Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).

Before the Orders of the Day are called, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring before the House a matter of public importance, and in order to put myself in order I shall conclude with a motion. The matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, and especially of the right lion, gentleman, the Prime Minister, is the serious condition of his honour the Lieutenant Governor of On-

tario. I have already brought this matter before this House, and my motives have been impugned. Hon. gentlemen opposite, by their derisive cheers, certainly impugn my motives now. It may be that I am wrong. It may be that I am doing something improper, or that I am lacking in good taste. But on this I take issue with lion, gentlemen opposite. I am here in the public interest and to speak for the people of my own province. A great political crisis is existing in Ontario to-day. The lieutenant governor of that province is unable to discharge the duties of his office. That statement I made some weeks ago. What I said then was true, and according to the news of yesterday, I can make that statement with still greater force to-day. I have not the slightest intention of reflecting on the venerable old man who occupies the position of Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. He is venerated in this country from one end of it to the other. But we have a constitution, and under it there is a constitutional duty which should, in the circumstances, be performed. I am one of those who believe that in our system of government, the representative of the Crown is no figure-head. The ministers of the Crown are responsible to him as the representative of the Crown. Their political conduct is subject to his revision. In view of the situation existing to-day in the province of Ontario, I believe that we ought to have a lieutenant governor in office there competent to discharge his duties. I say this purely from the constitutional point of view, and I ask the right lion, gentleman, the Prime Minister, what the government intend doing, in view of the situation existing in Toronto, with regard to the office of lieutenant governor. In one of the evening newspapers published in Toronto, I find this statement last evening :

It is very probable that the patent to Chief Justice Moss to act as administrator, with power to give assent to Bills, will be immediately amended to give him power to perform the other duties of the officer, sign lieutenant governor's warrants, &e. Sir Oliver had all official documents signed up to Saturday last, but there are some now waiting for signature, and delay will prove a considerable inconvenience to the government.

I believe that this describes the actual situation. The lieutenant governor is unable to discharge his duties and a serious political crisis exists. The constitutional duty, therefore, devolves on hon. gentlemen opposite of living up to the constitution and seeing that it is properly administered. And, out of respect-and purely out of respect- for the constitution and of the duties of the government, as I view them, I ask the Prime Minister to take the House into his confidence, and especially to take the province of Ontario into his confidence, and tell us what he intends to do in the matter. Of course hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the position-at least some of them have-that

the lieutenant governor is simply a rubber stamp. If that is the case, he being their representative, they assume his duties. They are entitled to do so, but if they do so, it is their duty to see to it that there is a lieutenant governor fully able and competent to discharge the duties of the office.

In conclusion, I have only this to say-in no way do I desire to reflect on the vener-able( old man who is now Lieutenant Governor of Ontario; but simply out of regard for the public interest do I raise this question. If hon. gentlemen opposite continue to make charges that I am doing this from political considerations or that my words are in bad taste, I can only tell them that a countercharge is liable to be made, that countercharge being to the effect that men in office whose conduct is called in question before the country are sheltering themselves behind the infirmities of the venerable old man in a high position. I' do not wish to make that charge; and I do not think it will be made in the country if the government discharges its political responsibilities in this matter. I move that this House do now adjourn.

I have nothing to add to what I said a few days ago to my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) upon a statement similar to that which he has made to-day, which he then thought it his duty to bring to the attention of the House. At that time I told my hon. friend that if he had given me notice of his intention to bring this matter forward, I would have been able to produce a letter from Sir Oliver Mowat wherein he informs me that he is quite able and competent to discharge the duties of his office. My hon. friend has given Sir Oliver Mowat a character which we are all happy to find in my hon. friend's mouth, for it is in the mouth of everybody else. As he has voluntarily paid this tribute to Sir Oliver Mowat, I think he will, from henceforth, be satisfied to leave this matter alone until such time as we have information from Sir Oliver Mowat himself that he does not feel equal to the discharge of the duties with which he is intrusted. Sir Oliver Mowat yesterday met with a painful accident, but that is no reason for bringing this matter to the attention of the House to-day. When Sir Oliver Mowat who, as my hon. friend himself admits, is a man of exceeding candour, respectable in every possible way, informs the government that he no longer feels equal to thet discharge of the duties of liis office, the government will feel called upon to appoint his successor, and not until then.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).

I respectfully submit that the answer given by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will hardly be satisfactory to the country. If we are to believe the information contained in the newspaper's yesterday concerning the lieutenant governor, the

venerable old gentleman, who has reached the ripe old age of eighty-three years, accidently, in getting into bed or falling out of bed, we are not informed which, fractured his thigh bone. Now, if this accident happened in so simple a way and without some more especial reason than appears in the information given to the public, I can only conclude that the infirmities of age have crept! upon him to a great degree and that he is very feeble. If he is physically so feeble, he must be mentally feeble as well. The hon. premier tells us : When I am informed by the lieutenant governor himself that be is unable to discharge the duties of his office I shall be prepared to act. Hut if the infirmities of age have so affected the lieutenant governor that he is not in possession of his mental faculties as well as of his physical powers, he is incapable of giving that information. To a medical man the premier's position is most unreasonable. If the information is correct that we get from other sources-and I am rather inclined, to believe it is-that it is largely because of the infirmities of age that the lieutenant governor is physically and mentally in that condition, he cannot be expected to perform his important duties satisfactorily ns a representative of the Crown. To say that the premier will act only when he is instructed by the lieutenant governor himself that he is no longer able to discharge the duties of his oSice is to give the country an assurance with which it will not be satisfied. If he had said that he would act when he received such information from the responsible ministers of the Crown acting under the lieutenant governor, or from some other source of that kind, his answer would be much more satisfactory. Rut I repeat what-as a medical man I said the other day-that a man is not always the best judge of his own infirmities when he reaches the period of life attained by the lieutenant governor.

Motion (Mr. Maclean) negatived.

Mr. R. E. BORDEN (Halifax).

I think it well, before this motion carries, to call to the attention of my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Raurier) one or two points respecting the character of this Bill concerning which, it seems to me, there is some misapprehension in the country, and, possibly, in the mind of my right hon. friend. The exact meaning of the Bill may not be quite understood.

We were told by the Prime Minister on the first reading of the Bill, that this proposal is the same as that which was made in

Mr. SPROULE.

Great Britain in 1884. I wish to point out to the House that what was proposed in Great Britain in 1884, was something entirely different. In saying so I do not put it by way of criticism on the present action of the government nor do I say now that what the government has proposed is lacking in fairness. I simply want to have in the mind of the House and of the country a clear idea of what the position of the government is at the present time. In 1884, in the British House, there was a conference between the political parties before the Bill was introduced at all. The conference was not a formal one; the members were not appointed by the House and had no duty of reporting to the House. Their work was altogether of an informal character. It was, in fact, a conference between the two political parties. Mr. Mills, now Mr. Justice Mills, who was in this House in 1892 made that very clear in his remarks. He said, referring to the British measure :

The measure was submitted to parliament after the leaders of the two parties had agreed upon it. . . . The English government entered into a conference with their political opponents on the character of a measure which they were to submit to parliament, and to assume the responsibility for, and that was done prior to the submission of the Bill to parliament for discussion.

In the Annual Register which was referred

to at that time there is a history of the introduction of the English measure which makes this abundantly clear. This history can be found| at pages 252 and 253 of the Annual Register of 1884-at page 252 we find :

During the next fortnight

-that is while the conference was going on-

-the process of arrangement was steadily pursued. Lord Salisbury and Sir S. Northcote attended the meetings of the cabinet, and conducted the negotiations with the specially selected delegates of that body. Naturally there were rumours of misunderstandings more or less serious, but as time wore on, it was clear, from the public utterances of those in a position to know the real facts, that the basis of the compromise was never in jeopardy, and that the ultimate decision on all questions of detail would have to he left to parliament.

And then, at page 253 it is said :

At length after a week's adjournment, both Houses reassembled, and Mr. Gladstone, in a very brief speech altogether without rhetorical display and sympathetic enthusiasm, presented to the House of Commons the results of the negotiations, and moved for leave to bring in a Bill dealing with the most crucial party rights and susceptibilities which had been settled outside the arena of parliamentary conflict.

There is another fact which I would like to point out to my right hon. friend, and it is this-the conference of 1884 in Great Britain simply settled the principles to be applied in the work of redistribution, and left those principles to be carried out in the delimitation of the constituencies by a boun-

dary commission. A boundary commission [ : was appointed, composed of eminent men, ' including among its members several otti-cers of the Royal Engineers whose technical knowledge was supposed to be valuable in such work. It is true that the Bill provided that in Yorkshire, Glasgow, Birmingham and other large boroughs, a certain number of members should be allowed, just as our constitution allows a certain proportion of members for Ontario, Nova Scotia and the other provinces. But, except for this, the entire work of the delimitation of the constituteucies was left to the commission. Moreover, the present proposition does not seem in line with the position taken by my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in 1882. His motion on that occasion, to which he has drawn attention is as follows :

That Bill (No. 7G) an Act to readjust,.the representation in the House of Commons he referred to a conference or committee to be composed of both political parties, to agree upon the lines or principles on which a Redistribution Bill should be drawn.

My right hon. friend was more in line with the English precedent at that time than he is at the present time, because his proposal then was that a committee should be appointed composed of both political parties to agree upon the lines or principles upon which a redistribution Bill should be drawn.

I may say that that motion as interpreted by a prominent member of his own party, now Mr. Justice Davies, of the Supreme Court, was understood to be a motion that the committee should merely settle the lines or principles, and should leave it to the House to settle the boundaries of the constituencies themselves ; because Mr. Davies, in speaking on the second reading of the Bill, and speaking after my right hon. friend, used the following language :

My hon. friend's motion is based exactly upon that section of the constitution.

I may say in passing, that Mr. Davies was arguing very strenuously that parliament itself had no right to delimit the constituencies, but that that duty should be imposed by parliament upon some independent body. So Mr. Davies continued :

He says

That is referring to my right hon. friend, then the leader of the opposition.

He says let us come together now and agree upon these lines, and when we are agreed upon the lines and upon the manner, then let us legislate and enact a law, and when we have carried the principle into law, let us appoint the authorities who are to apply the principles to the condition of the country and carry them out. I say that in principle, and from historic precedents, and by the legal construction of the British North America Act, this proposition of the leader of the opposition is one which I think must commend itself to the minds, at any rate, of the legal members of the House. I cannot see, based as it is upon justice and equality, how it can fail to commend

itself not only to the sense of fair play, but to the common sense of all the members of this House. *

Then I would like to point out to my right bon. friend that liis present proposition is not in line with the view which he took in 1899, for he then said :

Whenever a county has to be divided into ridings, whenever a county which up to that time is entitled to one member, becomes entitled to two or three members, the division should take place by judicial decision and authority.

That is the second principle upon which he based the Bill that he then introduced to the House.

Therefore I submit with all deference to the Prime Minister that the proposal which is now before the House is not the same as the English proposal of 1884, it is not the same as the proposal of the right hon. gentleman in 1892, and it is not the same as the proposal of the right hon. gentleman in 1899. However, it must be admitted, Mr. Speaker, that it does not at all follow that this is not a perfectly fair proposition. All lam desirous of pointing out at the present time is that it is not any one of the proposals which have been made on the three occasions to which I have referred.

Well, what have we to say about the Bill which is before us ? In the first place,

I may say a word to those who have thought it remarkable that the members of the Conservative party have not burst out into a chorus of congratulation to the government upon the introduction of this Bill.

I want to point out to my right hon. friend that one very good reason why we should restrain our congratulations at the present time is that we have not the real Bill before us. As was well said by Mr. McCarthy in 1892, the whole force, the whole vitality of a Bill of this character is to be found in the details. Now we have the mere skeleton of a Bill at the present time, we have nothing except the bare formal parts of the Bill, and we are not prepared to pronounce any opinion at all upon that which we have not yet seen. I admit that a government desiring to introduce a perfectly fair Redistribution Bill-and I accept in the fullest sense my right hon. friend's assurance of that desire-I say that a government desirous of introducing the fairest possible Redistribution Bill, might adopt this course : and I say also that a government which desired to introduce a Bill that was not fair in the ordinary sense of the term, might adopt exactly the same course, and place before the proposed committee schedules which might just as well have been attached to the Bill itself. I am not suggesting that that is the intention of the government, but I am pointing out that at the present time , we have not in the Bill anything but a mere skeleton, and we do not know whether the proposal of the government will be a fair

one or an unfair one until their proposal has been placed before the committee, and we have had an opportunity of judging.

Now, I think what I have said was emphasized in a very striking manner by Mr. McCarthy in 1892. In referring to the proposal made at that time by my right hon. friend he said :

Even if there had been a conference in that way I do not see what particular benefit could have resulted because the conference, representing as it was suggested it should, the majority and the minority according to numbers in this House, would, unless they agreed, have merely reproduced the scheme of the majority. It would merely have reproduced the scheme which the government have now presented and which this House, representing in the same way the same proportion of numbers, will ultimately adopt.

That is the criticism which I would make upon this proposal in so far as it contemplates a conference or committee. If it is intended to produce an agreement such as was arrived at in 1884, if it is proposed to adopt the same principle which was acted on by the English government at that time, it seems to me that the proposal of my right hon. friend should have been a proposal for a committee composed of an equal number of members from each side, a proposal which would not reflect the numerical strength of either party in this House, instead of the present one which in the end must merely result, or might merely result in reproducing to the House the scheme of the majority, as Mr. McCarthy remarked in 1892. Now my right hon. friend has assured me that no schedules or maps have been prepared, or at least that they have not been finally prepared. Of course we have heard a great many rumours to the contrary, some of these, rumours appear to be well founded ; but again I say I accept, as far as my right hon. friend is concerned, in the fullest sense his assurance, nor am I making any reservation in a parliamentary sense.

Now there is another observation I would make, which is that no principle whatever has been announced by my right hon. friend in introducing this Bill, beyond this. He says: [DOT]

The guiding principle in this redistribution should be that county boundaries should be preserved, that the municipal representation of the county ought to be the basis of the parliamentary representation.

My right hon. friend has not made any reference whatever to equality of population, although he laid a good deal of stress upon that in his speech of 1892. I would like to point out to him that in Great Britain in 1884 very full rules were laid down, and among them were these : In the first place equality of population ; in the next place retaining in the divisions any particular portion of the population which was of an urban character, that is in the divisions of boroughs ; in the third place, compactness of divisions with respect to geographical 1

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

position ; in the fourth place, community of interests. I think some of those, at least, require to be regarded to a considerable extent in the work of the committee, and perhaps it would have been better if my right hon. friend had introduced some of these principles into this Bill or into his speech.

There is another principle which was laid down by my right hon. friend in 1892, and to which I would invite his attention now. In speaking upon the second reading of the Bill at that time, he said :

What I propose to the sense of justice and every man in this House is that this application of the law should be made in such a manner that both parties shall remain with the same advantage they now possess.

I am not at all clear how it would be possible to work out a principle of that kind in framing schedules for a Bill of this character, but at all events it is a principle upon which my right hon. friend very strongly relied in 1892, and it is one which it is proper for me now to bring to his attention.

Now, I have one more remark, and it is in respect of the criticism which my right hon. friend made of the Act of 1892. In speaking on the first reading of this Bill, he named forty-two constituencies in the province of Ontario which, he said, had elected twenty-five Conservatives and ouly seventeen Liberals, and notwithstanding that fact, the vote for the seventeen Liberals was greater in number than the vote for the twenty-five Conservatives. My right hon. friend seems to regard that as a complete argument to show that the Bill of 1892 was unfair to the Liberal party. Well, now, I have been furnished with a list of certain constituencies in the province of Ontario which produce an exactly opposite result. Take the constituencies of West Bruce, South Brant, South Essex, Glengarry, Haldimand, East Huron, West Huron, South Huron, Kingston, West Lambton, West Middlesex, South Middlesex, West Northumberland. South Ontario, West Ontario, Ottawa, South Oxford, South Perth, East Peterborough, Prescott, North Renfrew, South Renfrew, North Simcoe, Wentworth and Brant, North York-Here you have twenty-five constituencies with a popular vote for the Liberal party of 52,098 which returned twenty-five Liberal members at the last general election. Now, take seventeen Conservative constituencies which returned Conservatives at the last general election. Cornwall and Stormont, East Elgin, East Grey, Hamilton, Hamilton, Middlesex East, East Toronto, West Toronto. Centre Toronto, East York, West York, East Lambton, Lincoln and Niagara, Muskoka and Parry Sound, North Perth, East Simcoe, South Waterloo-Here you have constituencies which returned seventeen Conservatives by a popular vote of 53,962, or some 1,900 more than the total number of votes cast for twenty-five Liberal members.

Where I have dealt with constituencies like Ottawa, or, like West Toronto which returned two members I have taken half the vote for the successful Conservative candidates which I think is a very fair way to do. Ijet me also point out to my right lion, friend the result in his own province. He was very strong in the position lie took that the Bill of 1892 was unfair to the province of Quebec. He dwelt on that to the extent of two or three columns of ' Hansard.' I do not think that my right hon. friend, looking at the result in his own province to-day, can fairly regard it as a gerrymander in the interest of the Conservative party at least. I have been looking at the figures and I find that in the province of Quebec at the last general election the popular Liberal vote was 133,121 and that fifty-eight Liberal members were returned while the popular Conservative vote was 104,522 and that seven Conservative members were returned. Each Liberal member represents on an ever-age 2,300 Liberal electors while each Conservative member represents on an average 15,000 Conservative electors. I think my right hon. friend will not be inclined to rely upon the position he took in 1892 when he regarded the province of Quebec as having been gerrymandered in the Conservative interest.

There is another matter I would like to bring to the attention of the House and it is this. My right hon. friend has not said a word about the very important legal point which was raised by two of his colleagues in 1892-Mr. Davies and Mr. Mills. These were very eminent men in their profession, so eminent that they have since been appointed by this government to positions on the bench of the highest court of appeal in this country and both of these gentlemen, in 1892, laid down the position unequivocally, stating that they had no doubt upon it, that parliament was not competent to do this work at all, that it must appoint an independent authority to deal with the subject. I shall not weary the House by reading from their speeches but any hon. gentleman who has paid any attention to the debate of 1892 knows that what I say is absolutely. correct. Mr. Davies as well as Mr. Mills professed himself to be without any doubt whatever on the subject, and on the Conservative side of the House, the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy, a gentleman very eminent in his profession, none more eminent in Canada at that time, professed himself to be in agreement with Mr. Mills and Mr. Davies. Now, under these circumstances, would it not be worth the attention of the government to consider whether or not that point should be referred to the Supreme Court for their decision. That is not a point that can be laughed out of court when we have in support of it Mr. Davies, now a judge of the Supreme Court, the highest court of the country, Mr. Mills an eminent constitutional lawyer, now occupying a seat

on the bench and when we have also in support of it the opinion of the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy. It is something that you will not dismiss with a smile, I imagine, it is something that you will not dismiss with a shrug or a laugh, it is something that you will regard as serious when gentlemen of the standing and ability of the three gentlemen I have named have taken the position which these gentlemen did take in the House of Commons.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one other matter about which I would like to say a word and it is in regard to the legal question which I drew to the attention of the House on the first reading of this Bill. I have been very kindly favoured by the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) with a copy of the memo, which he presented to council and I am bound to say that I think he has with his usual ability made the very best possible case that he could for the position of those who think that there is no ground for the contention which has been raised by the law officers of the Crown for the province of New Brunswick. I have had a great deal of doubt in my own mind as to what the true answer to the question is. At one time when i first examined the question, I was very strongly impressed with the opinion which has been given by the hon. Minister of Justice although I reached the conclusion by a somewhat different mode of reasoning. It seemed to me, looking at the provisions of sections three and four of the British North America Act that you might say that Canada was as much constituted under the British North America Act when it had seven provinces as when it had four. That at first blush seemed to be the true solution of the case for the reason that the Dominion of Canada was not formally constituted by tlte British North America Act, but it was constituted under the British North America Act by the Queen's proclamation, and inasmuch as section three gave power to the Queen to proclaim the four provinces to be one union and as section 146 gave power to tiie Queen, upon certain conditions precedent having been complied with, to make a similar proclamation in regard to other of Her Majesty's colonies in North America I was inclined to think at first that the words * as constituted under this Act ' in section four would be just as much applicable to Canada at the present time as they were in 1867. I do not say that there is not some force in that answer to the argument which has been put forward by the law officers of the province of New Brunswick. But, let us look at the preamble of the British North America Act. which is as follows

Whereas, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom :

And whereas such a union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British empire ;

And whereas on the establishment of the union by authority of parliament it is expedient, not only that the constitution of the legislative authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the nature of the executive government therein be declared :

And whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the eventual admission into the union of other parts of British North America.

Then follows the enacting part. Then, in section four provides :

The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the union, that is to say, on and after the day appointed for the union taking etiect in the Queen's proclamation ; and in the same provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

That is rather an important provision it seems to me which is contained in the first part of section four. The subsequent provisions of this Act are to ' commence and have effect on and after the union ' and it seems to me that the expression gives a certain key as to whether or not you are to regard the words ' Canada as constituted under this Act' as having the meaning which I have already indicated. Now, another important section is section eight to which I think attention was not drawn upon the first reading of the Bill.

In the general census of the population of Canada which is hereby required to be taken in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and in every tenth year thereal^er, the respective populations of the four provinces shall he distinguished.

I would rather be inclined to think that there is ground for the contention taken by the law officers of the province of New Brunswick-I understand this to be their argument-that Canada as constituted under this Act meant in the first place the four original provinces, or rather the three original provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and not Canada as it might be constituted from time to time. If you once grant that, it seems to me that a very serious question arises. I am not insensible of the force of the argument which might be and which has been made by the lion. Minister of Justice, and it seems that he has overlooked one point to which he might have drawn attention and that is that the words ' parliament of Canada ' at the commencement of section fifty-one must obviously mean Canada as constituted from time to time, because it is the parliament of Canada as constituted from time to time that must make these provisions. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has in his memo, gone very fully into the question of the statutes and the addresses. and in particular he has referred to the imperial legislation following the admission of Manitoba into the union. The

hon. gentleman places very great stress indeed upon the statute which deals with the province of Manitoba. He says :

The terms of union and the Manitoba Act are to be looked upon and construed as in effect imperial Acts amending the British North America Act, 1867. It will be observed that in each of them it is provided that the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, except these answering a certain description which section 51 does not answer, shall be applicable to the new province in the same way and to the same extent as they apply to the other provinces of the Dominion, and as if the new provinces had been one of the provinces originally united by the r.aid Act.

Of course, one can see at once the force of that argument, but it does not seem to me to be as conclusive as the Minister of Justice supposes, because it might possibly be that the new provinces must be compared with the total population of Canada for the purpose of regulating their representation, and yet it would not necessarily follow that the very distinct language contained in section 51 must be so modified so far as the other four provinces are concerned. That seems to me to be the whole crux of the argument of the Minister of Justice. If you once concede that ' Canada ' in section 51 means ' Canada ' as it was originally constituted, then that section being regarded in the light of a treaty between the four provinces-in fact the whole Act must be regarded in the light of a treaty between the four provinces

you must have .something very distinct indeed in any subsequent statutes or addresses if you are to modify tile language of that section. I do not know that I would be inclined to go so far as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, in holding that you do find what is sufficient for that purpose in the addresses and the statutes to which he has called attention. Indeed, I do not observe anything in the memo, of the Minister of Justice which indicates his reasons for supposing that the population of the Territories must be taken into consideration-I do not know whether the Minister of Justice goes so far as to hold that the population of the Territories ought be taken into consideration.

It ought not to be.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

My hon. friend thinks that it ought not to be.

Whether it is or not, it does not affect the result.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I did not know whether it affected the result or not.

It is a question that ought be considered some time; it must be considered.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I agree that it is a question which ought be considered some time ; not only so far as the Territories are concerned, but I think so far as Canada is concerned. Even if the argument of the

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Minister of Justice were more convincing to me than it is-and I am bound to say that I appreciate its weight-nevertheless we have on the other hand the opinion of the law officers of the province of New Brunswick, and all who are acquainted with the Attorney General of New Brunswick (Hon. Wm. Pugsley), and all who have met him at the bar, realize and recognize his eminence in the legal profession. Therefore, so long as there is a question with regard to it, I think it would be right that it should be submitted to the Supreme Court. It ought to be submitted not only to the Supreme Court, but it seems to me necessary or at least desirable that provision should also be made for having the opinion of the Privy Council upon the question. I say that for this reason : Suppose the

parliament of Canada should pass this Act in its present form, and a question should afterwards be raised-and it may be raised before the courts-as to whether this parliament had jurisdiction, and the case so raised should go not only to the Supreme Court of Canada, but to the Privy Council, a very awkward condition of affairs may come to pass. It seems to me that it would be impossible to separate in such an Act as this, that portion which upon the assumption that I have made, would be good, and that portion which would be bad. May I make my meaning a little plainer

I am trying to address myself more particularly to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. Here is a statute which undoubtedly contains provisions which this parliament may pass-there can be no doubt that we can deal with the revision of constituencies throughout Canada. While that revision or redistribution of constituencies throughout Canada is part of the statute, it contains, let us say, a provision which is absolutely ultra vires of this parliament; namely, the reduction of the representation of Ontario to eighty-six and the reduction of the representation of the other provinces by one or two members. In construing a statute of that kind it may be held by the court eventually : That not only that portion

which deals with the representation of the province of Ontario is bad, but the whole is bad, because the two things are so much dependent on each other and so absolutely joined together in the Act, that you cannot separate in it that portion which is good from that portion which is bad. Therefore, it seems to me that we should have an adjudication upon this question and we should not only have the adjudication of the Supreme Court of Canada upon It, but we should also have the adjudication of the Privy Council by way of appeal as well.

I do not desire, Mr. Speaker, to detain the House further. There is, however, one matter which I forgot to mention and which I know has impressed itself upon the mind of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice : That is the fact which seems to have been taken for granted in 1892 : That British Col-39

umbia came into the union under such conditions that her representation although it may be increased cannot be decreased. It would seem to me that this is quite as incongruous as to the point to which the Minister of Justice has referred ; namely, that under the contention which he controverts certain provinces in Canada are to have their representation increased or diminished according to the population of four provinces and not the population of the whole of Canada, while so far as the rest of Canada is concerned the representation of the different provinces is dependent, not upon the population of the four provinces, but upon the population of all the provinces of Canada. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a wise course for the government to have that question, which has been raised by the province of New Brunswick, submitted to the courts; and not only to have it submitted to the Supreme Court but to have the question determined by the highest court of appeal to which any judicial matter can be carried in this country.