to make. If there
had been only the same differences in the
present Bill we should not have had much
to say against it.
8751
Mr. SCOTT. Will my hon. friend (Mr.
Lake) permit me to point out that if he
will calculate the result of that redistribution upon the basis of the most recent
vote
in the Territories at the previous federal
election, as we are compelled to some extent
to do in this case, he will find a very great
disparity. Saskatchewan was given 6 seats,
and the old Assiniboia 15 seats, while the
vote polled the previous November showed
11,857 for Assiniboia as against 2,529 for
Saskatchewan, being an average in Assiniboia of 790 votes for each member as
against only 420 in Saskatchewan. This
will tend to show to the committee what
an insecure basis we are obliged under present circumstances to go upon.
Mr. LAKE. The hon. gentleman is referring to the votes polled ?
Mr. LAKE. That is the basis the Minister
of the Interior took for the distribution he
has given in both of these Bills.
Mr. LAKE. I quoted the Minister of the
Interior's own remarks, which I think were
pretty absolute in regard to that matter.
That was the first basis of distribution.
He said : ' The basis of the division of the
constituencies was necessarily the vote cast ;
it was the latest and most accurate estimate
we could get.' In another place he said :
'The definite division of the constituencies
is based on the vote actually polled on the
3rd of November.' The hon. member for
Saskatchewan made a very long argument
in regard to north and south, as he would
make the division. I do not propose to follow
him into that question. He makes a very
arbitrary division when he brings one of his
northern constituencies apparently down to
the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think that will be sufficient for
any
one acquainted with that country to estimate the value of the hon. gentleman's remarks
in that respect. Then, in endeavouring to prove from the homestead entries
what a very large population had gone into
the north, he took an all-round estimate that
three would be about the proportlon of individuals who would go with each homestead
entry. When he endeavoured to apply this
principle to the absolute statement of the
hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Adamson)
as to the population in that constituency,
he found that it fell short of the estimate
made by the hon. member for Humboldt.
In order to make up for this deficiency, he immediately said this was outside of the
numbers who had gone into the
towns which were springing up all along the
line. Once he departs from that general
basis of three to every homestead entry, his
whole argument falls to the ground ; because I contend that he cannot compare an
entirely new country, which is being opened
8751
8752
up for the first time, and in which every
man who goes into it for business purposes
or any other purposes, immediately makes a
homestead entry with the older settled portions of the country, such as the Indian
Head district, which has been referred to, in
which every bit of vacant land has for years
been taken up, and into which great numbers of new population have been coming.
There people who go in to farm, being unable to find homesteads, buy lands. Then,
an immense number of labourers go in to
work, and business men to carry on business
in the towns ; and these have no opportunity
of finding homesteads. So that it is absurd
to take for granted generally that for every
homestead entry in a particular district,
three people have come into that district.
Certainly three people would be no fair estimate in the older districts ; probably
four
would be nearer the mark ; whereas in the
newer districts probably every other person
who comes in makes a homestead entry. As
I said when the hon. member for Saskatchewan was speaking, his verbal description
of the distribution which I submitted to the
committee was an absolutely incorrect one.
I do not think I need go any further. Any
one who chooses to look at that map and
compare it with his statements as they appear in ' Hansard ' will find [that he has
not
correctly described the constituencies which
he undertook to criticise ; so that I do not
think I need follow his remarks in that respect.
Mr. LAMONT. Will my hon. friend state
what the inaccuracy in my description was ?
Mr. LAKE. He said I left the district of
Redberry as it was.
Mr. LAMONT. I did not say that. I said
that the hon. gentleman had made the district of Redberry, and had added to it
Battleford.
Mr. LAKE. The hon. gentleman also said
that I added Humboldt to Batoche. I did
not add the whole of Humboldt to Batoche.
The hon. gentleman, perhaps unintentionally,
did not give a fair description of those constituencies. My hon. friend from Western
Assiniboia proposed to cut up four constituencies in Eastern Assiniboia—Moosomin,
Whitewood, Grenfell and Wolseley—and
make three of them, and he compared that
proposal with the alternative suggestion I
made on the spur of the moment, to the disadvantage of that suggestion. The hon. gentleman's
proposal would work out on the
basis of numbers on the voters' lists as follows : Moosomin, 2,282 ; Broadview, 2,280
;
Wolseley, 1,850. These are figures which I
took from the figures at my disposal. The
average of these four constituencies, as I
have stated before, is already above the
average throughout the whole province of
Saskatchewan. I suggest that we should
take the three constituencies around Regina,
which are considerably below that average,
8753
JULY 4, 1905
and add to the portions of south Qu'Appelle,
Souris and Cannington, and thus remove a
certain amount of congestion in those three
districts.
Mr. SCOTT. The vote polled in Lumsden
was just about up to the average, and since
the census of 1901 almost as many homestead entries have been made in Lumsden
as in the four districts. Yet my hon. friend
proposes to add to that district of Lumsden,
which is already big enough, both in area
and population, a portion of the thickly
settled territory in the neighbourhood of
Regina—twenty-one townships as thickly
settled as any in the Territories, with an
area almost as large as Wolseley.
Mr. LAKE. The figures which my alternative suggestion shows would give to Lumsden 2,230 votes.
That is less than two of
the constituencies which he proposes to
create in the eastern part along the main
line. It would still leave the city of Regina, with a very small vote under 1,000,
and it would make South Regina up to
about 2,270. Curiously enough they work
out in exactly the same figures, according
to the calculation which I made.
Mr. SCOTT. According to my figures I
find that Lumsden had 3,096 of a population
according to the census of 1901, and cast
a vote last fall of 1,122 and there have been
homestead entries, since the census of 1901,
in that district to the number of 3,254.
Does my hon. friend contend that these new
homestead entries do not mean population ?
Lumsden shows 3,200 entries as against only
3,400 in the whole four districts of Moosomin, Whitewood, Grenfell and Wolseley, and
Lumsden is in the same class as the other
districts practically, except in the northern portion. The southern portion, particularly
in the neighbourhood of Regina,
is entirely the class of old-settled district
to which he refers and to which belong
Moosomin, Grenfell, Whitewood and Wolseley. The old settlers are to be found
there. According to my suggested division,
by putting these four districts into three,
we will have a record of the vote polled last
fall in the new districts of as follows :
Moosomin, 1,573 ; Broadview, 1,383 ; Wolseley, 1,366. Compare those with the two
districts on the north : Saltcoats, 1,473 ;
Yorkton, 1,081. On the other hand, take
the districts to the south, Souris will have
2,114, very much larger still than in the
other three which I make out of his four ;
Cannington, 1,508.
Mr. LAKE. How many will the three
Reginas then have ?
Mr. SCOTT. I will give the figures for
each of these according to the map I have
suggested. I take the votes polled : Souris,
2,114 ; Cannington, 1,508 ; Moosomin,
1,593 ; Broadview, 1,383 ; Wolseley, 1,366 ;
Saltcoats, 1,473 ; Yorkton, 1,081 ; Weyburn—
8753
8754
this is the new district on the Soo line
which I propose to create—1,282 ; South
Qu'Appelle, 1,383 ; North Qu'Appelle, 927.
I do not propose any change in the
North Qu'Appelle district. South Regina,
1,153 ; Regina city, 740 ; Lumsden, 1,122 ;
Moosejaw district, 1,168 ; Moosejaw city,
786 ; Maple Creek, 783. If my hon. friend
will look at that a moment, he must agree
with me that it is a fairer redistribution
than the government plan, observing what
was done three years ago by the legislature,
and very much fairer than his alternative
suggestion, by which he proposes to add
to a district, already fairly large in votes
cast, large in area, and exceedingly large in
the population which we must conclude has
come into it, judging by the number of homestead entries made since the census was
taken.
Mr. LAKE. If hon. members on that
side would take one basis of calculation,
we should begin to know where we are,
but it is absolutely impossible to follow
all their different positions. When it suits
their arguments in one district, they use
the basis of population according to the census of 1901 and add to their calculation
the
homestead entries. When it suits them in
another district to use another basis, they
take the votes polled. Let them take one
basis and hold to it all through. I could
not find a moment ago the average of the
votes on the lists in the three Reginas,
but I have it now. I am not taking the
votes polled in my calculation. The average
on the voters' lists was 1,344 in those three
Regina seats. The average voters on the
lists for Moosomin, Whitewood, Grenfell and
Wolseley, was 1,554, so that the hon. gentleman is taking four constituencies which
already, on an average, have a larger number of names on the voters' lists than the
average for the whole of the province. He
has just told us exactly how many votes
were polled in each of these new constituencies, which he has been redistributing.
How does he get at that ? For instance.
here I find the polling division of Yellow
Grass for the federal election had a voters'
list of 300 names. Right through the centre
of that polling division, which is a very large
one, containing some eight townships, goes
the dividing line between the two constituencies. How many does he reckon cast
their votes on the west side of the dividing line and how many on the east side ?
Mr. SCOTT. It seems to me that when we
have to come down to a dispute about individual cases in a matter dealing with so
large an area, we pretty nearly bring the
whole thing down to the level of farce.
Nobody imagines that these figures are accurate, but they are approximately so. If
there are divergencies on the one side, there
will be corresponding divergencles on the
other.
8755
Mr. LAKE. No one pretends they are
absolutely accurate, but I object to having
the number of votes polled taken as the
basis, because it is impossible even to get
near the number of persons qualified to
vote even in that way.
Mr. SCOTT. If my hon. friend will compare the number of votes polled with the
number given on the lists, which he contends are absolutely accurate, he will find
that the number of votes polled are given
with approximate accuracy, which is my
contention.
Mr. LAKE. The number of votes polled
as compared with the number on the lists
vary considerably in the different constituencies. In one of the northern constituencies
only 49 per cent of the voters on
the lists voted, whereas in one of the
southern constituencies, that of the hon. gentleman's himself, there were 76 per cent
votes polled of the voters registered. If the
government would only take one basis and
stick to it, that would give some chance to
members on this side to offer alternative
suggestions, which could not fail to be an
improvement on their schedules. I do not
propose to follow this matter very much
further. I do not think that the argument
made by the hon. members for Western Assiniboia and Saskatchewan have added anything
to the information of members of this
committee. I think they have not proved
the case they started out to prove in any
particular. They depend on vague calculations as to prospective populations and
so on. In reference to the accusation made
against me that I wish to deprive the newcomers of their right to representation,
that
is absolutely incorrect. Incoming American
citizens were especially mentioned in this
connection by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont). These American
citizens have not settled in one corner of the
country, but have spread everywhere. They
have come in very largely into my own
neighbourhood. Within a very few miles of
me there are a considerable number of
American citizens who were not entitled to
vote at the last election. A great many of
these American citizens, men of means,
have determined to settle in the districts
which have proved their capacity for growing grain. They have not struck into the
remote districts whereit is not finally established that wheat can be profitably grown.
A very large proportion of the best class of
these new-comers have settled in the older
districts, where they know they can make
a success of farming. I propose that all
should be treated alike, both those who go
into the north and those who go into the
south—all should be given their fair share
of representation.
Mr. SCOTT. I daresay we are to take it
for granted that the division between the
north and the south is going to be maintained by the committee—nine to the north
8755
8756
and sixteen to the south. But I am going
to appeal to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) that we should join hands
on the suggestion I have offered, which, to
a great extent, would remove the disparities
and discrepancies in Assinibola which exist
in the plan presented by the government,
that being the redistribution made by the
assembly three years ago. My hon. friend,
like myself, knows very well that the people on the Soo line contend, with a great
deal of justice, that a different distribution
ought to be made of Assiniboia to serve
their purposes. They feel themselves at the
extremes in South Regina and South Qu'Appelle. They feel that the weight is against
them, and they have sent down a great
many strong representations asking that
different lines be run to create a district,
the centre of which would be one of the
towns on the Pasqua branch or the Soo
line. I have made a proposition that I
think is fair. These four districts on the
main Canadian Pacific Railway line at the
east of the province are comparatively
small in area and in vote, and are exceedingly small in increase of population, if
we
take the homestead entries as being any
proper guide in that respect. I feel somewhat strongly in regard to this, and I am
satisfied that the committee would be willing to agree to my suggestion if the hon.
member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) would
accept it.
Mr. LAKE. I am quite prepared to agree
with the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) in so far as he asserts that
there should be a constituency given along
the Soo line, taking in a portion of the districts of South Regina, South Qu'Appelle,
Souris, and possibly Cannington. But I
cannot agree with him as to where he is
to take off one constituency in order to place
a new constituency in that district. He
proposes, as I have said, to go into the old
districts of Moosomin, Whitewood, Grenfell
and Wolseley and cut off one member from
there. I have shown that already they have
a very large vote in those four districts.
Mr. SCOTT. They are under the average
of the sixteen Assiniboia districts.
Mr. LAKE. But they are over the average for the whole province of Saskatchewan.
The only difference between my hon. friend
(Mr. Scott) and myself is that I suggest
that he should get this extra seat from the
three constituencies which now group around
Regina—Lumsden, Regina and South Regina—and that he should redistribute these
seats. The average for these seats is 1,344
as against an average in the constituencies
he proposes to cut up of 1,554. I contend
that it would be very much easier and a
much more suitable and fairer distribution
to do as I suggested—to make the new Soo
district out of a portion of the present district of South Regina, adding to it a
por
8757
JULY 4, 1905
tion of South Qu'Appelle, a portion of Souris
and possibly a small portion of Cannington,
and extending the North Regina or Lumsden district south to the 15th township
line. As I have said, it would work out
that the two constituencies of Lumsden and
the Soo line would have something over
2,200 names on the voters' list ; and Regina city, which would have a member,
who, no doubt, would be approached by
farmers in either of these constituencies if
they wished to see him, would have a very
small proportion of votes. Of course, I am
agreeing to this suggestion on the assumption that the government are determined to
force through this distribution as between
the old district of Saskatchewan and the
old district of Assiniboia.
On schedule 'B,' Grenfell.
Mr. SCOTT. I made a suggestion the
other day in the conference to my hon.
friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) that the
boundary of Grenfell should be slightly
changed by taking away from the district
of Yorkton five townships, in the southwest
corner of the district of Yorkton. Owing
to the building of the Kirkella extension of
the railway these people will be nearer to
that railway than to the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway, and their interests will
be
much better served by adding these five
townships to Grenfell. The member for
Qu'Appelle said that he would have no objection to this being done.
Mr. LAKE. I do not remember this question. As in the case of the Alberta constituencies an
agreement was arrived at in
the conference as to some changes of this
nature, and the understanding was that some
authority would make the changes and have
them properly arranged the next morning.
Mr. LAKE. It is a matter that I have not
looked into and without having the figures
of the votes and settlement there I am not
prepared to make any particular suggestion
in regard to that.
On schedule ' B,' Lumsden.
Mr. SCOTT. I have another suggestion
to make with regard to Lumsden. There
should be a slight change made here which
affects Lumsden, Moosejaw and Batochc, on
account of a lake, Last Mountain lake,
through which the boundary runs, leaving
on the east side of the lake, cut off from
Lumsden, about a dozen or perhaps twenty
or even forty people living in there separated
by the lake from the district in which they
are placed by the present boundary and cut
off from the neighbours with whom they
would naturally vote.
Mr. LAKE. I think there would be no
objection to that.
8757
8758
On schedule ' B,' Moosejaw.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have a memo. referring to a new district of Moosejaw city.
Are you making such a division or are you
simply making a change in the boundaries
of Moosejaw ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I do not think
there is a change in the boundaries of Moosejaw ; it is simply taking out the city
of
Moosejaw from the constituency of Moosejaw. I suggest that we suspend the consideration
of the schedule until the draft
suggested by my hon. friend from Western
Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) be completed. We
will pass to section 13.
Section 12 allowed to stand.
On section 15, law courts and officers continued.
15. Except as otherwise provided by this Act,
all laws and all orders and regulations made
thereunder, and all courts of civil and criminal
jurisdiction, and all commissions, powers, authorities and functions and all officers
and
functionaries, judicial, administrative and
ministerial, existing immediately before
the coming into force of this Act in
the territory hereby established as the
province of Saskatchewan, shall continue
in the said province as if this Act and the
Alberta Act had not been passed ; subject,
nevertheless, except with respect to such as
are enacted by or existing under Acts of the
parliament of Great Britain or of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, to be repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of
Canada, or by the legislature of the said
province, according to the authority of the
parliament or of the said legislature under this
Act : provided that all powers, authorities and
functions which under any law, order or regulation were, before the coming into force
of
this Act, vested in or exercisable by any public
officer or functionary of the Northwest Territories shall be vested in and exercisable
in and
for the said province by like public officers and
functionaries of the said province when appointed by competent authority.
2. The legislature of the province may, for all
purposes affecting or extending to the said
province, abolish the Supreme Court of the
Northwest Territories, and the offices, both
judicial and ministerial, thereof, and the jurisdiction, powers and authority belonging
or incident to the said court.
3. All societies or associations incorporated
by or under the authority of the legislature of
the Northwest Territories existing at the time
of the coming into force of this Act which include within their objects the regulation
of the
practice of, or the right to practice, any profession or trade in the Northwest Territories,
such as the legal or the medical profession,
dentistry, pharmaceutical chemistry and the
like, shall continue, subject, however, to be dissolved and abolished by order of
the Governor
in Council, and each of such societies shall
have power to arrange for and effect the payment of its debts and liabilities, and
the division, disposition or transfer of its property.
8759
4. Every joint-stock company lawfully incorporated by or under the authority of any
ordinance of the Northwest Territories shall be
subject to the legislative authority of the province of Saskatchewan if—
(a) the head office or the registered office of
such company is at the time of the coming
into force of this Act situate in the province
of Saskatchewan ; and
(b) the powers and objects of such company
are such as might be conferred by the legislature of the said province and not expressly
authorized to be executed in any part of the
Northwest Territories beyond the limits of the
said province.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN: I understand that
this is exactly in the form in which we
had it in the Alberta Bill ?
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 16:—legislation respecting education—separate schools.
Section 93 of the British North America Act,
1867, shall apply to the said province, with the
substitution for paragraph (1) of the said section 93, of the following paragraph
:
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
separate schools which any class of persons
have at the date of the passing of this Act,
under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the
ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed
in the year 1901.
2. In the appropriation by the legislature or
distribution by the government of the province
of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with
the said
chapter 29, or any Act passed in amendment
thereof or in substitution therefor, there shall
be no discrimination against schools of any
class described in the said chapter 29.
3. Where the expression ' by law ' is employed in paragraph 3 of the said section
93,
it shall be held to mean the law as set out in
the said chapters 29 and 30 ; and where the
expression ' at the union,' is employed in the
said paragraph 3, it shall be held to mean the
date at which this Act comes into force.
The provisions of section 93 of the British
North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said
province as if, at the date upon which this Act
comes into force, the territory comprised therein were already a province, the expression
' the
union ' in the said section being taken to mean
the said date.
2. In the appropriation by the legislature of
public moneys in aid of education, or in the
distribution by the government of the province
of any moneys arising from the school fund
established by the Dominion Lands Act, there
shall be no discrimination against the schools
of any kind organized according to law.
Amendment (Mr. Bourassa) negatived.
That section 16 be struck out, and the following substituted therefor :
8759
8760
16. The provisions of section 93 of the British
North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said
province in so far as the same are applicable
under the terms thereof.
Amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden) negatived
on division.
Motion (Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 18 :—interest to be paid to province on a certain sum.
Inasmuch as the said province is not in debt,
it shall be entitled to be paid and to receive
from the government of Canada, by half-yearly
payments in advance, an annual sum of four
hundred and five thousand three hundred and
seventy-five dollars, being the equivalent of
interest at the rate of five per cent per annum
on the sum of eight million one hundred and
seven thousand five hundred dollars.
Motion agreed to.
On section 19 :—compensation to province
for public lands.
19. Inasmuch as the said province will not
have the public lands as a source of revenue,
there shall be paid by Canada to the province
by half-yearly payments in advance, an annual
sum based upon the population of the province as from time to time ascertained by
the
quinquennial census thereof, as follows :
The population of the said province being assumed to be at present two hundred and
fifty
thousand, the sum payable until such population reaches four hundred thousand, shall
be
three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ;
Thereafter, until such population reaches
eight hundred thousand, the sum payable shall
be five hundred and sixty-two thousand five
hundred dollars ;
Thereafter, until such population reaches one
million two hundred thousand, the sum payable
shall be seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ;
And thereafter the sum payable shall be one
million one hundred and twenty—five thousand
dollars.
2. As an additional allowance in lieu of public lands, there shall be paid by Canada
to the
province annually by half-yearly payments in
advance, for five years from the time this Act
comes into force, to provide for the construction
of necessary public buildings, the sum of ninety-
three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars.
Motion agreed to.
On section 20, lands vested in the Crown.
20. All Crown lands, mines and minerals and
royalties incident thereto shall continue to be
vested in the Crown and administered by the
government of Canada for the purposes of Canada, subject to the provisions of any
Act of the
parliament of Canada. with respect to road allowances and roads or trails as in force
on the
8761
JULY 4, 1905
thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and five, which shall apply to the
said province with the substitution therein of the said
province for the Northwest Territories.
That section 20 be struck out, and the following substituted therefor :
All lands, mines and minerals and royalties
incident thereto situate or arising within the
limits of the province and now vested in the
Crown, and all sums due or payable in respect
of the same shall belong to the province subject
to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to
any interest other than that of the province in
the same except those portions thereof now used
or occupied for the public works, the public
buildings or otherwise for the public service
of Canada which are more fully set forth and
enumerated in schedule ' C ' to this Act, and
which shall continue to be the property of
Canada.
Amendment (Mr. Lake) negatived, on division.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On the preamble,
Mr. BARKER. I have an amendment to
more similar to that which I moved in regard to the other Bill. I have added two
clauses referring to Rupert's Land but
otherwise the amendment is the same. I
beg to move :
That the preamble be struck out, and that the
following preamble be substituted therefor :
Whereas, in and by the British North America Act, 1867, being chapter 3 of the Acts
of the
parliament of the United Kingdom passed in
the session thereof held in the thirtieth year of
the reign of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria,
it was, among other things, enacted that it
should be lawful for the Queen, by and with the
advice of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy
Council, on an address from the Houses of parliament of Canada. to admit Rupert's
Land and
the Northwestern Territory into the union on
such terms and conditions in each case as are
in the addresses expressed and as the Queen
should think fit to approve, subject to the provisions of the said Act ; and that
the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf
should have effect as if they had been enacted
by the parliament of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland.
And whereas in and by the Rupert's Land Act,
1868, of the parliament of the United Kingdom
it was, among other things, enacted that it
should be competent to Her Majesty, by Order
or Orders in Council, by and with the advice of
Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council,
on address from the Houses of the parliament
of Canada, to declare that Rupent's Land should
from a date to be therein mentioned be admitted into and become part of the Dominion
of Canada.
And whereas, pursuant to such powers and
authority, and to such addresses, by and with
the advice aforesaid, the Queen by Order in
Council on the 23rd day of June, 1870, did order
and declare that from and after the 15th day of
July, 1870, the said territory should be admitted
into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions set forth
in
schedule ' A ' to the said Order in Council, and
that the parliament of Canada should from the
8761
8762
said date of admission have full power and authority to legislate for the future welfare
and
good government of the said territory ; and it
was thereby further ordered that, without prejudice to any obligations arising from
an approved report therein recited, Rupert's Land
should from and after the said 15th of July,
1870, be admitted into and become part of the
Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions in that behalf in the said Order
in Council
also set forth.
And whereas, in and by the British North
America Act, 1871, being chapter 28 of the Acts
of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed
in the session thereof held in the thirty-fourth
and thirty—fifth years of the reign of Her late
Majesty Queen Victoria, it is enacted that the
parliament of Canada may from time to time
establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the
Dominion of
Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment,
make provisions for the constitution and administration of any such province, and
for the
passing of laws for the peace, order and good
government of such province and for its representation in the said parliament of Canada
;
And whereas, in and by the British North
America Act, 1886, being chapter 35 of the Acts
of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed
in the session thereof held in the forty-ninth
and fiftieth years of the reign of Her said Majesty, the parliament of Canada was
empowered
to make provision for the representation in
the Senate and House of Commons of Canada,
of any territories which for the time being form
part of the Dominion of Canada but are not included in any province thereof ; and
it was
thereby also enacted that the said Act, and the
British North America Act, 1867, and the British North America Act, 1871, shall be
construed
together.
And whereas that part of the said land and
territory hereinafter described has not been included in any province of the Dominion
and has
heretofore been provisionally governed by and
pursuant to legislation of the parliament of
Canada.
And whereas it is expedient to establish as a
province that part of the said land and territory hereinafter described, and to make
provision for the constitution and administration
of such province and for the passing of laws
for the peace, order and good government thereof and for its representation in the
parliament
of Canada.
Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House
of
Commons of Canada, enacts as follows :
Amendment (Mr. Barker) negatived on division.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported as amended, and amendments read the first and second time and
agreed to.
Mr. SPROULE. I would suggest that it
would be well to have both of these Bills reprinted. They are amended so much from
what they originally were, and I think it
is important to understand what the amendments are.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. My intention
was to take up these Bills to-morrow for the
third reading. The amendments are very
8763
few and the only important ones are well
known. In the meantime if I can have them
printed by to-morrow I shall endeavour to
do so.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My hon. friend will
find almost all of the amendments in the
reprint of the first Bill.
This individual participated in:
