Document Information

Date: 1905-04-11
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 4273-4370.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

4273

PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.

House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden, thereto.

Mr. R. A. PRINGLE (Cornwall and Stormont). Mr. Speaker, I fully recognize that the question we are now discussing is one of the most important that has come before the House, at any rate since I have had the honour of having a seat in this parliament. Representing as I do my native constituency; a constituency in which there are all classes, all creeds, and all nationalities which go to make up our great Canadian national life, I feel that I am not representing here the sentiment of Protestants alone, nor the sentiments of Roman Catholics alone, but I feel it is my duty to endeavour to arrive at a conclusion on this subject upon grounds which can appeal to the conscience of all men, irrespective of their particular faith. I have the good fortune to speak in this debate after the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. P. Talbot), a gentleman for whom I have a very high esteem; a gentleman who was in charge of one of the largest educational institutions in my town for years, and a gentleman who took a very active and prominent part in one of the strongest Protestant organizations in the county of Stormont. I was much pleased to hear his opinions in regard to the school system in the Northwest Territories, because I know that the hon. gentleman having had wide experience in educational matters, not only in eastern Canada but in western Canada was in a position to speak authoritatively on the matter. The hon. gentleman (Mr. P. Talbot) has told us what the present position of educational matters in the Northwest Territories is, and it is well that we should consider that position of affairs in connection with the consideration of the proposals contained in the present Bill. The hon. member for Strathcona has told us that in his opinion the educational system in the Northwest Territories to-day is the best in the Dominion of Canada, and, as a reason for this belief he quoted from the Ordinances of 1901, to which I shall refer later. Sir, in forming our opinion on this question it is well that we should go back in Canadian history, in order that we may thoroughly understand the genesis of the whole issue. I shall not detain the House with a recital of what occurred away back in the fifties; I shall not detain the House with the story of what occurred in the province of Ontario in 1863. We know that the Liberal-Conservative party was formed in 1854; we know that the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party was a most generous and broad-minded policy, and we know that it met with the greatest opposition.

4274

from those who in that day were known as the clear Grits; from the faction which George Brown controlled in that province. I have here quotations from the ‘Globe’ newspaper from 1854 down to 1863, and I think it would surprise some of the hon. gentlemen opposite if I were to show them the action taken at that time by the Liberals in Ontario. Let me simply say that in the ‘Globe’ of August 1857, our French Canadian Conservatives under George E. Cartier were described as ‘the Pope’s brass band.’ That was the keynote of the agitation that was kept up year in and year out throughout the province of Ontario, against the Conservative party led by the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. And, Sir, I could speak of the agitation led by the ‘Globe’ at a later date in 1896, and I could speak of the position taken by the ‘Globe’ in this very year in reference to the Bill now before the House. But, Sir, there is no room in this land for the ventilation of extreme opinions on the one side or the other, for we all know that our great progress has been brought about by just and honourable compromise between the people of different religions and different nationalities. Our confederation itself was a compromise. The Canadian statesmen of that day had to compromise; concessions had to be made between the representatives of the different provinces who met to lay the foundations of our union. And, Sir, I may justly claim that the Conservative party played a very important part in laying the basis of that union. For years after confederation the Conservative party wielded the destinies of this country, and when they were called upon to lay down the reins of office they were able to hand over to their successors a united British North America, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the only portion of the King’s possessions not included being the colony of Newfoundland. It is therefore that I can justly claim that the history of the Conservative party is a history of which this young nation may well be proud.

I come now to the acquisition of the Northwest Territories by the Dominion of Canada. I am not going to argue that there is any moral obligation upon the people of this country to do justice to the minority in the Northwest; I shall leave that entirely for the House to say. But, let us look back on the history of these Territories to the year 1869, and let us see the position of educational matters then. There had for years previously existed in that country a number of schools for children. These schools were denominational schools, some of them being regulated and controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and others by various Protestant denominations. The moneys necessary for the support of the Roman Catholic schools were supplied to some extent by school fees paid by some of the parents of.

4275

the children who attended the schools, while the balance was made up out of church funds contributed by its members, implemented by grants from the council of Assiniboia as we see by reference to the minutes, and as the accounts of the Hudson Bay Company more fully prove. During this period, Roman Catholics had no interest in or control over the schools of Protestant denomination and the members of the Protestant denominations had no interest in or control over the schools of the Roman Catholics. That was the position of affairs in 1869 before we took possession of that country on paying to the Hudson Bay Company for the relinquishment of their rights the sum of £300,000. I have not detained the House with any extended remarks this session, and my apology for dealing with this matter at some length now is that the question is of sufficient importance to entitle us to consider carefully just what occurred in the early years of the settlement of that territory. I will not take up the time of the House by referring to the preliminary stages in connection with the acquisition of the Northwest Territories and Rupert’s Land; but I will deal immediately with what occurred when we started in to take possession of that great country. I want to refer, first, to the telegraphic despatch on the 26th of November, 1869, which was sent through Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Colonies to His Excellency Sir John Young, Her Majesty’s then representative in British North America.

The Queen has heard with surprise and regret that certain misguided persons have banded themselves together to oppose by force the entry of the future Lieutenant Governor into our territory in Red River. Her Majesty does not distrust the loyalty of her subjects in that settlement, and can only ascribe to misunderstanding or misrepresentation their opposition to a change planned for their advantage. She relies on your government to use every effort to explain whatever misunderstandings may have arisen, to ascertain their wants and conciliate the good-will of the people of Red River settlement. But in the meantime she authorizes you to signify to them the sorrow and displeasure with which she views the unreasonable and lawless proceedings which have taken place, and her expectation that if any person desires to express or have any complaints to make respecting their condition and prospects, they will address themselves to the Governor General of Canada. The Queen expects from her representative that as he will be always ready to receive well-founded grievances, so will he exercise all the power and authority she has entrusted him in the support of the order and the suppression of unlawful disturbances.

On the 6th day of December Sir John Young, Her Majesty’s representative in British North America, addressed the following letter to Governor McTavish, of the Hudson Bay Company:

4276

Government House, Ottawa, W. McTavish, Esq., Governor of Assiniboia. Sir,—I have the honour to address you in my capacity as representative of the Queen and Governor General of Her Majesty’s British North America possessions, and inclose for your information a copy of a message received from Earl Grenville in respect to the account I sent officially of the events occurring in Red River settlement. The message conveys the mature opinion of the imperial cabinet, the proclamation I have issued is based upon it, and you will observe that it requests all who have desires to express or complaints to make to refer to me as invested with authority on behalf of the British government and the inhabitants of Rupert’s Land and all classes and persuasions may rest assured that Her Majesty’s government has no intention of interfering with or setting aside, or allowing others to interfere with the religion, the rights or the franchises hitherto enjoyed or to which they may prove themselves equal. Make what use you think best of this communication and of the inclosed.

Letters of the same purport were sent to the Protestant Bishop of Rupert’s Land and to the Vicar General of the diocese of St. Boniface, who acted in the place and stead of the Catholic Bishop during the presence of the latter at Rome. I would like to refer also to the proclamation under Her Majesty’s Privy Seal by His Excellency the Governor General, Sir John Young, Baronet:

By His Excellency the Right Hon. Sir John Young, Baronet, a member of Her Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross of the most honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the most distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George, Governor General of Canada. To all and every the loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, and to all whom these presents may come, greeting:

The Queen has charged me as her representative to inform you that certain misguided persons in her settlement on the Red river have banded themselves together to oppose by force the entry into her Northwest Territories of the officers selected to administer in her name the government when the Territories are united to the Dominion of Canada under the authority of the late Act of parliament of the United Kingdom, that those persons have also forcibly and with violence prevented other of her loyal subjects from ingress into the country.

Her Majesty feels assured that she may rely upon the loyalty of her subjects in the Northwest and believes those men who have illegally joined together have done so from some misrepresentation.

The Queen is convinced that in sanctioning the union of the Northwest Territories with Canada she is promoting the best interests of the residents, and at the same time strengthening and consolidating her North American possessions as part of the British Empire. You may judge then, of the sorrow and displeasure with which the Queen views the unreasonable and lawless proceedings which have occurred.

Her Majesty commands me to state to you that she will always be ready through me as her representative, to redress all well-founded

4277

grievances, and that she has instructed me to hear and consider any complaints that may be made or desires that may be expressed to me as Governor General.

At the same time she has charged me to exercise all the power and authority with which she has entrusted me in the support of order and the suppression of unlawful disturbance.

By Her Majesty’s authority, I do therefore assure you that on the union with Canada all your civil and religious rights and privileges will be respected, your property secured to you, and that your country will be governed as in the past under British laws and in the spirit of British justice.

I do further under her authority entreat and command those of you who are still assembled and banded together in defiance of law, peacefully to disperse and return to your homes under the penalties of the law in case of disobedience.

I do lastly inform you that in case of your immediate and peaceable obedience and dispersion I shall order that no legal proceedings be taken against any parties implicated in those unfortunate breaches of the law.

Given under my hand and seal at arms at Ottawa this sixth day of November in the year of our Lord, 1869, and in the thirty-third year of Her Majesty’s reign.

(Sgd.) JOHN YOUNG.

Now, Sir, I do not wish unnecessarily to take up the time of the House, but I would like to refer also to a letter to the present Lord Strathcona, then Mr. Donald A. Smith, dated 12th of December, 1869. I will read only this portion of it:

In my capacity as Her Majesty’s representative in the British North American possessions I have addressed letters to Governor McTavish, the Protestant Bishop of Rupert’s Land, and the Vicar General who acts in lieu of the Roman Catholic Bishop during his presence in Rome.

Then the letter goes on at some length, and winds up in this way:

You may state with the utmost confidence that the imperial government has no intention of acting otherwise or permitting others to act otherwise than in perfect good faith towards the inhabitants of the Red river district of the Northwest.

The people may rely upon it that respect and protection will be extended to the different religious persuasions, that titles to every description of property will be perfectly guarded, and all the franchises which have existed or which the people may prove themselves qualified to exercise, shall be duly continued or liberally conferred. In declaring the desire and determination of Her Majesty’s cabinet you may safely use the terms of the ancient formula, “Right shall be done in all cases.”

Then Mr. Donald A. Smith, as we all know, fulfilled his mission. He went to the Northwest Territories and conferred with the people there, and in his narrative of what took place at that time he states:

I may mention that at the time the schools were voluntary or separate schools, that is the Roman Catholics had their schools and the Protestants had theirs, and there were certain grants of money given to each. The Hudson

4278

Bay Company, then the governing body, made a grant to the Roman Catholic bishop. There was a grant given to one and to the other, a money grant as well as a grant of land for school purposes. It is true that not much was said about schools at that time, but it was distinctly understood by the people there, that the promise was made to them, that they would have every privilege in joining Canada which they possessed at that time.

We know what followed. We know that there was a provincial government formed in the province of Manitoba. We know that there were delegates equal in number, representing not only the French Canadian population but the English speaking population of that country; and we have records of the Bills of Rights which were submitted and upon which the Manitoba Act was subsequently framed. I will not take up very much time with the Bills of Rights. Let me refer to Bill of Rights No. 4, which is one of those that was given in evidence in the Lepine trial which took place some years afterwards. In clause 7 of that Bill of Rights, this is the language used:

That the schools be separate, and that the public money for schools be distributed among the different religious denominations in proportion to their respective population, according to the system of the province of Quebec.

Then we find in the original Bill of Rights in the handwriting of Mr. Richot, one of the delegates sent to Ottawa the following. It is in French, but I give it the English translation:

This clause being the same as the British North America Act, confers, so I interpret it, as fundamental principle, the privileges of separate schools to the fullest extent, and in that is in conformity with article 7 of our instructions.

So, it was evident that these delegates from the authorities in the province of Manitoba understood that the clause in the Manitoba Act protected them in their privileges in their separate schools. Now, just before I go any further, let me say that there was a gentleman who took a prominent part—

Mr. SPROULE. Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) aware that the fourth Bill of Rights was never accepted as authentic?

Mr. PRINGLE. I will not say that I am aware that the fourth Bill of Rights was never accepted as authentic. I say that there is internal evidence in support of Mr. Richot’s statement. Paragraph 1 of this Bill of Rights No. 4 demands a Senate for the new province, and a Senate was granted, though the expense of it was much objected to. Bill of Rights No. 3 says nothing about the Senate. If Bill of Rights No. 4 was not authentic, why was the Senate granted? But further this Bill of Rights No. 4, paragraph 7, demands that the schools be separate. And this was inserted in the Manitoba Act and the Schools Act was

4279

framed in the province of Manitoba within a year afterwards by the very men who were dealing with this Bill of Rights and who had received a report from these delegates; and that Act provided for separate schools in the province of Manitoba. It would be strange if both these points could have got by chance into the Manitoba Act, an Act which was the result of elaborate negotiations with the delegates. The other thing is this: This Bill of Rights No. 3 asks that the province shall be styled and known as the province of Assiniboia. Bill of Rights No. 4 suggested no name, merely that the province was styled the province of Manitoba. Just in passing, let me refer also to a letter written from the Secretary of State of the Dominion to the Reverend Archbishop of St. Boniface. I do not want to weary the House by quoting this letter in full. It begins as follows:

Department of Secretary of State for the provinces.

February 16th, 1870.

The Very Reverend the Bishop of St. Boniface:

My Lord,—I am commanded by His Excellency the Governor General to acknowledge and thank you for the promptitude with which you placed your services at the disposal of this government, and undertook a winter voyage and journey that you might, by your presence and influence, aid in the repression of the unlooked-for disturbances which had broken out in the Northwest.

The letter goes on to state that there is inclosed a copy of instructions given to Hon. William Macdougall; a copy of further instructions addressed to Mr. Macdougall on the 7th of November; a copy of a letter of instructions to the Very Reverend Vicar General Thibault on the 4th December; copy of a proclamation issued by His Excellency; copy of the letter to Donald A. Smith; letter of instruction to Donald A. Smith, and several other documents. Here is the portion of the letter to which I wish to call special attention:

Your lordship will perceive in these papers the policy which it was and is the desire of the Canadian government to establish in the Northwest. The people of Canada have no interest in the erection of institutions in Rupert’s Land, which public opinion condemns; nor would they wish to see a fine race of people trained to discontent and insubordination by the pressure of an unwise system of government, to which British subjects are unaccustomed or averse. They look hopefully forward to the period when institutions, moulded upon those which the other provinces enjoy, may be established.

What was the meaning of that letter? To my mind it was that the people of Canada looked forward to the period when institutions would be established in Manitoba giving to the minority their rights. Because, he immediately follows it up by saying:

4280

And in the meantime would deeply regret if the civil and religious liberties of the whole population were not adequately protected by such temporary arrangements as it may be prudent at present to make.

Now, I say, they did follow it up immediately afterwards in the province of Manitoba by passing a school law which gave separate schools to the minority. The minority was not then a Catholic minority, but Protestant. And, in reading history—though I may read it wrong—at that time it looked as if the province of Manitoba would be a French Catholic province; and the English-speaking people were as anxious to preserve the rights of the English Protestant minority as the Catholic minority now can be.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) give me the name of the writer of the letter he has quoted and also to whom it was sent?

Mr. PRINGLE. I have already stated that. It was from the Secretary of State, Joseph Howe to Archbishop Taché.

Mr. BERGERON. In what year?

Mr. PRINGLE. That letter was written on February 16th, 1870. We all know that Archbishop Taché had been visiting Rome, that he came back to this country, that he interviewed Sir John A. Macdonald and other gentlemen who were at that time at the head of the government and that he was immediately sent to the Northwest Territories for the purpose of bringing about a reconciliation among the people who felt that they had some grievances in that country. But, Sir, the late Sir John A. Macdonald considered that the Manitoba Act gave to the minority their rights. I have always contended he did and I find in a work—I do not know how authentic it is, but I am bound to consider that it is authentic—a letter of the late Sir John Macdonald written to a Conservative friend in the province of Manitoba at the time that our Liberal friends were taking away the rights from the minority in that province. This letter is an unqualified opinion in regard to the effect of the educational clauses. I take this letter—as I say I cannot vouch for its authenticity—from a work called ‘Krib’s Manitoba School Question,’ page 32. The letter was written in November, 1889, and is as follows:

You ask me for advice as to the course you should take upon the vexed question of separate schools in your province. There is, it seems to me, but one course open to you. By the Manitoba Act the provisions of the British North America Act, section 93, respecting laws passed for the protection of minorities in educational matters are made applicable to Manitoba, and cannot be changed, for, by the Imperial Act confirming the establishment of the new provinces, 34 and 35 Vic., ch. 28, sec. 6, it is provided, that it shall not be competent

4281

for the Parliament of Canada to alter the provisions of the Manitoba Act in so far as it relates to the province of Manitoba. Obviously therefore, the separate school system in Manitoba is beyond the reach of the legislature or of the Dominion Parliament.

It turned out subsequently that Sir John Macdonald was wrong. Our highest court decided that the Manitoba School Act of 1890 was intra vires. Consequently, even the late Sir John Macdonald was wrong in his interpretation of the law in regard to schools in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell us when that letter first appeared and to whom it is addressed?

Mr. PRINGLE. I tell you that I took it out of the work which I have mentioned at page 32 and which is to be found in the library. I have never seen it denied. But, I will say to that hon. gentleman this; let us go back to the time when confederation took place, to the policy of the late Sir John Macdonald and the policy of the men who took part in confederation, and if we do we will see that it was their policy to do justice to minorities. Let me quote some language that was uttered by Sir John Macdonald at that time. This is what he said:

We all feel the advantage we derive from our connection with England. So long as that alliance is maintained we enjoy under her protection the privileges of constitutional liberty according to the British system. We will enjoy here that which is the great test of constitutional freedom—we will have the rights of the many take care of themselves, but it is only in countries like England, enjoying constitutional liberty and safe from the tyranny of a single despot, or of an unlimited democracy that the rights of minorities are regarded.

These are the utterances of Sir John Macdonald at the time that the foundation was laid of this great confederation and we have not only the utterances of Sir John Macdonald, but the utterances of all the great men who took part in laying the foundation of our confederation. We have the same utterances from the Hon. Edward Blake, and we have the same utterances from other eminent Canadian statesmen. I am fully sensible that my remarks will not meet with the approval of all the members of this House. I cannot help that. As I stated in the beginning of my remarks, I am not here representing Protestant or Roman Catholic. I am here trying to do what I think is honestly right in the interest of the country. I respect the convictions of every hon. member who may differ from me upon this matter, and I ask hon. members to respect my convictions in regard to this question. Now, what occurred in subsequent years? We come down to 1875, when it was found

4282

necessary and desirable, owing to the population going into that northwestern country to provide for its government. A Bill was framed for the administration of affairs in the Northwest Territories. We have heard this over and over again, but just let me hurriedly pass over it. That Bill was introduced by the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, a man who, in his early years, was opposed to separate schools, who fought separate schools together with George Brown in the early days in the province of Ontario, but, when it was suggested by Edward Blake that there should be a clause in that Act in regard to separate schools and in regard to the protection of the minority in the Northwest Territories, it was put in. Sir John Macdonald was in the House at that time. Sir John Macdonald, knowing what had gone before in regard to the early history of the Northwest Territories, knowing the promises that had been made, knowing, no doubt, the discussion that had taken place in regard to the different Bills of Rights, did what? Did he get up in 1875 and oppose the granting of these rights to the minorities in that country? No, Sir. He knew what had taken place earlier and he conceded to the minority their rights. When that matter went to the Senate, what occurred there? An amendment was moved. George Brown spoke on that amendment and spoke in favour of it, but Sir Alexander Campbell who was then leading the Conservative party in the Senate considered that it was fair and right and equitable and the Northwest Territories Act of 1875 was passed just as it stands on the statute-book to-day. Now then, we heard nothing further in regard to this very controversial question, because nobody conceives more than I do that this question is causing a great deal of controversy in the Dominion of Canada. In my own constituency a large majority of the people are Protestants. I go among the Protestant Liberals and I find the Liberals dissenting to the Bill which is now before the House. I do not find so much objection on the part of the Protestant Conservatives as I do on the part of the Protestant Liberals because the Protestant Liberals have been educated in this matter for some years. The Protestant Liberals, in 1896, were educated to oppose the rights of the minority in that country. That is the reason that when I go through my constituency I hear a great deal more objection on the part of Protestant Liberals than I do on the part of Protestant Conservatives. But, now, I say we did not hear very much of this matter until this unfortunate agitation occurred in the province of Manitoba. And I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that if there is trouble to-day in the Dominion of Canada it is not owing to anything the Conservative party have done in the past, but it is

4283

owing to the attitude taken by the Liberals in the Dominion of Canada. It is owing to the attitude taken by the Liberals in the province of Manitoba. Every pledge that the Liberals gave in the province of Manitoba they have broken. Let us go back to their pledges in regard to the legislative council. They said to the people in that province: Abolish the legislative council and your rights will be protected. They had no sooner got the minority in that province to consent to the abolition of the legislative council of Manitoba than they started to do away with the rights which the minority had in that province. That was the first trouble. That occurred in 1890. We next hear of this trouble coming up in our Dominion parliament in 1892 again in 1894 and I shall refer in a moment to the debates which took place in those years in this House. I am not saying that it was the Manitoba trouble which came up in 1892 or 1894, but I do say that the trouble which took place in the province of Manitoba in 1890 led to the trouble which afterwards arose in 1892 and 1894, and was largely responsible for the agitation which we had in the province of Ontario, an agitation which I am bound to say did so great credit to our province, an agitation however, in which the Protestants were not unreasonable; they were fair as was shown by the result of that agitation. Now let me refer to a statement that was made by the late Sir John Thompson during the debate in 1892. He said:

One other important characteristic was to be considered in regard to the Territories while they were to remain in the Territorial condition, and that was in view of the peculiar circumstances of the Territories, the fact that we were inviting all races, creeds and denominations, there was to be the widest toleration while the Territories existed.

That was the corner stone of the whole; the corner stone which the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) proposes to remove, on the ground that there can be no good reason given for its existence. As the hon. leader of the opposition has said to-night, no man knew better than those who were engaged in framing the Act of 1875, the difficulties which sectarian disputes might create in that new country. No one realized better the fact, that in so far as the population was to be gathered into the Territories from the older provinces, it was to be gathered from different races, and from amongst men who had strong lines of difference as regards religious belief. While the population should be going in there, and while the Territories should remain under our control at least, there was to be the broadest toleration for every belief, and for the races, as regards worship, and as regards language, and as regards instruction in the schools.

Then further he says:

It is just as much a matter of sound policy now as it was in 1875, that toleration should exist there, and that we should extend the broadest invitation to the people of different

4284

races and religions to come and settle there with a perfect sense of toleration; and it matters not how many people in the past have availed themselves of our invitation. The bad faith this parliament would show in repealing a provision of that kind, while the territorial system existed at least, would be just as great as if the population who availed themselves of our pledge and relied on that system to-day were only thirteen instead of 13,000.

The population at that time was 13,000; as I understand it to-day it is some 500,000, of whom 125,000 are Roman Catholics. Then further he says:

We claim therefore that the constitutional system which was established with regard to schools and with regard to language in 1875 ought to be maintained for the same reasons as those which dictated its creation, and that this condition of affairs should last, at least, while the affairs of the Territories are under control of this parliament. What the constitution of the future provinces should be, in view of the pledges which have been referred to, or in view of any other set of circumstances, will be for parliament to decide when it decides to create those provinces. I hope, therefore, that the House will be careful to-day not to disturb the arrangement so wisely made in 1875, and which is as useful to the Territories now as it was then.

These are the words of Sir John Thompson, then leader of the Conservative party and Attorney General of Canada. Now let me see what the reply of Mr. Dalton McCarthy is to this:

Then if we do not give them power to choose, if we deny them the right to select for themselves, then, when the day comes, as it must before long, when some part of the Territories will ask for admission and be entitled by their population and position to have this clause enacted, then this parliament would be bound to repeal the law, otherwise we should be, as I say, riveting the system of separate schools upon them. This point I think a most important one.

There was a long discussion in regard to the motion of the late Dalton McCarthy to give the power to the Northwest Territories to abolish their system of separate schools, but the position taken by Sir John Thompson was as I have just read and we know the result of the vote. The vote was 114 to 21. It was considered not wise to change the conditions that existed in those Territories and why? Largely because in 1873 when the Northwest Territories Act was framed, it was conceded that we were putting this clause in so that the people who were coming into those Territories might know exactly what the laws would be in the Territories in regard to their schools. It is suggested now by some that we wipe out these rights absolutely. It is suggested by others that we leave it entirely to the provinces to deal with, but the position taken as I say in 1894 was that it was wise to leave it just as it stood at that time, and when the provinces were to be created the

4285

whole matter could be dealt with. There is a great difference of opinion as to the advisability of having any religion whatever in our schools. It is a difference in which people are thoroughly honest. Some take the view that we should have an absolutely secular school; others take the view that we should have a school in which there is some religious training. If we are to follow English precedent then we would accord to the minorities in this country the right to have religious training in our schools.

I do not want to go at any length into a discussion of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories but I shall summarize as briefly as I can the provisions of the present law as I understand it. As I understand these ordinances—I may be in error—there is to be one normal school with uniform normal training for all teachers,—and when I say all teachers I mean teachers of all schools, separate and public—a uniform curriculum and course of study for all schools of the same grade; uniform text books for all schools whatever; uniform qualifications of teachers for all schools whatever; complete and absolute control of all schools as to their government and conduct by the central school authority set up by the legislature under the ordinances; complete secularization of all schools between nine o’clock in the morning and half-past three in the afternoon. Then there is a provision for religious instruction from half-past three p.m. to four o’clock, and there is a provision that where there is a public school, the minority, Protestant or Roman Catholic, may organize a separate school, but every separate school is subject absolutely to all the foregoing conditions and is in every sense of the term a public school. I think I am right in saying that the meaning of the amended Bill, is: that the province shall have exclusive jurisdiction in regard to education but the province cannot deprive the minority of the right to this religious instruction from half-past three in the afternoon until four o’clock. Now, Sir, we are going to have in that country, in the first place, a national school; a school in which as these ordinances provide there should be only one language, the English language, except in regard to an elementary class in French. These schools in the Northwest Territories are therefore more truly national schools than the schools in the province of Manitoba, because we find in the Manitoba School Act a provision for bi-lingual schools similar to the provisions we have in Ontario, and there is no provision of that sort in the Northwest Territories ordinances. It would then appear that the whole objection centres down to the question of this one half hour of religious instruction, and, there seems to be a great difference of opinion as to that. A great deal has been said in regard to the school system of the United States. In that country they have national public schools, but

4286

side by side with these schools have grown up schools in which the different religious denominations are teaching religion, largely at their own expense, and we know that there are many strong men in the United States whose opinion is against the advisability of maintaining schools devoid of all religious teaching. For example, Dr. Lyman Abbott writing in his newspaper, one of the strongest Protestant journals published in the United States, says:

We have insisted that the Roman Catholic critics are largely right in saying that our present school system is irreligious, and that an irreligious school is fatally defective. We have maintained that life cannot be done up in two separate parcels, one labelled secular and the other religious, and dealt out at different shops; that education is worthless, if not worse than worthless, if it does not involve the impartation of the religious life; that the development of faith, love, reverence, conscience must be carried on with the development of perception, imagination, intellect; that to develop the latter and leave the former dwarfed and stunted is a process not deserving the name of education and will neither fit the pupils for life nor secure prosperity nor even safety for the republic.

That is the opinion of one eminent Protestant in the United States with regard to that question. In the same way I might quote at great length the opinions of distinguished English statesmen in favour of religious teaching in the schools in Great Britain, where the minorities enjoy full liberty in educational matters. I might quote from speeches made by Mr. Balfour in 1902; I might quote from speeches made by the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain; I might quote from speeches made by other eminent British statesmen, all expressing the belief that there should be religious teaching in the schools.

The whole question before us narrows itself down to this—apart from the constitutional question on which I will say a word later—the whole question at issue before us is: are the people of the Northwest Territories to be permitted to have any religious instruction in their schools? I might safely say that there is a very large and respectable body amongst our community who insist that there shall be religious instruction in our schools, and there is also a large proportion of our population who demand absolutely national schools without religious teaching. On this point let me quote from an address delivered by the Anglican Bishop of Rupert’s Land before the Anglican Synod, in which he says:

If separate schools are aided by the state, I think the state should have the same securities for a sound secular education as in its other schools, although there are separate schools in England there is only one council of education. There are common qualifications for all teachers; there is one system of inspection and one body of inspectors. There is one course of education.

4287

Now, Sir, is not that absolutely the system that is being provided in the Northwest Territories—common qualification for all teachers, one system of instruction, the same course of education. Further on in his address his Lordship the Anglican Bishop says:

That whilst we desire to secure for the children in the public elementary schools the best and most thorough instruction in secular subjects suitable to their years and in harmony with the requirements of their future life, we are also unanimously of opinion that their religious and moral training is a matter of still higher importance alike to the children, the parents and the nation.

I quote the following extract from a lecture delivered by the Reverend J. N. King, D.D., of the city of Winnipeg, principal, I think, of the Presbyterian College there. Dr. King says:

The restriction of the school to purely secular instruction with relegation of religious instruction and even moral on its religious side, to the home and the church, gives no security that the latter will be supplied at all in many cases.

I quote from a letter to the ‘Sun’ by the Reverend Principal Grant, since deceased, November 16, 1889:

But it may be asked: What would you do in the case of a possibly compact dissension minority like Protestants in Quebec or Roman Catholics in Ontario or Manitoba? It seems to me that the Ontario Separate School Law in its original form might be taken as the basis of a compromise in such cases. It enacts that those who desire to establish separate schools may do so where they are strong enough to support them. The trustee elections for such must be the same as for public schools, the teachers must be duly certified, the regular text books on ordinary subjects must be used and there must be public inspection and a conscience clause.

That is the statement made by the Reverend Dr. Grant in 1889, shortly before the Public School Act was passed in the province of Manitoba. Let me quote the following short statement from the report of Mr. Fitch, one of Her Majesty’s chief inspectors of schools who was commissioned by the British government to report on the school system of America and France. Mr. Fitch arrived at this conclusion:

Where the state system absolutely excludes religious instruction from its purview, there grows up side by side with it a rival system outside of the national school organization, and in part hostile to it, administered by religious bodies, maintained at their own cost and that of the parents, receiving neither aid nor supervision from the public authorities. Experience seems to prove that in such circumstances the number of voluntary and denominational schools tends to increase, and the separation in feeling and interests between such schools and the common schools more marked, while the area of the state’s influence over public education becomes pro tanto restricted.

4288

This is his inference from his observation:

A secular system pure and simple, it would appear is incapable of becoming a truly national system.

That is just what is growing up in the provinces of this Dominion in which there is no provision for religious instruction. We have heard from the Minister of Finance that in Nova Scotia there are separate schools although they are not permitted by law. We also know that in New Brunswick there are schools supported by the Roman Catholics of that province. Is it not better that there should be a national system under one inspection, with a regular set of text books, and with teachers all of the same qualification; and then let the religious denominations, Protestant or Catholic, have religious instruction for half an hour from 3.30 to 4 o’clock in the afternoon, if they see fit.

I did intend dealing at length with the law at present existing in the Northwest Territories, but I find that I have already occupied considerable time. I shall, therefore, only refer to it very briefly. Under section 11 of chapter 9 of the statutes of 1875, there is a provision regarding the schools of the minority, and this provision was repeated in the Consolidating Act of 1880. Then in 1884 there were ordinances passed providing for the organization of schools, and the law, while its main outlines remained for the most part, was amended from time to time, Consolidating Acts being passed, I think, in 1885 and 1887. It was not, I think, until 1892 that there was a complete change made in the school system. That change was so complete that the minority in the Northwest Territory considered that they had a grievance and appealed to the Governor in Council for redress. Let me just quote here the statement of Mr. Forget. He says:

Until the date of the ordinance of 1892 we had never been denied the right to administer our schools, to regulate the programme of studies, to choose the text books, to control religious instruction and authorize the use of the French language whenever thought convenient. These rights were exercised by the Catholic section of the board of education, and strictly speaking they were sufficient to preserve to our schools the distinctive character of Catholic schools.

This is what was said by Mr. Forget, now Lieutenant Governor of the Territories, and, at that time, one of the members of the Catholic Board of Education. He further said:

Now all this has disappeared. The board of education no longer exists nor its section. All the schools, public and separate, Protestant and Catholic, are placed by the ordinance of 1892 under the direct control of a Protestant superintendent of education and of a council of public instruction.

4289

Then we have a statement by the late Archbishop of St. Boniface. In one of the documents he addressed to the government on this subject he said:

The effect of the ordinance is to deprive the Catholic separate schools of that character which differentiates them from public or Protestant schools and leave them Catholic separate schools in name only, and such it is submitted is its obviously necessary effect.

Again, on page 62 of that document he says:

Nothing essential now distinguishes the Catholic schools from the Protestant schools but the designation, now ironical, of separate schools.

Therefore, all the authorities, both Catholic and Protestant, in the Northwest Territory are agreed that there is nothing to distinguish these schools from public schools except the half hour for religious instruction.

My hon. friend the leader of the opposition argued almost entirely on the constitutional question, and in his very able argument he must have convinced many that constitutionally there is some difficulty with regard to this matter. After the able arguments that have been made on the subject from that point of view, I do not think that I should trespass on the time of the House any further than to say that I cannot altogether agree with those who claim that constitutionally the government are right in not leaving this matter fall entirely under the provisions of the British North America Act. My own view is that there is a very grave question as to our constitutional right to legislate outside the Confederation Act. I have no doubt that the government are relying upon the powers expressed in the Act of 1871. In considering that Act, I think it is well we should consider the preamble. The preamble is as follows :

Whereas doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of the parliament of Canada to establish provinces and territories admitted or which may be hereafter admitted into the Dominion and to provide for the representation of such provinces in the said parliament and it is expedient to remove such doubts.

The object of this Act, therefore, was to remove any doubt as to our powers to create provinces and provide for their representation. Clause two says:

The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any of the territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion, 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 the said province and for its representation in the said parliament.

It is true that provision is there made for the constitution of such provinces. But are

4290

we not to provide a constitution on the lines of the British North America Act? We have only to go a little further and look at the Act of 1886 and we will find it there said:

This Act and the British North America Act of 1867 and the British North America Act of 1871 shall be construed together and may be cited together as the British North America Act of 1867 to 1886.

What I contend is this. That the only power that we have as a parliament, under the Act of 1871, is to provide a constitution; not such a constitution as we may think fit to give to these provinces, but a constitution in accord with the provisions of the British North America Act. If you read into clause 2 of the Act of 1871 the other clauses of the British North America Act, that constitution has to be in accordance with the Act of 1867. Therefore, my own personal view is that section 93 would apply. However, there is a great difference of opinion on this question. We have the opinions of some very able men that the whole subject is now open to be dealt with by this parliament. My own belief is that in a matter where there is such a great difference of opinion as to whether the government have the right constitutionally to interfere in any way with the education clauses, that it would have been wiser and in every way better to have submitted these clauses to a judicial tribunal and have them interpreted before passing this Bill. We create these provinces now with these educational clauses in their constitution, and we are only going to create friction in these two new provinces. The opinion of some of the best men in Canada is that you are going beyond the constitutional powers conferred upon this parliament by the British North America Act, and we shall have, in all probability, a repetition of what has occurred in the province of Manitoba. There would have been no trouble in submitting these educational clauses to a judicial tribunal—the law provides means by which the matter could have been referred to our Supreme Court, and from the decision of that court there could have been an appeal to the Privy Council. We could then have had the constitutional question settled beyond any doubt.

Now, Sir, just before I close I would like to refer once more to the position of affairs in the Northwest Territories. Let me quote one sentence from the statement made by Premier Haultain in his letter of March 11th. He says:

Our laws and institutions are admittedly efficient and satisfactory. Under them the people of the Territories have acquired a political individuality and identity as distinct as that of the people of any province.

It is evident that Mr. Haultain stated what is absolutely correct. For the past thirty years we have had no complaint in

4291

the Northwest Territories in regard to the educational clauses, except the complaint that came from the minority when the ordinances of 1892 were passed. There has been no complaint from the Protestant body in the Northwest Territories up to the time when this Bill was introduced.

Now, I have occupied more of the time of the House than I had intended to. As I stated at the outset, I feel that this is a very troublesome question, it is a question that we should approach without feeling, a question that we should approach as Canadians and deal with in the way we consider most likely to promote the interest of our common country. We have debated this question a long time and, from all accounts, we are likely to debate it for some time longer. I would like to have seen some way to have the question settled. The way I have suggested, I think, is one that would meet with the approval of the country. I do not believe that Canadians want an issue of this kind. We do not want to be compelled to discuss again the issues raised years ago in this Dominion. We want to settle these matter fairly and squarely. Surely we are able to meet in a fair spirit of compromise.

For my part, I believe that the minority, if they are constitutionally right, have made a fair compromise from their standpoint. They have accepted amendments of this Bill which do away, as I believe, with all possibility of having clerical schools, of having what they consider separate schools, and which simply gives to them the same right that every other citizen in the Northwest has of participating in a national system of schools and in the right of teaching religion—and they conscientiously consider that to be a right which they should have, and one which should be carried out in the education of the youth. I repeat, we should be able to deal with this question in a fair spirit of compromise. I should be very sorry to see in this Dominion an election on these issues. We had these issues years ago, and I had fondly hoped that the day had passed when they would arise in Canada again. We had them in the province of Ontario but to-day we have harmony and peace and it is by harmony and peace that this great confederation can be welded into a union one and inseparable. And I wish to say this: That the Protestants of the province of Ontario, I believe, are just as generous, just as liberal as any other class in the Dominion of Canada. And I want to say just one word to my French Canadian friends, some of whom, no doubt, feel that the Conservative party were not as liberal, not as ready to squarely concede their rights as the Liberal party were. I want simply to say that it remained for the Conservative party of the province of Ontario to place Dr. Rheaume as one of the ministers of the Crown for that province. A great deal has been said in this debate which, I think, might better have been left unsaid. It is

4292

not for me to say a word in regard to the French Canadian people. Every Canadian who has read the history of his country knows that we owe a great deal to the French Canadians. Every such Canadian knows that we owe a great deal to the hierarchy, that have been—I will not say abused—but of which many things have been said in this House. When we go back in history to the beginning of confederation, where then was the hierarchy to be found? They were united in the effort to consolidate and build up the Dominion of Canada. If they issued any pastoral at that time, it was issued to their own people and in support of the men who were standing out to have a united Canada. But it is unnecessary for me to say any of these things. Every Canadian knows that we owe a great deal to the French Canadian people of Canada. But I want to say for my own province that our people are liberal, our people are generous, and I believe that when this question comes before them, and is discussed, you will find our people just as reasonable as any other class of people in this great Dominion.

Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey). Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take up the attention of the House as a new member in discussing this Bill, a measure of so great importance, a measure that has provoked in this country an interest so extraordinary, so unusual and so great. I find this Bill assailed principally at two points: First, as to the advisability of this parliament retaining in its own hands control of the public lands in the proposed new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta; secondly, as to the educational clauses in the Bill. Regarding the question of the lands, I have not given the matter sufficient thought or study, nor am I sufficiently well acquainted with the conditions that prevail in the west, to advance any argument or to express any opinion that would be of value to this House. Therefore I will not attempt either to advance an argument or to express an opinion. I merely wish to read an extract from a letter I have received from a gentleman residing in the west in what will be the new province of Alberta. This letter is one of a series that I have received from the same gentleman in the course of a business correspondence. It is dated on the 2nd of January, before any one in this country knew what would be the policy of this government in regard to these lands. The writer of the letter is a gentleman that I have known for twenty years, a graduate of an Ontario university, from which he obtained his bachelor of arts degree, and he is now occupying an important public position in the Northwest. When I say a public position, I do not mean a position in any way connected with or dependent upon this parliament or any other legislative body. This gentleman, I may say, has been all

4293

his life a Conservative in politics. I will read this extract:

In passing it might not be too much out of place to observe that whatever the government may grant in the way of provincial autonomy, I trust it will retain control of the lands. I do not think it would be in the interest of this country to have those affairs administered by the provincial authorities. From the very nature of the industries in Western Assiniboia, there exists very strong companies, and those would wield too great an influence to the detriment of individual interests.

My correspondent is to-day, as a sort of side issue, engaged in a small way in ranching, and he is a small land holder in the west. He appears to think that if the provincial government had control of the public lands, the large ranching corporations and land companies which have what, in common parlance, is called too great a pull, or too great an influence with the local provincial governments, and that their influence would bring about regulations that would be in the interest of the large rancher and the large land holder rather than in the interest of the smaller farmer and smaller rancher.

Mr. BLAIN. Does my hon. friend object to giving the name?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. J. W. Brown, of Medicine Hat. Now, Sir, as to the educational clause of the Bill. Not being a member of the legal profession, I do not count myself competent to discuss this matter from the constitutional or legal standpoint, nor will I attempt to do so. I am perfectly content to leave that discussion to those who are lawyers and to those who have a superior knowledge and a greater experience along those lines. But, Sir, after reading the newspapers of both political parties, after reading letters I have received, after listening to many speeches delivered in this House, many of them from legal gentlemen on both sides, and after having personally conversed with members of the legal profession, I feel inclined to say with Sheridan: ‘Egad, I think the interpreter is the harder to be understood of the two.’ It does appear to me that the most our best constitutional lawyers and authorities will be able to do in this matter will be, in learned legal phraseology, to build up contrary arguments, to quote antagonistic authorities and to express opinions diametrically opposed. It seems to me, Sir, that whatever course this parliament may adopt in this matter, litigation may possibly follow. But it does not by any means follow that litigation must ensue, or that it will ensue if the parties more immediately concerned, and more vitally interested are fairly well satisfied with what may be the action of parliament. If, Sir, there is some degree of difficulty on the part of the legal gentlemen in settling what may be the position from a legal standpoint it will

4294

not be the first time that lawyers have failed to agree as to the meaning of a statute. But, Sir, it would surely appear to be the duty of this parliament at least to endeavour to do that which is right in law and in equity, that which will bring about and be attended with the most happy results, and the best results, not temporarily, not in the interest of my political party, but in the permanent interest of this country and particularly in the interests of Saskatchewan and Alberta. That there should be a difference of opinion in this House and in this country concerning a question of so great importance as to what may be equitably right, as well as to what may be legally right, need not be any cause for wonderment or astonishment. Many men have many minds, and a discussion of even the most trifling things that occupy our attention, either in a committee of the House, invariably provoke discussion and elicit differences of opinion and yet those opinions however much they may differ are usually discussed without heat, asperity or bitterness, and we ought to try to approach this matter in a manner just as calm, just as judicial, just as judicious. Surely, Sir, it is not the duty of any member of this House, to whichever party he may belong, upon whichever side of the House he may sit, whether upon a front-bench or a box, whether he be an old member or a new in discussing this question to make any appeal for any mere party advantage to any passion of race or creed, and in the name of a religion that teaches peace on earth and good will toward men, to endeavour to stir up and arouse discord, animosity and strife. Sir, I will not say who is responsible in this House for stirring up passions and kindling the flames of religious discord in this country. But, Sir, I will say that when members on the Conservative side of the House say that the speeches in this House that have been calculated to stir up strife and kindle passion have come from the Reform side of the House, I admire them for two things, that is to say for their simplicity and for their courage. I will not say that every Conservative member who has spoken has made that kind of a speech, for I do not think that would be right or true. I will go further and say that I think a large majority, the greater number of citizens, Conservative and Reform throughout the length and breadth of Canada, will deprecate and be sorry for some of the speeches that have come from the Conservative members in this House on this occasion. I will not make any particular reference, but I leave to the people who heard the speeches and who will read the speeches to say whether or not the speeches of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) were delivered with any other intention than to inflame and kindle passion. I think the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)

4295

has been very much more moderate. The hon. leader of the opposition has said: I disagree with the right hon. Prime Minister as to the constitutional merits of this case. I cannot agree with him as to what may be the interpretation of the law bearing on the case. In effect the leader of the Opposition has said: There may be those in my party who will not agree with me as to what may be the constitutional rights, and therefore I do not say anything in opposition to or in support of separate schools, but I have brought in my amendment; I will not even ask my own followers to support me or help me to carry that amendment through the House; I will leave it to them to do as they choose. I find that there are legal gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House, possibly just as good lawyers as the hon. leader of the opposition, who disagree with him as to what may be the proper decision in regard to the constitutional aspect of this case.

For my own part I do not, personally, look with favour upon separate schools. I would rather there should be no separate schools throughout the length and breadth of this great Dominion, but that every school in Canada should be a national school so governed and conducted that none of its exercises or practices should be or could be offensive to pupils or parents of any denomination or church. It seems to me that it would be preferable that the Protestant and Catholic children of this country, and of every province of this country, should go to school together and grow up and associate together, for we invariably find that where, in any part of this country there is the greatest prejudice and suspicion upon the part of Catholics towards Protestants or upon the part of Protestants towards Catholics it is where there is the least knowledge by the one party or the other, and where there has been the least intercourse and communication. So I believe that to-day the men of Ontario, most of them at heart good, loyal, well meaning, conscientious and honourable citizens, who have been the readiest to send letters and petitions to this House and to the members of this House, against the establishment of separate schools, and who have manifested some antagonism to anything that savours of Roman Catholicism are not, for the most part, men who are living in Roman Catholic neighbourhoods or who have associated much with Roman Catholics, but men from purely Protestant neighbourhoods. I should think that those to suffer the most in any province from the perpetuation of any such creed prejudice must be the party in the minority, and that, therefore, the party in the minority, that is to say in the proposed new provinces the Roman Catholics, will be the ones to receive the greatest benefit from anything that will cause a closer communication and a more intimate knowledge, and from the abolishing

4296

of the separate schools and everything else that tends to separate and to disunite.

However, I believe that my own personal opinions as to the merits and demerits of separate schools should have but little to do with my position or with my vote or action in this matter, and, while it seems to me now that were I a Roman Catholic instead of a Protestant, in a province where Roman Catholics are in a minority, I would be much more opposed to separate schools than I am, yet I realize that my Roman Catholic fellow-citizens have consciences of their own, and that it never was intended that they should be guided by my conscience or use my thinking and reasoning apparatus to form their judgments or conclusions, and that my duty in this case is to endeavour to be fair to a Roman Catholic minority without being in any way unfair to a Protestant majority. Though a new member, I will, in a vote, exert as great a part in this matter as the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the leader of the opposition. Realizing then my responsibility, I find that in the territory to be included within the two new provinces Roman Catholic minorities and Protestant minorities have had, for thirty years, the right to separate schools by virtue of legislation of this House enacted in 1875, passed it is true when the population of the Territories was very small, when we are told by the hon. the leader of the opposition the population was only 500, but continued in force without interruption while that population was increasing from 500 to 1,000 to 100,000, to two, three, four or five hundred thousand as it is to-day, and those statutory rights have been from time to time recognized and confirmed by ordinances or laws of the Territorial government; and that not only have the minorities acquired a statutory title to separate schools, but also a title by possession they having for many years exercised and enjoyed their rights to those schools.

If we follow an almost universal and a very old custom and practice we will not deprive them or suffer them to be deprived of those rights. If a man obtains possession of my lands, even wrongfully, and without any colour of right, and remains in undisputed possession for ten years, he, under most circumstances, will, by his possession have acquired a title that I cannot defeat.

When the legislature of the province of Ontario, at different times, passed laws to the effect that no person could practice dentistry, do business as a druggist or practice as a veterinary surgeon in Ontario without first having passed certain examinations, it exempted those persons who had been engaged in such businesses or professions previous to and at the time of the passing of the restricting Acts. Possibly the public interest would have been the better served had no such exemptions been

4297

made, but it was felt that men could not be deprived of the privileges that they had been so permitted to enjoy. Nor can it be said that it would simply follow from my argument that the carrying out of the principle to which I refer would protect only those few particular separate schools, Protestant and Catholic, now in actual existence, for the right was conferred upon, and the right has been enjoyed by, not only certain individual schools, but by Roman Catholics as a body and Protestants as a body.

It might, however, by some, be thought justifiable and right to abandon this well established practice and usage if it were shown to be sufficiently necessary in the public interest, and the question therefore arises, is it necessary? We are told that to follow the custom and to confirm to the minorities of the west the rights and privileges they have so long possessed, while productive, it may be, of no other evil, would by reason of section 93 of the British North America Act, be a violation of the sacred doctrine of provincial rights. But does it not appear that that section 93 was enacted not so much to protect the rights of provincial parliaments or of Dominion parliaments as to protect the established rights of people and of individuals who, whether Protestant or Catholic, being in a minority, may be in some danger of having those rights assailed by a majority acting upon the principle that might is right? and, if such was the object of the Act, then is not the argument that the Territories were admitted in 1870 not in 1905 or that the word ‘province’ in that Act does not include ‘territories’ even though those territories have had a form of self-government, a mere subtlety and an attempt to take an advantage of a legal technicality to avoid the true spirit of the Act?

I do not believe that the present Bill, as amended, will be satisfactory to every man. It would be utterly impossible to amend or to create an Act that would. I do, however, believe that very many people—Reformers, Conservatives, Orangemen—who have been much dissatisfied will be perfectly satisfied when they find how vastly great the difference between the so-called separate schools and separate school laws of the west and the separate schools and separate school laws of Ontario, when they find, Sir, the true position as to the separate school laws and the separate school practice in the west. In order to show what those laws are, let me quote from a letter of a special correspondent of the ‘Daily Globe’ which appears in the ‘Globe’ of February 13, last. I do not quote the language of that correspondent of the ‘Globe’ in order to give his opinion or arguments, but to give the law as he has set it forth in language which is so easily understood and so concise. He says:

4298

Since 1893 the separate schools have been subject to the same general control, direction, and support as the public schools, and have had the benefit of a vigorous, intelligent, and progressive administration. Between the work done now in the Territorial public school and that in the separate school up to half-past three o’clock each day there is practically no difference. Teachers undergo uniform academic and professional training. The course of studies is uniform. The text books are uniform, with the exception of the First and Second Readers. Inspection is common and uniform. Departmental examinations are uniform. . . . All schools shall be taught in the English language.

When our people know that it is not permitted that there shall be in any school, of the west whether a public or a separate school, any religious teaching or instruction whatever in any hour of any day of any week of the school year save only the short half hour between 3.30 p.m. and 4 o’clock p.m., and that during that half hour no pupil need attend whose parent or guardian objects, and that therefore the separate schools of the west are practically and to all intents and purposes public schools, they will readily understand, I am sure, how it is that in all the great Territories that are to be embraced in the two new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta there are to-day more than a thousand public schools and yet that there are only ten Roman Catholic separate schools; and eight of these Roman Catholic separate schools are in the larger towns where in every instance there is also a public school and there are only two Roman Catholic separate schools in the rural or country districts. When our people know that there is nothing whatever in this legislation to in any way cripple, or in any way interfere with or restrict the rights of the new provincial parliaments to keep the efficiency of these separate schools up to their present high standard, or to prevent the governments of these new provinces from regulating these schools as to the employment of teachers, as to the examination and certification of teachers, as to the use of text books, the holding of examinations and as to inspections; when they know that there is nothing whatever in this legislation or in any legislation that has been proposed or that will be submitted to this House to compel the new provincial governments to depart, to the extent of a single farthing, from the present method of disposing of the school funds or the proceeds of the sale of school lands, they will, I am sure, not be anxious either as to the probable multiplication or as to the probable decadence of the separate school in the west. The ‘Mail and Empire’ in an editorial contained in its issue of March 17 last, says:

To-day there is peace and good feeling throughout the Territories.

4299

I am sure that every commoner in this House and every loyal Canadian outside of this House has the desire not only that there shall be peace and good feeling throughout the Territories but that there shall be peace and good feeling throughout this whole Dominion of Canada. I do not think that the ‘Mail and Empire’ will agree with me but it does not seem to me to be unreasonable to think that the best way to continue and to perpetuate throughout the Territories that peace and good feeling which that paper assures us do prevail to-day will be to continue the conditions under which that peace and good feeling have prevailed and do prevail. That there is to-day peace and good feeling throughout the Territories we know upon other evidence than that of the ‘Mail and Empire.’ There is no evidence to the contrary; all the evidence points to the fact that to-day there is peace and good feeling throughout the Territories.

The same special correspondent of the ‘Daily Globe,’ to whom I have already referred, in a letter to the ‘Globe’ written from Medicine Hat, and which appeared in the ‘Globe’ of March 16 last, says:

No agitation could be raised in the west if the present status is maintained.

And again he says:

It can truthfully be said, indeed, that the agitation in Ontario is more resented as an interference with western freedom than the legislation at Ottawa if it only continues what they already have and they are generally well satisfied with.

Sir, as my hon. friend from Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle) has told us,—and by the way I was very much interested in listening to that speech; I beg to say that the hon. member for Stormont and Cornwall has had the advantage of living for four or five years in South Grey and no man who breathed the splendid atmosphere and lived in the pure surroundings of South Grey, could be narrow or bigoted in this House or anywhere else—my hon. friend to whom I have referred pointed out that when in 1875 the Dominion parliament of Canada gave, by the Act which was then passed, to the Protestant and Catholic minorities in the west a right to separate schools, the majority of the population of that country was Roman Catholic, not Protestant; the majority of the people in those Territories were Roman Catholics, and if Sir, we had found to-day the conditions to be the reverse of what they are, if we had found that our Roman Catholic friends in the west had retained their numerical superiority and that there were to-day more Roman Catholics than Protestants in the west, how differently some of us would look upon the whole question that is now under discussion. I think we would use different arguments, apply a different logic and even place a different interpretation on

4300

statutes. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in a speech which he delivered in this House some time ago, in connection with this question said that we are legislating to-day for Saskatchewan and Alberta alone, and not for any of the other provinces. That, Sir, is perfectly true, but yet, we are engaged in legislation that has appealed to the sentiments and feelings of the whole Canadian population. In some places an intense feeling has been aroused. We have a great responsibility and we cannot, Sir, as trustees of a great nation afford from any sinister or evil motive, for the sake of any party gain or from any carelessness or any thoughtlessness or for any other wrong cause, to place three-fifths of the Canadian population on the one side of a line and the other two-fifths on the other side as opposing forces. We must, if we are to have success in Canada, have unity and not strife. I quote from a speech which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) delivered in this House a few days ago in which he spoke of what ought to be the duty of a Roman Catholic majority in the province of Quebec towards a Protestant minority. He said:

You say you are tolerant to the Protestant minority in Quebec. I am glad to hear it. I am not going to stand here and deny it. But, when you say that you are tolerant to the minority, I ask you, ought not you to be? They are your fellow-citizens. They are not our wards; they contribute to your finances; they build up your country; they live side by side with your families; the weal or woe of the province of Quebec must be shared equally by them and you. Ought not you to be tolerant toward them?

And, Sir, I say that if that language applies to the treatment by a Roman Catholic majority of a Protestant minority, it ought to apply equally well and with just as great force to the treatment by a Protestant majority of a Roman Catholic minority. I believe that the only arrangement and the only settlement in connection with this matter which can be finally and permanently satisfactory will be an arrangement that will give fair and impartial justice alike to Roman Catholics and Protestants, to majorities and to minorities. I think, Sir, that justice can only be done by giving to the minorities in the west that which they have had so long both by law and by practice; nothing less and nothing more. Less would be unjust to the minorities, more would be unjust to the majorities; for I do not think that whatever the new provincial governments may do of their own accord, there is anything in law, gospel or reason, to warrant or to authorize this government to give any increased or added rights or privileges. This is the position I have taken on the matter from the beginning. When the original Bill was introduced, I said to my own constituents by word and by letter, Protestants and Catholics; that if a Bill were introduced

4301

into this parliament to give any additional rights or privileges I would not vote for it, but, that if the Bill merely perpetuated the rights that the minorities already have, and have enjoyed with so much peace and prosperity and good feeling in that country, I would give such a measure my vote and my support. I have arrived at this conclusion without considering what is likely to be the political fate either of the party to which I belong or of myself ; but simply in an endeavour to do what I consider to be right, to do what would appeal to my own intelligence and to my conscience, and, having arrived at that opinion and that conclusion to stand by it. I believe there are others just as honest and just as wise as I who think differently, and think me in error. I have no doubt but that there are many among my own constituents who would have been better pleased had I arrived at a different conclusion and decided to vote in a different way. But, Sir, to my friends and to my supporters at home, as well as to the people everywhere, I, on this point beg leave to quote the words of the Rt. Hon. John Bright, that good old Quaker statesman of England, words spoken more than fifty years ago to his own constituents in the city of Manchester. John Bright said :

I tell you honestly that notwithstanding that there is not a man in England that has a higher idea of the exalted position of any one who at all worthy should occupy the place of your representative, yet when I speak of a vote in parliament I endeavour to shut out from my mind any idea of controlling influence down here or elsewhere. I am most happy when I can to agree with you, but I think there is a higher, loftier and purer standard for a representative than even the influence of those whom he may represent, and that standard is his own intelligent, conscientious conviction of duty on the question which is before him.

Sir, I admit, I cheerfully and gladly admit that I am exceedingly pleased that this legislation has been introduced in such shape as to permit me without any hesitation, without any reluctance, without any misgiving, to give my support to the right hon. the Prime Minister, by whom the Bill was introduced. During the past few weeks, some unpleasant things ; I think some extravagant, undeserved, unkind, and ungenerous things have been said of the able leader of the party to which I belong. Some have spoken deliberately, others have spoken hastily. Some have spoken honestly, others have spoken maliciously ; and it may be that some have spoken in the press and pulpit yielding to the temptation to ride on, what appeared to be for the time, the crest of a popular wave. But, Sir, at this juncture I am pleased to quote the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s biographer ; words written by Mr. Willison ; written at a time when some of us at least think that Mr. Willison’s judgment was just as good and his honesty

4302

of purpose just as great as they are to-day. Mr. Willison says of the Prime Minister :

Moderation is the keynote of all his career and the secret of all his achievements. He learned at the threshold of his public life that a statesman must resist popular clamour and stand impervious to momentary gusts of popular passion, and that all enduring achievement must be based in the reason rather than in the emotions of the people.

Sir, I am glad ; I am exceedingly glad that the premier so early in his political career learned that lesson and learned it so well. I am thankful, Sir, and the people of Canada will have cause to be thankful and I doubt not will be thankful, that this lesson has not been forgotten by Sir Wilfrid Laurier even to the present day. And, Sir, I do not doubt but that to-morrow and throughout the to-morrows of the century, and long into centuries to come, history and men will say, that when Mr. Willison wrote these words :

Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s public career is remarkable for consistent and unchanging devotion to three great objects : the assertion and maintenance of the principle of federalism, ardent and unflinching championship of civil and religious freedom, patient and courageous resistance to the denationalizing tendencies of racialism, sectarianism and provincialism.

These words were true, and that they remained not the less true to the very end of the brilliant career of that distinguished gentleman whose ability has never been equalled by any other Canadian statesman. Indeed Sir, I think it may be said, that his pure life, his integrity of purpose, his great loyalty and his whole-hearted devotion to his country’s best interests have scarcely been surpassed by any other man in this or any other land in this or any other age.

Sir, I have quoted from John Bright ; John Bright, a name than which there is not another more honoured in England ; John Bright, a name that shines out as brightly as any other in political history. I remember that there was a time in the life of John Bright when he was mobbed and hooted and burned in effigy, because that he, in his day, as the Prime Minister of Canada in this day, spoke for peace while others clamoured for strife. I have quoted from Mr. Willison ; I have read with a great deal of pleasure and I trust with considerable profit the biography written by Mr. Willison and published but two short years ago, a biography written in two volumes of between 400 and 500 pages each, and I read upon almost every page of that biography expressions from Mr. Willison of admiration for and confidence in the Prime Minister of Canada admiration because of his nobleness of purpose, because of his splendid ability ; because of his great courage, and particularly for the courage that Mr. Willison assures us the Prime

4303

Minister of Canada has always exercised from the beginning of his public life, in fact before he could have been considered to be a public man, in resisting what appeared to him to be any undue effort upon the part of the Catholic Church to exercise a control which it should not in the public and political affairs of this country. Then, I turn to the columns of the Toronto ‘News’ written also and edited by Mr. Willison. I find in the Toronto ‘News’ expressions, not of admiration but of condemnation for the Prime Minister ; not of confidence but of fear and mistrust. I find in the Toronto ‘News’ that the premier is credited, not with being a hero but with being a coward; not with being able to resist the attacks of the Roman Catholic Church, if such attacks are made, but as being a slave of the Roman Catholic Church. Then I say, what a wonderful change in two years, and I ask : In whom has this change taken place? Is the change in the man of whom the words were written, or is the change in the man who wrote the words? I look at the Prime Minister and I say : Surely his position is not changed. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, two years ago; Sir Wilfrid Laurier nine years ago was ‘premier of the Dominion of Canada. He then was as he is today leader of the Reform party, and I say to myself : If there has been so great a change in Sir Wilfrid Laurier there must have been a reason, there must have been a motive, and where is the reason and where is the motive? Having achieved such wonderful success, having won the admiration not only of the people of Canada but of every land upon the face of the globe, I ask : What could have been the reason which induced Sir Wilfrid Laurier to have departed from that which has been his course all his lifetime. Must not his ambitions be the same ; what is there to change his position? I look at the Roman Catholic Church and I ask : Is this church possessed of any greater power to-day than it was two years ago when that biography was published, or even nine years ago? Sir, I cannot see any reason to believe that the power of that church has been augmented. I remember that Sir Wilfrid Laurier did resist certain demands of the Roman Catholic Church nine years ago. Did it occasion him any loss? Has he suffered any loss of power or popularity or any diminution in his following, or any loss of prestige? I cannot see that he has suffered any loss whatever because of the action he took in 1896 or because of any action he has taken towards the Roman Catholic Church all his life. Surely not having pursued, there could be no object whatever in his changing his position or mode of action. I can easily imagine that if the right hon. gentleman had suffered, in resisting any attempted influence of the Catholic Church. any loss, there might, if he was a man of

4304

less principle, be some reason for a change of front. But he has not suffered any.

Then I turn to Mr. Willison, the writer of a biography of the right hon. gentleman. Has there been any change in that gentleman? I think no one can doubt that there has been a change and a very radical one. I find that when Mr. Willison wrote that biography he was a member of the Reform party and had been all his life a Reformer. But since then he has gone over to the ranks of the opposition, and, as usual in such cases, the man who leaves one church for another or one political party to ally himself to another, becomes more bitter, more partisan, more extravagant than the man who has been to the manner born and has been brought up in the fold. And I find that Mr. Willison is in the employ of a Conservative newspaper, whose subscription list and financial success depend on its retaining the support of the Conservative party. I find that he made a boast—perhaps a vain boast—but boasted nevertheless of having been the chief instrument in the overthrow of one Reform government in this country, and I ask the question: does this man hunger and thirst for still greater fame and honour along that line? I am not surprised at the change of attitude, and I am sure that the change is not in the man of whom the words were written, but in the man who held the pen and wrote the words.

Does any one doubt the motives that actuate Mr. Willison? If he does, I would ask him to look at the Toronto ‘News’ of April the 4th. On the outside page he will find a sort of kerosene and dynamite cartoon, picturing Monseigneur Sbarretti seated at the desk of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, in the garb of a messenger boy, ready to do his bidding. There you find the statement that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has become the slave of the Catholic Church and of Monseigneur Sbarretti, who is here to represent that church. Surely no man, however anxious he may be for party success, if he be at the same time a loyal, respectable Canadian, will make such appeals which can only have one object, unless he has irrefutable evidence, establishing beyond doubt, that the statement was founded on fact. But turn to the inside of that same paper and you will find, not on the front page where it would catch everybody’s eye, but in an obscure space, a six-line paragraph, which reads as follows:

Hon. Robert Rogers has said too much or too little. If he can prove the interference of the Papal ablegate in preventing the extension of Manitoba’s boundaries, he owes it to his own province and to the rest of the Dominion to do so.

That is tantamount to a confession that Mr. Rogers had no ground or evidence whatever for making the statements he did. It

4305

has been said that the newspapers, particularly the Conservative newspapers of Toronto, have not been fair in their criticism of this Bill or of the men connected with this legislation, and I think that there are hon. members on the Conservative side of this House who will admit that there is considerable foundation for that censure. Take for instance the Toronto ‘ Telegram ’ of the 24th March, and on page seven you will find those words :

Mr. Monk delivered a carefully and cleverly prepared speech, a speech which created intense enthusiasm in the camp of his political opponents, which was an ingenious argument and sectarian appeal, and which is intended to offset in Quebec the Carleton-born declaration of R. L. Borden.

Mr. Monk, according to the Tory plan of campaign, supports the school clause, but condemns the retention of crown lands by the federal government as unconstitutional, control of crown lands going with the crown, and consequently being an inseparable part of provincial autonomy. His endorsement of the school clause was absolute, occasionally frantic. When he got away from legal precepts he was angry and bitter.

Now, that is a criticism from the ‘ Telegram,’ a Conservative paper edited by Mr. John Ross Robertson, who for some years occupied a seat in this House as a Conservative member, and whose name was mentioned, I believe, recently by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) as a fit and proper person to occupy the seatmade vacant by the death of the late lament- ed Mr. E. F. Clarke. This is a criticism from a Conservative, who is politically friendly to the Conservative party. Surely one would have expected that a gentleman of the standing of Mr. Robertson would have understood better what is due to his position, and would have had greater respect for our Canadian parliament of which he was at one time a member, than to have indulged in any such accusations or statements or insinuations unless he had undoubted proof of their accuracy. Yet what does he say? He says in fact that when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) delivered the speech he did on the question now before the House, he spoke not his own mind, not as directed by his own judgment, but as a tool in the hands of a party caucus and as merely carrying out the Tory plan of campaign. And in the same criticism Mr. Robertson says, too, that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) did not ex- press his own mind, did not speak from principle, but was driven to the stand he did take by his constituents in Carleton, and that he, too, was but a tool in the hands of a party caucus, forging his little link in the chain which has been designed by those who planned the Tory campaign. If we are to believe Mr. Robertson, while those gentlemen expressed views so much opposed the one to the other, they were after all but two lovely berries moulded on one stem,

4306

and ‘ all but parts of one stupendous whole.’ Yet the hon. the leader of the opposition has assured us that he was not driven to any decision by the utterances or the feelings of his constituents in the county of Carleton. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has not told us whether his speech was made for him or by him, but I do not think that those who had the pleasure of listening to him in this House require that he should tell us whether his speech was made by himself or dictated by the party caucus. And those who listened to him will do him the justice to say that he was never at any part of his speech either frantic or angry or even bitter. But the point I would make is this. If Mr. Robertson, the Conservative editor of a Conservative newspaper, will allow his feelings and passions to so run away with him that he will descend to insinuations and accusations so unsupportable by fact against the leader of his own party and one of that leader’s lieutenants, what can we expect of such a man when he criticises and censures the leader of the Reform government which he is so anxious to defeat, overthrow and destroy. I do not know whether it is safe to quote in this House words from Conservative newspapers. We had a little while ago the leader of the opposition telling us that an hon. gentleman had made an exhibition of himself because he dared to quote from the Hamilton ‘ Spectator.’ Let me again refer to that article in the ‘ Spectator ’ in which the writer declares that no French Canadian could ever again be premier of this Dominion. That, Sir, was a most atrocious statement. No man in his sane moments could be justified in making any such statements.

Sir, we have in the Dominion of Canada a great number of French Canadians who have been an honour and a source of pride to this land in which we live. We have also, Sir, in this country, and perhaps particularly in the western part of the province in which I live, a large number of German Canadians who are among the best citizens we have, who are developing our manufacturing industries, and, by their energy, thrift and untiring business enterprise, are doing much to build up our Ontario cities and cultivate and improve our Canadian farms. I say it is a shame and disgrace for any man to say, in the columns of a newspaper or elsewhere, that a man whose forbears, perhaps, have spoken naturally the German or the French language, shall never occupy the first position in this country. But, Sir, bad as it was for the editor of the Hamilton ‘ Spectator,’ to say these words, I think it was almost infinitely worse that Mr. John Ross Robertson, as we find in the ‘ Telegram ’ of last Saturday, should have rebuked the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osler) by saying that they would have enough to do in apologizing for their own errors and mistakes, and ought to

4307

leave the Hamilton ‘ Spectator ’ alone ; or when he said that when the ‘ Spectator ’ used these words it was saying what every- body thought. I say that that expression of Mr. John Ross Robertson was a libel upon the Canadian people and a disgrace to Canadian journalism. I think, Sir, that we know the object, we see so plainly the object, which these editors and publishers have in view, when we turn to the ‘ Telegram ’ of 21st March and read : ‘ The Quebec hierarchy has scored a victory ; that we will not pay very much attention to their utterances and will not be very much moved thereby ; nor will the public be much influenced when they turn to the Toronto ‘ News ’ of March 23rd and following issues, and read such language as this :

It seems we must submit to be governed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy instead of by the government of Canada.

Sir, a great deal has been said of the hierarchy and of the influence of the Catholic Church. Let us be fair.

O wad some power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us !

Let us go back to the meeting held in Toronto, in Massey Hall, on the evening of the 20th of March. This was an indignation meeting called by the citizens of Toronto to consider the very legislation before us. We find that upon the platform were eight or nine Protestant ministers. We find that three or four Protestant ministers address- ed the meeting. A strong letter condemning this legislation was read from another Protestant minister who was not able to be present. One eminent Protestant clergy- man who was present took occasion to give the name of a man who, he believed, was a proper person to occupy a vacant seat in this House to represent a constituency then unrepresented. Now, I do not censure these Protestant ministers. I do not think they exceeded their rights. They had a perfect right to be at that meeting ; they had a perfect right to speak and to express the views that they did express. I have little respect for, in fact I rather hold in con- tempt, the man in this country, whatever his politics, who begrudges to his pastor, whether Protestant or Catholic, the right to hold whatever views he may think proper and to express those views as he likes in any proper place, and to mark his ballot as he chooses. But let the circumstances be reversed ; let that meeting take place, not in a Protestant city of a Protestant province, but in a Roman Catholic city of a Roman Catholic province ; let it be addressed by three or four Roman Catholic bishops or priests ; let a strong letter be read from an- other bishop or priest, and let one of these bishops or priests nominate some Roman Catholic citizen as a fit and proper person to be elected to this House—and what a furore of excitement there would be throughout Protestant Canada. In the Toronto

4308

papers we would have blazing cartoons of a long-tailed devil, clad in priestly garb, leading this parliament by the nose.

I do not believe in the legislation of this parliament being influenced by any church. I claim to be a Protestant and a Canadian. As a Protestant, I would very strongly object to the legislation of this House being moulded by the influence of the Roman Catholic church, or by the ablegate or other representative of that church, I would be as strong as anybody in expressing my opinion to that kind of thing. As a Canadian, I would be as much opposed to having the legislation of this House moulded and shaped by the influence of any church, Protestant or Catholic. But I will not be influenced —I refuse to be-either in my position or my thought or action by mere expressions, by statements without any foundation what- ever, made by parties whose object is so obvious and whose methods are so transparent. A great deal has been said by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) in language very vigorous and vehement as to the presence in Canada of the Papal ablegate. The hon. gentleman says that for the presence in Canada of that ablegate the Prime Minister of this country and the Reform party should be held responsible. I again turn to Mr. Willison’s biography of Sir Wilfrid Laurier to find what he said concerning the presence of the Papal ablegate in this country. Speaking of the settlement of the Manitoba school question, Mr. Willison writes in this way :

But while the settlement was not disturbed in parliament, the Liberal party had still to overcome the desperate determination of the bishops to continue the quarrel and to accomplish the political destruction of the authors of the compromise. As a last resort a group of Catholic Liberals appealed to Rome, and Monseigneur Merry Del Val was sent out to inquire into the state of the Canadian church and to consider the policy of the bishops. This has been represented as a recognition of the supremacy of the Pope in the political affairs of Canada. As a matter of fact, it was a proper appeal by members of the Catholic communion to the head of their church against the intolerant action of their spiritual superiors and the Pope’s vicars. No episcopal decree was ever issued as a result of Monseigneur Merry Del Val’s discreet and sagacious inquiries, but the denunciations of the bishops ceased, and their political energy was restrained. Later, a permanent Papal legate was established in Canada, as in the United States, and Liberal Catholics have been permitted to repose in peace in the bosom of their church, and there has been a welcome abatement of clerical activity in political contests. By the end of 1900, every Catholic school in the rural districts of Manitoba had accepted the provisions of the school settlement ; and while it has been more difficult to arrange satisfactory terms for merging the Catholic schools of Winnipeg into the public school system, negotiations are in progress which promise a harmonious solution, and the

4309

final extinguishment of all the substantial grievances of the Catholic people.

It but remains to add that during the general election of 1900, the attitude of the bishops of Quebec was without fault and beyond criticism. The struggle for a free voice and a free vote was won in 1896, and the name of Wilfrid Laurier must be for ever associated with the long contest and the final victory. Best of all, the devotion of the French Canadian people to their church stands unimpaired. There is no lessened acceptance of its beneficent faiths, there has no virtue departed from its ancient forms and ceremonies ; the priest of God has authority undiminished in the realm of conduct and morals, while political freedom comports with the dignity and independence of the citizen, fulfils the requirements of the constitution, and conserves national stability. It is well, also, to remember that Monseigneur Conroy, Monseigneur Merry Del Val and Monseigneur Falconi, successive delegates from the Papal court, have passed condemnation upon the intolerant policy of the Quebec hierarchy, and upheld the rights of Canadian Catholics to all the constitutional privileges of British citizens.

Now, Mr. Willison has said in the Toronto ‘ News ’ that he does not believe there will be any power that can prevent the passage of this Bill in this House. In that, I believe, Mr. Willison is perfectly right. But he says further, that the proper thing for the people to do will be to keep up the agitation and to oppose, at the next election, the members who may support this Bill. He says : Some people may forget, but I promise I will not forget. I do not ask the people to forget. I ask them to remember ; I ask them to remember everything ; I ask them to remember all the circumstances. I ask the people, between now and the next election, to acquire all the information, all the knowledge they can respecting this subject. I ask them to give this question their careful, unbiased, honest, unprejudiced thought and consideration. I ask them, between now and the next election, to watch and see what shall be the effect in the country of this legislation. And then I ask them to vote as they may see fit, and, as they will have a right to do, whether it be for this government or against it. I ask the people, however, not to allow themselves to be stampeded by any crusade on the part of Tory papers in Toronto. I am perfectly willing to leave myself in the hands of the people, so far as I am concerned, there is no tribunal to which I would sooner go than to that of the people. But I do object to editors of Toronto papers assuming to be the advocate, the judge, the jury, the witness and the executioner. I have in my constituency a number of Orangemen and a number of Catholics. Some of the best friends I have, some of the best people I know, are members of the Orange society. Some of the best friends I have, some of the best people I know, are members of the Catholic Church. And, Sir, these people

4310

at home, up in the South riding of Grey, Orange and Catholic, are living together in amity, associating together in friendship, doing business together and trusting each other, and no flame that can be kindled here, no passion that can be aroused will make those people look with hatred the one upon the other. Now before concluding I would like to refer for a moment to an article that appeared in the ‘ Christian Guardian ’ of the 29th of March last, under the heading of ‘ Expediency vs. Principle.’ There is language in this article to which I object. I will read a paragraph from the earlier part of the article where it says :

We care not how many politicians from east or west may profess to be satisfied, or how many arguments may be brought forward to cover the retreat of those who fear personal loss or party lash, the fact remains that the principle of provincial rights—

And so on. I will read another sentence toward the end of the article which says :

Those of our readers who agree with us and have votes, should write to their representatives at once, and tell them that they will not support them again unless they cast their votes in parliament against all compromise and for the complete provincial independence of Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Now, Sir, I say that there are in that article insinuations and threats that no man, whether he be a minister of the gospel or an editor of a newspaper, has a right to address to the people of this country, or to the members of this House, whether they be sitting on one side or the other. He speaks in the first place of members who profess to be satisfied, and yet are not satisfied, and by implication are not telling the truth, members who fear personal loss, or the party lash. Sir, I am not a very old member of this House, I have been a member of parliament for three months, but I will say that during all that time no question has arisen in this House, no legislation has been brought forward in relation to which any member of the cabinet, any party whip or any member of parliament has approached me to know how I would vote in one way or the other. I say that in this article in the ‘ Guardian ’ is the lash, here is what the hon. member for North Toronto will call a ‘ lead-loaded ’ lash, and I refuse to be driven by any such lash as that. There is also a threat that if I will not vote as the man who penned these words and those who agree with him say I ought to vote, I will never again get back to this House. Sir, I think it is the right of the electors in any riding, it is not only the right but the duty—and a duty perhaps that is not often enough exercised—I believe it is the right of the people in every riding to keep in touch with their representative, it is the right of the people of every riding to make known their views to their

4311

representative, and to strengthen their views by arguments. It is also the right of every member of this House, knowing that there are in his constituency men who are just as wise and perhaps wiser than himself, to pay the greatest attention to the views and arguments of his constituents, and if they appeal to his judgment, if they convince him that they are right, he has a perfect right to be influenced. But if, after listening to the views of his constituents and to their arguments and giving them proper consideration, he is convinced that it is he who is right, then I say the man who, because of the fear that he will not again be elected to this House, because some persons may withdraw their votes from him, is driven to vote contrary to his judgment and contrary to his conscience, has no right to represent a constituency in this House. I say that such a man cannot have his own self-respect, and he is not likely to receive even the respect of the man who wields the club.

Sir, speaking of the hon. the Prime Minister, it has been said by Conservatives, it has been said by Reformers, it has been said by men who have no great political inclination one way or the other, that the Grits never could get into power while Sir John A. Macdonald was alive ; and that while Sir Wilfrid Laurier is alive and the leader of his party, the Conservatives never can get into power. I believe that a great many people in this country accept that statement as expressing the situation. I believe that a great many Conservatives accept that view, and without any regret they desire that Sir Wilfrid Laurier shall continue to be Prime Minister for many years to come. I believe there are many Conservatives as well as Reformers who believe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier stands today pre-eminently as the one man best fitted to occupy the position he now occupies as Prime Minister of this Dominion. But, Sir, there are in this country other people who so hunger and thirst for power, who perhaps having once tasted the sweets of office, hope to taste these sweets of office again, and there are others who are so bitterly partisan that they want their party to win whatever may be the result to the country, and who would like to see the political death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as being the one thing that will give them a chance to come back into power. They are willing to shoot poisoned arrows and poisoned darts from any refuge, they are willing to draw the long bow, and stop at nothing to injure the premier and to cast him from the position which he occupies. I have heard it said that certain charges, that a great number of charges which have been made against the Prime Minister in this paper or in that paper must be true because they have not been denied. I say that every insinuation, every charge of littleness, of smallness, of subserviency,

4312

of lack of integrity or of courage that has ever been made in any paper against the Prime Minister, has already been denied, has been loudly, emphatically and sufficiently denied, by the pure and spotless private life and public life of the hon. the Prime Minister. I believe that today as on the 4th of November last the great majority of the people of this country will trust and hope that Sir Wilfrid Laurier may long be spared to adorn the position he occupies today. They remember the lean years that preceded 1896, they remember the comparatively fat years we have had since 1896, they desire that Canada should be further developed, that her industries may be multiplied and her natural resources be made the most of, that Canada may be led to occupy a still prouder position among the nations of the earth, to enjoy a prosperity greater than it has yet enjoyed, and these men believe that she is likely to attain to that position of greatness far more rapidly under the leadership of our present Prime Minister. I am sure that the prayer of the people of this Dominion will be that a kind Providence may long spare the life and the health of Sir Wilfrid Laurier to occupy the position of Prime Minister, a man, Sir, who has known no north, who has known no south or east or west, who has known no creed or race, but who stands today and who has always stood for what is in the best interests of a united Canada and a united Canadian people.

Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald). It is with considerable nervousness that I rise for the first time to discuss the Bill which has been placed before us for our consideration by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I do it with a full sense of my inability to reason all its features to the full. If I were out in my own constituency among fellow-farmers, I think I could reason out the question a little more to their satisfaction than perhaps I will be able to do in this House. I am surrounded by lawyers, by doctors, by commercial men and may I say ministers? Yes, I think I can well say ministers after listening to the hon. member who has just taken his seat. But, Sir, if the exhibition which the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Miller) has made of himself is a true expression of the result of his solemn theological meditations, I do not think he would be a very inspiring expounder of the Gospel. Surely he does not kick up such a great racket when he gets behind his sacred desk, because, if he did, I would venture to think that he would not have a very large congregation when he finished his sermon. The gesticulations of the hon. gentleman and the sound of his voice as it echoed and re-echoed throughout the building I must confess almost made my hair stand on my head, and I am a politician from the wild and woolly west.

4313

In the interest of the nervous members of this House I would ask him to be so kind in future as not to repeat the dose. I am not going to quote from newspapers as the hon. gentleman has, because if I did I would only be repeating what has been stated to this House over and over again. I believe that every newspaper from the Atlantic to the Pacific has been quoted in support of certain things which have happened in and out of this House with the exception of one paper and I do not think we require any further ‘eye openers’ from this source of information. I am not going to talk about King William and His Holiness the Pope as my hon. friend has done, but I will try and confine myself to the subject which is before the House. Nor am I going to introduce any personal history. I will direct my few remarks to the little postal stamp upon the map. I am proud to be a representative from the province of Manitoba, and what I say in reference to that province will be quite in touch with the different clauses of the Bill or relative to the remarks that the right hon. leader of the government made when he introduced that Bill. Unlike that hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, I am not going to talk about everything except the Bill which is before us. I wonder if the constituents of that hon. gentleman sent him down here to make the harangue that he has made here this afternoon or to eulogize any particular person. I rather think not. I think his constituents sent him down here for the purpose of dealing with the subjects that concern this great country of ours. I may say, however, before proceeding further, that I have sat here patiently waiting for some hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House who represents a constituency in Manitoba to say something in defence of the little province of Manitoba. I have sat here day after day and week after week waiting to hear from those hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who are well qualified to defend that little province, much better qualified than I am, for example the hon. member who represents Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), in this House and who was premier of that province for twelve years has sat in his place and has not said one syllable in defence of that province. The hon. member who represents Selkirk (Mr. Jackson) and who sat in the Manitoba legislature for years has not said one word, and his colleague the hon. member for Portage la Prairie also sat in the local legislature has not one word to say in defence of Manitoba. Last but not least is the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) who got up and talked two and a half hours without having one word to say in defence of the little postal stamp upon the map.

We are dealing to-day with that great territory which was originally known as

4314

Rupert’s Land. We are dealing with it, I think, for the last time and I stand here in order to try and convince the hon. members of this House that the little postal stamp upon the map is not getting justice. I do not care to go into a detailed history of the province of Manitoba, but in order to lay the foundation upon which to state the facts, I think it would be wise and expedient to take a retrospective glance at the circumstances under which the province of Manitoba came into confederation. The territory which now constitutes the province of Manitoba originally belonged to Rupert’s Land, a vast tract of country which was controlled by English capitalists who received a concession from the imperial government. They had jurisdiction over it for a great number of years until they surrendered their rights for a consideration of £300,000 and one-twentieth of the land and that great country was turned over to the Dominion of Canada. There is a great deal of history in connection with that country, and the way in which it was governed for many years, but I do not think that it is necessary that I should undertake to discuss that at the present time, because it has been referred to by hon. members this afternoon and anything I might say in so far as the province of Manitoba before it entered confederation is concerned would not perhaps add anything to the information of the House. But, Sir, I will proceed to point out to the House how the little province of Manitoba came into confederation. I will try to explain the circumstances under which that little province started to keep house. The terms and conditions embraced in the Act admitting Manitoba into confederation of Canada were chiefly :

1. 1. Responsible government.
   2. The payment of five per cent half-yearly on $476,690 in lieu of no debt.
   3. $30,000 in support of government and legislature.
   4. 80 cents per head on 17,000 souls, payable half-yearly with subsequent increases based on decennial census, until the population of the province amounted to 400,000, at which amount the grant should remain thereafter.
   5. All public lands in province to be vested in the Dominion of Canada.

It is not necessary nor would it be wise for me at this particular crisis to undertake to tell of the unfortunate happenings which occurred when the Dominion of Canada first undertook the government and control of that Territory other than to say that when that country entered confederation the people of that district were by no means well satisfied, they thought that as the descendants of the early settlers who were placed in that country by the great Lord Selkirk who had governed the district of Assiniboia for a great many years they were not properly and justly dealt with. They felt in fact that the whole deal was a compact

4315

between the federal authorities and the Hudson Bay Company whereby the interests of the early settlers of that country were not properly protected. In consequence of that feeling the people of Manitoba in order to try and get satisfaction drew up a Bill of Rights which they, through their delegates, conveyed to this parliament. That Bill showed very clearly that the people of that time were not satisfied with the way in which they had been treated. This Bill of Rights reads as follows :—

That the Territories heretofore known as Rupert’s Land and the Northwest shall not enter into the confederation of the Dominion of Canada at all except as a province to be styled and known as the province of Assiniboia, and with all the rights and privileges common to the different provinces of the Dominion.

Further :

That the local legislature of the province of Assiniboia shall have full control over all the public lands of the province.

Now, Sir, this Bill of Rights sets out the two things that we as a province have always contended for and are contending for today, that is an increase of territory and also the control of our public lands.

At six o’clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o’clock.

Mr. STAPLES. Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o’clock I was speaking of the unhappy condition of affairs that existed in the province of Manitoba when the Dominion government for the first time undertook to exercise jurisdiction over that province. I also spoke of the financial conditions upon which the province entered confederation, and by reference to the terms of union it will be seen that the financial position accorded the province was, when all sources were reckoned, $67,204.50, and with this stipend, the province entered upon the performance of local self-government.

It was not long, however, in consequence of new settlers coming into the province, that the exigencies of responsible government began to be manifest, and four years had not expired until the pressing expenditures exceeded the subsidy from the Dominion by $150,000, and representations were brought to bear on the federal authorities that the financial condition of the province must be improved materially, in order to provide for pressing needs and necessities. The result of frequent correspondence and interviews brought about an adjustment of things which gave to the province in 1873 about $5,000 a year, thus raising the total to $72,000.

In 1875, owing to withdrawals from capital account, the allowance had shrunk to $65,000 and the necessity for another ap-

4316

peal became apparent, which resulted in a readjustment, giving the province, as a subsidy, $90,000 a year. In 1880, the subsidy went from $90,000 to $105,000 and again in 1882 there was an increase to $227,153.04.

In 1885, by what is known as the ‘ better terms agreement,’ there was a readjustment of the per capita allowance to the province, by which the province was to receive annually $120,000, based on an estimated population of 150,000 at eighty cents per head, to be increased on a census basis after the population exceeded 150,000, until the population reached 400,000 souls. The capital sum was also readjusted to be calculated on a population of 125,000. Provision was made that the province should annually receive $50,000 for support of government, and $100,000 for want of public lands. This arrangement has been effective since 1885, the last subsidy received from the Dominion (year, 1904) being as follows :

The foregoing narrative amply shows that from time to time since Manitoba became confederated with Canada, the terms accorded at that time were wholly inadequate for a growing community and the rearing of a substantial provincial superstructure, and the cause of constant complaint. At the present time, the position of the province, owing to large increase of settlement, and consequent demands is, if anything, intensified, the revenue received being wholly inadequate to necessities for future advancement and development, and the time has now arrived, in my opinion that just and equitable assistance should be extended to the province, as a matter of right, as will enable the affairs and requirements of the government to be fully and satisfactorily dealt with.

It is well known, and should be readily admitted by the federal authorities, that the burden of development of Manitoba has been imposed upon the province with limited revenue, and it may be observed that this embarrassment is added to by the Dominion government inviting people from all countries to settle in Manitoba and the west. It is, moreover, a reasonable conclusion that on the heels of a settlement, rapidly follow the demand for railway facilities, schools, roads, bridges, and the necessity

4317

for increased accommodation in public institutions, and many other purposes consequent upon increased population, and that such should and must be extended, is no hallucination, but a grim reality.

I submit that the province of Manitoba should now, having taken its place in the front rank of confederation, receive at the hands of the federal authorities the same liberal treatment that was extended to the other provinces of the Dominion. This evidently was promised. The Honourable Joseph Howe, a prominent statesman of the day, who visited Manitoba in early days, stated :

I have conversed freely with all classes of the community, from Governor McTavish downwards, and to all, held the same language, that the same constitution as the provinces possessed, would ultimately be conferred upon the country.

There should surely be some sort of proportion between our revenue and our expenditures. As our population increases so should our power of providing for the wants of the people.

It is true that Manitoba, by reason of the fertility and fruitfulness of its soil, and as a field for profitable investment of capital in agricultural pursuits, commercial industries, and in divers other respects, has attracted, and is attracting, settlement of such phenomenal proportions over and above the usual quota of increase generally falling to the lot of new countries, and that through energy and determination, the agriculturist of Manitoba has succeeded in producing grain of a quality, and to a quantity, beyond the most sanguine expectations, but, although this is a matter of pride and for congratulation, it nevertheless carries with it increased responsibilities of such magnitude that the government of Manitoba, with the limited means at disposal, cannot view the situation other than with the gravest apprehension.

In proof of present necessities, in contrast with past periods in the history of Manitoba, and which bear evidence of being intensified by the rapid influx of population, which will multiply the cost of government, a few illustrations are given to substantiate the fact.

The population of Manitoba has increased over 1870, to the extent of 340,000 souls.

The number of schools have increased from 326 in 1884 to 1,335 in 1904, the school population from 7,000 in 1881 to 56,840 in 1904 ; the government grant to schools from $29,242.70 in 1883 to over $200,000 in 1904. The public institutions of the province are taxed to their utmost capacity, and the demands for municipal improvements are greatly increasing.

The people of Manitoba have been taxed to their utmost capacity and the demand for municipal improvements is continually growing. But, Sir, while that is the case, it

4318

must not be forgotten that the little province of Manitoba has been no mean contributor to the exchequer of the Dominion, and if you will take the trouble to turn up the facts you will find that we are today contributing over a million and a half dollars annually. Therefore, I claim that we should get increased subsidies from this government, and more especially should we get them because we have been totally divested of our public domain. Manitoba at the time of confederation had lands of wide area and very valuable. These should be handed over to the province and the province should have its own public domain, and if you will follow closely the British North America Act you will find that it is according to the spirit of that Act that the public lands should be handed over to the province. As evidence of this take the little province of Prince Edward Island which had no public lands and received the sum of $800,000 in lieu thereof, whereas Manitoba only receives annually the paltry sum of $100,000 for all its public domain. Why should the province of Manitoba not be given its lands? What argument can be adduced why that province and the other provinces in the west as well should not own their own public domain. True, we had the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) the other night trotting out the old argument which I thought had been relegated to the background. He said this government had to construct the Canadian Pacific Railway for Manitoba and the west. I do not think there is an hon. gentlemen in this House who will not admit frankly that the Canadian Pacific Railway is a road entirely of a national character in which all the provinces derive benefit. But who paid for the Canadian Pacific Railway? Sir, the little province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories have paid nearly every dollar expended on the construction of this great transcontinental line. They had to give 20,000 acres of their most valuable land per mile. Further than that, those lands were exempted from taxation. How have the other provinces been dealt with as regards the Canadian Pacific Railway? Take for example the province of British Columbia. That province is receiving annually for the right of way the sum of $100,000, the same amount as Manitoba is receiving for the total confiscation of all its public lands. Therefore, I do not think there is any justification for the argument resussitated by the hon. member for Labelle. What is the public domain of the province worth today? Let me call to your attention a few facts which will show the revenue derived from the public domain by the other provinces. In the year 1903 the province of Ontario received $2,440,549.91 as revenue from its public lands, woods and forests. The province of Quebec received $1,447,294.24 from the same source. Nova Scotia received $600,000 from its crown lands and mines. New Brunswick received $210,-

4319

089.90 for timber license and stumpage. British Columbia $707,904.12 for land sales, timber and mining leases, and so on, and the little island of Prince Edward, which had no public lands, was given by the Dominion $45,000.

Some estimate may be formed to what extent Manitoba has suffered by the unjust appropriation of its public lands by a perusal of some of the purposes to which the same were devoted, i.e. :

And these figures may doubtless be supplemented by a similar area. That will give some idea where the lands of Manitoba and the west have been going. I contend that $100,000 annually paid to Manitoba in return for her lands is entirely unreasonable, and that the amount should be substantially increased in order to put that province on something like a fair basis as compared with the other provinces. Let me here make some comparisons, and in doing so I do not wish to be understood as finding any fault with the very liberal consideration which the new provinces are getting under these Bills. But I do think that the province of Manitoba, which was instrumental in opening that great west, should receive something like similar treatment. The Bill takes as a basis for the public lands of the province 25,000,000 of acres valued at $1.50 an acre ; which gives $37,500,000.

I cannot think that the injustice to Manitoba will be further perpetuated in view of the proposal of the Dominion to compensate annually each of the new provinces to the west for public lands within the territory of each in a sum based upon the estimated value of such lands, namely $37,500,000, the payments to be made as follows: On a present assumed population of 250,000, and until it reaches 400,000, one per cent, or $37,500 ; thereafter, until the population reaches 800,000, the sum of $562,500 ; thereafter until the population reaches 1,200,000, $750,000, and thereafter the payment is to be three per cent on the estimated value of the lands, or $1,112,500. As an additional compensation for such Canada agrees to pay the provinces for five years to provide for construction of public buildings one-quarter of one per cent or $94,500.

It is thus seen that this government evidently deem the lands asset of the new

4320

provinces of such value as to provide adequate compensation therefor, starting on the basis of an assumed value of such lands at $37,500,000 for 25,000,000 acres, and on a population of 250,000, which will at the outset give to each of the provinces a revenue of $375,000.

It is thus seen that this government evidently places some value upon the public lands of the west. Starting on the basis of a population of 250,000, the amount payable per annum is $375,000, in return for an acreage of 25,000,000. At the outset, therefore, each of the new provinces will receive under this head $375,000. Now, I claim that in view of the fact of this very liberal constitution for the provinces that are being created, the province of Manitoba is not receiving full justice when it receives only $100,000 per annum for all public domain. I may say further that this land question is no new thing. As I said before, it is a right we have been contending for ever since the province entered confederation.

Now, let me refer for a moment or two to the capital account. In my opinion this account should be readjusted. At the present time it is based on a population of 125,000. It is a well known fact that the population of Manitoba far exceeds that. Manitoba today has a population of over 350,000 souls. It is to be remembered that Manitoba entered confederation without any debt. Therefore, I claim that the basis of this account should not be a population of 125,000. Manitoba last year received from this source $178,947, whereas the new provinces are to receive half-yearly 5 per cent on $8,170,500, or an annual payment of $405,375, which is more than twice as much as the little province of Manitoba is receiving, although its population is much larger. Another claim I would like to make for the province is a claim of $110,825.07, which was allowed to the other provinces on this account at the time of the better-terms agreement. And, in order to bring this matter more clearly before you, let me call your attention to a letter which was addressed to this government by Hon. D. H. McMillan, who was then, in 1895, treasurer of the province of Manitoba :

The second matter of difference refers to an item of $110,825.07, which was allowed on an adjustment of capital account by chapter 4, Statutes of Canada, 1884. This amount was not allowed as a part of the future annual revenue of the province, but fixed as compensation for an amount which the province should have received in former years. A similar allowance was made to the other provinces. When the Act for confirming the settlement of 1885 was passed, no mention was made of this sum, and it was apparently dropped on the assumption that it was compensated for by the other concessions made to the province. There was nothing in the negotiations to warrant this view, and Mr. Norquay maintained that the exact contrary was understood in the negotiations, and that the passing of the Act in the form in which it was passed was clearly an

4321

error and was probably due to the draughtsman of the Act not clearly apprehending his instructions.

It appears that in those days they had draughtsmen who did not follow out their instructions, just as they have today.

Dr. Harrison, subsequently, on December 10th, 1887, addressed a memorandum to the then acting Minister of Finance, setting forth his view on the subject. The matter was then taken into consideration by the minister, but does not appear to have ever been finally dealt with.

This is what the hon. treasurer of the province of Manitoba said. And, as an hon. friend reminds me, this was under a Liberal administration, the administration of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway).

Now, I would like to say a word on the per capita allowance. I do not find any fault with the basis upon which this account is calculated, except that I do not think the limit of allowance for Manitoba should be based upon a population of 400,000, when that of the other new provinces is based upon a population of 800,000. I do not wish to be misunderstood ; I do not say that the new provinces are getting what they are not entitled to, but I do claim that a readjustment should take place to extend to Manitoba the same treatment as is being given to the provinces of the west.

The right hon. Prime Minister, in introducing this Bill, led this House, in his usual manner, to believe that the swamp lands of Manitoba were the most valuable lands in the province. This is entirely a mistaken idea. Before dealing with the financial side of the question, I would like to say that I think it would be well for the right hon. gentleman, in order to convince himself of the nature of these lands, that he should come to the little province of Manitoba and examine them for himself. The trouble has been that we cannot get these lands examined and handed over to us. But, before coming up there, I would advise the Prime Minister to equip himself with a pair of very long-legged rubber boots, a slouch hat and a boat ; and, if he is anything of a sport, let him bring a gun and a good dog, and I can guarantee him the best day’s duck shooting he ever had in his life. (And I think that by the time he gets these Bills worried through this House, a little recreation of the nature I have indicated will not be out of order.) But since he has mentioned the swamp lands of Manitoba, I would like to say that these lands have a history, a sketch of which may not be without interest to the members of this House. In 1885, under an Act of this Dominion government, the swamp lands of Manitoba were to be handed over to the provinces to deal with as they saw fit. At that time there were about 7,000,000 acres of swamp lands. Though many years have elapsed, instead of getting these lands as we should have got them, immediately, the quantity

4322

examined is only 2,130,341.41 acres, and out of that amount only 1,962,264.04 acres have been handed over to the province. And at what rate? They cost the province of Manitoba $143,977.39. And this was imposed upon the province in the most arbitrary way. In fact, this government deducted it from the half-yearly subsidy of the province ; and, if there are any fees due for the inspection of these lands, they immediately pay these fees out of our half-yearly subsidy and charge them up at 5 per cent interest. This is not the intention, nor is it reasonable that it should be done, owing to the fact that this government is holding back from the province of Manitoba millions of acres of our swamp lands. The Order in Council of 1885 provides as follows :—

The cost of selection of any swamp lands be not made a charge against the half-yearly payments to the province on subsidy account, until the requisite sanction of His Excellency the Governor General in Council of the said selection has been obtained, but that the deduction shall be made from the payment to the province next following the date of the Order in Council giving such sanction and vesting the lands in Her Majesty for the purposes of the province.

That is how these lands were supposed to have been dealt with. To give you an idea of what the feeling of the Hon. D. H. McMillan was with regard to those lands, let me read to you an extract from his budget speech in 1898 :

As you are aware, the chief source of revenue is the subsidy. The amount received this year was $454,557.33, which is $15,978.41 less than estimated. This amount was deducted on account of the inspection of swamp lands, and this year there is a further reduction of $6,000 for the same purpose. I hope this is the last we shall see of a reduction on account of swamp lands inspection. The costly system practiced for the last eight or nine years has been done away with, and the selection will be done under an efficient system, which I think will result in the selection of the lands at one-tenth the cost and in one-tenth the time of the old system. I think it is really too bad the way the province has been charged in this matter, and I intend to make a charge against the Dominion government, and I hope the province will be recouped.

Altogether $86,000 has been deducted as the cost of the swamp lands inspection. We have been sometimes charged with not living within our revenue. How could we when these amounts were continually deducted from our revenue ?

That is what the Hon. D. H. McMillan had to say about these lands. As an evidence of how they have been diverted to the purposes of the Dominion, let me point out that since 1890, 850,845.52 acres have been examined and determined by inspectors as swamp lands, and of these only 347,981.01 acres have been actually handed over to the province, showing that the Dominion had diverted 502,864.41 acres of the lands of the province in the Act of 1885. It must also

4323

be borne in mind that this 348,981.01 acres received by the province has cost her the sum of $71,748.08. This is about 20 cents an acre. Now under the old administration these lands were handed over to the province at about the cost of 10 cents an acre. But under this new arrangement Mr. McMillan spoke of our lands were going to be handed over to us at a cost of about one-half of what they had been, but as a matter of fact they are costing us twice as much at 10 cents an acre. It is hardly working it out that way. Let me read to you an Order in Council of the 27th of September, 1904, which will give an idea how these lands have been dealt with. After reciting that the inspectors had examined an area of 284,034 acres, the Order in Council goes on to provide as follows :—

The minister states that of the area thus examined, the commissioners find an area of 146,274 acres falling to the province as swamp lands.

That by a comparison of the schedules furnished by the commissioners with the books of the Department of the Interior, and its agencies in Manitoba, it has been found that of the total area of 146,274 acres selected as such swamp lands, an area of 43,192.27 acres is available.

The minister submits a revised schedule of such of the lands included in the schedule of the commissioners as are found available, comprising an area of 43,192.27 acres, and being satisfied of the accuracy of the same, recommends that the lands enumerated therein be vested in His Majesty, King Edward VII, for the purposes of the province of Manitoba under the provisions of the fourth section of chapter 47 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.

Now let me analyse that statement for a moment, to give you some idea how we are being treated in regard to our swamp lands. First, the area selected is cut down from 284,034 to 146,227 acres. Secondly, the area of 146,274 acres is cut down to 43,192.27 only as being available. The province is charged with the cost of examining 284,034 acres, and only gets 43,192.27 acres. It will be observed that it is stated that out of these 284,034 acres examined by the inspectors, the province only get 146,274 acres as her property. But out of these only 43,192.27 are handed over. Now I would like to know what has become of the difference? What compensation has been given, or is proposed to be given, by this government for this forced confiscation? This is a question for the new Minister of the Interior, and I would ask him to answer this question. Of course it would not be right to recall him from the west at this particular time ; his mind and his money no doubt are running in other channels. Now I will not deal any further with these lands more than to say this, that, according to the Act of 1885, and at that time, there were fully 7,000,000 acres of swamp lands in the province which should have been handed over to the province ; and after waiting twenty years in

4324

patience the province has only received 162,264.04 acres, much of which is unsurveyed, unsaleable and unfit for settlement.

Now let me deal a little while with the school lands of Manitoba and the west. In giving you a history of how we have been dealt with in regard to the school lands of Manitoba, I would say to the hon. gentlemen who represent the west that is being now formed into new provinces, that they had better be careful because if they get the same treatment that was and is being meted out to Manitoba, I am afraid they will come to the conclusion that it would be much better for the provinces to retain control of their public lands. The government, when dealing with this question, or when purchasing the territory, set aside certain lands to be used for educational purposes. There is no doubt that if these lands were handed over to the provinces they would deal with them much better and more wisely than the federal government. So far as Manitoba is concerned, there never was a time in the history of that province when it needed so badly the school lands and the revenue derived therefrom, as at the present. Our schools have been nationalized, but, Sir, we are taking a step in advance of that, we are endeavouring to centralize them and therefore we need all the possible assistance that is coming to us from these sources of revenue.

Let me say a word too on the school lands, capital fund. That this fund belongs to the province of Manitoba I will not ask you to accept my statement or my argument, but I will go to a better source to prove this fact. I will go to the ministerial ranks, yes, I will go to the right hon. Prime Minister himself. This is what he had to say in parliament in 1898 at the time we were making demands upon the government for this fund :

The money we are giving Manitoba today does, by the admission of everybody, not belong to Canada, but to Manitoba. If this money is ours, why have we been paying interest on it all along? We are not today giving a single cent to Manitoba, we are doing nothing else than repairing the injustice which was committed to the prejudice of Manitoba. If we are going to look into the question, as it ought to be looked into, whether it is a trust or not, let me say that in this legislation, dealing with and amending to some extent the Dominion Lands Act, we are only dealing as one of the anomalies of which we have too many in this country. Fortunately, in this instance, it is not one that is embedded in the constitution, but one of our making, and therefore subject to our unmaking. A certain proportion of the public lands of this country, in the province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, have been applied for school purposes. I submit this point to the judgment of every man in the House. The education of this country has been placed in the hands of the provinces. The subject of education in Manitoba is in the control of that province. The question of education is subject to provincial jurisdiction. In the case of lands to be applied for the purposes of

4325

education, would it not then be far more logical, far more in accord with what ought to be the proper division of legislative powers between the federal parliament and the provincial legislature, that the latter should have control of these moneys? Now, the reason why we ask to pay this money over to the Manitoba government is that in the crippled condition of the finances of the government, they are not in a position to give education all the assistance they desire, and that, in the infant condition of the province, it ought to receive. My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) stated a moment ago, and stated very truly, that in future years, when the province of Manitoba is more fully settled, it will be easier for it to dispense with this assistance than at the present time. But now, when the population is scattered over immense territories ; when the people are struggling, as new settlers have to struggle everywhere, now is the time when this assistance should be given. We believe it is better to take the money lying idle in the Dominion treasury to assist the schools than that a heavier burden of taxation should be laid upon the settlers.

That is what the right hon. gentleman had to say in 1898 and following him the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) made a very lengthy speech along the same lines which I shall not take the time to read. Now, I agree with every word uttered in those speeches, but why under the sun did they not take action and hand this fund over to the province of Manitoba? I think this is a very opportune time to make the demand.

Then, I want to say a word or two in regard to the school lands interest account. The province of Manitoba for many years claimed that they were entitled to the interest that had accumulated upon the deferred payments on account of school lands that were purchased and though they made this claim for a great many years they were unable to have it recognized. After negotiating with this government for years, reasoning with them in every possible manner, they decided that they would go to the highest court in the realm, they took this case and laid it at the foot of the Throne and by so doing they wrung from the unwilling hands of this government the sum of $224,114.76. When this money was handed over what did the Order in Council say?

Whereas the law officers of the Crown have advised that under the said Act the province of Manitoba is entitled to be paid all sums of interest on the balance of purchase moneys from time to time remaining unpaid, and of income arising from the said school lands in the said province received by the government of Canada towards the support of public schools in the said province as in the said Act provided.

And the following recommendations were made :

The minister recommends that authority be given for the immediate payment to the province of Manitoba of the sum of $175,013.74, being the amount of interest on the balance of

4326

purchase money from time to time remaining unpaid, and so received by the government of Canada, as aforesaid, and of the further sum of $49,101.02, being the amount of rents and profits arising out of the school lands, and so received by the government of Canada, as aforesaid, such two sums together making the total sum of $224,114.26, being made to the province of Manitoba towards the support of public schools therein, as provided by the said Act.

The minister further recommends that authority be given for the payment to the province of Manitoba, annually, in the future, and together with the interest on the school fund, and towards the support of public schools in the province of all interest received since April 1, 1902, or now accrued or hereafter to accrue due on the balance of purchase money from time to time remaining unpaid, and which shall from time to time come to the hands of the government of Canada, and also for the payment in like manner of all rents and profits and receipts in the nature of income arising out of the school lands received since April 1st, 1902, or which shall from time to time be received by the government of Canada.

Now, Sir, we would naturally suppose that was the end of it ; we would think from year to year that this money would be handed over to us. But, such is not the case. What did they do then? They immediately proceeded to see if they could not in some way or other embarrass the educational facilities of that province and they began to see if they could not find any old accounts against the province. They succeeded in discovering that in years gone by, in 1878 or 1879, the province had been loaned the sum of $30,000 and therefore, without consulting Manitoba in any way they deducted that $30,000 from the balance due to Manitoba which they had no right to do. I am not a lawyer and this is a legal question, but I may say that the province of Manitoba contends that this money should have been taken out of the first money derived from the sale of these lands, and the Dominion government claims that it should not. However, if the little province of Manitoba wants to get justice in this case as in others, I suppose it will have to go to the courts. I would repeat that the amount allowed for government, $50,000 a year is inadequate, is not nearly sufficient to conduct the affairs of Manitoba and I feel justified in making the demands I have made, that in connection with the re-adjustment which is now taking place that province should receive an increase by way of allowance for government.

Now we come to the question which is causing so much excitement at the present moment, that is the extension of the boundary of Manitoba. Sir, if I may use a slang expression I might say : Would it not give you a chill? No, that is not the proper expression. I should say that if the light that has been thrown upon this subject is true and we have every reason to believe it is true, it should set on fire every patriotic

4327

loyal citizen of the Dominion of Canada. There is no question that it was always intended that the boundaries of Manitoba should be extended, that we should have a greater area than we have at the present time. We have been clipped off to the east, and we are naturally asking for an extension to the west, and all that I have to say upon this western extension is that that territory lying immediately to the west of us belongs geographically, commercially and socially to the province of Manitoba, and it would be much to the interest of these people, although they may not see it now, to come into the province of Manitoba. If they came in we would be able to extend to them the fully developed facilities that we now have. We would be willing to extend to them our good railway policy, a policy that has saved the people of the province of Manitoba hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are many arguments that might be adduced to show that it would be to the advantage to the people of the west of us to come in but the right hon. gentlemen say: We cannot extend the boundaries to the west of Manitoba because the people of the west object. I wonder if the people of the west are agreeing with all the features of the present Bill ; I rather think not. But we cannot get an extension to the west for the reason I have just stated and when it comes to asking an extension to the north, up to the Hudson bay, what are we told? Oh, you cannot get an extension in that direction until I consult my native and beloved province of Quebec! Sir, I think it has been properly said that to consult Quebec in this matter is an insult to the province of Manitoba. I do not think that term is a bit too strong ; there may be some reason why Ontario should be consulted in this matter but so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, I do not think it is entitled to have anything to say other than through the hon. members who represent the province of Quebec in this House. What would an extension to the north mean? As an agriculturist of the province of Manitoba, I would like to say a word upon the point. If we get our extension to the north we will have a deep water outlet, the natural outlet of that great western country and the progressive government of Manitoba will immediately undertake the construction of a line of railway to Hudson bay. What will that mean? It will mean to the agriculture producers of that country that we are placed 1,000 miles closer to the markets of the world than we are now. Any hon. gentlemen who know anything about transporting stock of any kind to the markets of the world know that it is easier upon the stock to transport by water than by rail and therefore I claim as an agriculturist—it would be much to our interests, and there are many more arguments which I might adduce in support of this contention—that

4328

we should have our extension to the north and I think that this government, when they are considering the readjustment of affairs in that great western country, should readjust the boundaries of Manitoba and should give us the territory that rightly belongs to us. That is all we are asking, we are asking nothing more than what we are entitled to.

There is one other matter connected with the immigration policy of this government to which I wish to refer. It is a matter which I think the hon. member for Winnipeg might well take up and see what he could obtain from this government. Owing to the immigration policy of this government our hospitals in Manitoba are being utilized very freely by a class of settlers that are being brought into the country, settlers who are homeless and who if any misfortune in the way of sickness overtakes them are immediately taken to the hospital. Therefore the capacity of the hospitals is overtaxed, and the hospital authorities are asking for greater consideration and greater grants from the government. The government of Manitoba gives to the hospitals of that province $37 \frac{1}{2}$ cents per day per patient and the hospital authorities are asking for further consideration. In order to give you an idea of the view which the board of the hospitals take of their treatment let me read from the annual report in which the following passage occurs :

The board regrets to note that, notwithstanding the fact that the hospital has cared for a much larger number of patients than ever before, the grants from the Dominion government is less than in previous years. Considering the enormous amount of work entailed upon the hospital by incoming immigrants, the board is of opinion that the amount of assistance received from the Dominion government is quite inadequate, and further the expenses of maintaining the hospital have, of course, increased in proportion to the work done, and have now reached a figure that threatens serious embarrassment, unless some means can be devised for materially augmenting its resources.

Now, Sir, I think this shows very clearly that the hospitals of the province of Manitoba are making a just demand upon this government and I hope that at this time of re-adjusting the affairs in the west, the government will see fit to give to the hospitals a large increase in the grant which they now receive. The provincial government gave last year to the hospital at Winnipeg the sum of $21,387.37, whereas this government only gave to the hospital the sum of $2,653.27. Owing to the facilities which the hospital offers to immigrants brought into this country, surely the federal government should deal more liberally with it.

I come now to the educational clauses of the Bill, and these I will not discuss at any length. I am not a lawyer ; I have sat here and listened to the constitutional arguments

4329

from both sides of the House, and I am forced to admit that from the constitutional standpoint I do not know much more than when the debate began. But, Sir, I will say, that so far as I can understand the matter, the people of the Northwest Territories have from time to time seen fit to change their educational policy to meet the circumstances and conditions as they arose. No doubt there is a great deal in what hon. gentlemen opposite tell us; that in the Northwest Territories they have a fairly good educational policy at the present time, but, if it suits existing conditions who is going to say that it will be a satisfactory policy in 100 years from now. Therefore I will not cast my vote to shackle these provinces in their educational policy for all time to come. In my opinion it is a question which the provinces themselves can well deal with, and in the interest of the people of the Territories and in the interest of the country generally, it would be far better to leave the question in the hands of the new provinces. If that had been done this very delicate question would be removed from the arena of federal politics and the feeling which exists in the country at this moment would not have arisen. Now, Sir, I have spoken just as I have felt on this question; I may not have been able to put my argument in as concise a form as would a lawyer or a doctor.

An hon. MEMBER. Or a preacher.

Mr. STAPLES. Or a preacher, as my hon. friend suggests; and since a preacher has been referred to I would like to ask the hon. gentleman from Grey (Mr. Miller) what answer he sent to the resolution sent him by the Ministerial Association?

Mr. MILLER. I have a number of ministers in my riding but none of them, as a Ministerial Association or otherwise, sent me anything requiring any answer save the statement that I would vote on this question just as I believe to be right and according to my own judgment and my own conscience. I have not received any letter from any Ministerial Association that I know of.

Mr. STAPLES. I accept the hon. gentleman’s statement, but I know that the other members of this House received a resolution from the Ministerial Association, and that resolution was accompanied by a letter saying that they had sent it to the hon. gentleman from South Grey. However, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) says he did not get the resolution I accept his explanation.

Mr. J. H. LAMONT (Saskatchewan). Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, which has continued now nearly three weeks, I do so conscious that I will not be able to add much that is new or original in argument to what has already been said in this House. But, as I have the honour of representing a constituency within the

4330

bound of the proposed new province of Saskatchewan, I desire to say a few words on the measure now before the House. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, as a new member of parliament, it is perhaps proper that I should ask this House to extend to me that gracious indulgence which is usually allowed to one who solicits its attention for the first time. Up to the present, Mr. Speaker, I have not occupied the time of this parliament, nor will I do so now, at greater length than is necessary to set before the House the views which as a western representative I hold on the important measure now under consideration. The feeling which the introduction of this legislation, granting provincial autonomy, produced in the west, I think I may say the universal feeling, was a feeling of gratification that this government had decided to grant to the people of the Territories provincial rights and powers. There was of course some objection to some of the provisions contained in the Bill, and there were some criticisms as to certain of its terms and conditions, but the general sentiment throughout the entire west was one of satisfaction and gratification at being recorded that larger measures of self-government provided for in the legislation now before the House. In bringing down this Bill, the government has recognized the desire of the people of the west for provincial autonomy. That desire has been evidenced on several occasions by resolutions passed by the legislative assembly at Regina; but while these resolutions are evidence of the desire of the people of the west for provincial institutions, they are not evidence that the people of the west or the members of the territorial legislature ever agreed as to the terms and conditions upon which they desire that autonomy should be granted. I point this out, Mr. Speaker, because it has been stated in this House inferentially by the hon. member for Calgary, (Mr. M. S. McCarthy), and explicitly and directly by the hon. member for Qu’Appelle, (Mr. Lake), that terms of the draft Bill which Mr. Haultain submitted to this government received the endorsation of the members of the legislature at Regina. The language used by the hon. member for Qu’Appelle was as follows:—

In the following spring——

That is the spring following the submission of the draft Bill by Mr. Haultain.

In the following spring at the next session of the assembly that Bill was laid before the assembly and unanimously endorsed by them.

That, Mr. Speaker, I think is hardly a correct statement of the case. At the meeting of the legislature following the submission of the draft Bill by Mr. Haultain, the matter came before the legislative assembly on the following resolution:

Be it resolved that this House regrets that the Federal government has decided not to

4331

introduce legislation at the present session of parliament with a view to granting provincial institutions to the Territories.

In that resolution there is not the slightest word about the draft Bill or any endorsation of its terms. But that is not all. My recollection is—and in this I am speaking from memory only and subject to correction—my recollection is, that when that resolution came before the legislative assembly at Regina, one of the members asked Mr. Haultain if by supporting that resolution they would be committing themselves to the terms of the draft Bill ; and my recollection is that Mr. Haultain rose in his place and stated to the House that by passing that resolution the members would not in any way whatever be committing themselves to the terms of the draft Bill, as the resolution merely expressed the regret of the legislature that the Dominion government had not seen fit to deal with the matter. The resolution is undoubtedly evidence that the people of the west desire provincial institutions. The terms of the draft Bill, however, merely express what Mr. Haultain and his government thought it advisable to ask for.

Now, as to the number of provinces provided for in the Bill ; I am satisfied that the proposition of the government to divide the Territories of Athabaska, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Assiniboia into two provinces will meet with the general acceptance of the people of the west. There were some, it is true, who thought the Territories should be formed into one province, and there were others who thought there should be three provinces, but those who favoured one province and those who favoured three provinces must recognize the force of the argument which induced the government to adopt the medium course and establish the Territories into two provinces.

It has already been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that to establish but one province out of the western Territories would be to establish a province which, in its area and in its capacity to sustain population, would so far exceed that possessed by any other province that it would very soon have a prepondering influence in the affairs of the Dominion. On the other hand, it has been shown that to establish a province in each of the districts now comprising the Northwest would be to unnecessarily duplicate the machinery of government. But while the proposition of the government to establish two provinces will meet general acceptance in the west, there is a large number of people, particularly in the district of Saskatchewan, who would have preferred that the dividing line should run east and west instead of north and south. They would have preferred that we should have a northern and a southern province, the northern province comprising the district of Saskatchewan and the northern half of Alberta,

4332

and the southern province comprising Assiniboia and the southern half of Alberta. Many arguments might be submitted in favour of this proposition. Had this division been followed, each of the provinces would have running through its entire length a national transcontinental line of railway, and the northern province would also have had running through its entire length a great river. Furthermore, the difficulties which have already been brought to the notice of this House as likely to result from a division of the ranching country would have been avoided. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there are two main objections to the establishment of a northern and a southern province. In the first place, that division would not give nearly as equitable a division of the natural resources of the Territories between the provinces as the present one, and the other objection is that it would not have made provision for the administration of Athabaska, the western portion of which will very shortly be settled. As to the question of the boundary line, if we are to have an eastern and a western province, I do not think any fault can be found with the placing of the boundary line at the fourth meridian. That division leaves the area of the two provinces almost the same and besides it leaves the agricultural lands almost equal in each. It has been estimated by the surveyor general that according to the present division, the agricultural lands in the new province of Saskatchewan will amount to 86,000 square miles, while in the new province of Alberta they will amount to 80,000 square miles, so that there will be in each province practically the same quantity of agricultural land.

Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to a matter not particularly germane to the question under discussion, but which has been brought to the attention of the House on several occasions, and has been exhaustively dealt with by the hon. gentlemen who preceded me. I refer to the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. With regard to the extension westward, I agree entirely with my hon. friend from eastern Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) when he said the other night that the boundary of Manitoba could not be extended westward, so as to include a portion of the Saskatchewan and Assiniboia, without exciting a public agitation and protest the like of which the country has never experienced. I was somewhat surprised at the argument of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) who contended that the western boundary of Manitoba should be extended. Knowing well the feeling in Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, as the hon. gentleman must, I should think that the hon. gentleman and those who take the same view, would have the same objection to a coercive policy as regards these districts which they had in the past in the case of their own province. Sir, the people

4333

of the Territories are just as independent and have minds of their own just as well as had the people of Manitoba in 1896, and a coercive policy would meet with as much opposition from them as it did from the province of Manitoba in 1896. It seems to me therefore that the extension westward of the boundary of Manitoba is absolutely out of the question. With regard to the northern extension, I should like to call the attention of the House to a few facts which seems to have been overlooked. It was pointed out the other night by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) that in 1898 the legislature of the Territories passed a resolution consenting to a northern extension of the boundary of Manitoba so as to include that portion of the Saskatchewan which lies north of that boundary. But Mr. Speaker, let me call attention to two other resolutions dealing with the same subject. The first was submitted in 1901 to the legislative assembly of the Territories. It was couched in the following terms :

That in the opinion of this House no terms should be accepted for the erection of the Territories into a province or provinces entailing the annexation of any portion thereof to the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Haultain, who was then leading the government of the Territories, moved an amendment in these words :

This house is strongly opposed to any further extension of the western boundary of the province of Manitoba, and in the opinion of the house any such extension would be opposed to the wishes and detrimental to the interests, not only of any portion of the Territories more directly affected thereby, but of the Territories as a whole.

The amendment on that occasion carried, but I want to call attention to the fact that the member in the legislative assembly representing that portion of the district of Saskatchewan lying north of the Manitoba boundary rose in his place in the assembly and protested and voted against that resolution which impliedly consented to a northern extension of the limits of Manitoba. But that is not all. The matter came again before the legislature in 1902, on a resolution similar to the one I have read. On that occasion again there was an amendment, and it was in these words :

That this House is of the opinion that the annexation of any portion of the Territories to Manitoba will be in direct opposition to the desires and welfare of the people of the Territories.

Again, Mr. Samuel McLeod, the representative of Prince Albert East, who was representing that portion of the Territories north of Manitoba, protested and voted against any extension of the limits of Manitoba so as to include a portion of Saskatchewan. It is therefore evident

4334

that these people living north of Manitoba have on every occasion, through their duly accredited representative in the territorial assembly, protested against being annexed to that province. And I think that the right hon. the First Minister was right in refusing to force these people or any other people to join the province of Manitoba. It seems to me that he did all that was possible when he did not include that portion of territory within the new province of Saskatchewan. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it should have been included. It has always been part of the Territories since the district of Saskatchewan was established. It has been always represented in the territorial assembly and has always been connected with the Territories, why then should it not continue to form part and parcel of the new province of Saskatchewan with which it has always been connected ? The only reason why it has not been included so far as I can see was the desire of the First Minister to give the province of Manitoba an opportunity to show that these people would not object to joining that province, but, Sir, to ask this government to force these people into Manitoba, when on every occasion they have protested against any such course, would be, in my opinion nothing short of coercion. If the province of Manitoba can show at the conference, which the right hon. gentleman says will be held, that these people will not object to joining Manitoba then, the conference will be in a position to hear the request of that province, but until Manitoba can show that consent, she is not in a position to urge any claim to have that portion of the district of Saskatchewan included within her boundaries. If Manitoba can show that these people do not object, then the conference will be in a position to hear the rival claims of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

There is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the House and particularly the attention of the Postmaster General. In the remarks the Postmaster General made the other day in reference to the interview he had with the delegates of the Manitoba government with regard to the extension of the Manitoba boundaries, I understood him to take the position that it would be a fair distribution of the district of Keewatin if Manitoba were given the harbour at the mouth of the Churchill on the Hudson bay and Ontario the harbour at the mouth of the Nelson.

Well, Mr. Speaker, all I have to say in reference to that is this : That if the principles of right and justice prevail at the conference, as I think they will prevail, neither the province of Ontario nor the province of Manitoba will get the port at the mouth of the Churchill, but that port will go to the province to which it rightfully belongs, namely the new province of Saskatchewan. There is

4335

not a claim which either the province of Ontario or the province of Manitoba can urge to have given to it the port on Hudson bay at the mouth of the Churchill which the new province of Saskatchewan cannot urge with ten times greater force. I have stated and I think we are all practically of the same opinion, that it would have been a great deal better if the boundaries of the province of Manitoba had been extended in days gone by. And I for one would like to see them extended now, if it can be done without coercing anybody of people. But, so far as the port at the mouth of the Churchill is concerned, I have no doubt whatever that the new province of Saskatchewan will be able to establish a claim to it when she comes before the conference which will be paramount to any claim that either Manitoba or Ontario can put up.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as to the financial terms given to the proposed provinces : It seems to me to be generally admited on both sides of the House, that these terms are fair, just and liberal. Some think they are even generous. But, so far as I have heard, no one has objected to the Bill on the ground that the financial terms are too generous or to liberal, or that they are not justified by the present and prospective needs of the provinces. It is quite true that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) stated to the House some days ago that the terms granted to the new provinces were so much more liberal than the terms enjoyed by the older provinces that we would have the older provinces making an immediate demand for better terms. However that may be, the financial aid with which this government proposes to set up the new provinces in their provincial housekeeping, is to my mind, fair and just ; and considering the present needs and the probable future requirements of the provinces it is just such fair and reasonable aid as I expected this government and this parliament to grant. We start the provinces with a revenue from the Dominion of over $1,000,000. This increases with the increase of the population until the population reaches 1,200,000, when the revenue from the federal treasury will be over $2,200,000. Now, this amount, together with what additional revenue the provinces can get from local sources, ought, I believe, with economy and efficient management, to enable the provinces to make reasonable provision for the needs of their people without going heavily into debt. The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), the other night, submitted to this House some calculations showing that the financial position in which this Bill places the new provinces establishes them on a basis of equality with the older provinces. I have made a few calculations that support the conclusions at which my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) arrived.

4336

In making a comparison between the position in which the new provinces will be placed under this Bill and that of the provinces which derive their revenue partly from federal subsidy and partly from the Crown domain, we have to bear in mind the fact that in these provinces the revenue from the Crown domain varies from year to year. If the provincial authorities dispose of any considerable portion of the Crown domain in one year, the revenue for that year will be large, while in another year it will be considerably smaller. Therefore, to make a fair comparison, we must not select one particular year, but must take the average of a number of years. It must also be borne in mind, in dealing with the provinces that derive their revenue partly from the Crown domain, that it is the net revenue from the Crown domain that we must deal with, because the expenses of the management and administration of the Crown domain are properly chargeable against the gross revenue. I find that in Ontario, in the thirty-six years from confederation up to the end of 1903, the average annual revenue which the province of Ontario derived from the federal treasury and from her Crown domain amounted to $2,204,015, while the new province of Saskatchewan, when she reaches the population at which Ontario entered confederation will have a revenue of $2,207,875. Applying the same principle to Quebec, I find that for the thirty-six years from confederation down to the end of 1903, the average annual revenue of the province of Quebec from the federal treasury and the Crown domain was $1,629,249. This is considerably less than the new province of Saskatchewan will enjoy when she reaches the population of Quebec. But in that connection, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to this fact, that in the last report of the Commissioner of Crown Lands for Quebec it is stated that during the last seven years ending in 1904, the revenue from the Crown lands in Quebec has increased fifty per cent. The details for 1904, I was not able to get, but I made a calculation which shows that the average annual revenue which the province of Quebec had derived from the Crown domain and from the federal treasury for the six years from 1897 to the end of 1903, amounted to $2,207,135, while the revenue for the new provinces will be $2,207,875—almost identically the same. So, under these financial provisions, the new provinces and the older ones are placed upon a basis of equality.

Now, as to the question whether the provinces should own the public lands. I have no hesitation in saying that I am satisfied that the best interests of the provinces are being furthered by the retaining by this government of the public lands and the giving to the provinces compensation in lieu thereof. It is in our best interest as

4337

provinces that these lands should be settled as rapidly as possible, and experience has taught us that desirable end can best be obtained by the union of a vigorous immigration policy with a system of free homestead grants of 160 acres of land. I think it can hardly be denied that one of the strongest features of our immigration policy is the free homestead grant of 160 acres of land, and it is the part of our immigration policy which has the greatest attraction for the largest number of settlers. If the provinces were to take over these lands, would the free homestead grant be done away with ? Not necessarily. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) have suggested that these lands be handed over to the provinces with the provision attached that the provinces shall continue the free homestead grants.

But, Mr. Speaker, if the system of free homesteads is to be continued and these lands given away to the settlers, how would the provinces obtain the revenue necessary, not only to offset the amount which this Bill provides in lieu of lands, but also the amount necessary to cover the expense of administration. As has been forcibly pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) the interest the provinces would have in these lands if they were handed over would be to obtain therefrom a revenue, and this could not be done if the lands were given to the settlers free. If the lands were not given to the settlers free, but were reserved for sale, it cannot be doubted that a serious check to the rapid settlement of these lands would be administered. It has been suggested that the people of these provinces being on the ground are in as good a position, if not better, to manage these lands than the federal authorities, that they are just as much interested in having the lands settled, and that they are just as capable of handling them as is this government. I grant all that, Mr. Speaker. It is perfectly true that we in the Northwest Territories are more interested in the development of that country than anybody else can be ; and rightly or wrongly, we believe that we are just as capable of managing our own lands as the other provinces are of managing their lands, or as this government is of managing its lands. But while that is true, we are not capable, neither is this government capable, nor is any other government capable, of obtaining from those lands the revenue necessary to carry on the administration of the provinces and at the same time give the lands away to the settlers free. The revenue we must have, and we have either to get it out of these lands or from the federal treasury ; and looking at it from the point of view both of the provinces and the Dominion, I think the best interests of both are being furthered by this government retaining in its possession the lands and giving

4338

compensation to the provinces therefor. It is best for the provinces because, while we get compensation for the lands, we at the same time get that which is best for the provinces, namely, the rapid settlement of the lands. It is also best for the Dominion government, because the rapid settlement of the lands means to them a large increase in the revenue from customs duties. So I have no hesitation in saying that the people of the west whom I have the honour to represent on the floor of this House, I think I can say without reference to party, will unanimously approve the policy of the government in retaining the lands and having them rapidly settled up under the vigorous immigration policy pursued by this government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a few words as to the educational clauses contained in this Bill. These clauses make provision for confirming and continuing the present school law in the Northwest Territories. This law was passed by the legislature, if I recollect aright, in 1892, and was subsequently confirmed and consolidated in 1901 ; and all this Bill asks parliament to do is to confirm and continue that school law which has been in force since 1892. We are asked to confirm that law and make it part and parcel of the constitution of the new provinces. Now, Sir, whether this parliament ought to confirm and continue that school law and make it part and parcel of the constitution of the new provinces involves, it seems to me, the consideration of two very important questions ; one is a question of law and the other is a question of policy. The one involves an examination of the constitutional and legal rights, both of the Dominion and of the provinces, as affected by this Bill ; the other involves a consideration of the merits of the ordinances themselves as the foundation of the future school system of the new provinces, including therein a consideration whether or not, under all the circumstances of the case, it is just and right and reasonable that provision should be made to preserve to the minority the rights and privileges which they have up to the present time enjoyed under the ordinances. Now, as to the constitutional and legal questions involved. It seems to me, these questions are very easy to ask, but not so easy to answer. The first question is : Has this parliament a right to establish new provinces out of that western territory and to give them such a constitution as it deems best ? There is no question about our right to create provinces out of the Territories. But there does seem to be a great conflict of opinion as to the constitution which this parliament is empowered to grant. If I understand aright the argument of the leader of the opposition, his position is, that this parliament cannot create a new province and give to that province a smaller sphere of authority than is given by the British North America

4339

Act, 1867, to the provinces mentioned in that Act ; that this parliament has a right to establish a new province, but the moment we establish a new province, there is a constitution ready-made which automatically attaches itself to that province, and to the terms of which this parliament can neither add to nor take from. Other hon. gentlemen who have already given their views to this House, hold directly opposite views, namely, that this parliament has the right, not only to establish new provinces of these western territories, but to give to these provinces whatever constitution we deem best. I must say, Mr. Speaker, for my part, that I think the language of the British North America Act of 1871 seems to substantiate this latter view. Section 2 of the British North America Act of 1871 has already been cited to this House, but I will take the liberty of reading it again. It is as follows :

The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any of the 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.

Now, if that section had stopped at the end of the word ‘thereof,’ in the third line, the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite would have appealed to me, because the British North America Act of 1886 states that the three British North America Acts—1867, 1871 and 1886—are to be read and interpreted together. But the section did not stop there, it continued and said :

And may at the time of such establishment make provision for the constitution and administration of such province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where there is such a conflict of authority, every man, especially every member of the legal profession, must be responsible to his own judgment. For my part I am satisfied that the British North America Act of 1871 means what its language to me so clearly imports, that this parliament may establish a new province and may make provision for the constitution and administration of that province. It seems to me that where the imperial parliament gives that power to this parliament, it imports a discretionary power in this parliament which is not limited to the mere attaching or coupling together of the new province and the terms of the British North America Act, 1867. Now, Sir, if we have the right, and I think we have the right to give to the new provinces such a constitution as this parliament, in its wisdom, deems best, what constitution are we to give them ? There are two proposals before the House, one by the government confirming the ordinances, the other by the

4340

leader of the opposition in his amendment. I will deal first with the amendment of the leader of the opposition, which reads as follows :—

Upon the establishment of a province in the Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed by Bill (No. 69), the legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy full powers of provincial self-government including the power to exclusively make laws in relation to education.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that mean, and under it what kind of a school system can we establish in the new provinces, and what rights, if any, will it preserve to the minority in those provinces ? Eliminating for the moment those words which do not refer to education, the amendment may be read as follows :—

The legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with the British North America Acts, is entitled to and should enjoy the power to exclusively make laws in relation to education.

Now, if the words ‘subject to and in accordance with the British North America Act’ had been left out, it seems to me it would have been perfectly clear that the hon. the leader of the opposition meant that the provinces should have power to exclusively make laws in relation to education. But those words are not left out, and it seems to me that they have the effect of restricting and of limiting the power of the provinces to exclusively make laws in relation to education, because that power is made subject to the provision of the British North America Act. If there is any provisions in the British North America Act which gives to any class of persons rights or privileges in respect to denominational schools, the clause of the amendment which says the province should enjoy the power to exclusively make laws in relation to education is subject to that provision. To my mind, what this amendment means is that the legislature of the provinces shall have power exclusively to make laws in reference to education subject to the provisions contained in the British North America Act relating to education. These provisions are contained in section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867. That Act says :

In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions—

And these provisions referred to are the subsections of that section, the first of which subsections is the following :

1. 1. Nothing in such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.

4341

This amendment says that the legislature of the province is entitled to and should enjoy the full power to exclusively make laws in relation to education subject to the British North America Act, and the only section of the British North America Act dealing with education is section 93, so that it might just as well have read subject to section 93 of the British North America Act. Then again, Mr. Speaker, this amendment must mean exactly what section 93 of the British North America Act means, because the hon. gentleman has gone on record on page 3102 of ‘Hansard’ where he says : This parliament has no power to alter section 93. If his amendment does not mean exactly what section 93 of the British North America Act means he is in the position of, upon the one hand, arguing that parliament has no right to alter section 93, and, on the other hand, putting up an amendment which does alter this section. In my opinion this amendment and section 93 are exactly the same, and the objections I have to the amendment are exactly the objections I have to the application of section 93 of the British North America Act without variation or limitation. These objections are twofold : first, that under the amendment or under section 93 of the British North America Act it would require a judicial decision after expensive litigation to enable us to find out what sort of a school system we are entitled to in the Northwest Territories, and, secondly, it all depends on the interpretation of the words ‘at the union’ in subsection 1 of section 93 whether or not the provinces are in a position to exclusively make laws in relation to education or whether we shall have fastened on us for all time to come an absolute dual system of sectarian schools. If the amendment were adopted, or if section 93 without variation, were adopted and the court held that the words ‘at the union’ in subsection 1 of section 93 meant the year 1870, as contended by hon. gentlemen opposite, then the provinces would have, in my opinion, the exclusive right to deal with the subject of education. If, however, the court held that the words ‘at the union’ meant the present time, or the date of the coming into force of this Bill, as I think they undoubtedly would hold, then if we adopted the amendment, the minority in the new provinces would have all the rights and privileges to which they would be entitled by any law in force today in the Northwest Territories, including the law of 1875 under which an absolute dual system of sectarian schools was established. As a resident of one of the new provinces, and as one of the Protestant majority, I object to hanging the whole future school system of the new provinces on the decision of a point of law. I object to the new provinces being placed in the position of having hung over their heads an absolute dual system of sectarian schools suspended like the sword of Damocles by a

4342

single thread and that thread being the judicial interpretation of the words ‘at the union.’ That is the position we would be placed in if the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition were adopted.

Now, as to the proposal of the government, do the ordinances which parliament is asked to confirm and continue and make the foundation of the future school system of the new provinces make provision for a proper system of education ? I am somewhat familiar with these ordinances and with the actual working of the school system under these ordinances, and I want to say here to the hon. members of this House, to those who do not live in the west and who are not familiar with our school system, that there is not in Canada to-day a school system better adapted to our needs than that established in the Northwest Territories. As has already been pointed out more than once, these ordinances make provision for a national school system from nine o’clock in the morning until half-past three o’clock in the afternoon. There is not an essential element of a national school system that is not to be found in these ordinances. Let me again call the attention of the members of this House to the powers of the government in relation to schools under these ordinances, for I am satisfied that if the members from the other provinces, and if the people of the eastern portions of Canada had an accurate knowledge of the school laws of the Northwest Territories which parliament is being asked to confirm, we would not have had the agitation which has been going on in the country for the last month. Nor would we have had parliament flooded with the number of petitions that have been presented to this House. These ordinances declare that the government shall control and manage all schools, kindergarten, public and separate and normal schools. The government have power to make regulations :

1. For the classification, organization, government examination and inspection of schools.
2. For the examination, licensing and grading of teachers.
3. To authorize text and reference books for the use of pupils and teachers in all schools.

In short, the schools of the Northwest Territories under these ordinances are organized under the direction of the government. They are managed and carried on under the government. They are controlled and inspected by the government. The text books and reference books must be authorized by the government. The teacher must be qualified to the satisfaction of the government under the regulations prescribed by the government, and the conduct of the schools, separate as well as public, must be in accordance with the regulations laid down by the government, and that conduct shall be exactly the same in both separate and public

4343

schools from nine in the morning until half-past three in the afternoon. From half-past three until four o’clock religious instruction is allowed, but only such religious instruction may be given as is permitted or desired by the board of trustees. Not such religious instruction as any church may desire, not such instruction as any clergyman or priest may desire, but such religious instruction only as may be desired by the board of trustees, which board shall be elected by the ratepayers of the district. We have heard a great deal about national schools, during this debate, and it has been asserted that we should have a national school system in the west. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I am as strongly in favour of a national school system as any one can be, but I say we have to-day a national school system in the west, and that it is a national school system in every essential feature that this parliament is asked to confirm and continue. It has been well said by the hon. the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) that the only departure which these ordinances allow from what is commonly known as an absolute national school system is that the ordinances allow the minority a separate school house and a half hour’s religious instruction. Now, if these ordinances provide that every power essential to a national school system is left in the hands of the government of the provinces—and I say the ordinances do provide that—and if the only limitation on the provincial government in reference to schools is that it cannot deprive the minority of the right to a separate school-house and a half hour’s religious instruction, the only question left to consider is : Should the minority in the new provinces be deprived of a separate school-house and a half-hour’s religious instruction, which right they enjoy to-day under the ordinances and which right they have enjoyed for years ? How many hon. gentlemen who are opposing the Bill have taken the position that they should be deprived of either ? The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) does not take that position, because he says :

I argue not for separate schools and I argue not against separate schools.

The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) does not take that position ; the western members do not take that position. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) says :

I am not going to be dragged into a discussion of the merits or demerits of a separate school system ; that is a matter of which I know nothing.

What does the hon. member for Qu’Appelle (Mr. Lake) say ? He says :

The present school system is the best school system for the Northwest Territories.

4344

What does the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) say ? He says :

I say all credit to the Roman Catholics for insisting upon the teaching of religion in the schools, I think it would be better for Protestants if they did the same.

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) protested against a certain kind of ecclesiastical schools which he contended were pernicious, and for anything I know the schools against which the hon. gentleman protested may be deserving of his censure, but whether they are or not has no bearing whatever on the matter under discussion, because the schools against which the hon. gentleman protested, ecclesiastical schools do not exist in the Territories, and they never can exist in the Territories, if this Bill becomes law, except by the will of the provinces themselves. Under the law as it is embodied in this Bill, no church, no ecclesiastical body, no hierarchy, priest, or clergy can have any control whatever over the schools in the new provinces. The schools are left absolutely under the control of the rulers of the people with the limitation I have mentioned alone attached thereto. The minority in the Northwest claim the right to that limitation. They say that it is their bounden duty to give religious instruction to their children in the schools, that it is a matter of conscience with them and that if the Protestants do not wish to give their children religious instruction in the schools they do not have to ; but for themselves they desire that they should be allowed to give their children religious instruction in the schools and they claim that as a matter of inherent right, even if they had no other grounds on which to base their claims that their conscientious scruples in this regard should be respected. But they have another ground on which they base their claim. They claim that the right to educate the children as they see fit is theirs not only as an inherent right, but as a right which was guaranteed to them by the parliament of 1875, and they claim that right should be as binding on this parliament as on the parliament of 1875. They claim that this parliament is under a moral obligation even if it is not under a legal obligation to continue to them the rights guaranteed by the parliament of 1875, and I think that on this ground their claim is entitled to consideration. It was stated in this House that in the two new provinces in the west there are 125,000 Roman Catholics, and in the Dominion 40 per cent of the whole population belong to that faith. Now, if we are to successfully carry out the principle of confederation these two classes must live together in peace, harmony and unity, and in order to preserve that peace, that harmony and that unity is it too high a price to pay to grant to the minority the right to give their children one half hour’s education in the

4345

schools at the close of the school day. That is a right which is given to them by the Northwest government, that is a right which they have under the Northwest ordinances to-day. These ordinances passed the legislature, I believe, with an almost unanimous vote, they have been in force since 1892, and they have worked to the satisfaction of Protestant and Catholic alike, and all that this parliament is asked to do is to confirm and continue these laws which have worked so satisfactorily to our people in the west. That this system is the best for the west is beyond question. On that point we have the most eloquent testimony. We have the fact that it was established by the Northwest government, that it embodies the united wisdom of the Northwest legislature and that it has met with the approval of the Northwest people. We have also the fact that Mr. Haultain states that if he were made dictator to-morrow he would not change it. If further evidence were required, Mr. Speaker, you have not only the testimony of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House from the Northwest who are supporting the Bill, but you have the eloquent and the honest testimony of the member for Qu’Appelle (Mr. Lake) who in his able speech the other night used these words :

After nearly twenty-two years residence in the Northwest Territories, I believe firmly that the public school system as at present administered is the one best suited to the needs of the country.

And in giving utterance to that sentiment I believe the hon. member for Qu’Appelle was voicing the sentiments of ninety-nine per cent of the public men of the Northwest. It cannot be doubted by any-one who is at all conversant with affairs in the west that the present school system is the best suited to our needs and if that is so why not continue it? Why not give to the west that which every one says is best for the west? The member for Qu’Appelle (Mr. Lake) has complained that hon. gentlemen on this side were misrepresenting the position of those who are opposing the Bill when it was suggested that they wished to repeal the present system, and the hon. gentleman intimated that they did not wish to repeal the present law.

Mr. LAKE. I think the hon. gentleman is misrepresenting my intentions. I stated that the public school system as at present administered, was the best suited. Of course I stated later on that I had strong objection to the separate schools.

Mr. LAMONT. I have quoted the words exactly as they appear in ‘Hansard.’ Mr. Speaker, I have tried to define the exact position of the opponents of this Bill, and if I have understood their arguments the position they take is this : They say that they have no objection to the new provincial government enacting that the present law with the separate schools as included therein should

4346

be made the law of the provinces, but that this parliament must not so enact it. If that is their true position what is the difference between the hon. gentlemen opposite who are opposing the Bill, as far as the educational clauses are concerned, and hon. gentleman on this side? We say that the present law is the best. Hon. gentlemen opposite admit that. We say that the law has worked to the satisfaction of Protestants and Catholics, Liberals and Conservatives alike. They admit that that is true, but they want to force the minority to accept the right to give their children education in the schools as a concession from the Protestant majority in the new provinces and not to claim it as a matter of right from this parliament. They say, and they have said over and over again—cannot you trust the majority? But I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, as was most forcibly stated by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) the other night, and I think that his words should be repeated : That is not a question that can be asked of the Protestant majority ; that is a question that must be asked by the Roman Catholic minority, and the Roman Catholic minority not only on this side of the House, but also on the other side of the House, have answered that question with no uncertain sound.

If I am right in believing it is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite to make the minority accept the right to have their children given religious instruction in any school as a concession from the Protestant majority in the new provinces, I wish to say that I do not think that is the desire of the Protestants of the Northwest. I believe that it is the desire of a large number of both Protestants and Catholics in the Northwest Territories that this school question should be settled right here in Ottawa and should not be thrust into the arena of provincial politics with all its strife and bitterness during the first years of our provincial life. I think that the sentiment expressed in a letter received from the west a short time ago expresses the desire of a very large majority of our people, when the writer used these words :

For God’s sake settle the school question at Ottawa, and don’t let us have a school fight in the province for the next five years.

Educational laws in Canada have always had to be considered very carefully and calmly. Since these Bills were introduced there has been great agitation throughout certain portions of the country in reference to them. But I am very happy to be able to inform this House that that agitation has not prevailed in the district I have the honour to represent. In my district there are both Roman Catholics and Protestants. In the city of Prince Albert where I live we have a Roman Catholic separate school, and in Duck Lake forty miles distant we have a Protestant

4347

separate school. In neither of these places is there any agitation against the educational clauses in this Bill, and as an evidence of the entire absence of agitation in Prince Albert, I may say that even the Prince Albert Loyal Orange Lodge, are so satisfied with the existing state of affairs that they did not forward to me one word of protest in reference to the Bill. Sir, the Bill before the House is a most important measure. It is one of the most important measures that have come before the parliament of Canada since confederation. It is in all probability the most important for the two new provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, that may ever come before this House. It is a measure which ought to be considered, not from the standpoint of politics or political exigencies, not from the mere standpoint of sectarianism, but from a higher, a national standpoint, and in dealing with it we should ever keep before us the fact that our object is to build up a great Canadian nation. It is a matter of pride with me, Mr. Speaker, that on this important question, the people whom I have the honour to represent on the floor of this House have not considered this question from the mere standpoint of party politics, nor have they allowed the agitation which has prevailed in certain quarters, nor the appeals that have been made to prejudice and passion, to stir up strife and bitterness in their midst. But, Sir, they have risen to a loftier plane and they have treated this most delicate question with a breadth of thought and a toleration which to my mind speaks well for the future greatness of that western country. We well know that to build up a great province in the west, all nationalities and all classes must work hand in hand ; that Protestants and Catholics, English, French, and German, and all other classes must work together for the common good. That, Sir, can only be accomplished when toleration and sympathy and a respect for the opinions and feelings of others characterize the relations of one class towards the other. In conclusion I may say that the school laws of the Northwest Territories have in the past worked to the entire satisfaction of our people, and I have no hesitation in saying that the school clauses now contained in this Bill have my unqualified approval. Just one word more. It has been asserted over and over again in this debate that the right hon. gentleman who leads this House and the Liberal party have reversed their policy of 1896. I do not think so. What position did the right hon. gentleman take in 1896, and what did he say to the people of Manitoba and to the people of this country ? He said : Here is the school law of Manitoba, it was framed by the Manitoba government, it was approved by the Manitoba legislature and endorsed by the Manitoba people ; I will not force the people of Manitoba to adopt any other school law than the one approved

4348

of by her own people through her own legislature. And what does the right hon. gentleman say to the people of the new provinces and the people of Canada to-day. He says : Here is the school law of the Northwest Territories, it was framed by the Northwest government, it was approved by the Northwest legislature and endorsed by the Northwest people ; I will not force the Northwest people to adopt any other school law than the one approved of by her own people through her own legislature. To my mind the principle followed in both cases is the same. The right hon. gentleman was right in 1896 when he took this position against the Remedial Bill. The right hon. gentleman is right to-day in the position he now takes on this Bill. That the right hon. gentleman was right in 1896 the people of this country have declared in a most emphatic manner on three successive occasions. That the right hon. gentleman is right today, the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta will likewise emphatically declare whenever he desires to appeal to them for an expression of opinion.

Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu’Appelle). I wish to make a personal explanation. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lamont) was in error when he suggested I made a misstatement when I said that the draft Bill laid before the legislative assembly in 1902 by Mr. Haultain was unanimously endorsed by them. I certainly used words to that effect, but I went on to explain that there was a dissenting voice at the time. The hon. gentleman from Prince Albert quoted the resolution offered by Mr. Haultain—

Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.

Mr. SPEAKER. I understand the hon. gentleman to be making a personal explanation arising out of the debate and I think he is in order.

Mr. LAKE. I was accused of making a misstatement and I wish to put that right. I shall do so in as few words as possible. The hon. gentleman quoted the resolution in general terms offered by Mr. Haultain, and that resolution simply endorsed the demand for autonomy. He quoted that as a proof that the assembly did not endorse the draft Bill. There were other resolutions offered later on in that House. The draft Bill was not endorsed by a specific vote of the legislature and I never said so. But the gentleman who generally spoke for the opposition in the legislative assembly, Mr. Bennett, introduced the following resolution :

Therefore be it resolved that the establishment of provincial institutions in the Territories is urgently and imperatively required, and that apart entirely from the question as to whether one or more provinces should be established. This house approves of the claims and demands made by the territorial government in that behalf in the memorandum submitted to the Dominion government on the 7th December, 1901.

4349

Although that resolution was thrown out it proves that that was the opinion of a portion of the assembly at that time.

Mr. LAMONT. Did that resolution pass the legislature ?

Mr. LAKE. No. I said it was thrown out, but it was moved by a gentleman who was a leading member of the opposition.

Mr. W. WRIGHT (Muskoka). Mr. Speaker, I ask the consideration of this House in rising as a new member to address it for the first time. I have been very much interested indeed in this debate, and I have been very much surprised at the different opinions that have been expressed by the legal gentlemen who have discussed this measure. There does not seem to be any uniformity of opinion amongst them—

Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I rise to a question of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Lamont) made an excellent speech and he was most attentively listened to from this side of the House, but the moment he sits down hon. gentlemen seize the occasion to carry on a loud conversation. If they do not wish to hear the gentleman now addressing the House let them withdraw, but as long as they are in the chamber let them maintain the rules of the debate and keep silent.

Mr. SPEAKER. Order.

Mr. W. WRIGHT. I was proceeding to say that I was very much surprised indeed, not only at the difference of opinion amongst legal gentlemen, but the difference of opinion which prevails amongst the members of the ministry themselves as regards this measure. We found the then Minister of the Interior—I am referring to the time when the Bill was first introduced—taking exception to the educational clauses as they then existed, and stating that they did not at all meet with his approval. He so strongly objected to the original educational clauses that he found it necessary to place his resignation in the hands of the government, and now we find the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice stating that the substituted clauses, which we are now discussing, mean exactly the same thing as the clause in the Bill originally introduced. Now, if there is that much difference of opinion among the men who constitute the government, that much difference of opinion among the legal gentlemen on both sides of the House, what can the ordinary lay member think of the legislation ? And how can he arrive at a decision ? And I think that when there is so much difference of opinion, both with regard to the constitutional aspect of the question and our powers of dealing with it, it would be the part of wisdom for the government to withdraw this legislation for the time being and to get an expression of opinion from the highest court

4350

in Canada as to what our powers really are and what we are really attempting to put on the statute-book. Now, I believe that we have certain powers by the Acts of confederation entitling us to pass legislation upon this matter. And I believe that we are assuming to do other things that we have not the power to do. I think that it is well within our powers to define the boundaries of a new province and to say whether in this case there shall be one province or two provinces or more. I believe we are authorized to exercise the creative powers necessary to bring these new provinces into full-fledged provincial autonomy. But when we attempt to do more than that, when we attempt to say that they shall not have the lands, or to say what kind of educational system they shall have, I think we are doing that which the Confederation Act never intended we should do. Looking at it from that standpoint, I shall have a few words to say with regard to the boundaries proposed under this Bill, because that, I think, is one of the things we are called upon to deal with. On looking up the geography of that country, and from some personal knowledge of it, I am unable to agree with the Bill now before the House. In my judgment, the proper course would have been to extend the boundaries of Manitoba westward and to create the balance of that territory into one province. It is pretty generally acknowledged, I think, all over this Dominion, that we have too many parliaments, too much legislative machinery and too great cost of administering the affairs of the country. I think it is the duty of this House to exercise their rights and privileges in the direction of lessening the cost to the people instead of increasing it. Now, what is the reason for creating two new provinces and leaving Manitoba a little garden patch alongside of them ? We have to gather these opinions as best we may. One opinion expressed is that this has been punishment meted out to Manitoba on account of the school legislation she passed some years ago. I believe that has been denied by the hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who says he was never influenced by that consideration. I believe another reason which has been expressed is that our Roman Catholic friends in the territory bordering on Manitoba decline to come into that province on account of the school legislation. If there has been anything of that kind, there is no evidence of it before this House. We do not know the objections sent to or the representations made to the government with respect to that, so we cannot consider that a sufficient reason. Another reason advanced is that the people of the Northwest Territories adjacent to Manitoba object to coming in on account of the debt Manitoba has contracted. Looking at that in a reasonable and practical way, what is there in it ? Manitoba has assumed some obligations

4351

in the way of guaranteeing the bonds of railways. In return they have got a reduction of freight rates on those roads, which is a great benefit to the people of Manitoba, but which extends also to the people of the west. I believe they have lower passenger rates as well. As I say, the people of the west have benefited by this as well as the people of Manitoba. So, if they have contracted liabilities they have also benefited by those liabilities, and I do not think the people of the west adjacent to Manitoba would object to coming into Manitoba on that consideration. Looking at it from either standpoint, therefore, we find no sufficient reason why the boundaries of Manitoba have not been extended. We have been told that, some years ago, Manitoba was much larger than it is to-day, or was considered to be much larger. When Manitoba was first made up, the eastern boundary was defined as the western boundary of Ontario, and that was thought to be many miles eastward of where it was later determined to be. So, Manitoba lost what she thought was her territory and became a very small province. It is well known to every public man in Canada that Manitobans feel sore over this matter, and I have no doubt this was well known to the premier of this Dominion and those who sat at the council table with him when they framed this Bill. Manitoba expected, when the question of autonomy of the Northwest came up, that they would be dealt with as they thought they deserved. I find that there is little hope that this will be the outcome. They are told that their boundary cannot be extended westward. They have been told, I think, by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont) that there is small hope of their boundary being extended northward. As the people of the Territories will not allow any part of the territory north of Manitoba to go to that province, it would be interesting to know just what effort was made by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) to uphold the interest of Manitoba on this question. I think he had admitted in this House that he had been consulted with regard to this measure except the educational clauses. I think, occupying the position he held, that he ought to have taken this House into his confidence and told them why he intended to leave Manitoba with her small boundaries. In the years to come, when our grand-children and great-grand-children, taking their first geography lessons looking at the map and see the little patch painted red—it must be painted red or it would be apt to be overlooked—their sense of proportion will be offended and they will ask about that little spot. Will they be told that this province was made small on account of legislation that they passed in regard to separate schools in days gone by—because the boundaries as fixed will remain

4352

long after separate schools have become a thing of the past in this country, in my humble opinion. I do not think the people in years to come, will continue the condition of affairs that make possible such an agitation as we have in Canada to-day. A great deal of regret has been expressed by hon. members on both sides in regard to this matter. While I do feel a great deal of regret for this, I have more regret for the underlying conditions that make it possible at any time for this flame to burst forth and produce such an agitation as we have at this time. We should look at the cause ; we should try to understand the reason. I think there is enough kindness of heart and reasonableness among the people of Canada to-day to make such an agitation impossible if we could once get an understanding with one another. If we could talk to our French Canadian brethren in Quebec, acquire the French language and go down there and express to them our feelings and our convictions with regard to the matter they would look at it differently ; and if they could come up among our good Orange brethren in Ontario and talk it over with them, they would not find them the awful people they seem to think they are at the present time.

Now, I find that I am out of accord with the government on the matter of the question of lands. I think that the proper people to handle the lands, both in Manitoba and the Northwest, are the people who live right there, the people who are most interested, the people who would look after those lands and see that they were properly administered, as they are not to-day, in either Manitoba or the Northwest Territories. Now, what is the reason given for withholding the land? We are told that the territorial government would likely squander the lands, or that they would have to sell those lands and thus retard settlement, in order that they might have a revenue. Now I want to point out one fact with regard to that. In a speech delivered in this House by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) the other day, pointed out that we have been administering those lands in the Northwest at an annual loss to this Dominion during all these years, which losses amount to over a million dollars. Now, if we have lost that much money in handling those lands, could we not well afford to give the people of the Northwest all we are giving them to-day in the way of bounty, and hand over the lands to them, and still save money to the Dominion by doing so? It would not be necessary for the Northwest people to sell their lands in order that they might have sufficient revenue to carry on the affairs of the government. I say it has cost us too much to pursue this immigration policy, and to my mind it would not be the worst thing that ever happened to Canada if the immigration policy was interfered with. I do not think it could very

4353

well be worse, and I am certainly convinced that the people of the Northwest could very easily make it better and produce a better result than we see at the present time.

Now, I hold that the people of the Northwest would know just what was the best policy to follow with regard to the lands. I am not going to criticise that part of the government’s policy that gives a quarter section to each farmer who goes in there with the intention of settling. Every man who has been in the Northwest knows that the moment he lands in Winnipeg he is run up against by the agents of the big land companies and land corporations, and land sharks of all kinds, under the present conditions. I think if a little attention was paid by the people who are living there, who would look after the bona fide settlers that go into that country and see that they are properly taken care of and properly treated, it would be much better than the conditions I found prevailing there when I visited the Northwest some time ago. It is true that the revenue from the lands has been inflated and shows well in our revenue returns, from the fact that they take credit for having paid off a lot of scrip to satisfy some sentimental claims that the half-breeds are supposed to have in that country. Well, we know there was far more land handed over to the half-breeds than they had any right to. In many sections all that was necessary to get half-breed scrip in the Northwest was a dark complexion and an elastic conscience. So if these claims for the half-breeds were paid in that way out of the land, I do not know why they should be put in the revenue returns and credit be taken for the Dominion of Canada as if it was revenue from the lands. I think we might well treat it as a matter apart altogether, because we have actually lost over a million dollars in administering the affairs of that country. Now, I want to point out that under present conditions large tracts of that land have been sold to companies and sometimes at very small price, by this government. The actual settler finds himself in this position, that while these companies have reserved the alternate quarter sections, the intending settler is wedged in between the lands of the company ; and when the intending settler comes in and homesteads a quarter section, he finds on both sides of him land that belongs to some company for which he has to pay $6, $8 or $15 an acre before he can occupy it. How much better it would be if the lands were handled by the local government, who would hold them for the use of the settler, selling them in alternate quarter sections at a reasonable price, receiving a much greater revenue, and affording greater encouragement to settlement than is the case to-day.

Now, Sir, I want to say a few words with regard to the school question. There seems to be a good deal of criticism by hon. gentlemen opposite of the policy of the oppostion

4354

They say we are hard to satisfy. I think our position has been made fairly plain. Our claim is that the Northwest people should manage their own educational affairs. Could anything be more simple than that? If they find in their wisdom that separate schools are best for the people there, they will undoubtedly continue separate schools. There is one phase of this question that I will take the liberty of discussing. I find that this legislation recognizes only two classes of people, namely, Protestants and Catholics. Now it would be interesting to know what is meant by Protestants. I had always understood that the term ‘Protestant’ meant Christians that came out at the reformation in the time of Martin Luther. In the broadest sense in which we can use the term, it means any Christian whose antecedents date no further back than the time of the reformation. When Ontario and Quebec went in together, when the rest of the provinces confederated together, that classification practically included all the people in Canada with perhaps a few exceptions, but since then the Northwest has been opened up, foreigners have been pouring in, and we have thousands of people there to-day who are neither Protestants nor Roman Catholics. I would like to know what, under the provisions of this Bill, is going to become of them. I have looked up the census of the Northwest, and I find that in the Territories there were at the date of the last census report 30,073 Roman Catholics, 27,806 Presbyterians, 25,366 Anglicans, 22,151 Methodists, besides a number of other smaller bodies quite numerous. What I want to point out is that you have four of the largest bodies almost the same as regards population. Now, we have a number of Anglicans coming out from England to settle in that country, who will bring out with them their English ideas. They are in favour of a state church, in favour of having control of their own education, and they have just as good a claim for their separate schools as have our Roman Catholic friends, sentimentally, legally or in any other way we may look at it. Why should we adopt a system and force it on the Territories which they might find it necessary to extend in a few years? Because I hold that to give to any one branch of the Christian religion the right to have a school of their own and deny it to any other branch, is showing a partiality in favour of one branch of the Christian faith that is not recognized in any other civilized country in the world. We might well be honest and admit that while that condition of affairs lasts in Canada or anywhere else, you are always going to have agitation or the conditions which may bring about agitation at any time. If it be true that the people of the west are satisfied with their present school system, what objection can we have to letting them continue it or not just as they see fit. I

4355

think that that is a question which has not been answered by anybody on the government side. We find all kinds of discussion going on. We find hon. gentlemen like the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) getting up and telling us what the Franch did 200 or 300 years ago in Spain and France. When we point out the necessity of these provinces having their own lands, somebody will tell us about the coal deposits in the Northwest. When we make other objections to the Bill, hon. gentlemen opposite will get up and tell us about their fervent adherence to the British Crown. They might as well tell us about the best method of raising potatoes or how to make maple sugar for all it has to do with the question at issue. I find the following people up in that western country, namely, the Agnostics, the Buddhists, the Catholic Irvingites, the Confucians, the Doukhobors, the Greek church, the Jews, the Mormons, the Mennonites, the Mohammedans, the Sweden Borgians, Pagans, Theosophists, Dunkers, Zionites and many more unspecified. Are they Protestants? Are they Christians at all? In case this leigslation should go through, where will they come in? Suppose a case like this. Suppose there are a few of our Roman Catholic friends and they want a separate school and the balance of that section is made up of these other people where is their education going to come in? I emphasize this matter because statistics have been given in this House with regard to crime and illiteracy, and other things, in which it is assumed that everybody who is not a Roman Catholic in Canada can be safely dumped into the Protestant column, and we get credit for the crimes they commit. The time has arrived when the Protestant people should demand separate treatment just as well as our Roman Catholic friends. I do not see what harm there would be in adopting a change for awhile—put the Protestant people together and then dump all these other people in with our Roman Catholic friends and let them take care of them for a while. They say fair-play is a jewel.

We are told that after all the Bill just gives half an hour for religious instruction at the end of the day, and if there is any crime it is only a little one. Some of us will remember a case in a book dating very far back where Saul was sent out to do a cetrain thing and he came back. And the old prophet said : What means the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the cattle ? And Saul replied, my crime is only a little one. But it did not save Saul. I am not here this evening to say whether it is necessary to continue the system of separate schools in the west or whether it is not. That is a matter which this House has no business to determine. It is a matter that pertains to the people of the west, and the people, of the west have a right to say whether they shall continue separate schools or not or

4356

grant to other religious bodies the right to have schools of their own. We have in there the Greek Church, and they may demand that right and they would have just as good a right to their separate schools as our Roman Catholic friends. They are not Roman Catholics but Greek Catholics. We also have the Mormons ; and if they demanded their separate schools would they not morally have just as much right to have them. We have other classes crowded into that west, and the reason I point out this particularly is that these people all want to get together in little bunches and will in all human probability demand the right in the future to have their separate schools. I think, therefore, we should look very carefully fully into the matter before we crystallize this legislation on the statute-book ; and more particularly so, because if this Bill passes it will partake somewhat of the nature of the laws of the Medes and Persians and be very difficult to change. It seems to me that it would be a very difficult matter in future to change it. That is one of the objections and a very strong objection that I take to engrossing this legislation upon the statute-book. If there was any method of allowing the new provinces in the future to alter this law if they found it necessary then my objection to the measure would cease. If in five or ten years they found it did not suit them, or we found that we had put upon the statute-book something we did not intend, which is very likely to happen, we would not have the power to change it. If that is true then it is a very serious matter. I hold that it will put this Dominion government in a very ridiculous position if we legislate upon this question, if the Northwest people proceed to enact just what legislation they like in regard to schools contrary to the provisions of this Bill, if a case is taken to the Privy Council, and if the right of the province to legislate is upheld. Look at the position this Dominion government is put in. I think with all deference to those who have introduced this Bill that that is very likely what will happen both in regard to the lands and in regard to the schools.

Now, there is one thing that the right hon. Prime Minister said in introducing this measure that I take exception to. At page 1458 of ‘Hansard’ he says :

We live in a country wherein the seven provinces that constitute our nation, either by the will or by the tolerance of the people, in every school, Christian morals and Christian dogmas are taught to the youth of the country.

It would be very interesting to know what constitutes Christian dogma in the mind of the right hon. gentleman. I take the ground that Christian dogma is not taught in the schools of this country outside the separate schools, and that the right hon. Prime Minister would fail to find a single instance in all this vast country where

4357

this was taught. Why he should make a statement like that to go broadcast I do not understand. I hold, Sir, that if a fair comparison were made between the Protestant people and the Roman Catholic people it would be found that they are turning out of the Protestant schools just as fine a brand of manhood and womanhood as is turned out of any other school either morally or in any other way. Now, the right hon. gentleman, I think, went out of his way to criticise unfairly the public school system of the United States. Why he should see fit to drag that into the arena it seems very hard to understand. I want to point out that loaded on the public school system of the United States are all the foreign element in which crime is much more prevalent than amongst people who belong to the United States themselves. I want also to point out that a large proportion of the criminals of the United States were never inside the doors of a public school in that country, and I further desire to say that on account of our immigration policy the same thing, perhaps not quite to the same extent, is happening in this Dominion of ours to-day. We find every little while in the newspapers accounts of where these people get together in some alley and stab each other to death. One result is that the Protestants are credited with an additional amount of crime. If the condition of affairs were so bad in the United States as is argued by the right hon. leader of the government I would ask what steps he has taken to prevent the influx of these people into the Dominion. Has he instructed his Minister of War to keep the Northwest mounted police strung along the boundary with fixed bayonets to stop them ? Surely it is not possible that he gives his countenance to the Minister of the Interior to spend large sums of money to bring these people into the country, to do all he can to coax these people who are so depraved, among whom crimes are so prevalent and divorces and other evils so common, to come into Canada and to locate among the people of the Northwest Territories that stand so much higher than do the people of the United States. I think that probably the right hon. gentleman proved more than he intended to when he made these remarks. I want to point out that not all the trouble in regard to separate schools that is happening in Canada depends on our Protestant people. Our separate school friends are having trouble amongst themselves in many sections. I take the following newspaper published at Sturgeon Falls. There has been a dispute going on between our French Canadian Roman Catholic fellow citizens and our Irish Catholic fellow citizens and they have resorted to the newspapers in order that they might ventilate their grievances. I find the following letter published in a Sturgeon Falls newspaper :

4358

To the Editor of the ‘Advertiser’ : I have been interested in reading the letter of Irish Catholic and French Catholic in your paper and I notice the domineering way the latter addresses the Irish.

Of course that does not go down with the Irish.

I am Irish, and I wish to say that if the Irish were in majority in the parish here, as the French are, the minority would be much better used. The worst complaint we have to make is about the schools. We had a good teacher last year, but the French were never satisfied till they filled the school with sisters and brothers from France, who have no certificates or qualifications for teaching and who can’t speak English.

Our children are getting little learning and only have a short lesson in English occasionally—nothing but French. Religion is good I think, but you can have too much of a good thing, and I don’t think it is good to break the law of the land by teaching French, and nothing but French in a school in Ontario and taking the government moneys that are supposed to go to help education, to support sisters teaching the catechism in French all day long and no education about it.

We find the same condition of affairs in sight of this building.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Who signs the letter ?

Mr. W. WRIGHT. I will hand over the letter if the hon. gentleman wishes.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Whose name is signed to it ?

Mr. W. WRIGHT. It is signed ‘Another Irish Catholic.’ We find also that down in the city of Montreal we have a somewhat similar condition of affairs and if I am correctly informed our Irish Catholic friends are before the legislature now asking for legislation that will enable them to start their own Irish Roman Catholic schools in that city. So that we may consider the school question a question that is likely to give rise to trouble at any time, and if we do have a little stir up in Ontario and Quebec it is not so much after all to be wondered at. I have been considerably amused at the regret and sorrow expressed by some hon. gentlemen opposite, by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) and others, in this House that the agitation should go on, but they carefully nose around among all the newspapers they can get hold of to see whether they can get a tidbit here and there so that they may bring it to this House, give it all the publicity they can and send it down to Quebec to promote harmony and good feeling. I have a letter here that I shall read. It is from one of my constituents with regard to this matter. He says :

Although late in sending, I trust the inclosed coupon will be in time for presentation with any other petitions you may have. We feel deeply on the matter and wish to leave nothing

4359

undone to overthrow a proposition, detrimental in all respects to the freedom of Canadians in general. By giving the same your earnest attention, you will greatly oblige,

Yours truly,

EDWARD ELLIOTT, &c.

I want to point out that if there is at present some agitation in Ontario and other portions of the province, a large part of it is attributed to the political friends of hon. gentlemen opposite. This is a gentleman who has all his life supported that party and who did his best to defeat me in the election last fall. I have another communication here which I shall also read. It is in more legal language :

Whereas Sir Wilfrid Laurier has introduced into the House of Commons two Bills creating the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan;

Whereas there is a clause in these Bills intended to make the maintenance of a separate school system a permanent constitutional obligation of these provinces ;

Whereas we desire peace and unity among the peoples and creeds which make up the new provinces, and desire to build up our Canadian life and enlarge our national sentiment, we, therefore, the mayor and councillors of Huntsville, in session, believing that we voice the great majority of those who have elected us, respectfully protest against the above mentioned clause and pray that the government leave the question of education to the control of the new provinces.

Signed by the mayor and all the councillors of that town.

I might point out that in 27 years that town has never given a Conservative majority but once, and that was under very peculiar conditions. I want to point out further that only two out of these seven are Conservatives and that the town is about as Gritty a town as there is in Canada, yet we find that they put themselves upon record in this public way in regard to this question. I mention this simply because it is an expression of opinion that will be found in every town, I was going to say in the province, but at any rate the great majority of towns of Ontario independent of their political leanings. I have nothing more to add at present. It may be that I may have some- thing to say with regard to some of the clauses in the Bill when it comes up in committee, but I simply want now to place my constituents upon record, because I believe that I am voicing the opinions of 90 per cent of the residents in the district in which I live in giving expression to the views which I have, perhaps not very ably, laid before you. You at least however have been able to gather my opinions even if I have not put them as well as I would like to have done. In view of all these things and looking at this thing dispassionately I think we should leave this legislation over for a time. If the government of this country have determined that they will legislate

4360

upon the question, would it not be wise, as I said at the beginning, that we should know just what power we have and just what the meaning of the legislation will be. I think it will be the part of wisdom to do that and I ask that the government will do that so that in crystallizing the legislation upon the statute-book we will know what we are doing. As it is now we are asked to go it blind, to put legislation there that we can- not recall. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank this House for the kindly hearing I have been given during the short time I have attempted to discuss this question and I shall now make way for some other hon. gentleman.

Mr. ROBERT BICKERDIKE (St. Lawrence, Montreal). Mr. Speaker, after the many eloquent addresses which have been made by the different members on both sides of the House there is very little left to say unless we repeat, which is something I de- cline to do. I am not a doctor of law, nor a doctor of divinity, I am neither an Orangeman, a Ribbonman nor a Roman Catholic, but I stand here as a Protestant from the province of Quebec, representing one of the divisions in the city of Montreal, composed largely of Roman Catholics, who have no objection to trusting their mandate to a Protestant in this House. Some one has said that a flow of language is not as effective as a flood of love, that sunshine works as great reforms as thunderstorms, and I am sure that we are to be congratulated on having nothing to fight over except the best way to educate our children in their duty towards a beneficent Creator and that we should differ only as to the best means of securing that object. I wish to say that in Quebec the people get along remarkably well together. We have no difficulties whatever, we hardly ever experience the slightest difficulty in that province between the two nationalities or religions. Constant courtesies are extended from one to the other. It was my good fortune, through the courtesy of the hon. the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Foster) to be favoured with a seat in the gallery in this House on the 13th of March, 1896. That was about the closing hours of the dark days of Tory misrule and it was my great pleasure to listen to the speech delivered by that hon. gentleman on the school question on that occasion, probably one of the best speeches ever known to be delivered by that hon. gentleman in this House or out of it. As I sat there and listened to the burning words of eloquence that fell from the lips of that distinguished statesman, to his beautifully rounded English phrases with an occasional dash of sarcasm thrown in, I felt that he had made the speech of that evening, and I would like with his permission to quote very briefly from it. Reading that speech, as I have done on several occasions since this debate commenced and comparing it with the one which the hon. gentleman delivered a few

4361

days ago in this House, I came to the conclusion that there was certainly a very material change of front and I asked myself the question: What could have occasioned that change of front? Was it the fact that he has changed sides in this House? Was it the fact that he was no longer in power? After having given the matter careful consideration I came to the conclusion that it was due to neither of these things, it was due to a change of climate; the sudden change from the cooling breezes of the Atlantic ocean to the more contracted and sultry breezes from Toronto bay must have brought about the change of front displayed by that hon. gentleman. He said in that speech, in which he was very strong for toleration:

These two principles of good faith and a broad and generous toleration are principles which have nowhere been more strongly illustrated than in the growth in the progress in the present condition of the greatest empire in the world, I mean the British empire.

Great Britain is a nation which has been distinguished by the tenacity to which she has held to every compact and every agreement. She has been distinguished no less by that spirit of generous and broad toleration with which she has treated every religion, every class of nationality which form the components of her great empire. Now, Sir, these two principles of good faith and toleration are the very principles which underlie our constitution, and especially those clauses of the constitution under which the present question arises and which have to do with the educational rights of minorities in the different provinces of the Dominion.

Later, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) called on the members of the House to support the government, in these words:

Let them consider as well why that question has to be settled by us; let them clearly see whence it comes, and however strong their opinion may be, give to the government and the party who happen to be in power when this question comes up for settlement their good feeling, their utmost charity and their honest hearty support.

I notice that the hon. gentleman did not ask for the support of this House for the present government in introducing this measure.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. BICKERDIKE. Yes.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. The hon. gentleman said that as an evidence of Roman Catholic toleration in the province of Quebec, he represents a division of Montreal that is largely Roman Catholic. Will he kindly tell us who represents that same constituency in the local legislature?

Mr. BICKERDIKE. The federal constituency which I represent in this House is divided into two constituencies in the local legislature, and one of these is represented by a Protestant and the other by a Roman Catholic.

4362

Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.

Mr. BICKERDIKE. It is not my intention to touch for a moment on the legal or constitutional phase of this question; I leave that to the many eminent jurists who occupy seats on both sides of the House, but I must express regret that there is such a disagreement of opinion amongst them on the subject. I represent one of the divisions of the city of Montreal, a city that has been styled the Rome of America, and, as a Protestant representing that great Catholic city, I wish to give a few instances of the toleration that exists there between the people of the different religions. I remember in my early days being chairman of the Protestant school board for fifteen years. The Catholic school board sat immediately across the street, and during those fifteen years, while a priest was chairman of one board and I chairman of the other, always the kindliest relations existed between us, and nothing but courtesy prevailed between one and the other. I simply mention this to show how well we get along in the province of Quebec, and I will extend an invitation to the members from Ontario to come down and visit us, and see if they cannot take a leaf out of our book. I do not find fault with the remarks that have fallen from the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), for, although I cannot agree with him, I can praise his consistency, which is more than I can do with regard to some hon. gentlemen on that side of the House. But for his benefit, and for the benefit of others, I wish to cite a few more instances of the toleration which prevails in the province of Quebec. My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) will corroborate my statement, that when the Hon. I. D. Rolland was chairman of the finance committee of the Montreal city council, he was defeated in a French Canadian ward, and it being felt that his services were of great value to the city, one of the aldermen for St. Antoine ward resigned to give him the seat, and we, the Protestants of that ward, unanimously elected Mr. Rolland. Here is another instance of the good feeling which exists among the people of different religions in the city of Montreal. We had a very saintly old priest there, the Reverend Father Dowd, of St. Patrick’s Church, and when the funeral service for Father Dowd was proceeding no church bells in the city tolled more solemnly than did the bells of Christ Church Cathedral. About the same time Archbishop Bond took seriously ill, and when it was feared that his sickness was unto death, prayers were offered up in nearly every Roman Catholic church in the city for his restoration to health. I am sure that no happier state of affairs could exist in any country; I do not think that it could possibly exist in any other province than Quebec. Let me point also that when Bishop Mountain, the first bishop of the Church of England in Canada, arrived in the city of Quebec

4363

to take charge of his flock, he was met by the Catholic bishop of that city, who took both his hands and kissed him on both cheeks and welcomed him to our shores. Subsequently, when Bishop Mountain came to Three Rivers, he visited on New Year’s Day the different institutions and, amongst others, the Ursuline Convent. I have here a copy of the letter presented to Bishop Mountain on that occasion by the Sister Superioress, and I may say that the bishop was very proud of this letter, and showed it to many of his friends in Canada and in England after his return home. This is the letter:

Your Lordship,—After the marked proof of esteem which Your Lordship has shown our community by favouring our Monastry with a visit, we trust that Your Lordship will permit us at the beginning of the new year to do ourselves the indescribable pleasure of paying you our most humble respects, and assurances of the prayers that we will offer to Heaven for the preservation of your precious life and the prosperity of your illustrious family. It is with these ardent feelings and with the most profound respect that we have the honour to be,

Your Lordship’s most humble and Obedient servants,

SISTER THERESA OF JESUS,

Superior of the Ursulines of Three Rivers.

The 30th day of December, 1794.

On another occasion, many years ago, the Episcopalians of Montreal found themselves in the unhappy position of not having a place of worship, and immediately the Recollet Fathers placed the Roman Catholic church at the disposal of the English Church congregation. Some time afterwards the members of the Presbyterian Church, the church to which my forefathers belonged, had no place of worship and immediately the Recollet Fathers placed their church at their disposal, and the followers of the great John Knox held services in that church for over a year and a half. I shall read a reference to this incident from that well-known Conservative newspaper, the Montreal ‘ Gazette,’ of March 8, 1886 : I quote from the Montreal ‘ Gazette ’ :

Well known display of religious hospitality on the part of the Recollet Fathers. This religious hospitality was displayed and the Recollet church was placed at the disposal of the Scotch Presbyterians in 1791 as it had been in 1789 at the service of the English Episcopalians, and on September 18, 1791, the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was administered in it according to the forms of the Church of Scotland.

Mr. SPROULE. That is no more toleration than was displayed by the Orangemen when they gave up their Orange Hall to a Roman Catholic clergyman to hold service.

Mr. BICKERDIKE. I wish they would keep that up. ‘ The Society of Presbyterians,’ as they were then called, continued to occupy the old Recollet church from the date mentioned until, the building of their own

4364

church St. Gabriel was completed, and the priests refused any pecuniary remuneration for the use of their edifice, but were induced to accept a number of presents, amongst others some wax tapers to be used in their services. And I am told that on many occasions our good Presbyterians had a fling at Popery in that very church and enjoyed it very much. I regret deeply the inflammatory speeches delivered in this House and outside. The time, Sir, has gone by for that kind of appeal. I think it is simply juggling with this Autonomy Bill for political purposes, and I would like to say right here and now that we should not forget the good will prescribed to mankind instead of being ready to abuse one another. Love the Lord our God with all our hearts with all our minds, and souls, and our neighbours as ourselves. Why should not our children be taught to worship God and honour the King during school hours as well as out of them ? Worshipping as we do the same Creator, believing as we do in the efficacy of the finished and complete work of the Cross, can we be expected to do anything else than extend to our separated brethren the right hand of fellowship and recognize their conscientious scruples in their worship, their language and their education ? In my opinion I look upon it as a crime, and would call upon Christian men and women in this land to frown down any attempt to revive or fan into flame the expiring embers of bygone feuds. Why should we on public platforms or in the public press fan the old smouldering fires of religious prejudices and dissensions ? Why stir up that monster demon of race strife which has been slumbering for years simply for the purpose of making some very doubtful political capital ? Let me remind those who are sowing the seeds of discord in this young country of ours, that after the seed-time comes the harvests, and I, for one, shudder to realize what a harvest must come from the sowing of such seed.

I notice that the hon. the leader of the opposition confined himself very closely to the constitution, and in his closing remarks said that on the rock of that constitution he would take his stand. Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I would go much further back than the British North America Act and deal with this question on the basis of Christianity—on that constitution which was given to us over 1,800 years ago. By that constitution and on that Rock of Ages, from which we were taught the principle of peace on earth and good will to our fellow men and mankind in general, and which warrants us in recognizing the conscientious scruples of our neighbours and teaches us not only to be just, but generous to all minorities—it is on that constitution and that Rock of Ages I am prepared to take my stand. As far as I can judge, the positions taken by the government and the opposition differ in this

4365

respect. The government take the position that under the British North America Act, the minority, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, in the Territories are entitled to have preserved to them the rights and privileges in respect of education which they now have by law. On the other hand, the leader of the opposition claims that in granting autonomy to the Territories we have no right to make any reference to education; but that the exclusive and constitutional power to deal with that subject should be left to the new provinces subject to the provisions of the Confederation Acts from 1867 to 1886. The provisions in respect of education in the British North America Act are contained in section 93 which in effect states that:

In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education. Provided, however, that nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.

The question very largely turns on the meaning of the term ‘at the union.’

Mr. Haultain claims that the Northwest Territories came into the union in 1870, when that territory was annexed to Canada. Prior to that time there were no separate schools by law in the Territories. Mr. Haultain argues that section 93 of the British North America Act applies as at the time when the territory was annexed to the Dominion. In other words, he says the new provinces are entitled under the British North America Act to full and exclusive power to legislate in regard to education, without any qualification or condition—there being no separate schools prior to the annexation.

On the other hand, the government contends that the term ‘at the union’ means the time when the Territories are created into provinces and granted full autonomy, and that the rights and privileges which the minority have now, in respect of education, should be perpetuated in the Autonomy Bill—following the principle of section 93.

In 1875, the Dominion government of the day gave the Territories a form of government, and provided, among other things, that the territorial government might pass laws or ordinances in regard to education, but that in such laws or ordinances provision would always be made for separate schools for the minority, be they Roman Catholic or Protestant.

To my mind the word always must mean what it says, and the many different opinions given by eminent jurists on both sides lead me to believe that there must be some doubt as to the interpretation of the constitution; and such being the case, the proper course to follow was to place the matter beyond the shadow of doubt as the government have done.

4366

Now, if the ‘time of union’ within the meaning of the British North America Act was, as contended by some, the time when the Territories were annexed to Canada, namely, in 1870, and section 93 of the British North America Act then applied automatically, as is contended, it would seem that the Dominion government had no right in 1875 to make provision in their legislation for separate schools for that Territory, there being no separate schools prior to that time, but nevertheless, they did so, and the records of parliament show that both parties practically agreed to the legislation. They were almost unanimous. The records also show that the leading statesmen on both sides of the House at that time were of the opinion that the legislation was intended to be in the nature of a settlement of the much vexed question for all time to come. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have rather attempted to discredit the loyalty of the French Canadians in the province of Quebec, though this has not been done so much in this House, probably, as in newspaper articles. I want to say right here that had it not been for the loyalty of the French Canadians of the province of Quebec many years ago, there would not be a vestige of British rule in this country to-day. But for this loyalty we should not be sitting here tonight discussing the question of religious education for half an hour in the schoolhouse;—for, be it remembered, religious education is not given in the school as some hon. gentlemen have said. I claim that when the school is dismissed, the religious education cannot be said to be given in the school, but in the school-house. And for my part I believe—and I think a great many members on both sides will agree me—that the proper use for the school-house is not only for half an hour on school days, but for every hour of every day in the week, when school is not in session to devote it to religious instruction, Sunday Schools, temperance meetings and the spread of the Gospel. I say, Sir, that had it not been for the loyalty of the French Canadians shortly after the cession of this country to Great Britain, we should not have been here as a Dominion parliament with the Union Jack flying over us and the representative of the Crown within telephone call of this building, but, in all probability, we should be sitting in one of the legislative halls of the United States, with the stars and stripes floating over us, governed from Washington, and discussing the negro question, instead of a paltry question of a half-hour’s religious education.

Mr. SPROULE. If that had happened, where would the separate schools have come in?

Mr. BICKERDIKE. We should have had no separate schools. I would like to cite

4367

the opinions of a few men whose words will be received with respect, I am sure, by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House. The first is Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, Prime Minister of Great Britain, who is reported to have said in 1896:

I say it is a monstrous thing to compel parents whose children are at school all day long to send them to schools where the religious training and the religious education which they desire to see instilled into their youthful minds cannot be instilled, cannot be taught.

Now let me give the words of the late Sir Oliver Mowat, whose memory, I am sure, hon. gentlemen opposite hold in great respect. He said:

In what spirit was the new constitution framed? It was a compromise all round and an essential part of that compromise—so essential that without it confederation could never have taken place—was the provision by which the separate schools of Ontario, and the Protestant dissentient schools of Quebec, were guaranteed by the imperial enactment.

And now let me cite another for the special benefit of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). Speaking of the Manitoba school question, the late Principal Grant expressed himself as follows:

The government of Manitoba made a great mistake in summarily abolishing instead of reforming the old school system. They have been at war ever since 1890, with the prejudices and feelings, and even religious convictions of a section of the population that deserved to be treated with the utmost consideration. This war will end only when they make concessions which, to the mass of the people interested, will seem reasonable. The sooner these are made the better.

The onus lies on the provincial government to make concessions to meet the views of the reasonable members of the aggrieved minority.

Now, as I have said, eminent lawyers in this House have given us an interpretation of the law, but have not attempted to support that interpretation by reasons which appeal to the lay mind at least. I wish to say also that, in my opinion, this parliament cannot without doing injustice overlook the legislation of 1875 and the ordinances passed thereunder by the Northwest Territories. The true and wise position to take is, that the question was settled in 1875 without dispute, and that the laws or ordinances passed by virtue of that settlement should be perpetuated. In other words, we should simply continue the existing state of affairs, not adding to, or subtracting from, the rights of the minority.

When we consider the baneful effects of past agitations in Canada on religious questions such as this, is it not the part of wisdom, on the part of wise men, having in view the best interests of their country, to take the position that there is no school question for us to settle now, inasmuch as it was settled by the Dominion government of

4368

1875, and by the territorial ordinances now in force?. The agitation which has arisen in the country is, I think, very largely based upon misapprehension. The average man appears to have the idea—an idea sedulously fomented by extremists, whose influence is not beneficial to the country—that this government is endeavouring to force upon the Northwest Territories a system of separate schools, against their will. The fact that a separate school system prevails, and has prevailed for thirty years, is entirely overlooked. When the true merits of the controversy come to be properly understood, I firmly believe the agitation will cease, there being no good ground for it.

What is the object of education?. Why is it that the government of all countries attach so much importance to educating the young?. Is not the answer to this, that it is uniformly believed that education is the foundation stone of progress, and that no nation can hope to progress unless the children thereof are well educated, the better and higher the education the more advantageous it is. Efficiency, therefore, should be the key-note. The question to be asked, then, is: Do we secure efficiency under the existing school laws of the Northwest Territories which this government proposes to perpetuate?. The answer is easy and obvious. The Territories are proud of their school law. The fundamental principles of it are the greatest efficiency and uniformity of education. The schools are national and uniform. All the children have the same advantages and the same privileges. The legislation now introduced by this government does not restrict or prevent the legislatures of the new provinces from passing laws from time to time in amendment of the existing laws, in a direction of efficiency. The principle of efficiency is secured, and is not interfered with in any way whatever.

What then is all the fuss about?. In a nutshell, it is that, after the usual school hours the children of the minority, or indeed of the majority can be taught religion by their religious instructors for half an hour, and the minority have the right to have a school of their own, but that school is subject to the same laws as to efficiency, &c., as all the other schools. To put it in another way, a sufficient number of Roman Catholics in any school district can decide to have their children taught in a separate national school, but religion cannot be taught those children unless after school hours, and then for half an hour only. As the Minister of Finance put it some time ago, it seems to me that this is a very small thing to quarrel about. Why should they not teach religion to the children?. Sir, I believe the very best thing for this country would be to have a little more religious education in the schools—that is the ground I take upon this question. In these days of rush and hurry, when the average man is kept busy from morning till night providing bread and butter for his

4369

family, and has not sufficient time to devote to the training and up-bringing of his child- ren in the proper way; in these days when we seem to be breaking away from the good old standards of our forefathers in religious matters,—is it unwise or unfair, or unjust, is it a terribly wrong think to perpetuate a system of education which provides for religious instruction to the young not in the school but in the school-house? I venture to think not. In my humble opinion, the solution which the government has reached is an admirable one, and I firmly believe it would be considered good legislation if the Dominion government, provided they had the power, were to adopt a national school law to apply to all the provinces, which would be on the same lines as that under the existing legislation which it is sought to perpetuate—a law which provides for the greatest efficiency, which provides for the same education to the children, whether of the minority or of the majority, and which provides for the teaching of the Christian religion in which the children have been born,—a law which appears to me to be the highest wisdom in respect of educational policy. Extremists might not be satisfied, but all reasonable men would be. If there is one thing which has retarded the progress of Canada more than another, it has been religious discord. In these enlightened days cannot we be big enough, and broad enough, and charitable enough, to take a larger view of things. Cannot we bring ourselves closer in touch with the teachings of the Master—the founder of Christianity? Cannot we take the view taught by him that charity in the broadest sense of the term is the essence of true religion? How utterly opposed to that true spirit of charity is the position taken to-day by the extremists and agitators in both of the great religious families. No good ever resulted from the discords of the past. No good can ever result from such agitations which are so foreign to the true spirit of Christianity. In the interest of peace, in the interest of the prosperity and development of the country, it is of the highest importance that, as far as possible, the people should be a unit. And to that desirable end it seems to me to be the part of statesmanship to adopt a policy of reasonable compromise in regard to all matters which affect the conscientious beliefs of any section of the people.

Mr. ALCORN moved the adjournment of the debate.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Go on.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. We don’t want to sit here until next summer.

Mr. SPROULE. I think when we have worked till twelve o’clock we have done a reasonable days work.

Mr. FIELDING. I hoped that we might have one more speech to-night. It is only half past eleven.

4370

Mr. ALCORN. If the House is in that temper I have no objection to go on, although the hour is late and it would be rather unusual to go on.

Mr. FIELDING. Perhaps under the circumstances we had better adjourn. But I will ask my hon. friends on both sides of the House to agree from this time forth to sit a little later. There are yet many gentleman who wish to speak and I am sure there is a general desire that we should not occupy the whole summer with this debate.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. It is also to be remembered that we have committee meetings to attend tomorrow morning at ten or eleven o’clock.

     Motion agreed to.

     On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.