1905-04-19

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 136) to incorporate the Anthracite Coal Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries received a petition from certain travellers going to Prince Edward Island this year alleging that they were detained at Pictou some forty or fifty days, owing to the winter steamers, ' Minto ' and ' Stanley ' not maintaining communication between Pictou, Nova Scotia, and Georgetown, Prince Edward Island, and asking the government to refund their expenses for hoard and lodging while so delayed ?
2.	If so. is it the intention of the government to grant the prayer of said petition ?
Hou. H. R. BMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.


THE TRANSMISSION OF MONEY BY MAIL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREAU-by Mr. Louis Lavergne -asked :
Has the attention of the Honourable the Postmaster General been drawn to that which appeared in the ' Daily Telegraph ' and ' Le Soleil,' of Quebec, under date the 12th April instant, the ' Daily Telegraph ' expressing itself as follows ? :
Sending money by mail.
There are so many safe and easy ways of transmitting money by mail nowadays that it is simply subject for wonder why such a multitude of people still persist in sending it in ordinary letters, without even taking the precaution of getting these registered. Very often these letters are lost or stolen. True the thieves are nearly always detected and pun-
Mr. PAQUET.: ished, but while this is satisfactory enough from the public point of view, it gives poor comfort, to the losers of the money, who may frequently be in sore need of it. Another aspect of the matter, however, calls for serious consideration. While the postal authorities are engaged in tracing out the guilty parties, it is no unusual thing for suspicion to rest on honest and perfectly honourable employees, and the knowledge that such is the case and that they are kept, so to speak, under a surveillance which is painful to them as it is insulting, naturally tends to make their lives miserable and to engender in them disgust for their employment. It is certainly not in the public interest that so undesirable a state of things as this should continue any longer, especially as there are so many ways of sending money through the post with absolute safety by registered letter, by insured registered letter, by money order or by postal note, upon all of which the rates have been so greatly reduced that they are within every one's reach, and the money, if lost, can always be recovered.
Why then people should persist in entrusting money to the uncertain and dangerous channel of ordinary letters is beyond comprehension. Under the circumstances we would take the liberty of suggesting to the Honourable the Postmaster General, who has already made so many improvements in our postal service, to make another and an equally needful one in this important particular, which might he done either by giving it to be publicly understood that no special trouble will be taken to trace ordinary letters containing money that are lost or stolen, or by passing a Bill at the present session imposing a flne upon all persons sending money in ordinary letters. This last measure would have the double eft'ect of protecting the public and rendering existence more agreeable to the honest postal employees, who have to suffer from the present deplorable state of affairs. We sincerely trust to see favourable consideration given to this matter by the Postmaster General, and at the same time we would strongly advise our readers never to send money through the mails, no matter how small the amount, in a letter that is not registered or insured, or by some of the other safe methods above indicated.
Le Soleil,' of Quebec, of the same date, publishes the following :
The transmission of money by mail.
A great number of people have the very bad habit of .sending money in letters that are not registered. Several of such letters go astray or are lost. It is true that the thieves always end by being caught, but in the meantime it often happens that suspicion hangs over perfectly honest employees, and when these latter become aware of it they take a dislike for their positions and lead a miserable existence.
There are, however, many safe ways of sending money by mail, such as by registered letter insured letters (lettres assurdes), post office orders and drafts. The tariff for these different forms has been considerably reduced in order to induce the public to make use of them. Yet how many people still persist in sending money in ordinary letters.
We therefore take the liberty of suggesting to the Honourable the Postmaster General who has already improved so much the postal service, to have a law passed, during the present session, that will impose a fine on all those imprudent, not to say stupid, people who send money in letters that are not registered Such

law would have the two-fold result of protecting the public and of rendering more agreeable the lives of those honest employees who suffer from this unfortunate state of affairs.
We hope that our suggestion will be taken into serious consideration by the Honourable the Postmaster General. In any case, we advise our readers to never send any money, not even the smallest sum, in a letter that is not registered or insured.
2.	Is the Post Office Department aware that a law similar to that asked for in articles in question exists in France, and is as follows :
Are punishable with a fine of from 50 to 500 francs (Article 9 of the laws of the 4th June,' 1859, and of the 25th January, 1873), 1st the inclosing of gold, of silver, of jewels and of other precious goods in correspondence ; 2nd, the inclosing of bank notes, bonds, cheques, coupons or dividends or interests due and payable to bearer, in letters that are not submitted to the formality of registration (ehargement ou de la recommandation) ?
3.	If so is it the intention of the Post Office Department, for the better protection of the public in general and of the employees in particular, to have a law passed this session based upon that which now exists in France1 and in other foreign countries ?


Hon.   S@: My attention has, by this question, been called to the articles in question. The department is aware of the existence in France of such a law as is referred to in question 2, but understands that such a law does not exist in any other country. It is not in contemplation at the present time to introduce any legislation dealing with the matter.


WILLIAMSBURG AND CORNWALL CANALS- WATER POWER LEASES.
Mr. BRODER asked :: 1.	At what dates, and to whom, were the first water-power leases issued on the Williamsburg and Cornwall canals ?
2.	At what yearly rent was each lease issued ?
3.	Have any of these leases been transferred? If so, to whom ?
4.	Has the government made any claims under these leases for extra water used ?
5.	If so, upon whom, and what amounts are claimed ?
6.	Does the government intend to demand payment of such extra amounts ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 
INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Mr. A. MARTIN.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to some returns which were ordered some time ago and have not yet been laid on the table. I asked questions in regard to a railway station at Charlottetown in January last. The minister would not answer, but told me to ask for a return. I did so, and have been trying in vain to get it ever since. I asked also for a return showing the expenditure on railways and canals in each province, and in the return brought down, there is the statement by the minister that certain information could not be obtained. This seems very strange because I obtained a return in 1898 for similar expenditure up to that date, and I see no reason why the government should not he able to supplement that return by giving the information from 1898 down to the present. I would also bring to the notice of the Postmaster General a similar remissness on the part of his department. I asked for a return with regard to the additional subsidy given the province of Prince Edward Island in 1901 and have not yet got it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is true that my hon. friend has spoken to me on several occasions with respect to certain returns, and I have frequently brought his complaints to the attention of my deputy. My deputy has always assured me that he had applied to Moncton for that information but it had not been received. Only within the last day or two I spoke to him again and he assured me he would do everything possible to get the information at the earliest moment. I personally cannot attend to these matters and have to depend on my officials. I shall make a note of what my hon. friend says and see if I cannot spur them up. As regards the expenditure on railways and canals since 1898, I was under the impression that the return brought down gave all the information called for. 1 did not read the return but took it for granted that it furnished the information required. If my hon. friend will give me a memo, of what is lacking, I will have the matter looked up.


Alexander Martin: I shall give the hon. gentleman the memo.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There certainly has been no information withheld intentionally. I cannot understand what possible reason
4S11

there could be for withholding it and presume there must be some misunderstanding.


Sir WILLIAM MTJLOCK.: I am afraid that my department is also in fault, but if my hon. friend will be good enough to name the office, concerning which he wants information, I shall have the returns brought down if at all possible and give instructions at once.


Alexander Martin: The office is Stanhope, and Mr. Lawson was the postmaster dismissed.


Mr. CROCKET.: I would like to remind the hon. the Minister of Railways of an order which was passed on the 9th of February for a return of the correspondence in connection with the purchase and taking over of the Canada Eastern Railway. Would the hon. gentleman kindly hurry up the preparation of this return so that we may have it when we meet again after Easter ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That return was brought down some time ago. My hon. friend will find that it was laid on the table some weeks ago. It was a return asking for any additional correspondence with respect to the purchase of the Canada Eastern Railway subsequent to the return brought down last session.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I inquired of the Clerk of Records and was informed that the return had not been brought down.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It certainly was brought down, I remember it distinctly.


PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
[Stage Direction]
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. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Mr. Speaker, were I to say, on rising to continue the debate on the question before the House and which has been before us for several weeks, that this is one of the most far reaching and important measures we have ever been called to deal with since confederation, I would only be repeating what has been said over and over again by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. Few of us realize, Mr. Speaker, the vast importance of the question with which we are dealing at present. Few of us realize the vast extent of territory comprised in the two new provinces to which we are now proposing to give a constitution under which they will be best enabled to work out their destiny. An hon. gentleman, a few evenings ago, in referring to this matter, placed it, I must confess, before me in a light I had not realized until then, when he said that each of these Mr. EMMERSON.
provinces comprises an area of six times as large as the empire state of New York, six times as large as the state of Pennsylvania, so that the two new provinces are equal to twelve times the size of each of those important states of the union. I also find that each of 'these provinces comprises more area, more square miles, than the German empire or the French republic, so that the two of them together are twice as large as either the empire of Germany or the republic of France. I find further that each of these new provinces will be twice as large as the entire area of Great Britain and Ireland

England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales-so that we are dealing with territories of vast size and importance, and I really do not think that hon. members apprehend the full extent and importance of what we are doing at present.
I desire, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words with reference to the financial terms proposed to be given to the new provinces. I do not intend to enter into the details of this question, because I think they will more properly come up when we consider the resolution which the right hon. the Prime Minister has placed upon the notice paper, and which will be moved at a later stage and afterwards incorporated in these Bills. Possibly that will be the proper time to discuss the financial terms to be given to these provinces, and possibly that may explain why so little has been said in reference to the financial terms on which these provinces are to be admitted into the union. I desire to say that in one respect I do not approve of the mode of providing the means of carrying on the government of those new provinces. Possibly it is something that the Prime Minister could not provide for in any other way, and carry out the proposal made in the Bill. The fathers of confederation were obliged, when confederation was brought about, to recoup the old provinces for the revenues which they lost by reason of their coming into confederation, the revenues which they derived from customs and excise. In order to do that a per capita allowance was made to the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as well as of Ontario and Quebec at the rate of 80 cents a head, based on the population of 1861, and I believe it remains up to the present time at that figure. However, I think the conditions are somewhat different now. We are not obliged to recoup these new provinces for any loss of revenue which they are deriving from customs or excise duty, because practically they have no revenue of themselves from that source, and we are in a position to deal along an entirely different line with these new provinces. I say I do not approve of the plan that was adopted at that time, but I assume the fathers of confederation did what they conceived was for the best, and did perhaps the only possible thing they could do under the circumstances. I believe, however, that

the principle is wrong. I think it does not conduce to economy in the administration of the affairs of the provinces. Where the province is handed over a bulk sum. a large sum of money to be expended at will by the government of the province, there is little or no incentive to economy in the administration of its affairs. I say it is not a sound principle !to jha^e one man furnish the money and another one expend it. The spending body should be the taxing body, if you are going to have economy in the administration. Throughout the province of Ontario there is a grievance at the present day along the same line. The government of Hon. Mr. Ross changed the law with respect to county councils and provided a spending body which was supplied by the minor municipalities with all the money it required. I am aware that there is a feeling growing up in that province that a mistake was made, and that they ought to come back to the old principle where the reeves and deputy reeves constituted the county council, and where the same corporation that taxed the people spent the money that was derived from taxation. I consider that if we had a principle of that kind incorporated in this Bill there would be less liability for these new provinces extravagantly to expend the provision which is made for the government of the country, and I think now that opportunity is offered.
We propose under this Bill to take from the new provinces all the public lands within their area. Now, I say here and now, without hesitation, having thought over this matter for some time, I would rather see the provinces given all the public lands within their area. Instead of taking the lands and administering them by the Dominion government and banding over a large money consideration to recoup them for these lands, I believe were they given the public lands they would administer their public affairs with greater economy and with a greater desire to preserve their own interests, and in. the end I am sure it would result in no loss to the people of the Dominion of Canada. The financial considerations that are being imposed upon the people of the entire Dominion may seem trifling, but depend upon it, Mr. Speaker, they will grow as time passes by, and there will be a time when this financial assistance will not satisfy the people of these new provinces, and they will "ask for more. We are settling now with them on an estimated area of 25,000,000 acres of land. How do we know that inside of ten or fifteen years they will not make a demand upon us for a further settlement for the balance of the land within these territories which we have not taken into consideration in the present Bill? I say there is that danger, and I believe we had better meet the question fairly and squarely now. Let them retain the land, and let us withdraw the larger part of the financial consideration and allow them to become the administrators of their own destinies, allow them to work out their own future; and if they fail to do that successfully, the people of Canada will not be responsible and could neither morally nor legally be called upon to supplement their empty coffers if we found they had overdrawn their bank account.
Now, another question to which I desire briefly to refer is one that has been mentioned by only a few members in this House.
I refer to the tax exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway passing through those Territories. Now, what I am going to say is entirely on my own responsibility, I have not consulted any one on this side of the House as to whether the view I hold is right or wrong. But I say without hesitation that I have no sympathy with those from the Northwest Territories who are insisting that the tax exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway for their line, their station houses, their plant and everything they own in those new provinces should be removed. I have no sympathy with that feeling. I believe this road was constructed for the benefit of those Territories, it was constructed certainly for the benefit of the entire .Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We all take a great interest in it. We realize to-day that we are all benefited largely by the construction of that road and I hold that these new provinces are more especially benefited by it than, any other part of Canada. Without the construction of that road the Territories comprised in those two provinces to-day would practically be a nonentity. It was necessary that that country should be opened up. To my mind the people have derived a greater advantage by the opening of the country than the disadvantage they have been obliged to suffer through being deprived of that public revenue by the exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not think that the people going into that country have any great reason to complain because the Canadian Pacific Railway was allowed that exemption. Besides, it was one of the conditions on which this railway was constructed ; it was a part of the consideration for the building of the road. We remember that the government were obliged to give 25,000,000 acres of land and $25,000,000 of subsidy, besides banding over a large part of the road already constructed practically a financial consideration equal to about $62,000,000, apart from the 25,000,000 acres of land. The exemption from taxation was just as much a part of the bonus or subsidy which procured the construction of that road as were the subsidies of land and money. If we are to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway now to forego their right to this tax exemption ; this parliament might as well ask them to refund the subsidy and restore tbe land which was given them. I say I have no sympathy with a proposal of that kind. This is a matter that was decided by the people


COMMOXS
[Stage Direction]
4S1<>
in 18S1. By means of this exemption along with other means, the construction of this road was secured. It is too late in the day to interfere with a contract that accomplished its purpose and without which the road would never have been constructed or the country opened up.
Now, like the other hon. members who have preceded me, I propose to say a few words-and I shall not detain the House at great length-on some of the other clauses of the Bill, more especially the clauses dealing with education. But we ail realize the vast importance of this Bill on account of the interest of those who now live in that country. We realize its vast importance because of the people who are yet to go into that country. And we realize its importance not only to the people who are there and the people who are to go there, but to the people of the whole Dominion which is so closely involved. Year after year the overflow of population from the older provinces, perhaps more especially from the province of Ontario, is going into these two new provinces which we are now creating. There our sons and daughters and our grandchildren are going to build up their homes. Is it to be wondered at that we regard with the deepest anxiety the character of the constitution to be given to these provinces, the nature of the law under which they are to be governed, and more especially the educational system under which the children in those provinces will receive their training ? It is alleged that during the present spring, from the province of Ontario alone, some 8,000 people have gone into the western country, possibly some to the province of Manitoba, but others, and I think the majority, to the two new provinces to which we are about to give a constitution. 'Hence, I say, we are deeply interested in the character of the legislation we are now enacting. Complaint has been made in some parts of the country and even in this House that we are devoting too much time to the consideration of this Bill, that we are wasting the time of the House in discussing the matter. I have no sympathy whatever with that feeling. I believe we should be perfectly justified in spending two or three months in order to reach a complete understanding of the measure now before ns. I think it would be time and money well spent. It costs but a little more to carry on a session of four or five months than to carry on one of three months. The sacrifice, if there is a sacrifice, is on the part of hon. members of this House ; the country practically does not sustain the loss if we continue the discussion of this Bill. But. even apart from that, I say, the money consideration should not influence us, the time occupied need not be taken into consideration. We have a duty to perform to examine into every detail of this measure before we permit it to be crystallized into law. Because. I understand that Nvhen
David Henderson: once this law is placed upon the statute-book it will become the constitution of these new provinces practically for all time to come. At least, I understand, it will be beyond the power of this parliament to recall it. It certainly will be beyond the power of the provincial legislatures to alter it. Short of an appeal to great Britain, it will be the constitution of that country for all time to come. The government of the day, no doubt, have had this matter under consideration for some considerable time. It has been spoken of from year to year. The propriety of granting provincial rights to these' Territories has been frequently brought under view in this chamber. I have no doubt that the government fully realized at the close of last session that there was a duty incumbent upon them and that they would be called upon, without further delay, to give attention to this question. We find that the right hon. First Minister, (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in September last, soon after the House had been dissolved, realized the importance of this issue, realized that there was a demand from the Northwest for provincial autonomy, realized that the people there were becoming tired of being merely the wards of the Dominion government, and wished to be placed in possession of full rights of provincial self-government in alt those matters delegated to them under the British North America Act. I have before me a copy of the letter which the right hon. First Minister wrote to Mr. Haultain in connection with this matter. I am very much afraid that the right hon. Prime Minister was not as fair to the people of the west on that occasion as he ought to have been.
I think it was his duty to inform those people, as he was appealing to them on the eve of a general election, that he was about to bring in a measure to grant selfgovernment to one or two new provinces as the case might be. Instead of that, what do we find in this letter. I shall read only a portion, as that is sufficient for my present purposes :
You will have learned prior to the receipt of this letter that parliament has been dissolved. The new House of Commons will contain not four but ten representatives of the Northwest Territories, who, coming fresh from the people, will he entitled to speak with confidence as to the views and requirements of those whom they represent. Should my government be sustained, we will be prepared immediately after the election, to enter upon negotiations for the purpose of arriving at a settlement of the various questions involved in the granting of provincial autonomy, with a view to dealing with the question at the next session, of parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what would Mr. Haul-tain infer from that letter ? Would he not understand from its closing remarks that the Prime Minister of Canada contemplated that so soon as the elections were over he would immediately take up the question of

provincial autonomy for the west-not a limited autonomy, not a measure where something was given and something withheld ? The fact that he said he would deal with the question of provincial autonomy carries with it the full meaning, and no other meaning could be taken out of the statement by the people of the Northwest Territories, than that they were to be granted full provincial autonomy. Does ' provincial autonomy' mean a half measure? Does it mean that this parliament is going to give these provinces the right to do certain things and withhold from them the right to do certain other things that provinces should do ? No : the plain meaning rs that the right hon. gentleman proposed to give these provinces self-government, because if autonomy means anything at all it means self-government, full, complete, absolute ; the right and power to administer their own affairs on every question that is delegated to them by the British North America Act. And, Sir, amongst the powers delegated to the provinces under the British North America Act, is the power to deal with education. On the eve of an election, when the right hon. gentleman wanted to secure for his candidates in that country the votes of the people, he tells them that he will consider the question of provincial autonomy. Did he hint for one moment that he only intended to give them a partial measure ? Did he announce that he intended to hold back one of the most cherished rights that can be given to a people in a measure of autonomy ? No, he told the people that he would give them provincial autonomy, self-government, full and complete. The result of his statement was that the question of provincial autonomy was not an issue in the elections in the Territories, because Conservatives as well as Liberals were pledged to grant the Territories selfgovernment and to create them into new provinces. The right hon. gentleman had a decided advantage when he succeeded in getting that question out of the political arena during the political campaign and allowing the electors to decide on other issues altogether. I do not like to use an expression that might seem unkind, but I am bound to say that the right hon. gentleman certainly did mislead the people of the west. Not only did he mislead those in authority there, but he misled the entire electorate, by leaving them under the impression that they were going to get their fullest rights as citizens and free men unrestricted and untrammelled. It is not using too strong a term when I say that the right hon. gentleman, wittingly or unwittingly, misled the people of that great country on the eve of the general elections, and the result was that the right hon. gen-tieman succeeded in obtaining a majority of the representatives from these Territories to support him. Had he hinted for a moment that he intended to withhold from 153
the people the right to deal with their educational matters as they thought best in their own interests, I have no hesitation in saying that he would not have had returned from these vast Territories a single man to support his government.
I have said that if autonomy means anything it means government full and complete; this Bill has been called an autonomy Bill, and in this House and in the country we speak of it as an autonomy Bill. That is entirely a misnomer : it is not an autonomy Bill. To use an illustration we sometimes speak of a joint stock company and after it we And the word ' limited so in this sense when we speak of this as an autonomy Bill we should call it an autonomy Bill limited. I confess that I am surprised to hear so many people speaking of this as an autonomy Bill, when as a matter of fact it is only limited autonomy. In 1875 the Northwest Territories were organized under an Act of this parliament and were given what we call a territorial charter. Under that charter they were enabled to administer their local affairs, to construct bridges, to administer their educational affairs in a limited way, and to do what is generally done by any provincial government. The Territories were not then given the full status of a provincial government. I do not think it is seriously contended by any one in this House or out of it that that Territorial Act was ever intended to be permanent, I apprehend that those who sat in this House in 1S75 realized the fact that that law would only remain in force until these Territories were divided into provinces, and that when that time came then the Territorial Act would be wiped out and the new constitution take its place. We can all realize that this was the object of the parliament of Canada in 1875, when we remember that at that time that country was practically uninhabited there not being more than 500 white people living in it, or practically not more than one adult male to every 2,000 square miles.
That population, we are told, has been increased to 500,000, and in the lifetime of many hon. members sitting in this House to-day, or at any rate within another quarter of a century, the population of those two provinces will possibly be 5,000,000. Will any hon. gentleman suggest that the opinion of 500 people in 1875 should be held to fix and determine what the constitution of that country should be fifty years afterwards, when it contains a population of 5,000,000 ? I hold that there is neither rhyme nor reason in the statement-I will not call it an argument-that because the Act of 1875 granted a dual system of schools, we ought to continue that system under the conditions that exist at the present time. In all probability those 500 people were never asked what kind of constitution they wanted. Possibly one or two of the prominent men of that country were aware that a constitution was



being given to the Territories, but I feel bound to say that ninety per cent of the people did not know it. We have no reason to suppose that they had been consulted. Even if they had been consulted, the simple fact that a dual system of schools was established in that country in 1875 is not to be taken as <a reason why at this distant date we should perpetuate it. If any evidence is wanted to show that the Act of 1875 was not considered to be a permanent measure, we have only to look at the measure before us, where we find a clause repealing the old Territorial Act, showing conclusively that it was designed merely to regulate the affairs of that country until such time as new provinces should be created. That being the case, I hold that we are now untrammelled and perfectly free to give to those provinces such a constitution as we think is best for them. We are not obliged to go back ten, or twenty, or thirty years, in order to ascertain what privileges or powers they possessed at that time. Everything of that kind is to be wiped out ; old things are passed away, and all things are to become new ; a new era is to be ushered in, and we are absolutely free to determine what kind of constitution, in the light of (conditions now existing, should guide the destinies of that country for all time to come. I think this proposition has been made clear by very high legal authority. I do not like to repeat over and over again the opinions of public men, but I think we make no mistake if we repeat daily the opinions of some of our public men on some of these constitutional questions, because we want to get them, not only into the minds of the people, but into the minds of hon. members of this House, some of whom do not yet apprehend them. Whether they have not listened to them or studied them, I do not know ; but certainly, from their utterances and from the applause which those utterances received from others, I apprehend that they have not yet realized the full import of the opinions of our great public men of the past regarding this question. Notwithstanding my hesitation to repeat what has been said before, I'will refer to only two or three of these opinions. One of them is that of a gentleman whose opinion was always regarded as a high authority in this House. I had the honour of sitting in this House for some eight or nine years with Sir John Thompson, and I say now what I said during his lifetime, that in my opinion he was the brainiest man in Canada in his time and the highest constitutional authority. In my opinion, any statement made by Sir John Thompson on a question of this kind was worthy of the best consideration ; and what did he say in 1894 ? Referring to the very question to which I have made reference, he said :
What the constitution of the future provinces shall be, in view of the pledges which have been referred to, or in view of any other set of cir-Mr. HENDERSON.
cumstances, will be for the parliament to decide when it decides to create those provinces.
That is just along the line of what I have been saying. We are free to give to those people to-day the very best constitution we can devise, in the light of all the new conditions with which we are surrounded, and we are better prepared to-day to give a constitution to that country than those of 1875, who practically knew nothing of the value or character or conditions of the country. I will give you one further quotation, which is from a gentleman who sat in this House for eight or nine years whilst I had the honour of being a member of it. Though he was politically opposed to me, I listened to his utterances on many occasions and always with a great deal of pleasure ; I refer to the Hon. David Mills. I remember (that hon. gentleman coming across and perhaps gathering around him a group of new members, and sitting down and discussing with us constitutional questions that were before the country at that time. I received information privately from the Hon. David Mills in that way which I do not think I shall ever forget. I learned to respect that gentleman for his erudition. I believe that he was too cautious a man to give an opinion on any constitutional question until he had thoroughly sifted it, and when he did give an opinion he was able to rely upon it. That was the opinion I formed of the Hon. David Mills, and it is the one I entertain to-day. In 1894, when a question relating to the Northwest Territories was up in this House, he said :
When the people of the Northwest Territories or any portion of them are sufficiently numerous to constitute a province, when in fact, they attain their majority in regard to local matters, and when they propose to set up for themselves, this parliament has' no right to exercise control over them, no right to exercise any authority ; it can give good advice, but it has no right to give commands. But we are not dealing with the future. When the Territories have a sufficient population to entitle them to become a province they must decide for themselves whether they will have separate schools or not.
That is the opinion of the Hon. David Mills, given in 1894, and that is the opinion which I hold in 1905, and I believe it to be the one held by the great bulk of hon. members on this side. Complete autonomy, complete self-government, provincial rights, the right to decide for themselves, not only in other matters but especially in the matter of education, the right to decide what kind of school system they should have, whether a national or a dual system-those are rights which belong to the provinces. I shall not trouble the House by quoting wbat was said by Mr. Justice Girouard along the same lines, but would ask permission to quote once more a few words from the Right Hon. Sir John Thompson. In answer to an lion, member of this House, he said :

I appeal to the House to continue the present system while the territorial system continued, and I declared that in my opinion the whole subject should be open and free to parliament as to what constitution we would give to the provinces when provinces were created.
IVe are taunted very often by being asked why parliament has not repealed the enactment of 1875, if that enactment did not harmonize with the views of the people. Well, here is what Sir John Thompson said on that point. He said :
The better time to consider that question is when the Territories cease to be under territorial government and provinces are about to be created.
I am not prepared to say that this parliament had not the power to deal with that matter at an earlier date, but I believe there was a great deal of wisdom in the suggestion of Sir John Thompson. He did not want the country to be constantly in a turmoil of strife and feeling over this religious question. Knowing that the time would come when this issue would be raised, be preferred that it should remain dormant until such time as the Territories were to be made into provinces, and then the whole matter could be dealt with, instead of having the contention raised in 1891, to be repeated in 1905 or some other year, when a measure such as we are now discussing would come before the people. I think there was a great deal of wisdom in that suggestion, and I think that since we are now repealing the Territorial Act, this is the most opportune time which has offered it. self within the last thirty years for the repeal of the measure that created the dual system of schools in the Territories. A Bill has been introduced by the right hon. the First Minister which provides for a dual system of schools, without the consent of the people of the Northwest. I do not think 1 am saying anything too strong when I say that we have not the consent of the people of the Northwest to this measure. They certainly have not been consulted. In fact, as I have already said, they have been misled. Shall I go too far if I say they have been deceived by the letter of the First Minister? They had the promise of the First Minister that when the new parliament was elected, he would be prepared to take up the question of provincial autonomy, and it was not to be a partial autonomy. Having that promise, the people of the west had every reason to believe that the leader of the government would be faithful to it, and that no matter who were returned as representatives from that country, full and complete autonomy or selfgovernment would be extended those Territories. But what is provided by this Bill ? AVe find that it provides for a dual system of schools. We find also that it appropriates moneys which we had previously set apart, under the Dominion Lands Act, for the support of public schools, and gives 153}
them to separate schools. Hon. gentlemen opposite are never tired of telling us that these separate schools are all public schools. True they are schools for the public, but no one who understands the meaning of the term would admit for a moment that all the schools of the Northwest Territories are public schools. There is a marked distinction between the two classes of schools as will be seen by reference to the manner in which these schools are established. Let me quote from the Northwest ordinances to show how a school district is formed :
12.	Any portion of the Territories may be erected into a public school district provided that-
(a)	It does not exceed five miles in length or breadth exclusive of road allowances ;
(b)	It contains four persons actually resident therein who on the erection of the district would be liable to assessment, and twelve children between the ages of five and sixteen inclusive ;
13.	Any three residents in any area fulfilling the requirements of the next preceding section may be formed or may form themselves into a committee to procure its erection into a district and may petition the commissioner for such erection.
That is the way public school districts are formed, and a school formed in that manner would be a public school, according to the ordinances of the Northwest. But how are separate schools formed ? Are they formed on the same lines ? Not at all. In a district where a public school has been established, a certain number of people-I think only three ratepayers-who are of the Roman Catholic faith, or it might be three ratepayers who are Protestants if the school district did not satisfy them-at any rate three persons could petition to have a separate school district established.
To my mind this is conclusive evidence that there" are two systems of schools in the Territories,-one public and the other separate. AAThen we read the Dominion Lands Act, I cannot believe for a moment that the money which was set apart according to that Act-I think in 1883 or perhaps earlier-for the support of public schools was ever destined to be used for the support of any other kind of schools. Section two of subsection three of chapter 54 of 49 Victoria, provides as follows :
All moneys, from time to time, realized from the sale of school lands shall be invested in securities of Canada, to form a school fund, and the interest arising therefrom, after deducting the cost of management, shall be paid annually to the government of the province or territory within which such lands are situated, towards the support of public schools therein ; and the moneys so paid shall be distributed for that purpose by the government of such province or territory in such manner as it deems expedient.
This clause certainly states that this interest shall be paid by the government of a province or territory, towards the support of public schools ; not towards the support

this clause emanate which has been thus cast aside and condemned? The Prime Minister repudiates his own child. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) says the child is not his. And we certainly know that it did not belong to the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), for he was not here. It was not the child of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), for he was on the ocean when it was conceived-he could not claim the fatherhood nor could we impute it to him. Whose child was it then? Hear what the Prime Minister said:
Now, Sir, a word as to the changes we have made in that clause. I stated the other day that we propose to make a change and we have given notice of an amendment which we intend to move to clause 16. What is the reason oi this change ? It is a fair question to ask and a question to be answered. Sir, we have taken the ground on more than one occasion, we again take this ground, and it is the ground upon which we stand in dealing with the present case, that wherever a system of separate schools exists that system comes into force and is constitutionally entitled to the guarantees which are emboided in section 93 of the British North America Act. Be that system much, be it little, whatever it is, it is entitled to those guarantees. That is the position we take and when we introduce section 16 as it is in the Bill,

That is in the original Bill.
77 we. 110 other intention than to give to the minority the .rights and privileges to which they are entitled under the law which they have to-day.
. TI*at was the position of the Prime Minister. He Intended simply to give them the rights and privileges they had under the ordinances of the Northwest. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) said practically the same thing, and I need only read a word of his statement:
In so far as I am concerned, that clause, in the terms in which it is now drafted, was prepared merely for the purpose of giving to the people of the Northwest Territories those things which they now have, and it never was intended to go one inch beyond that.
Now, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer. I do not want to become involved in a constitutional argument. But I think I have common sense enough to take issue with the Minister of Justice when he says that this clause does not go one inch further than the original clause 16. As I read it, this clause goes as far as it possibly could go to rivet on the people of those new provinces a dual system of schools for all time to come. What does it say:
Nothing in any such law

Meaning nothing in any such provincial law as the provinces might enact.
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act,
under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed in the year 1901.
Now, had the hon. gentleman drafted a clause which said :
Nothing in any such law shall affect any rights or privileges with respect to separate schools

And so on, I think he would have left the matter perhaps a good deal where it was. But he takes very good care to have the word ' prejudically ' introduced, he takes good care that no change can be made in the law of that country that would take away any of the rights or privileges which the Roman Catholics had in that country. And he is very careful to say that these privileges and rights can be added to under the provision of section 1 which I have read, the privileges which they had to establish separate schools, tax themselves on the petition of these ratepayers-that right is not to be prejudically affected. Then they were to have the right to religious teaching in their schools from half-past three to four o'clock. Is there anything in this clause that would prevent religious teaching in those schools from 9 o'clock in the morning to 4 o'clock in the afternoon ? I do not think so. I do not think that is within the four corners of the whole resolution. Certainly they could not prejudically affect the right, they could not limit it to a quarter of an hour in the afternoon. The power could be given, at any rate, if the Territories chose to use It, to have religious teaching from 9 o'clock In the morning until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Now how did it come about that this serious blunder has been made, that clause 16 as originally put in the Bill found its way there instead of clause 16 of which the right hon. the First Minister has given notice to be inserted when the Bill comes before the Committee of the Whole ? He says he did not authorize it, the ex-Minister of the Interior tells us the Prime Minister did not draft it, the ex-Minister of the Interior says he does not blame the Minister of Justice for drafting it. Who drafted it 7 Who is responsible for it ? No member of the government ? Why, they say, it was the draughtsman. They will not assume responsibility for it, because the country has condemned it, parliament has condemned it because their own followers would not agree to it.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: My hon. friend has been absent from the House so often that I suppose he did not hear the other day when I took responsibility for that clause. I drew it line by line and word by word, from beginning to end.


David Henderson: I am very glad to bear the hon. gentleman say so. But when the hon. gentleman refers to my absence from the House, let me tell him that it would be in the interest of this country if


David Henderson: he attended this House one hour to my ten. e When the hon. gentleman throws out an iD- i sinuation that I do not attend to my parlia- c mentary duties by remaining in this House, t he is making a statement that is absolutely unwarranted. He has no right to make that statement, and the hon. gentleman ought to rise to his feet and say that he only did it as a joke.	J


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend j! takes the matter very seriously, I will tell " him that I do not think he is more frequently ] absent than many other members of the f House.	c


David Henderson: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: If- the hon. gentleman makes the statement, I accept it of course.	1


David Henderson: Certainly. The hon. J gentleman does not know whether I was , here or not. Well, Sir, I think the ex-Min- j ister of the Interior told us that he did not , hold the Minister of Justice responsible for ( drafting the original clause 10. However, the hon. gentleman comes down now at this , late date and tells us that he did draft it. The ex-Minister of the Interior told us that it was a mistake of the draughtsman. Now we remember well the brilliant speech with which the right hon. the First Minister introduced this Bill to the House about six weeks ago. We remember that brilliant oration, the rounded periods, the high sounding phrases, how he denounced the national school system of the United States, and how he praised the system that was in vogue in this country-although I think the right hon. gentleman made some mistake, because in only two provinces of this Dominion can it be said that separate schools prevail. But we remember the brilliant oration with which this child of the government was ushered into existence, and how hon. gentlemen on that side of the House, including ministers of the Crown, thumped their desks, blistering their hands, and shouting themselves hoarse at the high sounding words of the hon. the First Minister. Little did they know-because they did not know it until to-day-that they were simply applauding the draughtsman, because the man who drew; that clause must have drafted the speech of the right hon. gentleman. The two are inseparable. No two men could have drafted these two documents and produced the same harmony. Therefore if the Minister of Justice drafted every word of that clause, in the opinion of this House he drafted every word of the right hon. gentleman's speech in introducing it. I think there is no getting over that. But it only shows how the government is divided. The ex-Minister of the Interior says it was the draughtsman that did it, the Minister of Justice says now that he did it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am the draughtsman.


David Henderson: The Minister of Justice is the draughtsman. Well, we are glad to know that the hon. gentleman assumes the fathership of this unfortunate child, which would not be fathered by any member of the government, was thrown overboard and destroyed. The ex-Minister of the Interior declared that he would not approve of it, other members of the government one after another declared that they did not approve of it, and at last the Minister of Justice himself was compelled to abandon his own child.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not like to give it to anybody else, as a rule.


David Henderson: Well, I think I have made that matter plain enough. I shall now proceed to deal with one other phase of the question. I may be wrong, I think I am right, I do not pretend to have the ability to draft a simple clause of an Act of parliament that would receive the commendation of the colleagues of the hon. gentleman, but I think I know something about some of the clauses of the British North America Act when I read them. It seems to me that the British North America Act in some of its provisions at least, is so plain that he who runs may read, and I am now going to give my understanding of it, not as a man versed in the law. but as a layman of, I hope, ordinary intelligence. What does the British North America Act say with regard to education ? I turn to section 93 and I read :
In and lor each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education.
Subject, &c., to certain restrictions and the reservation is where the question of remedial legislation comes in. Where is the authority for the Dominion parliament to make laws relating to education apart from remedial legislation ? The British North America Act relegates the question of education entirely to the provincial legislatures. What right has this parliament to ' interfere aqd usurp the powers of the legislatures of the provinces we are about to 1 create ? What right have we to restrict ; them in their exclusive power when the ' British North America Act plainly says * that the legislature of each province may
-	exclusively make laws with regard to edu-l cation ? No other authority has power to ; make laws in regard to education ; the
-	county council has no power to make such i laws ; the Dominion parliament has mo [DOT] power to make such laws, apart from the l reserved clause relating to remedial legis-l lation. The provincial legislature, and the
-	provincial legislature alone has the power

to regulate educational affairs. Tlien I ask : Wliy all this contention ; why are we here day after day discussing a question in which the Dominion parliament presumes to override the rights and liberties and freedom of these provinces and to take away from them the power they inherently possess to make their own educational laws ? What kind of people do we find in the Northwest Territories ? Do we find a people who are likely to submit to restriction of that kind? Sir, we find that many of them come from countries where they have been oppressed ; from Russia and other countries where they did not enjoy many liberties. They come to this liberty loving land of Canada where they were led to believe every man would have the rights of British citizenship, and all men the world over know that British citizenship means freedom; that it means something to be prized and something worth living for. We find in the Northwest Territories people from the United States and people from the province of Ontario imbued with the same ideas of freedom ; we find them coming from the British Isles to settle amongst us and are they to be told that they are not to be permitted to make laws in relation to education in accordance with the terms of the constitution that was granted to this country nearly 40 years ago ? I cannot understand why the federal government should pin itself down to legislation of this kind and refuse to a liberty loving people, breathing the free atmosphere of the open prairie, that freedom to which they are entitled under our constitution. I cannot understand why this Dominion parliament should impose this restriction upon this people, contrary to their wish and contrary to the law of the land. Not only, Sir, is it contrary to their wish, but it is contrary to the pledge that was solemnly made by the First Minister prior to the last general election, when he informed Mr. Haul-tain that if he were returned to power he would consider the granting to these Territories provincial autonomy, and not a limited self-government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to detain the House further. I feel grateful to lion, gentlemen that on the eve of the holidays they should remain here to listen to my remarks. In closing, I desire to say this : I stand by the principle of jfrovincial rights ; 1 stand for the right of these people which properly belongs to them, to ad- , minister their own affairs in every matter , that is relegated to them under the British North America Act, and amongst which is . the right to exclusively legislate on matters ] of education. We never can give these j people full provincial rights until we amend 1 the educational clause of that Bill, and with- i draw the restrictions that are sought to be ] imposed upon them. They are entitled to t the fullest self-government, and that and ] that alone will satisfy them. As a member i of this Dominion parliament, I feel that I f Mr. HENDERSON.
: have no right to withhold any power from i the people of that country which properly belongs to them. As a member of this * House representing a constituency in the province of Ontario, I have no right to withhold one jot or one tittle of the powers which the people of the west are entitled to under our constitution. I have no hesitation in saying how I shall vote. I will not have that difficulty which the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) tells us he has ; I will not have the difficulty that supporters of the government have. The exMinister of the Interior has told us :
That question which comes to every man in public life sooner or later comes to-day to a good many men in this House of Commons.
I sympathize with any man who is compelled to act contrary to his own conscientious convictions, even if he should do so for _ the purpose of saving the government which he supports. But, Sir, I have never regarded that as-sufficient reason for a man to vote against his conscience. I would rather go back to my constituents and surrender the trust they reposed in me, and tell them that if they desired a measure which I did not believe in, to become law, they should elect a man who would represent the views of the government. I shall have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by our honoured leader (Mr. It. L. Borden). We, on this side of the House are sometimes taunted across the floor, because we are not united on this question; but. Sir, I am glad that members on this side of the House realize, that with the utmost freedom they can vote according to their own conscientious beliefs. I would be the last man to ask any of my fellow members to vote against what he believed to be conscientiously right, even though his vote was directly in opposition to mine. I hold that this is the privilege of every member of this House. It is man's inherent right, his privilege at all times to be governed by his own convictions, and I say that if it ever came to this that I had to surrender principle for the sake of supporting and keeping my party in power, I would prefer to leave my party, to go out of power and to stand upon principle.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh.


David Henderson: Some lion, gentlemen say ' oh.' I have done it before, and I can, when necessary, do it again. On this occasion I am glad that I am not called upon to do anything of that kind. I am glad that my constituents are fully in harmony with the sentiments I have expressed here to-day, and I am in full harmony with the views of my constituents. I would not be executing the trust imposed on me were I. for one moment to hesitate and support the measure which is before the House. I realize that fact, and therefore it shall be my pleasant duty-I say it again, my pleasant duty-not with reluctance, not with

hesitation, not with the utmost pressure and persuasion, when the time comes for the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) to be voted upon in this House, to vote in favour of that amendment.


Mr. E. L. CASH (Mackenzie).: Mr. Speaker, as one of the representatives from the Northwest Territories in this parliament, and giving, as I am, my hearty and unreserved support to the Bill now under consideration, I desire to state to the House, in a few brief words, my reasons for the vote I shall give on this measure. The constituency which I have the honour to represent lies immediately west and to the north of the province of Manitoba. It includes that portion of the district of Saskatchewan which has not been included in the new province of Saskatchewan, and which has been strongly contended by hon. gentlemen opposite should be included within the province of Manitoba. Now, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said during this debate about extending the boundaries of Manitoba, and as any extension of these boundary lines, either westward or northward, would take in a portion of the district I represent in this parliament, I think I can fairly claim the right to say a few words on that subject, although it is a matter which has nothing to do with the Bill now before the House.
It has already been stated that the people of Assiniboia and Saskatchewan object to any extension westward of Manitoba's boundary. I can speak on this matter for the people I represent immediately to the west of Manitoba, and I am certain they strongly object to being taken into the province of Manitoba. Several reasons are given for this objection, among which are that by joining Manitoba they would have no advantage which they would not have by forming part of the province of Saskatchewan. and they would be subject to heavy taxation. By starting in as a new province they start free of debt, by joining Manitoba they would become liable to a present actual debt and a possible future liability of some $20,000,000 or $25,000,000, and they can see no good reason for assuming their share of this liability when they would not be getting any corresponding advantage. Another reason is that in Manitoba, as a rule, taxes are higher than in the Territories, and I think there is a pretty general feeling that .the government of Manitoba has adopted a policy which tends towards extravagance and recklessness, which in the near future may lead to direct taxation. Whether or not the people are justified in entertaining these views, I do not say ; but I do say that from contact with the people of my district I know that the feeling does exist, and I can only add to what other hon. gentlemen have already said on this subject, that it is too late in the day to think of increasing the size of Manitoba by taking in that part
of Assiniboia and Saskatchewan lying west of the Manitoba boundary. That Manitoba was not extended westward is not the fault of the Liberal party, but of the Conservative party. When, in 1881, the Conservative government in this country tried to include within the province of Manitoba that portion of Ontario lying west of Fort William, it was then suggested by the Liberals to Sir John Macdonald and his government that it would be wise to extend the boundaries of Manitoba westward instead of trying to obtain the portion of the territory claimed by the province of Ontario. I find in ' Hansard,' page 1445, that Hon. David Mills urged the government to extend Manitoba's boundary westward, but the Conservative government refused to do it. Mr. Mills' words are as follows
I propose that pending the settlement of the dispute between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario with reference to the western boundary of that province, the boundary of Manitoba shall not he extended eastward beyond the limit marked out by the arbitrators. The hon. gentleman (Sir John A. Macdonald) may extend the boundary westward and northward as far as he pleases.
iSo that, if there is any one to blame for the non-extension of the western boundaries, it is the party to which hon. gentlemen opposite belong and not the Liberal party.
But it is also contended that the boundary line should be extended north so as to take in that portion of Mackenzie district which lies north of Manitoba. Mr. 'Speaker, I want to enter my protest right here and now against that being done. The people in my district to the north of Manitoba do not want to go in with Manitoba. Of that I have proof, for since the publication of this Bill now before the House I have received petitions from these very people, asking that they be not put into Manitoba, but be included in the new province of Saskatchewan. It seems to me to be unwise and unjust to force these people into a political union with a province against their will, when they would prefer and have petitioned to be allowed to cast in their lot with the about-to-be created new province of Saskatchewan, with which part of the country they have heretofore been affiliated and of which they form an integral part. There are between 1,500 and 2,000 people in that portion of my riding, and I think that they are entitled to be heard on this matter and some consideration should be paid to their wishes. If Manitoba wanted an increase of territory she should have carried on her government more economically so as to make the jiroposition to join her attractive. As it is, the very reverse is the case.
Now, there is another matter I would dwell on, and that is the claim of Saskatchewan to be allowed to have a port on Hudson bay. This has already been referred to by the hon. member for Eastern Assiniboia

Thus I do not see any reason for omitting the clause relating to education in the Northwest Territories Act from any Act establishing provinces in the Northwest Territories, provided that no further powers are given. If the latter are suggested I think all friends of public edu->
cation should oppose them. If it is the intention of the Dominion government to insert any clause at all regarding education, personally I think the whole matter could be left to the provinces themselves, I am of opinion that the maximum allowed at present should remain the maximum. I have not had time to look up the bearing of the British North America Act on the question, but consider that when the Northwest Territories Act wras framed the provisions of the British North America Act were considered and their purport incorporated in the educational clause of the Northwest Territories Act. I would say, then, insert this clause if the matter from political expediency must be dealt with, if not leave the whole business to the Territories, opposing every proposition of an enactment that would subject us to the separate school system as it exists in the east.
I trust what I have written will be of some use to you, and I am much gratified by the opportunity you have given me of placing the matter before you. I regret that I have had to write in such haste.
Kindest wishes for yourself and family.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) AUGUSTUS H. BALL.
Now, from what lias been said before, and from the description given in the letter which I have just read as to the working of the present law in the Territories, I think, any reasonable man would agree with me that the present law is what we want continued when we Become a province, and we would like this to be definite and so explicitly stated in the Act and in such simple and plain language that there could be no doubt as to the meaning and interpretation thereof. So many laws are framed in such ambiguous language that no ordinary man can understand them, and as an eminent judge once informed me in regard to the working of a certain law, that no person could tell anything about it, and that it would all depend upon what judge had the last guess at it. So I consider this case. If in the constitution that is being framed for us at the present time nothing definite is laid down in regard to this matter of education, we will be like a ship without a rudder and it will require a long period of unrest, agitation and legal proceedings before we will know where we are at, and I venture to say that no man living can at present predict where we would land, but that in all probability we would find ourselves thrown back to the Act of 1875 with its dual system of education.
I am personally in favour of strictly speaking public schools, but in Mackenzie district we have Protestants and Roman Catholics, and I am satisfied that a large majority of the leaders among these people desire religious teaching in the public schools ; and I as their representative would be recreant to the trust reposed in me, if Mr. CASH.
I did not represent both sections of these people. While the Roman Catholics are in the minority, they are a very respectable minority, and I think in giving them the same privilege where they are in majority or minority, as we give the Protestants under similar conditions, we are only doing that which is fair and honourable between man and man. I therefore am heartily in accord with the educational clause of the present Bill.
One thing more, Mr. Speaker, it has been asserted over and over again, that this Bill is an interference with the provincial rights of the new province. So far as I can see, nobody is in favour of absolute provincial rights. In the Bill now under consideration, there is a more violent interference with provincial rights than is found in the educational clauses. I mean the refusal to allow the provinces to tax the Canadian Pacific Railway in violation of the exemption granted by the parliament of 1881. This is a violent interference with provincial rights, yet no one in this House or out of it, suggests that this parliament should not keep faith with the Canadian Pacific Railway. The granting of the exemption by the Conservative government of 1881 was a most unrighteous act as far as the Territories were concerned, but no one desires [DOT] to see parliament repudiate its obligations, and hon. gentlemen opposite have not raised a single howl about this interference with provincial rights. They recognize that under certain circumstances, and in the presence of certain conditions, it is not only advisable, but necessary, to make an exception to the doctrine of provincial rights, and they consider the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption as one.
The leader of the opposition suggests another violent interference with provincial rights, when he suggests that the lands be given to ' the provinces with a provision attached that the provinces shall not he allowed to deal with them as they- deem best, but that they must continue the system of free homestead grant, and be restricted in the price at which they can sell lands. Now, could there be a more gross interference with provincial rights, and not only is it an interference with provincial rights, but it is a slap at the people of the Territories ? It is simply telling them, that they are not fit to be trusted to manage their own affairs, so far as the lands are concerned. We have listened to hon. gentlemen opposite day after day, as they loudly proclaimed that the people of the new provinces were perfectly fit and entitled to manage their own affairs in the matter of education. Yet in the matter of lands, gentlemen opposite practically say this is not so. What does it all mean, Mr. Speaker ? It means that hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as hon. gentlemen on this side recognize that there are circumstances and conditions under which the

theory of provincial rights must he limited and restricted. But in the opinion of some, the educational clauses in the Bill ought not to be numbered as one of the exemptions. We, on this, claim that in so far as the clause restricts the power of the provincial legislatures to take away from the minority their right to have their children given half an hour's religious instruction in the school, which is really the only restriction, that it is not only justifiable, but is a commendable exception to the theoretical doctrine of provincial rights, and one which makes for peace, harmony and unity in our new provinces. And as parliament, in my opinion, has the power to give to these provinces whatever iconstjiltution it likes, and as we in the Territories do not want a school question for a foot-ball in provincial politics, this parliament 'ought to give us a plain and clear law which we can all understand, and which will make provision for an efficient high grade national school system, and at the same time respect the conscientious principles of the minority to have their children given religious instruction in the school. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to call the attention of the eastern members to the fact that when the Northwest began to develop, the Dominion began to prosper, and the more it developed, the more the Dominion prospered, and I believe that prosperity will continue and increase under the new constitutions about to be established, and we are anxious that nothing be done to create strife and friction among the different nationalities and religions in the new provinces, but that we be given a law in reference to education which is of our own making, and one peculiarly suited to us, and one which gives us the greatest possible freedom ; as the trustees of any district, and therefore the people who elect them have all to say whether there be any religious teaching in the school, and if there is any, whether it shall be Protestant or Roman Cathoilc.


Mr. A. A. McLBAN.: I beg to move, on behalf of the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 5.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tens day, April 25, 1905.