I am happy that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and I have been able to agree on so many things, even if we cannot agree on everything. It was not to be expected that we should have an absolute love feast and that we should see eye to eye on every question, but on the whole I am glad that the Bill has received the approval of my hon. friend, and that we shall have his concurrence in making it as perfect as possible and as fair between party and party as it is possible to make it. I have a brief reference to make to one or two observations of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden). He has referred to the view held at one time in this House by two eminent friends and subsequent colleagues of mine, then Mr. Louis H. Davies and Mr. David Mills, both of whom are now members of the Supreme Court. I remember very well the occasion upon which these two gentlemen strongly expressed the view that the parliament of Canada was not competent to deal with the Redistribution Act, but that the parliament of Canada could create-not only that it could create but that it should create-a power to make the redistribution although it could not do the work itself. This view was held by these two gentlemen and it was strongly supported, but as my hon. friend knows this view was not generally accepted. I do not notice that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) himself expresses an opinion, and he no doubt has one, upon this question. Whatever may be his view I shall not press to know it at the moment, but I will point out that the government thought that upon this question, though perhaps the question may not be free from doubt-I would not go so far as that probably-though the contrary view is held by eminent authorities. we thought the safest course was to follow the practice which has hitherto

12X9

been accepted and have the redistribution made by parliament itself. I have no doubt that parliament can create a power to do the redistribution, but the power is also vested in parliament, and all governments up to the present time have interpreted it in that way. I believe it was more in accordance with the public interpretation of popular government to have that supreme power carried into effect by parliament itself. The other question to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) has referred is a far more serious one; namely, the method of counting the votes and distributing them. My hon. friend has stated, and rightly stated, that upon this point we are absolutely bound by the British North America Act; we are not at liberty to assign so much to this province or so much to the other province; we must follow the results of the census, according to "the terms laid down In the British North America Act. But there can be a way of counting the votes and ascertaining that proportion. We have received a very strong appeal from some of the provinces, particularly from the province of New Brunswick, and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has taken the precaution to have this matter referred to the Supreme Court and to have as speedy a decision as possible. Whether or not it would be advisable to carry it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a matter on which it is premature to pronounce. I suppose that in this we will be guided very much by the judgment of the Supreme Court. If that judgment be of such a character ns to leave no doubt, either one way or the other, there would be no necessity to push the matter further. Perhaps it may be advisable to do so, but the government are not prepared to decide that point definitely at present. My hon. colleague the Minister of Justice, has taken steps to have the matter referred to the Supreme Court and have a decision as speedily as possible, and I hope that in a few weeks we will be able to nnnounce that decision.

Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).

In rising to make a few comments on the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my entire accord in the remarks of my hon. leader, when he said that he accepted the statements of the right hon. gentleman, the First Minister, as unreservedly as they were made. I sincerely believe that the right hon. gentleman intends by the Bill before the House to give the people a fair redistribution measure, and speaking for myself, I say in all sincerity, that when the right hon. gentleman's biography comes to be written -and I am sure it is gratifying to every hon. member on both sides to realize that that day is apparently growing daily more remote-the brightest page in that biography will be that one on which is recorded the promise of the right hon. gentleman to give this House and country a fair measure of redistribution. But while expressing my appre-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

elation of the intentions of the right hon. the leader of this House, it seems to me that the time is inopportune for the passing of such a measure as that submitted to us. The right hon. gentleman has pointed out that the government has decided to submit to the Supreme Court a reference on the question raised as to our right to reduce the representation of any of the provinces. But practically what difference can there be in submitting the case to the Supreme Court, and submitting it to a board composed of county court judges, other than the intrinsic merits and abilities of the members of the respective courts ? We know that if legislation be based on the decision of the Supreme Court and if the constitutionality of that legislation be disputed before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that body would be in no way bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. In a matter of such importance, not only as affecting the present, but as laying down a precedent and doctrine for future redistributions, it seems to me that the least the government should do would be to obtain the best opinion possible in order that in whatever we may do, we may. be acting on no uncertain ground, and have every assurance that our legislation will be unassailable. I do not intend to argue that the construction of the British North America Act given by the government is wrong, although my own opinion would lead me to that conclusion. But I do not take this ground because, in the first place, it is not necessary for the argument I intend making. What I wish to point out is that if it be doubtful that this House has a right to reduce the representation of any of the provinces, if nobody can say with certainty that we have the power to pass such legislation, we ought certainly to obtain the most authoritative opinion we can before proceeding to pass any enactment. In the second place, I do not propose to argue that the government is wrong in its contention, for if I were to do so, I would be submitting to this House an argument which would be more properly made in a court of law, as this House is not so constituted as to be the proper forum before which to argue an intricate question of law'. I would prefer that such a question should be argued before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

On looking through the written opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice, and speaking with all deference to his high legal attainments, if I can find statements of fact in that opinion which are inaccurate quotations of law that are erroneous if I can find arguments which are fallacious and other arguments which followed to their logical conclusion would bear out the contentions of the provinces, I think I will be justified in concluding that an opinion based on such data cannot be so clear and free from doubt as to warrant our passing an Act which later on might be declared invalid.

Looking at the opinion of the lion. Minister of Justice, and without pretending to dissect it thoroughly, let me call attention to a few facts which may throw some light on the conclusion he has come to. On page 4 I find this sentence :

The province of Manitoba has been carved out of Rupert's Land by legislation of the parliament of Canada, which also, by virtue of provision of the British North America Act, 1867, has practically the force and effect of an imperial statute.

That is a statement with regard to an important fact. But is it a fact that the province of Manitoba was carved out of Rupert's Land by legislation of the Dominion of Canada ? I find in Hodgins on Dominion and Provincial Legislation, page 9, that a predecessor of the hon. gentleman, the Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald, Minister of Justice of that day, in a report approved by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada in Council, on the 2nd of January, 1871, thus speaks of the question raised as to the power of parliament to pass an Act giving the new province the right to representation in the Senate and the House of Commons of the Dominion :

The general purview of the British North America Act, 1867, seems to be confined to the three provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, originally forming the Dominion.

And on the strength of that and the other statements in this state paper, the Minister of Justice of that day came to the conclusion that inasmuch as it was doubtful whether the parliament of Canada had the power to carve out a province from Prince Rupert's Land, it was wise to have imperial legislation to legalize what the parliament of Canada had done.

And imperial legislation was passed.

Mr. NORTHRUP.

Certainly.

Where then is the argument ?

Mr. NORTHRUP.

It is this, that the imperial parliament, a year or two later, passed an Act to legalize what the parliament of Canada had done, and what the hon. gentleman says the parliament of Canada had a right to do without any imperial Act. If the statement be true that the parliament of Canada had the power to carve out the province of Manitoba from Rupert's Land, the Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald and the officers of the Crown of that day were wrong in applying for an imperial Act, and the imperial parliament and the law lords were wrong when they passed an Act of the statute to legalize what the Dominion had a right, of its own accord, to do without any imperial legislation.

But we are speaking of the present time. What was done at that time was legalized subsequently.

Mr. NORTHRUP.

I am speaking of the statement in the report of the hon. gentleman that the province of Manitoba had been carved out of Rupert's Land by legislation of the parliament of Canada. But on referring to the record, I find that while the parliament of Canada had attempted to do so, the Minister of Justice of that day doubted its power, and the imperial parliament passed a piece of legislation, which was not at all necessary except on the ground that the parliament of Canada had not the power to do what it professed to do. I am justified, therefore, in my contention that in an important statement of fact the hon. gentleman is not accurate, and that when he says that the province of Manitoba has been carved out of Rupert's Land by legislation of the parliament of Canada, he should have qualified that statement by pointing out that so doubtful was the power of parliament to do this considered, that an Act was passed by the imperial parliament to legalize what the Dominion parliament had done. Therefore, I submit that is not a fact on which the conclusion arrived at by the Minister of Justice can be based. Further in this report of the hon. Minister of Justice, he says, that British Columbia and Prince Edward Island came into the union under the same section 146 of the British North America Act, and that they were admitted into the union with practically equal rights. On page 6, these are the words ho uses :

Where new partners are admitted into the union with practically equal rights, one would expect to find the relation ot the population of each province to that of the whole Dominion to govern this representation in the popular Chamber.

But as a matter of law is it the case that British Columbia and Prince Edward Island were admitted into the Dominion with practically equal rights ? In this very state paper of the hon. Minister of Justice I find on page 5 :

British Columbia is entitled to be represented in the Senate by three and by six in the House of Commons, the representation to be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.

And I find that, according to the same paper, page 5 :

The terms of union with Prince Edward Island contain a provision to precisely the same effect as clause 10 of the terms of union with British Columbia and the following provisions as to representation :-

That the population of Prince Edward Island having increased by 15,000 or upwards since the year 1861, the island shall be represented in the House of Commons by six members ; the representation to be readjusted from time to time under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.

But in the case of British Columbia, the representation was to be, not readjusted, as in the case of Prince Edward Island, but increased. It will hardly lie in the mouth

of the hon. gentleman to say that the two expressions ' readjusted ' and ' increased ' are synonymous terms, because in 1S92, when the last Redistribution Act was before the House, hon. members opposite, including the present leader of the government, admitted that under the terms of union, the representation of British Columbia could not be decreased below six. It was not contended then that the representation of Prince Edward Island could not be increased or decreased according to this method of readjustment. And therefore, Sir, we And that, as a matter of fact, as a matter of law, of the two provinces, both of which came in under orders in council, in the case of one it is guaranteed that the number of its members can never be less than six, while the other may be reduced to one or none. And yet, the Minister of Justice, in this report on so important a question, a report which if followed, may lead to a state of affairs never contemplated, and which never could be desired, says that these new provinces were admitted to the union with practically equal rights. I submit to this House could anybody on either side contend for a moment that when one province comes in with six members which number cannot be decreased, and another comes in with six members which can be decreased, it is not a mere abuse of language to say that the two provinces came in witli equal rights ?

And I would refer to another part of the report oi the Minister of Justice. At the beginning of his report he refers to the contention on the part of the parliament of New Brunswick that Canada under the 51st section, is Canada as originally constituted by the British North America Act, and he shows, on the other side, the contention which the government supports, that Canada means Canada as it exists today. We know what Canada means under the British North America Act-the original four provinces. And we know what Canada means as it exists to-day, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And the difference between the province of New Brunswick on the one side and the Dominion of Canada on the other is which of these interpretations is correct. The fourth subsection of section 51 is the clause which is under discussion and concerning which the question arises whether it means Canada as it was constituted under the British North America Act, or Canada as it exists to-day. I find, in this statement of the Minister of Justice the clause which bears on this point and gives the information on it. He said :

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 those answering a certain description Mr. NORTHRUP.

which section 51 does not answer shall be applicable to the new province

And the words following are underlined :

-in the same way and to the same extent as they apply to the other provinces of the Dominion, and as if the new province had been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.

And it goes on :

Section 51 is also in each case specially declared to be applicable, subject to the exceptions which for the present purpose are immaterial.

The words underlined

Those to which I have just referred.

seem to dispose of the suggested view as to the construction of the Act as untenable. Suppose one of the colonies had been one cf the provinces originally united, how must section 51 have then been read and construed. In the opening paragraph ' four provinces ' would have been 'five provinces'; the word 'province' throughout the section would be applied to the supposed additional province as well as the other, and can it be doubted that the word ' can ' in paragraph 4 would have included all five provinces.

So the hon. gentleman's argument is that as these provinces came in from time to time they became part of the Dominion on the same terms as did the original provinces, and therefore the British North America Act should be read, as each came in, as though it had been part of the Dominion when the British North America Act was passed. Then, let us see, this being admitted, bow clause 5 of the British North America Act will read. Making the amendments necessary for the hon. gentleman's argument it would read as follows :

Canada shall be divided into seven provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and British Columbia.

I think the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) will admit that that is a fair reading of clause 5 of the British North America Act as amended by his argument, that as each new province came into the Dominion it acquired all the powers of the original provinces, and that the clauses of the Act were to be read as if it had been admitted as part of the Dominion originally. But this would make Canada consist only of the seven provinces enumerated. If I had not had the pleasure of meeting the hon. gentleman in the North-west Territories last fall, I would have thought that he was under the impression that a person stepped from Manitoba directly in to British Columbia. Under his argument, the Northwest Territories form no part of the Dominion of Canada, for Canada consists only of the seven provinces. Under that argument, when we seek to find what each province should be arrayed against in order to calculate its representations, we find that it would be Ontario, or whatever other pro-

vince may be considered, against seven provinces, not against the Dominion of Canada. So, admitting for the purpose of argument-which I do not as a matter of fact- that the hon. gentleman's argument is correct, he has simply proved himself out of court, because he begins in the first page of his report to prove that Canada means Canada as it exists from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and he has proved that it means only the seven provinces, the territories not being included. So, when we seek to find against what part the representation of Ontario should be calculated, we find that it is only against seven provinces and not against the Dominion of Canada including the territories. What the practical effect of that would be I am not prepared to say. I do not know that it is material, for, in dealing with the law it is a question of right and wrong. However, I have had two calculations made showing the effect under each contention. Not being a mathematician, I cannot say whether they are right. But one calculation made by a competent person shows that, if the territories were excluded and Ontario were calculated against seven provinces, we should not have any reduction. The other made by a department in the city shows that, by a paltry decimal of twelve, Ontario would lose six seats, if the territories were brought into the calculation. While I believe the first figures to be correct, I am not going to commit myself to them. It is a question of the construction of the statute, and, if it does not affect us to-day it might affect us at some other time. We are entitled to a fair rendering of the statutes, and we are entitled to know whether the minister bases his argument on the ground that seven provinces constitute the whole of Canada before we are called upon to accept a calculation based upon such data.

I notice, also, that on page 6 of the hon. gentleman's report, it appears that the provinces came in with equal rights as compared with the others. Let us see how that would work out with regard to the other provinces. I have spoken of the fact that it is clear that British Columbia lias greater rights than Prince Edward Island. See how section 51 would work out from the standpoint of the old provinces in the light of the hon. gentleman's contention. Section 51 provides what is to be done on the completion of the census-that Quebec shall have a fixed number of sixty-five representatives, and we understand how the ether provinces have proportionate represtation. If the contention of the hon. gentleman is right, when we come to read section 51, it applies not only to the four provinces, but to the seven.

No, not to seven provinces, but to Canada.

Mr. NORTHRUP.

And the hon. minister lias shown by the argument I have referred

to it means the seven provinces. I am taking the hon. gentleman's report, and not at present giving my own views. He has proved to his own satisfaction that Canada consists of the seven provinces. How then would you work out this 51st clause V If he wishes to change his opinion and make the section mean the whole of Canada, how would he work out the 51st clause according to his contention ? Whatever portions compose Canada this clause provides for equal treatment. But what would you do when you come to British Columbia ? Can you apply section 51 to that province ? In view of the fact that its representations is never to be decreased below six members, how is it possible to apply this section to that province ? Then, how about the territories, if, as the hon. minister contends, Canada consists of the whole country from ocean to ocean ? It is settled law that we have the power, under the imperial statutes, to give the territories as large representations as we see fit. We can give them ten or fifty or an hundred members, as we please. So section 51 clearly does not apply to the territories. According to the hon. gentleman though, section 51 applies to the whole of Canada, it does not apply to the North-west Territories, the largest division of Canada, or to British Columbia, which is the largest province. I do not pretend to be very familiar with the geographical facts, but, if you subtract from the whole area of Canada the area of the North-west Territories and British Columbia, I am inclined to think that you will find that the greater part of Canadian territory is outside the operation of section 51, and we know that the time is not far distant when the North-west Territories and British Columbia will be, in population, the greatest part of the Dominion. So, the hon. gentleman has led himself into a difficulty there.

I only wished to call attention to a few points in the report of the Minister of Justice to argue that, when a gentleman of his attainments at the bar, and with his talents -talents which we all admire-looking into this matter and preparing a state paper, commits the inaccuracies I have pointed out, and comes to such conclusions as I have shown, the ordinary humble member of this House, such as myself and those who sit about me, may well say that this question is not so beyond doubt that we should be justified in proposing legislation until the best opinions that we can obtain have been obtained.

Now referring for a moment to the contention on the other side, is there nothing to be said for the contention of New Brunswick ? I see New Brunswick's contention submitted to the Dominion government is very brief. It does not descend to argument, it merely states the case of New Brunswick. But is there anything to be said on behalf of the contention of New Brunswick ? I think a great deal can be

said. It has been laid down by one of the Supreme Court judges, Mr. Justice Strong, quoted in Lefroy on the Constitution, page 42 :

We are not only entitled, but bound to apply that well-established rule, which requires us, in placing a meaning upon descriptive terms and definitions contained in statutes, to have recourse to external aids derived from the surrounding circumstances and the history of the subject-matter dealt with, and to consider the enactment by the light derived from such source, and so to put ourselves as far as possible in the position of the legislature whose language we have to expound. If this rule were rejected and the language of the statute were considered without such assistance from extrinsic facts, it is manifest that the task or interpretation would degenerate into mere speculation and guess work.

So we have the authority of one of the judges of the Supreme Court to say that we have a right to look at all the surrounding circumstances, and to consider what light can be shed by them on the legislation that has been passed. In the debates before the imperial parliament, when Lord Carnarvon was introducing the British North America Act, he spoke very clearly as to the language of the enactment, and laid down that the British North America Act was the result of a treaty made between the various powers every clause of which was a compromise; and because every clause of that treaty was a compromise he refused to allow the House of Lords to amend any clause of it in any respect. Now then if every clause of that treaty was a compromise, perhaps it would not be out of place to inquire into the circumstances under which this particular clause 51, in which we are so deeply interested, came to be put in the statute. On reference to Pope's Confederation Documents, page 67, we find the debate on the clause giving the number of representatives that the various provinces should be given. We find Mr. Galt saying :

We have supposed that the population of Lower Canada being tolerably equable in Its character, would afford the best basis. But having respect to the rapid increase of Upper Canada, we think the lower provinces should not be reduced if they do not increase in the same ratio. Therefore, the lower provinces would have the same as they have now unless in the very improbable case of any one falling off five per cent or mdre,-that Is a decrease relatively to the whole federation.

Which then began with four provinces. The Hon. Geo. Brown whose name is greatly revered by hon. gentlemen opposite, speaking on the same subject, says on page 67 :

The practical result will be that while Lower Canada certainly will not be less and the lower provinces may increase in population, they cannot decrease in the number of representatives. It keeps the House within a reasonable limit. It is now to start with one in 17,000. It will afterwards vary.

Then on page 68 the debate goes on, and it is stated that the number of representa-Mr. NORTHRUP.

tives then given was not accidental, but was given because one member for each county and one for each city would give exactly the number agreed upon. The delegates found that they) could so divide up the representation of the Dominion that the figures agreed on in the British North America Act would afford what they considered a fair basis for the representation of each province, and it was evidently understood by the representatives at that time when they so provided that unless there was a falling off of one-twentieth in the population of a province there should be no decrease, that practically they were insured against any decrease. Now the provinces have gone into the Dominion on that basis, and the British North America Act being an imperial Act, I submit it is beyond question that the terms of the British North America Act, every clause of it being, as Lord Carnarvon said, a compromise, must stand precisely to-day as they were then, except insofar as those clauses have been modified by imperial legislation. We must not forget that no matter what legislation this parliament might profess to pass or attempt to pass in derogation of imperial legislation, we would be exceeding our powers and our legislation would be utterly void. Now, I would ask the Minister of Justice what legislation has ever passed the imperial parliament that in any way affects clause 51. Probably the answer will be : The other

provinces came in under Orders In Council. True, they did come in under Orders in Council, and if the Minister of Justice will read the imperial Orders in Council under which Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and other provinces came in, he will find that in each case the Order in Council provided that in pursuance of the 146th section of the British North America Act they came in subject to the provisions of this Act, for in fact an Order in Council would have no power to vary the British North America Act, it would be as invalid as an Act of this House, except for clause 146 which provided that on an address from a province, with a similar address and on similar terms, from this House, the Queen in Council might approve of their addresses and allow that) province to come in on the terms agreed upon, but in every case subject to the provisions of that Act. So that when British Columbia or Prince Edward Island came into the union, they came in subject to the provisions of the British North America Act. The imperial Order in Council has no power to vary that, and whatever its provisions were, they had to accept them.

Now the Minister of Justice seemed to think that if there were four partners, and two or three others came in, they must come in on equal terms. Surely no wilder statement of law than that could be imagined. One can understand four gentlemen owning a business each holding a one-quarter interest; and they decide to take in, we will say, their head clerk. There is nothing to prevent them giving each one his share of one-eighth, or one-sixteenth or one-thirty second, or any interest they like, to that clerk. It is wholly a matter of contract between them, and even if that clerk had ten times the brains of the original four, and contributed ten times as much to the success of the business as the original partners, when he came to claim his share of the profits, he would have to abide by the terms on which he came in. If the Minister of Justice will look at the termsj on which these provinces came into the union he will find that there was a provision that they should have the benefit of certain terms from the old provinces, they were given a benefit here and there, but there is not a single word to show that the old provinces lost the rights they had already acquired by imperial legislation. It would be easy for any one to infer that the provinces should have equal rights, but they did not get equal rights, as is shown by the exceptional representation given to British Columbia. Therefore we find that the provinces have come in with different rights between themselves. Now, if they have come in with different rights between themselves, why should it be argued that they would necessarily come in with equal rights as against the old partners ? I venture to submit that the true view of the British North America Act is that laid down by Sir John A. Macdonald in his state paper of 1870, when he said that the purview of the British North America Act wafc evidently confined to the original four provinces. That Act was framed by the ablest statesmen of Canada. They were building wisely and well, and they knew the country was liable to have an unlimited expansion; they knew it was impossible to foresee the possibilities of this country, and therefore, in providing for the present, as far as possible they provided for the future in general but not in details. They provided that other provinces might come in, but the details they left to be arranged while the original partners of the British North America Act secured imperial legislation, a charter which they hold to-day. I will not say anything further on this point than to claim that in view of the circumstances under which this, clause was inserted in the British North America Act, in view of the guarantee of the charter that the provinces have under the British North America Act, ini view of the fact that not one word is to be found in any Order of Council or in any address on which an Order in Council is issued, leading to the conclusion that the original provinces were divested of any powers they had, whereas on the contrary they have been given new powers, certain specified powers, it seems to me that the case is not free from doubt, and this is as far as it is necessary to go for the purposes of my argument. ) But if

the question be not free from doubt, admitting that the right hon. gentleman wishes to do what is fair, is it the part of a practical man of business to obtain an opinion from an inferior court when he could obtain one from a superior court ? Is it wise to obtain an opinion that has no intrinsic value beyond the value that may be given to it from the personal standing of the judges when,, if the case be referred to the Privy Council, we shall then have an authoritative decision which will be beyond question. Therefore I hope that the right hon. leader of the government, considering that this is only the third session of this parliament, that the parliament is still in its infancy, that there is ample time to secure the decision of the Privy Council and pass this legislation long before this parliament conies to its natural end, will not cause the money of this country to be expended and the time of hon. members perhaps, to be wasted in fruitlessly discussing legislation which the decision of the Privy Council, a few months later on, may show to be utterly abortive.

Mr. Speaker, of course my hon. friend (Mr. Northrop) is not unaware of the fact that there is no provision for any reference to the Privy Council and that the only provision which we have in our statutes is that which provides for a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Is there not a provision for an appeal from the Supreme Court ?

We are not dealing with appeals ; we are dealing with references. I assume that when hon. gentlemen argue legal questions, they mean what they say. As I understand it, the obligation is imposed upon the government after each decennial census to provide for the redistribution of the representation of the different provinces of the Dominion. That is an obligation which is imposed on parliament. There is no discretion that can be exercised by the government in respect to that redistribution. The charter under which we live, under which we are governed, the British North America Act, provides for the manner in which that redistribution is to be made, and section 51 of the British North America Act operates automatically without reference to the government in any manner or form. Now, in respect to the apportionment of representation in each province, there parliament is supreme. When you have determined that in respect to the province of Quebec sixty-five members are to be allotted, or rather when the British North America Act has decided that sixty-five members are to be allotted to the province of Quebec, then, within the limits of the province, parliament is absolutely supreme. Parliament can determine how these members are to be allotted, to which portion of the province they

That is the province of Manitoba.

-and the North-western territory, or either of them, into the union, on snc.h terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed.

That is to say, that provision is made under this section for the admission of those provinces that existed at that time and also for the admission of the North-west Territories and Rupert's Land on conditions to be expressed in the addresses. I will have occasion in a few moments to refer to the conditions upon which these provinces were admitted. Take for instance the case of Manitoba-

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

There are other words which will have to be taken into consideration in connection with this section. Subject to the provisions of this Act.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (reading) ; On such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act; and the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The first province that came in was the province of Manitoba. In 1870 an Order In Council was passed in respect to Rupert's Land, in which I find the following :

It is hereby ordered and declared by Her Majesty, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, in pursuance and exercise of l he powers vested in Her Majesty by the said Acts of parliament, that from and after the fifteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy, the said North-western territory shall be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions set forth in the first hereinbefore recited address, and that the parliament of Canada shall from the day aforesaid have full power and authority to legislate for the future welfare and good government of the said territory And it is further ordered that, without prejudice to any obligations arising from the

aforesaid approved reports, Rupert's Land shall from and after the said date be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the following terms and conditions, being the terms and conditions still remaining to be performed of those embodied in the said second address of the parliament of Canada.

Rupert's Land came in under the name of Manitoba, and when it came in certaiu doubts were expressed in respect to the power of the Dominion of Canada to carve out-I use the expression again which I used in the opinion which I gave-to carve out of Rupert's Land the province of Manitoba. Certain doubts were expressed by the late Sir John Macdonald and other members of his government, and as a result the Order in Council, to which my hon. friend referred, was passed. Then, what happened ? We find that we have what is known as the Doubt Removing Act; that is to say, the British North America Amendment Act of 1871, in which it is provided 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 provision for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for the pausing of laws for the peace, order, and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said parliament.

The Dominion parliament shall have the right to pass such laws as it deems proper for the representation in parliament of the provinces of Canada. Then, we have, in addition to that, section 5 :

The following Acts passed by the said parliament of Canada, and entitled respectively : [DOT] An Act for the temporary government of Rupert's Land and the North-western Territory when united with Canada,' and ' An Act to amend and continue the Act thirty-two and thirty-three Victoria, chapter three, and to establish and provide for the ' Government of the province of Manitoba ' shall be and be deemed to have been valid and effectual for all purposes whatsoever from the date at which they respectively received the assent, in the Queen's name, of the Governor General of the said Dominion of Canada. 1

That is to say, the Act passed by the Dominion carving Manitoba out of Rupert's Land in 1870, is declared by this Imperial Act as having been properly passed, and the Act of 1870 is now to be construed as if it had been an Act of the imperial parliament. Acting on this theory, that this Act here confirms the first Act and made it imperial legislation, I ventured to make the statement that the Dominion of Canada did carve Manitoba out of Rupert's Land. My hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) cavils with that statement. I say that the Imperial Act of 1871 says that what we did in 1870 was good, and that it gave to the Act of 1870 absolutely the same effect as if it were done by the imperial parliament, and my hon. friend says it is an in-corrrect statement in law to assert that Canada had carved out of Rupert's land the province of Manitoba. I am willing to accept his criticism.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Would the Minister of Justice permit me to ask a question now-if it would interrupt his argument I shall do so later.

I prefer it now.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

1 merely ask for information. Under what statute is it that we get power to provide for the representation of the North-west Territories. Is it not under section four of the Act to which the hon. gentleman has just referred.

Yes.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Does the hon. gentleman not observe a marked difference between section four and section two. Section two dealing with provinces (therefore not applying to the territories) provides specially for representation in addition to providing for laws for the peace, order and good government; whereas section four provides for the making of laws for the peace, order and good government of the territories but not for representation.

I cannot see the distinction.