Telegraph statistics of the Department of Customs for the year ended June 30, 1913.- Hon. F. Cochrane. Telephone statistics of the Department of Customs for the year ended June 30, 1913.- Hon. F. Cochrane.

Bill No. 56, respecting the Alberta Central Eailway Company.-Mr. Michael Clark. Bill No. 57, respecting the British Trust Company.-Mr. Baker. Bill No. 58, to incorporate the Sudbury, Kepawa and Bell Biver Eailway Company. -Mr. G. V. White. Bill No. 59, respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Eailway Company.-Mr. Currie. Bill No. 60, to incorporate the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.

Mr. M. J. DEMEES (St. John-Iberville) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 61, to amend the Eailway Act. He said: The object of this Bill is to make more explicit section 298 of the Eailway Act, and to avoid any ambiguity which might arise in future in the interpretation of that section in its present form. Section 298 of the Railway Act refers to the setting fire by locomotives to crops, lands, fences, and so on. It reads in part as follows: The company making use of such locomotive . . . shall be liable for such damage. If we were to interpret this section strictly to the letter, the remedy given would be of no value whatever. In many cases, it is absolutely impossible for the claimant to know what company is using the locomotive. For instance, in the county of St. John and Iberville, the Delaware and Hudson railway has running rights over the Grand Trunk railway; so has the Central Vermont from Montreal to Iberville. The Rutland railway has also running rights on the Canadian Pacific railway from Montreal to Iberville. Now, suppose that a locomotive set fire to erops along one of these lines, action would naturally be brought against the company which owns the line, and the reply in every case would be that the company was not using that particular locomotive-that, it was used by another company operating over its line. That is the defence that is always put up, and under these circumstances I think it is urgent that the law be made more explicit. Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 62, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons. He said: As it has become necessary, under the terms of the British North America Act, that the representation of the various provinces in Canada should be readjusted, perhaps it would be convenient at the moment to review briefly the legislative provisions which have been made in that regard, and to state the results up to the present time. By section 37 of the British North America Act, 1867, it is provided as follows: The House of Commons shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, consist of one hundred and eighty-one members, of whom eighty-two shall be elected for Ontario, sixty-five for Quebec, nineteen for Nova Scotia, and fifteen for New Brunswick. That fixes the representation of the various provinces up to the year 1871, and from that date the representation of the various provinces is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the same Act, which is as follows: 39i On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and on each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner, and from such time as Parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules: (1) Quebec shall have the fixed number of 65 members. (2) There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number 65 bears to tne number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained). (3) In the computation of the number of members for a province a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded T but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole number. (4) On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards. (5) Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing Parliament. There is another provision of the British North America Act, 1867, which might be alluded to in this regard; it is section 146: It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, and from the Houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those colonies or provinces, or any of them, into the union, and on address from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada to admit Ruperts Land and the Northwestern Territory, or either of them, into the union, 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. It will be observed that the enactments to which I have called attention, and particularly section 51 of the British North America Act, 1867, provided for representation according to population, and provided alsh for the readjustment of the representation of the various provinces of Canada at intervals of ten years, and upon results determined by the decennial census. It is not absolutely accurate to say that the representation shall be entirely based on population, because the fourth subsection of section 51 provided a saving

clause in case the proportion of the population of a province to the whole population of Canada should not be diminished by one-twentieth. The terms which were then fixed between the four original provinces undoubtedly constituted a compact between those provinces, and up to the present time they have, of course, been carried out according to the true intent and meaning of the statute. British Columbia came into the Confederation under the provisions of section 146 on the 16th day of May, 1871. The provision in regard to the representation of British Columbia in Parliament is to be found in the eighth clause of the resolutions which were embodied in the Order in Council. That clause is in the following terms: British Columbia shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by three members, and by six members in the House of Commons. The representation to be increased under the jorovisions of the British North America Act, 1867. Prince Edward Island came into the Confederation under the special provisions of section 146 on the 26th day of June, 1873. The relevant clause of the resolutions which were embodied in the Order in Council constituting that province a part of the Canadian Confederation, is in the following terms: That the population of Prince Edward Island having been increased bjr fifteen thousand or upwards since the year 1861, the Island shall he represented in the House of Commons of Canada by six members, the representation to he readjusted from time to time under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867. In the year 1871 the British North America Act was amended by an enactment of the Imperial Parliament, which is known as the British North America Act, 1871. By the second section of that enactment it was provided as follows: 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 passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said Parliament. It did not appear that there was any special provision for representation in Parliament of the territories which did not form any part of the several provinces, and so another amendment to the British North America Act was enacted in 1886, which is known as the British North America Act, 1886. By the first section of that Act it is provided as follows: The Parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make provision for the representation in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or in either of them of any territories which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any province thereof. I have given in this brief way a sketch of the legislative provisions which constitute the charter of this country as far as representation in Parliament is concerned. Next, it may be worth while that I should place before the House, in a succinct form, the results which have obtained from time to time under the enactments to which I have alluded. I have pointed out that the original Confederation consisted of four provinces, the representation being fixed as follows: Ontario, 82 members; Quebec, 65 members; Nova Scotia, 19 members; New Brunswick, 15 members; a total of 181 members. In 1872, after the decennial census of 1871, a Redistribution Bill was passed, which provided that the representation of the House of Commons should consist of 200 members, distributed as follows: Ontario, 88 members; Quebec, 65 members; Nova Scotia, 21 members; New Brunswick, 16 members; Manitoba, 4 members; British Columbia, 6 members. In 1882, after the decennial census of 1881, a further Redistribution Bill was passed, which provided that the representation of the House of Commons should consist of 211 members, distributed as follows: Ontario, 92 members; Quebec, 65 members; Nova Scotia, 21 members; New Brunswick, 16 members; Manitoba, 5 members; British Columbia, 6 members; Prince Edward Island, 6 members. In 1892, after the decennial census of1891, a further Redistribution Bill waspassed, which provided that the representation of the House of Commons should consist of 213 members, distributed as follows: Ontario, 92 members; Quebec, 65 members; Nova Scotia, 20 members; New Brunswick, 14 members; Manitoba, 7 members; British Columbia, 6 members; Prince Edward Island, 5 members; the Northwest Territories, 4 members. In 1903, after the decennial census of 1901, a further Redistribution Bill was passed, which provided that the representation of the House of Commons should consist of 214 members, distributed as fol-

lows: Ontario, 86 members; Quebec^ 65 members; Nova Scotia, 18 members; New Brunswick, 13 members; Manitoba 10 members; British Columbia, 7 members; Prince Edward Island, 4 members; the Northwest Territories, 10 members; the Yukon Territory, 1 member. After the establishment of the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and after the quinquennial census of 1906, the representation of these two provinces was fixed by chapter 41 of the Statutes of 1907 at 7 and 10 respectively, giving a net increase of 7 members and bringing the total representation of the House of Commons up to the number of 221, at which it stands at the present time. In passing, I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that in 1872 the membership of the House had increased from 181 members, the number at which it was originally fixed, to 200 members. Of these 200 members, 10 came from the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia, leaving the membership from the four original provinces of Confederation at 190. So it will be borne in mind that, according to the increase of the population up to that time, the province of Quebec, which was the pivotal province of Canada, had lost relatively in its membership. It is perfectly true that it retained a fixed membership of 65, but originally it had 65 members out of a total membership of 181. In 1872 it had a fixed membership of 65 out of a total membership of 200; or, taking the four original provinces of Confederation, it had a fixed membership of 65 out of a total membership of 190. In 1882 the total membership of the House of Commons was 211. Quebec still retained, under the terms of the British North America Act, its fixed membership of 65. The membership allotted in 1882 to the four original provinces of Confederation was 194, so the relative membership of Quebec at that time had decreased in that proportion. In 1892 the membership of the House of Commons had increased to 213, and the membership of the four original provinces of Confederation had decreased to 191, or just ten more than the number assigned to those provinces by the British North America Act. In 1903 the membership of the House of Commons had increased to 214, and the membership of the four original provinces of Confederation had decreased to 182, or just one more than the number allotted to those provinces by the British North America Act. Since that time, as I have already pointed out, by the readjustment in Alberta and Saskatchewan which took place after the quinquennial census) of 1905, the membership of the House had been increased to 221, Quebec still retaining the fixed number of 65. In 1903, when this subject was under discussion in the House of Commons, the question was raised as to the representation of the Maritime provinces. Eventually the Government of that day submitted certain questions for the determination of the Supreme Court of Canada. The answers of the Supreme Court of Canada upon those questions were eventually carried by appeal to the Privy Council, which affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Two questions were thus submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Privy Council. One related to the Maritime provinces in general, and the other had special reference to the province of Prince Edward Island. The question argued on behalf of the Maritime provinces generally was as to the meaning which should be placed upon the word ' Canada ' in subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act. The Supreme Court of Canada and the Privy Council held in effect that the word 'Canada,' as used in subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act, must be ascertained by reference to section 4 of the British North America Act, which is in the following terms: 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 effect 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. The importance of that provision, from the standpoint of the Maritime provinces, was this: If it should be determined that Canada in subsection 4 of section 51 was to include only the four original provinces of Confederation, then obviously those provinces, which were losing representation in the House of Commons by the Act then proposed and afterwards passed, would stand in a very much better position, because in that case no account would be taken of the rapidly increasing population of those portions of Canada which had been added since Confederation. The judgment of the Supreme Court and of the Privy Council in effect was this, that inasmuch as Canada was constituted originally by an Order in Council, passed under the authority of the British North America Act, and inasmuch

as the other provinces of Canada subsequently added were also constituted a part of Canada by Order in Council passed under the provisions of the same Act, the definition in section 4 necessarily implied that all the provinces constituting Canada in 1903 must be taken into account in determining the proportion to be ascertained under the provisions of subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act. So, the contention on the part of the Maritime provinces failed. There was a separate contention made on behalf of the province of Prince Edward Island, to which I need not especially call attention at this moment, except to say that such contention was also decided adversely to the claim of the province. It will be observed by the statistics which I have "piaced before the House that in 1672 both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick increased their representation in the House. In 1882, they retained their representation. In 1892 the representation of Nova Scotia was reduced by one, still leaving it one in excess of that fixed by the British North America Act of 1867. The representation New Brunswick on the same occasion was reduced to fourteen, leaving it one below that fixed in 1867. The question was debated in 1903, and was mooted last year and again this year, as to whether or not some relief could be given to the Maritime provinces in this regard. The members of the Government had the advantage a few weeks ago of hearing the subject discussed, both from the general standpoint of the Maritime provinces and from the special standpoint of Prince Edward Island; and I am bound to say that I do not think the case either for the Maritime provinces generally or for Prince Edward Island in particular could have been put more thoroughly, more exhaustively, more eloquently or more cogently than it was by the Prime Minister of New Brunswick and the Prime Minister of Prince Edward Island. I think that everything was said that could be said on behalf of the Maritime provinces generally, and on behalf of Prince Edward Island in respect to the special circumstances which were brought to the attention of the Government with regard to that province. Let us for a moment give consideration to the case of the Maritime provinces generally. Without going into the claim of these provinces exhaustively, I shall take the liberty of laying upon the table of the House, and, if the House will permit, of having printed for the use of members, the memorandum placed before the Interprovincial Conference on behalf of the Maritime prewinces generally and the memorandum placed before the same conference, and afterwards before the Government, on behalf of the province of Prince Edward Island; and in doing that, I shall relieve the House from listening to a fuller statement of the claims put forward. While the case on behalf of the Maritime provinces generally was put cogently, exhaustively and thoroughly, still one could not disguise from one's self the fact that in the first instance, when these provinces came into Confederation with a certain representation in thTs House, it was the expectation of the fathers of Confederation that they would gain and not lose. It is perfectly true that in the past twenty years their expectations have been disappointed in that regard, but it is also perfectly true that two of the fundamental considerations which had to be taken into account by those who made the compact upon which Confederation was based were the representation of the several provinces in Parliament and the distribution or division of legislative and executive powers as between thei Dominion on the one hand and the provinces on the other. Speaking for myself, I do not see how it would be posssible for this Parliament to attempt any alteration in the representation of the provinces without the consent of the provinces themselves. It was in that connection that the question was taken up before the Interprovincial Conference held last autumn in the city of Ottawa, and the result of the proceedings of that conference amounted to this, that the conference declined to take any action on the subject, saying that the matter was one for the consideration of Parliament. It is absolutely, in one sense, for the consideration of this Parliament, although this Parliament has no power to amend the British North America Act. On the other hand, if I apprehend the situation correctly, so far as the four original provinces are concerned, it was also a question for these four original provinces to say whether or not any change could or should be made in the compact under which the first provinces entered into the Confederation. The province of Quebec having been fixed as the pivotal province for representation retains the exact number of sixty-five members in this House under all conditions. But as I have pointed out, it is possible for the relative representation of Quebec to be changed as it was changed in the early days of Confederation. It has also been changed in another sense and from another consideration through the admission

of new provinces and the increased membership of the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, as the provinces at the conference to which I have alluded had declined to take any action or pass any resolution on the subject-although I understand there were a good many expressions of sympathy- it did not seem possible for us to come to this Parliament and propose any remedy for the unfortunate situation with which the Maritime provinces find themselves confronted. It might, however, be said, and I think with a good deal of truth, than in the Canadian Parliament the representatives of the Maritime provinces, like those of other provinces of Canada, do not act as a body for their provinces. To quote from a well-written editorial on this subject published in the Maritime provinces some ten years ago: On almost every question they divide according to their attitude towards the government of the day. Perhaps it would be wiser to say that in their minds their view of what is best for the Dominion as a whole is paramount. Further than this, the influence of a province in the great council of the Dominion does not depend nearly so much upon the number of re-pr^s^ntntives as in th#* pbHHv. skill, cxrtcri price, intellectual power and genius of these representatives. And it can fairly be said that in this respect the Maritime provinces have not been at all subordinate, no matter which party was in power. Now, with regard to the case of the province of Prince Edward Island. It will be observed that the province of British Columbia had provision made, in the Order in Council which brought it into Confederation, that its representation then fixed should be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act. In the Order in Council passed nearly two years afterwards which brought the province of Prince Edward Island into Confederation the expression used was ' readjusted,' instead of the expression ' increased.' The case for Prince Edward Island is argued very cogently indeed upon the point that for many years it had refused to come into Confederation except upon a fixed representation which exceeded that to which it was entitled on the basis of population alone. It declined for many years to come into this confederation with only five members in the House of Commons, but eventually six were conceded to it, when it had a right to no more than five. It is argued that the construction of the Order in Council to which I have called attention was understood by those who carried on the negotiations on the part of Prince Edward Island, as meaning a readjustment by way of increase and not a readjustment that would decrease the number of representatives to which Prince Edward Island was entitled under the Order in Council in question. It is also urged on behalf of the province of Prince Edward Island that that province, not being one of the four provinces which created among themselves the original compact of Confederation, could be dealt with in this regard by the Dominion as a whole, because the compact, in the case of Prince Edward Island, was made not between province and province, but between this Dominion as a whole and the province of Prince Edward Island, then >a sovereign province, possessing plenary powers of selfgovernment. It has been urged upon us with great vigour by the Premier of Prince Edward Island and !by Mr. Stewart, a member of his Government, that steps should be taken to fix a minimum representation for the province of Prince Edward Island of six, the number originally mentioned in the Order in Council passed under the provisions of the Confederation Act. It has been noted that in 1882 the Redistribution Bill did not diminish the representation of the province of Prince Edward Island, although, according to the census of 1881, Prince Edward Island was at that time entitled to no more than five members. At first I was very much impressed by this circumstance, but I observed that in a speech made by the bon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island, in 1903, who argued strongly and forcibly against the claims put forward on behalf of the province at that time, he attributed this result to the fact that there was no previous census with which the census of 1881 could be compared for the purposes of subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned; amd probably that accounts for the result in 1882. In the Bill which I am asking permission to introduce, I have left blank the number of members for the province of Prince Edward Island, and therefore the total number of members, for the reason that I desire that question to be left open for consideration by the committee to whom I shall ask to have the Bill referred. The province of Prince Edward Island has in the Senate of Canada a representation of four members. If the terms of the British North America Act were applied strictly to the province of Prince Edward Island, it would have under the Bill now to be passed by this Parliament, a representation in the House of Commons of not more than three. It is somewhat incon-

gruous that a small province like Prince Edward Island, or, indeed, any province of Canada, shonld have a smaller representation in the House of Commons than in the Senate. I shall have occasion at a later stage in the session to speak of the principles which seem to have guided the fathers of Confederation in establishing the representation of the various provinces in the Senate. For the present it is sufficient to say this: that there does not seem to have been any very fixed principle in their minds, and that the arrangement as to representation in the Senate appears to have been almost purely an arbitrary one. In the United States, as hon. members of this House know, each state of the Union has a fixed representation of two in the Senate. In other federations the membership is determined not in that way, but according to the population, but I am not aware of any federation in which the membership of any province or state is less in the lower house than in the upper house. If I remember correctly the provisions of the Australian Commonwealth Act, the basis fixed in the Commonwealth of Australia is that each province shall, as nearly as possible, have two members in the lower house for each member that it has in the upper house. There is another consideration, not of a legal character, and not one of controlling or determining influence, which might possibly be taken into consideration in this House in regard to the province of Prince Edward Island. I shall speak a little later of the reasons that have led both political parties in this country to fix a higher unit of representation in cities than in rural communities. That principle, of course, gives a larger representation to those who live upon the land in this country than it does to those who dwell in cities. The reasons for that I will come to a little later, but so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned it has to be borne in mind that the population of that province is almost wholly a rural population, and that upon any basis laid down by either political party in this country, and upon the basis which I hope will be laid down by the committee to whom this Bill will go, if the population of Prince Edward Island, although less than 100,000, were situated in any other province of Canada, it would have the right to a membership of at least four in the House of Commons. I do not know whether I make absolutely clear to hon. gentlemen of this House what lies in my mind, but that, I think, is the fact. If without being limited by the terms of a constitutional act, as we are to-day, we were to take into consideration a rural population of nearly 100,000 in any of the other provinces of Canada, we would, I think, upon any basis that has ever been accepted or is likely to be accepted, give a representation of not less than -four members to that population. It is my duty next to lay before the House -and I do it purely for the purpose of convenience-the results of the census of 1911. I may say that there was a slight error in the census figures as at first published, and the figures here given are from the second and corrected edition of the census returns. Taken in alphabetical order, the population of the different provinces according to the last census is as follows:- Alberta, 374,663; British Columbia, 392,480; Manitoba, 455,614; New Brunswick, 351,889; Nova Scotia, 492,338; Ontario, 2,523,274; Prince Edward Island, 93,728; Quebec, 2,003,232; Saskatchewan, 492,432; Yukon, 8,512. Taking the population of Quebec, 2,003,232, and dividing it by 65, we obtain the unit of 30,819. Applying this unit to the population of the various provinces of Canada, we find that Alberta is entitled to a membership of 12.12. The decimal is disregarded, and Alberta receives a membership of twelve. In the ease of British Columbia, the number is 12-70. The decimal being in excess of 50, British Columbia receives a membership of 13. In the case of Manitoba, the number is 14-78. The decimal being in exexcess of 50, Manitoba will receive a membership of 15. In the case of New Brunswick, the number is 11-42. The decimal being less than 50 is disregarded, and New Brunswick receives a membership of 11. In the case of Nova Scotia, the number is 15-97. The decimal being in excess of 50, Nova Scotia receives a membership of 16. In the case of Ontario, the number is 81-87. The decimal being in excess of 50, Ontario receives a membership of 82. In the case of Prince Edward Island, the number is 3-04, and, if the provisions of the British North America Act are strictly observed and the considerations to which I called attention a moment ago are not regarded, the representation of Prince Edward Island would be 3. In the case of Quebec there is a fixed representation of 65. In the case of Saskatchewan, the number is 15-97. The decimal being in excess of 50, Saskatchewan will receive a representation of 16. It is not proposed to interfere with the representation of the Yukon Territory. It will be observed that, according to what I have proposed, the representation of On- tario will be decreased from 86 to 82. That of Quebec remains at the fixed number, 65. That of Nova Scotia will be decreased from 18 to 16. That of New Brunswick will be decreased from 13 to 11. That of Manitoba will be increased from 10 to 15. That of Saskatchewan will be increased from 10 to 16. That of Alberta will be increased from 7 to 12. That of British Columbia will be increased from 7 to 13. Prince Edward Island, according to the letter of the British North America Act, would have its representation decreased from 4 to 3.

the subject, and in that way have an interchange of views which, I trust, may be of use in bringing about a fair redistribution in 1914. Emphasis has been laid by members on both sides of the House, perhaps more particularly by hon. gentlemen opposite, upon the observance of municipal boundaries. This principally concerns the provinces of eastern Canada, and the municipal boundaries alluded to are of a varying character in these provinces. There are the boundaries of parishes, of villages, of towns, of cities, of townships, of counties divided into two municipal districts, of municipal counties, and of counties united for municipal or judicial purposes, or both. It is a very desirable principle, to be followed as far as possible; but there is another principle also to ibe observed, and the difficulty which will confront the committee this year, as it confronted the committee in 1903, will be to say in any particular case how these two principles can best be worked out, and, in case they are absolutely inconsistent, which one of them is to prevail. The other principle to which I alluded is a certain equality of population. This principle, of course, will constantly be brought into opposition to the first principle. It must not be too seriously disregarded, as it is the basis of the whole scheme of representation as between the provinces; and I observe that in the principles laid down in Great Britain at the conference to which I have alluded, equality of population was placed well to the forefront. My right hon. friend himself, in 1892, in speaking of this subject, at page 3970 of ' Hansard, used these words, which express very well what is in my own mind and I think in the minds of all hon. gentlemen in this House: The guiding principle should he as far as possible to equalize the population in all the constituencies. Then, there is the question to which I alluded a moment ago; a greater unit for urban constituencies than for rural constituencies. Both parties have accepted this, although possibly it may have been emphasized on one side more than on the other. There have been various reasons given, some of which may be pertinent and cogent, and others of which may not be entitled to a great deal of weight. It is said that in a city constituency there ought to be a higher unit for the reason that it possesses greater solidarity and compactness; that its interests are more uniform; that its interests can make themselves felt more effectively and cogently than the interests of a rural con- stituency. It is said also that many men who represent rural constituencies reside in cities, and in that way the cities throughout Canada, or in many portions of Canada, have a certain voice in the legislature which is denied to rural constituencies. Importance has been laid by some members of this House upon the fact that there is perhaps a more stable interest in those who dwell upon the land, and whose forefathers have dwelt upon it for many generations, than is to be found in the case of a certain floating element of city population. In Ontario for a century or more, in my own province for a century and a half, and in the province of Quebec for three centuries at least, men have been dwelling on the same land from generation to generation. Those who cultivate it now can look back to their forefathers who were pioneers, say a century, a century and a half, or three centuries ago; and if I am not mistaken it was this consideration, coupled also with that to which I alluded in connection with the cities-a certain floating element of population-which impressed itself more than any other upon Sir John A. Macdonald in giving effect to this consideration. I hope that the committee will not depart from the principle which has been accepted by both political parties in that regard. It is impossible to fix or to suggest any defined percentage. There was no defined percentage fixed or suggested, I think, in 1903, or at any previous redistribution; but it seems to me that reasonable consideration should be given to this principle, which has almost come to be a part of our constitution, and I have no doubt that the committee to which this Bill is to be referred will give the consideration which is due to that principle. Then, the English principles of community of interest and compactness in respect of geographical position may very well also be considered in this country as in Great Britain. I thought it desirable, Mr. Speaker, in introducing this Bill, to give in this way a brief history not only of the legislation but of the principles, as I understand them, which have actuated both political parties in dealing with this question. I shall be very glad to take up the second reading of the Bill on a date as early as may be convenient to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, and to have the Bill committed to seven members, as suggested, in order that they may enter upon their conferences and deliberations at the earliest possible moment. Motion agreed to. On the motion that the Bill be now read the first time: