1905-06-07

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows :
Mr. Speaker, I beg to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General desires the Immediate attendance of your honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to the Senate chamber.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills :
An Act for the relief of Edward Norman Lewis, a member of the House of Commons.
An Act respecting the Western Alberta Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Anthracite Coal Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Owen Sound and Meaford Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.
An Act respecting the Kingston and Dominion Central Railway Company, and to change its name to ' The Dominion Central Railway Company.'
An Act respecting the Hamilton, Galt and Berlin Railway Company, and to change Us name to ' The Hamilton, Galt and Guelph Railway Company.'
An Act respecting the Montreal Bridge Company, and to change its name to ' The Montreal Bridge and Terminal Company.'
An Act respecting the Ottawa River Railway Company, and ' to change its name to ' The Central Railway Company of Canada.'
An Act for the relief of Clara Bidwell Mc-Dermot.
An Act for the relief of Jane Marie Fitz-Simons.
An Act for the relief of George Dance Harper.
An Act respecting the Kingston, Smith's Falls and Ottawa Railway Company.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial years ending respectively the 30th June, 1905, and the 30th June, 1906.

Mr. JACQUES BUREAU moved :: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 18th Report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time for receiving petitions for private Bills be suspended as regards the petition of the St. Maurice Valley Railway Company, presented 223
this day, and that the said petition be read and received forthwith.


Mr. FOSTER.: Why is this necessary ?


Jacques Bureau: A charter was obtained last year by which the company have the right to cross the St. Maurice river at Point du Chevalier. Since then they have made surveys and they wish to proceed with the construction of the road, but they find that it will be impossible-not impossible but it will cost three times the amount to cross there that it will to cross below that point, and the amendment to the Act asks leave to cross the St. Maurice river about three miles below the point indicated in the charter obtained last year. They are going on with the construction and unless that amendment is obtained they cannot cross the river and expropriate land or have the rights on that side of the river which under the charter they have on the other side for this distance! There is no objection to the Bill by any person and it does not affect any interests in the country at all. 1


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 171) to amend the Pilotage Act. He said : This is a Bill to place the pilotage of the district of Quebec, below Quebec and to the Gulf of St. Lawrence on a similar footing with the pilotage above Quebec, between Quebec and Montreal.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Foster-asked :
1.	Were tenders called for the Tignish breakwater ? If so, when ?
2.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender ?
3.	Whose tender was accepted, what was the amount of same ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: I have to inform my hon. friend that tenders have been asked for, but the contract has not yet been given, and it is not customary to give information until the contract has been awarded.


POST OFFICE AT LESSER SLAVE LAKE.
Mr.  M. S.@: MCCARTHY-by Mr. Foster-asked :
1.	When was the post office established at Lesser Slave Lake ?
2.	From what railway point are mails forwarded, what is the distance covered, and how often do these mails arrive ?


ESTABLISHMENT OF INFANTRY CORPS.
Mr. BELCOURT asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to reduce the establishment of the infantry corps throughout Canada ?
2.	If so, in what manner, and what will be the effect of such reduction ?


Mr.  M. S.@: I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt) will accept as an answer to the question the statement which Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
I read to the House yesterday, which has been published very largely in all the newspapers, and which is the best answer I can give.
' trading stamps.


Mr. MONK asked :: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation during the present session upon the subject of trading stamps ?


Hon. GHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: A Bill is being prepared, but I have not finally accepted -the terms of the Bill, as I have not been able to get access to the judgment of the court of appeal which was rendered recently affecting a . case of this description.


YUKON TERRITORY-APPOINTMENT OF MR.
Mr. THOMPSON asked :: 1.	Has Mr. F. T. Congdon been appointed legal adviser to the Yukon Territorial Council or Commissioner ?
2.	Will he be permitted, in addition, to practice his legal profession privately ?
3.	Has Mr. Congdon also been appointed a
member of the Yukon Territorial Council ? If so, in whose place ?	.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Congdon has been appointed legal adviser to the Yukon Territorial Council. He will not be permitted to practise his legal profession privately. He is not a member of the Yukon Territorial Council.



SUPPLY-HALF-BREED SCRIPT.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['']
George Eulas Foster: Just before we go into committee, I might ask the right hon. Prime Minister, in reference to the matter brought up yesterday or the day before, as to the issue of '-patents in the west to those holding half-breed scrip.


Wilfrid Laurier: Upon inquiry I am informed that three patents have been issued all told. The minister has not given any orders for the discontinuance of the same, but owing to the fact that all the available labour in the department is employed preparing information for my hon. friend no more patents have been issued.


George Eulas Foster: About what time may we expect the information and the papers that were asked for ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot say to-day. I am ,sorry to say I did not ask about that.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, it is not necessary that they should -all be brought down at once. If they were brought down as they are prepared In different sections it would answer-each section should be complete-



[Stage Direction]
that would give an opportunity for examination, but I want to say that before we go on with the estimates of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) we must have these papers, and I hope they will be expedited as much as possible.
Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


ATLANTIC AND LAKE SUPERIOR RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. H. B. AMES.: Before we go into supply, I would like to ask the -minister in whose department it lies, if we may shortly expect the return which was asked for by myself and recorded in this House on the 27th March last in reference to payments made to the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company. It is now over two months since that return was ordered and it has not yet come in.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will inquire about it.


YUKON TERRITORY.
Mr. A. THOMPSON (Yukon Territory).: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I would like, with your permission, to draw their attention for a short time to the conditions which exist and the reforms that are needed in the Yukon Territory. Before, however, going into a discussion of this question. I may be permitted to state exactly the position I occupy politically in this House. I am here Mr. Speaker as an independent, and when I say that I mean it in the broadest sense of that term ; that is, I am independent of every political party, and if we had in this House, as they have in the House of Commons in England, cross benches, I would be sitting there. At heart I am a Conservative, but I, was elected by the united support of the Conservatives and the -most influential section of the Liberal party in the Yukon, banded together under the name of the Independent Yukon party. This party, representing a very large majority of the electors of the Yukon, was successful in electing me as their representative. I, therefore, hold myself in this parliament absolutely independent, and while it is perhaps a difficult role to fulfil, I intend to follow it consistently during my term of office here.
Having said this much, which I think it is necessary to do before I go into the discussion of this question, I will now ask the House to follow me very shortly in what I have to say about the Yukon. I find, Mr. Speaker, in discussing with private members and gentlemen in this House that there is an immense dearth of information in regard to the Territory which I have the honour to represent. So much is this so that I feel it necessary to go somewhat into details that otherwise might not be necessary to give the members of this House an understanding of that country and the conditions that 2231
exist there. In -the first place, let me say that this Territory Is bounded on the south by British Columbia, on the east by the Rocky mountains and the 136th meridian, on the north by the Arctic ocean and on the west by the Alaskan boundary line from Mount St. Elias to the Arctic ocean, which was determined by the treaty of St. Petersburg in 1825 as the 141st meridian. From Mount St. Elias to the sea the boundary line, as you know and as hon. members well know, has not altogether been settled yet, and was very recently the occasion of international dispute between the British Government and the United States. The area of this Territory is 197,000 square miles, of which 151,000 square miles are within the watershed of the Yukon river. To give you an idea by comparison how large the Territory of the Yukon is, \ will just mention- and I do not want to offend my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island when I do so- that it is sixty-six times the size of Prince Edward Island. It is nine times as large as Nova Scotia, it as seven times as large as New Brunswick, it is three times as large as the New England states, it is one-third larger than the United Kingdom and about the size of France. This Territory is watered by the great Yukon river, which has a total navigable length of 2,300 miles. The St. Lawrence river system from the west end of Lake Superior to the mouth of the St. Lawrence, is 2,384 miles in length, and remember, Mr. Speaker, that the St. Lawrence is not open for a very great deal longer period during the year than is our own Yukon. The St, Lawrence river itself is 755 miles long. The total length of the Peace and .Mackenzie rivers is 2,350 miles, but there are only 1,200 miles o,f that system that are navigable. The Mississippi river is 1,330 miles long. The point I am making by these observations is that this great river, which empties into the Behring sea and drains the Yukon Territory, has a navigable length that is equalled by very few rivers on the continent of America. Two thousand three hundred miles from its mouth to Teslin lake, steamers of greater or less draught can navigate that river for five months in the year. The Yukon river was named by an officer of the Hudson Bay Company who went in there from the interior of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories in 1843.
His name was Campbell. He simply-coined the name fro-m the Indian name of the Yukon river, giving it the English ac-i cent; and sin-ce that time the river hasi -had the name of the Yukon, and the terrH lory has taken the name of the river. In-1847, the Hudson Bay Company established Fort Yukon at the mouth oif the -Porcupine river now in Alaska. In 184S, the Hudson Bay Company established -Fort Selkirk at the mouth of the Pelly -river, now in the Y'ukon Territory. This fort was destroyed by fire in 1852, but was

rebuilt by the- Hudson Bay Company in -the same year; and from that time until the -sale of Alaska to the United States the Hudson Bay Company divided with the 'Russians the whole fur trade of that country west to Behring sea. The district now 'known as Alaska, then owned by the Russians, was sold to the United States for $7,200,000 in 1867, at which time the Hudson Bay Company retired from the region, -and they have not entered it since. Gold was discovered or first mentioned in the 'English writings of the time in 1868 by a *man named Whymper, writing from Fort Yukon. In 1873, Harper and McQuesten *went into the country to trade. In 1878, the Chilcoot Pass was first crossed from the Pacific ocean by a white man going into the interior. Up to that time communication was always obtained by means of the interior river routes with British Columbia and the North-west Territories. In 1881, gold was found in small quantities in the Big Salmon river, a tributary of the Yukon. In 18S3. the United States government sent an exploratory expedition there headed by Lieutenant Schwatka. He camped where Dawson city is now situated, and photographed the slide and the mountain behind "the city. In 1885. some mining was done on the bars of the Stewart river, a tributary of the Yukon. In 1S8S. coarse gold *was first struck on Forty Mile river. In *18S7, the Canadian government sent Dr. [DOT]Dawson in with a survey party, and lie *surveyed and reported upon the Felly and Lewe* rivers. Mr. William Ogilvie, who *afterwards became the commissioner of the *Yukon, went in the same year to define the *141st meridian, which is the boundary line [DOT]between the Yukon Territory and Alaska ; and in 1888, Mr. It S. McConnell went in on an exploring expedition. For the next few years, until 1894, reports evidently reached our government that a considerable trade was growing up in the territory, and that the trading companies all belonged to the United States. In 1894, the Dominion government sent to the territory to report on its trade and other conditions Inspector Constantine, a member of the Northwest Mounted Police. Constantine found that there was a considerable trade done, estimated the value of the gold output of that year at $300,000, collected $3,248 in duties from the trading companies, and returned to Ottawa. The report of Inspector Constantine to the government was such that tliev considered it necessary to organize the territory and to send him back in the following year with a squad of twenty men of the Northwest Mounted Police, and the report says that he was to represent the Canadian government in all its functions. Mr. William1 Ogilvie went in with Inspector Constantine at that time, again to further define the 141st meridian. Hon. gentlemen will understand Mr. THOMPSON.
what a difficult task was assigned to In-f spector Constantine, and I wish here to pay a tribute to him. I do not know him, I never saw him, but he w [DOT]"'*'[DOT] indelibly on the history of that country the impress of his manhood, in giving to the miners of those early days a sample of Canadian jusn tice. They harbour nothing but the very kindliest feelings for this man Constantine.; They say that in those early days, when) he had practically the government of the whole territory in his hands, he did what everybody acknowledged to be right. This was in 1895. Everything went on as usual for another year, when something happened which electrified the world. In .Tuly on August, 1896, gold was discovered in richi quantities in a hitherto unknown and um prospected portion of that territory. Up to this time no gold had been found on the stream which has since become famous the world over, and which by the way has done its share in advertising Canada andi Canadian institutions throughout the world; *I mean the Klondike. In 1895, an intre-j [DOT]pid Nova Scotian named Robert Hender-i [DOT]son was prospecting on a stream tributary [DOT]to the Yukon, about twenty miles above *the Klondike, and found some prospects.! In the following year he crossed a small divide into the Klondike basin, and made some further discoveries, which were fairly good pay. but still not very rich. His supplies running out, he went to Forty Mila to buy more. On his way, he crossed the mouth of the Klondike river and there met an Englishman named Cormack fishing with some Indian associates. He told Cori mack of his discovery on the stream which is now known as Gold Bottom. Cormack was interested, and went with two Indians to see what Henderson had in the way ofi prospects. He was not very well satis-i fied. and came back, thinking that Hem derson had not enough gold there to make it worth his while to work it. On his way back Cormack and his two associates! stopped for lunch at midday, at a creek now know as Bonanza ; and while there,! the story is that Cormack was lying down after lunch, when one of the Indians took a frying pan. which every prospector in that country carries, and strolled down to the bench of the small stream running past them and panned some of the gravel, and) to his intense surprise discovered r nch! prospect. They dug further and found more gold. They realized that they had made a good discovery and they staked a claim in each. They immediately put off to Forty Mile, where Inspector Constantine was, recorded their claims, came back, sunk a hole to the bed rock, and found the rich pay of discovery claim on Bonanza creek, which has yielded since that time close on $2,000,000. that is. on the 1.500 feet which Cormack and his two associates) took up under the law at that time. The

miiiers of the district, when they heard of the discovery and saw the gold, rushed to the new find. They staked claims on Eldorado, Hunker and other creeks, and prospected1 during that fall and winter. They took out; some gold during the winter. Of course,' at that time they could not market it in the Yukon : they had to go to the Pacific coast they went down the Yukon river to its mouth where they took ship and went to Seattle or San Francisco, where the press agents saw the gold and heard their story.. The nress spread the report, and the world went mad. In 1897 and 1898, we had in the Klondike region one of the greatest gold rushes of modern times. People came from all over the civilized world ; Dawson citv was built in a few months ; fortunes were made and lost quickly; and from that *time to the present a steady stream of gold has come out of that country, and it will continue to come out for years to come ill we get a little help from this government *to encourage this great industry. Since 189i>. we have produced in the Yukon over $120,000,000 of gold. It is hardly possible *for the ordinary mind to grasp that fact; *but when I convert that amount into pounds or tons avoirdupois, the average mind will realize what it means when I say that it amounts to over 242 tons avoirdupois. sufficient to load twelve freight cars carrying twenty tons each, you will have *some idea of the quantity. Just now ini the library I saw in a book on metals that *gold may be drawn into a wire so fine that 500' feet of it will only weight one [DOT]grain. Well, I made a calculation, and I found that following one grain to every foot of wire, the Yrukon has produced since 1896 gold enough to encircle the globe twenty-i *nine times.


Hr. HENDERSON.: Is it not a fact that the discovery made by McCormack and his two associates was practically made in the district where Henderson discovered the course of gold, and did they not^ learn the fac-t of the course of gold being there through the information they got from him-


Alfred Thompson: I do not think my hon. friend is exactly right. I never heard that Cormaek and his associates discovered gold on Bonanza creek through any previous discovery on that creek by Henderson; but they were drawn to Bonanza by the fact that Henderson had made the discovery at Oold Bottom and it was on their return from Gold Bottom to Dawson that they made this discovery. The credit, however, is still due to Henderson of having made the first discovery of gold, although he did not find it in any such quantities as the Indians and Cormaek did. We would be derelict to our duty if we did not do something to secure in his lifetime that man Henderson in comfort. In the state of California, I [DOT]am told vou will find everywhere monuments to "Marshall who discovered gold
there in 1S49. We are now only at the beginning of the great gold output in the YYikon ; and while the Dominion government has very properly provided for Mr. Henderson by giving him a position there, the Yukon Territory must sooner or later, in some more substantial way, repay him for the great discovery he made In 1896. This territory, which I have the honour to represent, is producing more wealth to-day per head than any other section of the civilized globe. But here and throughout this country, men have formed ideas with regard to the climate there, which are entirely at variance with the facts. So much is this the case that I feel bound to refer briefly to the climate of the Yukon so as to dispel if possible some of these false impressions, and also because I am convinced that we have a country there m which profitable business will be done and gold produced for hundreds of years. My hon. friend1 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) very kindly entered into the spirit iD which I spoke to him of the agricultural fertility of that region, and he, sent out this spring some seeds for fodder parti-eularly, as well as some roots, so that we might do a little experimenting this summer and see if we cannot raise some of the fodder and other things which we are now importing at great expense. Hay and oats, when I left the Yukon, were selling at six cents per pound or $120 per ton, and they fetch nearly these same prices throughout tne entire year. To show you that the request I made to the Minister of Agriculture to send seeds to the Yukon was a very reasonable one, I shall briefly refer to the report of Mr John Macoun, assistant director and naturalist of the Geological Survey, who gave evidence before the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization in 1903. Mr. Macoun said :
What an official visit to the Yukon revealed.
Last year our acting director, by direction of the Minister of the Interior, suggested that I should go and examine the Yukon country for the government, and I went. I would not go from here until late in June, for the reason 'that I had been in northern countries, and I told our director : I am only going to waste my time by going so early, for nothing can be growing.' I did not leave until the latter part of June, and I reached Dawson on the 10th July last year.
Mr. Macoun had previously said that Dawson is over 20 degrees north of Ottawa.
When I reached there I found red currants, blueberries and strawberries perfectly ripe on the hillsides on the 10th of July. Well, of course I was more than astonished. There is a rose that grows there that we know as rosa acicularis, and on the 3rd of June last year I found it with the first flower expanded at Aylmer, Quebec, nine miles from Ottawa. It happened that Mr. Tyrrell's brother, James Tyrrell, was out on the hillside at Dawson on the 2nd of June, and he found the same species in flower there, one day earlier than it was

here. To me it was an enlightenment. I had gone there with preconceived opinions of what I had heard, and this was a revelation indeed. I want to show you gentlemen what the flowering of that rose here and at Dawson meant. The same amount of heat had to be poured down on both districts to produce like results. "When I reached the country I found the rose hips red and getting ripe when I thought they would be only starting to bloom. That gave me something to think about, and I turned to Mr. Tyrrell and said :	' Mr. Tyrrell, what is
the cause of this flower blooming earlier here than in Ottawa ? ' Here is his answer. He said : ' Mr. Macoun, it is the long day and the great jamo/unt of sunlight.' X said : ' You, Mr. Tyrrell, were up at Chesterfield Inlet, on Hudson bay, and found plants that indicate perpetual frost, and still you were not as far north as here. If it was the sunlight, why does it not at Chesterfield Inlet as it does here ' You see, the matter was simple. I was not going to accept this man's dictum or that man's dictum ; I knew that for every effect there was a cause. Let me go back to the coast now, and we will see what I am talking about. On the coast from below Wrangel, that is down near the border of British Columbia. the great glaciers come down from the mountains to the sea, and as you go up Lynn canal the mountains come down to the sea, and you will see the glaciers starting at the mountain summits and coming down to the sea, and actually flowing into it. If you look at the map you will see that all the coast range from Wrangel northward is very high, and in all the bays and inlets there is much ice, and glaciers of immense size enter the sea. There is a great tract of country there under great glaciers and partly covered with eternal snow. In this region rise Mount Elias, Mount Logan, Mount Fairweather, rising between 16,000 and 20,000 feet above the sea. WelL the people coming up the coast believe the interior is like that, and from the erroneous opinions "which have prevailed, but here is the remarkable fact, that no glacier ever was at Dawson, that Dawson has never been covered with an ice cap as it has been here, that no one of our geologists has ever discovered glacial action at Dawson or within 200 miles, or I may say within 300 miles, of that place.
The wondrous shelter belt that protects Dawson.
1' stood at Dawson and turned south, and I found by the map that this mass of mountains towering 20,000 i'eet into the air covered with glaciers and constant snow lay between Dawson and the sea. Now, we know that the Pacific in that part and northward is almost constantly covered with fog, and the atmosphere is at the point of precipitation, and as that moisture comes into contact with these mountains, it comes down in snow, causing the glaciers. The air passing over the mountains, relieved of its moisture, descends on the plain in the interior, as a dry warm wind. This is the result of two causes, the want of moisture and friction caused by the descent of the air to the plain. So that if you wish to call it so, the conditions at Dawson are those of a perpetual Chinook in the summer time.
That will be a revelation, I am sure, to non. gentlemen. He goes on with a lengthy report with which I shall not trouble the House except to give a couple of extracts : Mr. THOMPSON.
Spring may be said to open towards the end ot April, the last zero temperature of winter occurring about the 5th of April.
That is better than Ottawa.
May with an average temperature of 44 degrees is by no means unpleasant. The 23rd May is the average date of the last frost in the spring.
I- am sure that is a revelation to hou. gentlemen.
Observations of rain and snow have until the close of last summer been very fragmentary, but it is probable that the summer rainfall near Dawson is usually between 7 and 9 inches, and that the total snowfall of autumn and winter is between 50 and 60 inches. Dawson being situated near the river with high hills or mountains on all sides, is well protected from the winds, and a feature of the town, and indeed of the neighbouring country, is the long periods of calm weather which occur.
l'ou see, Sir, Mr. Macoun was sent specifically for this purpose, so that his report is more valuable than any verbal report could possibly be.
I examined the gardens in the valley of the Klondike and the Yukon, early in July, and found everything growing luxuriantly and wonderfully vigorous. On the 5th August I examined the gardens in the Klondike, and I have that noted in my book for future reference. I found cabbage cut then, that on weighing were found to be from 3 to 5 pounds weight ; these were being sold in the city.
Potatoes had also grown ; in fact everything was growing beyond anything I had ever seen here.
Speaking of wheat, he said :
I took a couple of heads and sent them to the experimentalist at the Government farm here who has charge of the seed germinating process, and he sent me the report that he had planted one hundred grains. The whole hundred grains grew and made a remarkably vigorous growth ; in other words there was not a weak seed in the lot, and there "was not a failure, and what was more they vegetated very quickly.


Mr.   POSTER@: 
George Eulas Foster: Is there any way of knowing when these two cold days come ?


Alfred Thompson: No, but I can tell nay-lion. friend that he may toe cock sure they will come. But when they do come, it is not half as cold there as it is here with the same temperature, because there we have practically no moisture in the air, and it is not much colder at 60 degrees there than it is at 45 degrees here, so far as human endurance goes.
Agriculture is the chief occupation, and cattle breeding. In 1897 they had 243 thousand horses, 549 thousand cattle and 419 thousand sheep. Government has, from 150 to 200 factories of woollen and linen fabrics, soap, leather, candles, glass, iron foundries, brick kilns, distilleries and salt works, and it supports a population which, in 1897, was 1,365,587 souls. Latitude 6165 north. English settled in Vologda in sixteenth century, and it was a great centre of trade.
And, Mr. Speaker, that province of Vologda, in northern Russia, in practically the same latitude as our Yukon territory, has to-day a population of 1,161,000 souls, and if a province can do that in Russia our province can successfully do it in Canada. He makes one practical remark here :
To-day it may well be characterized by the term which has been employed in connection with the Mackenzie basin, a portion of ' Canada's great reserve.'
I will not trouble the House with an-more from Dr. Dawson, but his opinion i: concurred in toy Professor Macoun. But want to refer to one paragraph used by an other gentleman, just as competent t< speak upon the climatic conditions of th. Yukom I refer to Dr. Sturmvt. whose office js in Toronto, and who is the head of tin Meteorological Survey of Canada. H< gives a very fitting answer to those whe have erroneous views with regard to tin v\ intei in the Yukon, for he savs :


Alfred Thompson: 


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: Is it cold when you have an election there ?


Alfred Thompson: Yes, we had a memorable election there last December, when it proved extremely cold for some people. We have very little snow there. When I left there on the 15th February, we had about eight inches of snow, and that represented all the snow that fell up to that time. We have no thaws at all in winter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn your attention to some methods of mining. The great industry in that territory is placer mining, and I would like to refer to the methods used in extracting the gold from the gravels of the Yukon. Gold is found as dust or nuggets. Gold dust ranges from the finest gunpowder up to sawdust, and from that on. It is graded in nuggets that weigh from a few pennyweights up to several ounces. But the great majority of the gold is won in dust, what is called dust, but it is like coarse gunpowder. This gold is found in gravel. This auriferous gravel overlays a very large area of territory. It is covered bv a vegetable sediment which miners call muck, a sort of tolack clay. Beneath the gravel is a bed rock. There are hill gravels and creek gravels; but in a general way you find first of all muck, next gravel, next bed rock. The richer portion of the pay is usually found iii the lower part of' the

gravel overlaying the bed rock. The miner cuts a hole in this muck or black clay, with an axe down to the gravel. Then he piles cordwood over the whole, sets the wood on fire, for this muck and gravel is frozen down to the bed rock. He sets the wood on fire, thaws some of the gravel, hoists it out, puts in another fire, and repeats that operation until he gets to bed. rock. When he gets to bed rock he tunnels by some process east or west, north or south, taking up the gravel by that means. He hoists it up and in winter time, usually piles it in a dump, and leaves it until it thaws in the spring. That was the primitive method used in the Yukon, and it is the method largely used now. There is another method, however, and that is by using steam power. The miner sets up a small boiler and conveys the steam through pipes and rubber tubes to a machine which he calls a ' point ' which he drives into this bank of gravel. He turns on the steam, and thaws the gravel for four or five feet, and is thereby enabled to take out more gravel in a given time than by thawing with wood. He hoists this up with a steam hoist, dumps it by a self-dumper into a dump, which is of a conical shape, and one sees these rise all over the country in the winter time. There is another method used in the summer time, and that is a steam shovel, such as is used in a railway cutting. The shovel raises the gravel and throws it into a washer, where at is put through a series of washings to extract the gold. Still another method is by the use of hydraulic power, where the water is thrown under great pressure against a bank with a force of two or three hundred pounds, dislodging a large quantity of gravel. The methods of washing the gold are practically the same, that is, it is done in accordance with the laws of gravity. Gold being of greater specific gravity than any other metal, it sin'-'- at almost the point where it is thrown into the sluice box. These sluice boxes are placed along the claim, and a stream of water is poured through them, now the gravel is thrown into the box. and the water rushing through that box carries away the gravel and leaves the gold. That principle Is the one which you will find throughout the whole of the industry, the gold is separated by its own specific gravity. In this sluice box, which is about a foot wide, there are what they call riffles. These are small poles in the bottom of the box between which the gold naturally falls. The large pieces of gravel are run off by the water, the small pieces of gold sink down in the interstices be-ween these poles. To make these riffles they use railway rails, rocks and small round spruce poles. Now you can understand, Mr. Speaker, how important it is that we should have plenty of water in this industry. For the miner, water is a prime essential in the Yukon. Without
water the miner cannot extract the gold in any paying quantity. Wood is also a very important article, and we are having a railway built in there now. and I expect *to see a larger quantity brought in there than has been for two or three years past, because this railway is opening up large tracts of wooded land from which we could not formerly get wood on account of the expense of hauling. I have thought fit to go somewhat into detail in this matter so that hon. members of this House would appreciate the requests I have to make and the explanations to which I may refer to later on. We are a territory and as such we must come to this federal parliament for absolutel5' everything pertaining to our territory and to our one industry. This parliament and this parliament alone can give us the things that we need to foster and encourage this industry of ours.
I wish to refer briefly to some things which we need and to some things -which parliament can give. The first and foremost need, the foundation, in fact of the industry in the future, is a code of mining laws. Up to the present time we have had no laws in the sense that we make laws in this House ; this industry of ours has been governed and guided by regulations which have passed during all the years for laws. These regulations are passed by Order in Council and have the effect of laws passed by parliament except that they are changeable by the same body that made them, the Governor in Council, and not by parliament. I need not tell you how important it is that any industry, if it is to thrive, must have for its foundation a stable set of laws, and I know it has been found difficult to compile these regulations and formulate them into laws. I also am convinced that they are considering this matter, that successive commissioners have considered the matter, but it is still in abeyance, we still have our regulations and we have no laws. To show you that what ,1 am talking about is not a political question but a question far above the plane of politics so far as the Yukon Territory is concerned, I shall refer briefly to the acceptance of my predecessor, the present Senator J. IT. Ross which he sent to his constituents in the Yukon when he ran for Parliament. It will be remembered that Mr. Ross was our commissioner there previous to the time he ran for parliament. He said :
I was engaged in an endeavour to revise and codify not merely the mining laws, but all the laws applicable to the Yukon when my illness interrupted the work.
Unfortunately it did.
I think this work most essential in order that the laws may be fixed, clear and certain. With respect to the mining laws I propose to have them codified and then submitted to representative miners for criticism, alteration and approval in order that they may, as -far as pos-


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Might I ask the hon. gentleman whether it is the circumstance that the regulations are temporary in their nature, made by the Governor in Council or is it the imperfect character of the regulations which is complained of, or both ?


Alfred Thompson: It is really both, but the one thing of all to which we really object is the instability of those laws, the fact that they have prevented from coming to our territory capital that otherwise would have come. You cannot get capital invested in this country or any other country unless you have for that capital a set of sound and just laws.


Mr.   I@: Are these regulations changed with considerable frequency ? Have many changes been- made from time to time in them so that you do not l'eally know what laws to expect in the immediate future ?


Alfred Thompson: In reply to that it is only fair to say that they have not recently been often changed. I do not know that they have recently been changed at all, but in the early days of the camp when the eyes of the world were directed to that spot, when capital sought investment there they were changed and they were changed to the detriment of the territory. Latterly they have not been changed as frequently, I do not know that they have been changed at all, but the fact remains that if you take a Klondike proposition to a capitalist in this or any other country, the first thing he will ask is :	What is your title ; have you a
stable title or not ? and whenever he sees the title we have to a placer claim in the Y'ukon he says : I cannot afford to take the risk ; there are other countries, there are situations even in Canada where I can get an investment under a more suitable set of laws. That is the one difficulty. I wish, and the people of the Yukon wish, that these regulations. many of them good, the majority of them good, shall be incorporated in an Act of parliament passed by this House, and thereby become law which cannot be changed except by this House. Then the people of the Yukon will feel that underlying this one great industry of ours we have a stable and just set of laws upon which the future of the country is based, and under which I have no doubt and they have no doubt we shall progress.


George Eulas Foster: Are all those regulations made at Ottawa or are there some of them that are made by the commissioner or assistants in the Yukon itself ?


Alfred Thompson: All these regulations are made here at Ottawa, and before I sit down here I am going to submit that this parliament should give us the right to make our own mining laws. At the present time Mr. THOMPSON.
they are made here in Ottawa. We have no power in the Yukon to make or to change those laws. To show you how jealously this privilege is guarded by other provinces which had the status of provinces previous to their entry into confederation, I shall refer you to the provinces of British Columbia and Nova Scotia. Do you suppose that when British Columbia entered into confederation she would give to the federal parliament one jot or tittle of her right, to make her own mining laws ? Not much. Do you suppose that when Nova Scotia entered confederation she would give this federal government one right, even the smallest right to change her mining laws ? No, Sir. She jealously guarded these for herself, she kept them and she has evolved year after year a system of mining laws which is suitable to her but which might not be suitable to this province or to Ungava or to Mackenzie or to British Columbia. The point is that every province and territory has distinctive conditions which make it imperative that mining laws should be made for that territory or province and for it alone. There may be great principles that underlie the mining business, but in de- , tail the laws must be worked out for each section of the country. This is not a political question with us in the Yukon. Every man in the Yukon, whether Conservative or Liberal, is unanimous upon this question, that these laws should be incorporated finally in an Act of parliament and made unchangeable except by parliament. Previous to their final passage they should be taken to the Yukon and submitted to the people there who were earning their living by taking gold from the ground. They should be submitted to these people and their best opinion with regard to what is best for that territory should be obtained. A few days ago I had the opportunity of speaking here with the premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Mr. Murray, upon this question. I knew that in Nova Scotia they have some good mining laws, and I said to him : How did you evolve this system of laws ?
His answer contains exactly the germ of the idea which I have in respect to the people of the Yukon Territory. Speaking in regard to the coal mining industry, which I will take for the purpose of the illustration, he said :	It has taken us years to evolve
these laws and to bring them to a condition in which they are satisfactory to the coal miners of Nova Scotia. I said :	How did
you do it ? He said :	We asked the coal
miners to meet us in convention ; that is to send their representatives to meet us- speaking of the government-and we would send our representatives to meet them, and they would sit at a table and discuss this question, exchange ideas and come to some general understanding which would be incorporated into an Act of the legislature. Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that that is sound, that there is no better method of arriving at the best

ideas to incorporate into a mining code than that very same method and that is what I am asking this government to do-to send a man to the Yukon Territory. Let me say that I have discussed this question with the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) and he has entered into the spirit of it. X feel that in this matter I have a duty to perform and I wish to discuss this and other questions in the fullest and freest manner. What I want the government to do is to send a man to the Yukon Territory, there to investigate the conditions underlying this industry, who will consult the men producing gold, who will get their ideas, who will consult with the members of the Yukon Council, our legislature there, and from all these sources compile information which he can bring down here and incorporate into a set of laws which will be passed by parliament, which will stand for years to come for the Yukon Territory and which will more than anything else help us to get capital to develop the industries of that country. So much for the mining laws.
Mr. Speaker, there is another question that affects ns and affects us very materially in the Yukon, and that is the export tax on gold. Originally we had1 to pay ten per cent royalty to the Canadian government on every dollar's worth of gold over $5,000 which was produced by any individual in the Yukon Territory. That was an exorbitant tax, so great a tax that there are few industries and few countries in the world which could live under it, and rich and all as was the Yukon, it became in time too great a drain. The government reduced it to five per cent, cut it in two, with the same exemption of $5,000. This went on for some time and then, when my predecessor the Hon. Mr. Boss was commissioner, or shortly after, the royalty was removed and an export tax of 24 per cent was placed on the output with no exemption. Every dollar of gold that is now produced in the Yukon pays 21 cents to the federal government.


George Eulas Foster: That is exported.


Alfred Thompson: Exported from the Y'ukon ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Alfred Thompson: But exported into Canada as it should be and as I am going to show. That is the point ; it must be exported to Canada. Why should we pay duty on gold going into Canada ? How'ever, I will discuss that later on. This export tax is 21 per cent and it covers the whole product. Now, Mr. Speaker, a few' years ago, when we were producing from $20,000,000 to $22,000,000 annually in gold, when the camp was prosperous, 2j cents on every dollar's worth of gold produced was not excessive; the burden was easily borne, and if these conditions existed to-day the people would
not object, but unfortunately, times have somewhat changed. Our output has fallen to $10 000,000 a year and yet an output of $10,000,000 a year is producing more gold and more wealth per head than any industry is producing in any other country in the world. But, I say that this export tax is pressing to-day a little more hardly upon us than it did four or five years ago. We in the Yukon do not object to taxation. We know it is necessary to be taxed in order to keep up our government, but I submit this proposition that in view of what the Yukon has paid to the federal treasury since 1S96, in view of the advantage to Canada of the Yukon to-day in the way of a market it would be wise and expedient for the Canadian government to remit for a term of years this tax of 24 per cent on every dollar of gold taken out. T have asked the Prime Minister to abolish it completely and he says he cannot ; but if you will not abolish it completely, remove it for ten or even five years until the enterprises there begin operating and until our gold output is on the up grade again which it will be in a very few years. At the present moment, although we are producing this $10,000;000 a year, these, comparatively speaking, are lean years, and it is during these lean years that we require relief. Bemove it for three years if you like and it will be an assistance. Last year this tax gave the government $250,000. We produced approximately $10,000,000 in gold. What is a quarter of a million of dollars to a government like ours whose income is $60,000,000 a year and whose income very shortly will toe. $100,000,000 a year, because there is no doubt in my mind that the progress that we have started on in Canada will not stop until the income of the government is away beyond $100,000,000 a year. Here is a territory that is struggling along and while a quarter of a million does not make much difference to the government of the Dominion it makes an enormous difference to the people of the Yukon, and so I ask, that, if this tax cannot be abolished, it be remitted for a term of years or until we get on the up-grade again in the output of gold. What do they in the great republic to the south of us ? Do they tax gold ? No. And remember we are lying side by side w'ith the district of Alaska, the people of which are engaged in the same business we are in, in placer mining, and their government does not put one cent of a tax upon the output of gold. Further than that they give a larger claim in Alaska than we do. The result is that we find that our miners are being drawn off to the district of Alaska where they can get a larger claim and where they can mine their gold without a cent of taxation. You all can understand how that will militate against the progress of the Yukon.
We have very nearly paid our way since 1896. If the Yukon field force charge and

the Mackenzie & Mann charge were taken from the charges against the Yukon up to the end of June, a year ago now-I am speaking from memory and I am not quite sure of the facts-our accounts would very nearly be square. If I remember correctly at that time we had overdrawn, so to speak, or we had cost the federal treasury more than we had paid in $1,200,000. It cost the Dominion government $750,000 to put the Yukon field force there and it cost $450,000 to settle the Mackenzie & Mann hill. Add these together and they make $1,200,000, and I think I am correct when I say that If you remove these two items up to that time we had almost paid our way. It may be asked how the government would be repaid if this tax were removed. Well, they would be repaid in the very best manner possible for Canada ; they would be repaid in trade and commerce. We would have in that country, instead of the few thousand people that we have to-day, with some of these restrictions removed, a large influx of miners. The country would go ahead, we would consume more Canadian products which would be a good thing for Canada, and although the government would not get the direct taxes that are paid today, indirectly, Canadian producers would get larger prices and sell larger quantities of Canadian goods in the Yukon.
If that is not done I have another proposition to make and it is this, and I submit to the people of Canada that it is a reasonable one. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) asked a moment ago if that was an export tax. Strictly speaking, this tax of 2J per cent on our gold is not an export tax, because the gold should not be exported out of Canada but it should be brought here to Ottawa.
If you will not take the export tax off the gold going out of the territory, then put it on the gold going into the United States, so that all our gold will be retained in Canada, instead of going across the line to build up American cities, as it is doing today. Of the $120,000,000 of gold produced in the Yukon Territory since 1896, I venture to say that not more than $20,000,000 has been left in Canada, while $100,000,000 has gone to the United States. That gold should be kept in this country.
Another obstacle, though rather a small one, to the progress of this work, is the assessment work required on the claims. At the present time a miner has to do $200 worth of work on his claim to keep it for a year. He does not object to that; but in addition he has to pay the government $2 to get from the government official a certificate that the work has been done. This is only a small matter, and yet it retards the industry that much. I would ask the government to let the requirement of $200 of assessment work stand as it is, but to remove this $2 certificate fee ; and if it is necessary to have a certificate, let the gov-Mr. THOMPSON.
ernment official go to the claim and give the miner a certificate there, instead of requiring the miner to come to the government office, as he has to do at the present time, and take two witnesses with him, to have the assessment work recorded.
Before I left the Yukon I called a convention of the miners, and asked them to give me as nearly as possible a statement of some of the more essential things which they thought were required for the Y'ukon, and they did so. It was held at Gold Bottom on the 11th of February, four days before I left. This is one of the things they asked : that the certiefiates of work fees be abolished, and that license fees be reduced to $5. This refers to the abolition of these certificates. The license fee at that time was $7.50. 1 am glad to say that when I submitted this to the Prime Minister, who was Acting Minister of the Interior when I arrived, with other things which I submitted to him in a memorandum, he saw the force of this suggestion, and at once had this fee reduced to $5, something which the people of the Yukon appreciate very much. It was also decided that creek claims should be increased to 500 by 2,000 feet, hillside claims to 500 by 1.000 feet, and all others 500 by 500 feet, with four jjosts. These are larger claims than we have in the Yukon at the present time. We have claims of 250 feet up and down the creek. The gold is usually found in creek bottoms, which are from 50 feet to a quarter of a mile or more in width, and the hillsides adjoining the creeks very often contain deposits of gold. The present creek claim is 250 feet by 2,000, 1,000 feet on each side of the base line. The miners ask that it shall be 500 feet by 2,000 feet, double the size. That may seem, to gentlemen acquainted with placer mining, rather large ; and on a rich creek it would be large. But we have creeks that are not as rich as Eldorado and Bonanza, creeks on which machinery has to be placed before the gold can be extracted ; so that if a man has a claim of only 250 feet, all he has after his operations is his mining machinery and a small bank account, if he is not in debt. If he had 250 feet more, in many instances he would have a comfortable nest egg left. The reference to four posts is to obviate litigation, which has been the curse of that country. Fractional claims have cost that country perhaps more than any other one thing in connection with the delimitation of claims. If a man has to place a post at every corner of his claim, there will be no doubt where the end or side lines are, and a great deal of the litigation of the past will be obviated, I hope, in the future. In regard to leaseholds, it was decided that the present system is good enough, with the addition of the absolute right to renew. This shows that we do not kick at everything. At the present time the gold commissioner, who is the head of our mining court, may

under the regulations, though I do not know that he has ever done it, refuse to a man the right to renew. In the matter of grouping, it was decided that the requirements of representing the groups should be that the representation work must he such as will work to the development of the whole group. The law now allows us to group eight claims and do the work on any one.
I think as a principle that is very good ; but the work done on this one claim should be done with a view to develop as much as possible the whole eight. A miner was considered as entitled to have the right to abandon one claim and resume all rights upon that creek or in that district. That is, if he locates a claim, and finds, after prospecting, that it is no good, he wants to have the privilege of giving that claim back to the government, to whom it -would probably be of more use than to him. The Yukon regulations regarding tailings, tunnelling, drainage. &e., should be amended to include the British Columbia laws of 1901, section 48. I am a layman, so far as -the legal profession is concerned, and I am not prepared to discuss this question from a legal standpoint ; but men who have studied them say that they have good regulations in British Columbia in reference to this, and I think it would be wise to incorporate them in our code. It was decided to adopt the^ Northwest Territories Irrigation Act. Water is the great desideratum in the Yukon. It is necessary to have water and at low cost, to mine'these gfavels. Our water is gradually being pre-empted by speculators applying for water rights. I am not very well acquainted with the Northwest Irrigation Act; but, as I understand it, it is this. Where water is available for irrigation purposes, a man is not given the right to take water from a certain stream to irrigate a certain piece of land, unless he proves to the Minister of the Interior that he is a bona fide investor, that he has the capital to carry out his scheme, and that when it is carried out, it will be not only good for him, but good for the surrounding country. What we really want in the Yukon is to make it impossible for these speculators to get these water rights and hold them.


George Eulas Foster: Is that largely done now ?


Alfred Thompson: It was done considerably last summer. Of course, it is permitted by law and is perfectly legitimate, and last summer when people saw, as they have been seeing for some years, that water has become very valuable, some speculators covered many of these water rights for a term of years, rendering it impossible for other men, who might toe bona fide investors, to get these water rights, which are becoming of greater value year by year.
(Mr. AMES. By what authority are the water rights issued ?	,


Alfred Thompson: 3y the Gold.Commissioner in Dawson. I am not positive whether they have to he referred to the Minister of the Interior or not, but I do not think so. I think the Gold Commissioner in Dawson has the absolute right to accept or refuse.


Mr. BELCOURT.: Under regulations.


Alfred Thompson: Of course. These -regulations to which I have referred are operating iu the Yukon and are sent to our Gold Commissioner, who is head of our gold court there ; but I am just giving parliament the ideas of the miners themselves, in convention assembled, of the things they need :
It was considered the prospector should be allowed to take and hold ground for ninety days by prospecting continuously without recording.
The prospector is the man to whom we owe that $128,000,000 in gold. If he had not preceded the population, we would not have a Klondike or a Yukon, and it is necessary, in order that further discoveries may be made, to encourage the genus prospector. Unfortunately, he has, to a very large extent, left and gone to other fields. He is a migratory man always, in every country, but I am anxious we should do everything .possible to retain that class of men. He is a man who will take upon his back food for a few days, a frying pan, a shot gun, a little ammunition, and go out in the wilderness and prospect there day after day and week after week until his food supply runs out. Then he will come in for more and go out again. It seems to toe a fever ; there is a strange fascination for these men to go out and discover new gold districts. I am anxious that we should make things as easy as possible for the prospector and give greater inducement to him to go and discover new fields. For. in that vast territory, there may be a hundred IClondikes. It will be strange if there are not other deposits of gold there, because we are right in the auriferous belt, which runs from California to Cape Nome. Take a map of the western section of this continent and lay a ruler upon it, and you will he surprised to find that from California to British Columbia, to Yukon and Cape Nome, is almost a straight line due north, showing that we are really in the auriferous belt, and that further discoveries may he made at any moment in the Yukon. It therefore occurred to me that it might be possible for us to aid the prospector in this way. First, charge him no fees. Give him au absolute free claim from the time he stakes until he sells. Make the man who buys pay ; but so long as the prospect is held by the individual prospector himself, give him a free claim without royalty or fee of any kind. More than that, if the prospector should discover a new creek, that creek immediately becomes a revenue bearer to the government. Claims are staked on it. In

order fqr a man to .hold a claim he must first buy a license, which costs $5. To that we do not object. We ask the government to protect us, and are willing to pay for the protection. We do not object to the $5 for a mining license, and in order that a man may hold a claim he must have that license. But I would not have the prospector charged for fees or mining license or any royalty on his claims. All the other miners, however, who came after him and staked upon the creek he discovered would have to pay to the government the usual fees ; and I submit it would be good policy to give the prospector half those renewal fees for a term of years, or say until he has a bonus of $10,000. How would that work out ? At present that country which he is prospecting does not give the government a cent, but the moment he makes a discovery the government begins to get returns. Is it not fair then that the government should, for a term of years, divide those returns with the prospector who made it possible for them to get anything ? I am not wedded to this, but wish to do something that will induce the prospector to go out into the wilderness ; >and in the absence of anything else, I have thought out this scheme. The first year he gets nothing, the government gets -it all, because it might be a fake discovery, and I would not encourage that. Another thing, if a man holds a claim and has to put on his representative work and wants to renew at the end of the year, that costs $10. I do not object to that. The first year the prospector gets nothing ; the second year, if the claims are no good, these men who hold them will not renew them, but if they are good they will renew them, and the prospector would get half these renewals until he gets a cash bonus of $10,000. That is one method of helping the prospector and inducing him to go into the country and discover and open up large areas.
It was decided we need mining inspectors, hut that they bo elected by the miners on each creek, and that the Mounted Police do the desired work formerly done by the inspectors.
All the inspectors except two were discharged last fall, and the miners think that others should be elected. Their idea is to elect them as is done in Australia and some other country. These men get together and elect the man they think most suitable to inspect their claims. That is a matter I suggest in passing, to the government.
It was decided that all royalty or export tax be abolished and the British Columiba Hydraulic Lease Law should he adopted.
They are a unit on the question of abolishing the export tax. Formerly, where it bore only on the rich man who produced $5,000 and over, but now it bears upon the poor man. It bears upon every dollar you raise from the ground, and that is why it is so obnoxious. We would be willing, in anv event, that it should be remitted for a term Mr. THOMPSON.
of years, if not permanently. One of the things that occupy our attention in the Yukon individually and collectively is the lien law. iltn that country, where labour is valuable, a workable lien law is very desirable. We found it very difficult indeed to frame a lien law that would be workable. We did frame one and passed it through the Yukon Council, but the court decided it was ultra vires. The only thing for us to do then is to ask this parliament to pass a lien law which will be operative in the Yukon. The difficulty is this. As I understand the principle of such a law. it applies against the labour of a man who is working upon something and making it more valuable toy his labour. The product of his labour, so to speak, is attached by a lien law. But in the Y'ukon the thing is unfortunately reversed, and the man's labour decreases the value of land upon which be operates. These men work all winter, the dumps of gravel are washed up in the spring and their contents reduced to a very small quantity, and it is very easy to convey that from the claim. The consequence is the miner who had worked many weary months when he goes for his pay finds that there is no pay for him and that the claim perhaps does not even belong to the man for whom be worked. It is most unsatisfactory. A lien law which would enable- a lien to be put upon the gravel in the dump seemed to be the only way out of the trouble. We did that, but, as I say, the courts decided that it was ultra vires. The title we have from the government is only a lease-holder's title, and we could not attach a lien to this lease-hold, because it bad to be renewed year after year and at best was only a leasehold. I submit this to the government for their consideration, and hope that they will solve the problem for us.
Now, I wish to refer very briefly to one of the most important problems we have to face and that is the disposition of our gold. We have one product in the Yukon for export and that is the gold-absolutely we have nothing to export except the bullion. Therefore it is important to us that we should get the full value of our product when we market it. Gold fluctuates very little in value and its difference in value in different places is very little. Allowing for charge of transportation, it has the same value whether in the Yukon, in London or in South Africa. This being the ease, the miner should get as near that fixed value; as possible. He should not be under the necessity of selling his gold as if it were cord-wood, or hay or any commodity whose value fluctuates. At the present time, be sells bis gold to the banks ; and the banks make a profit on every ounce-and in some cases they make a fairly good profit. I do not want to say anything against the banks ;-they have done a good work for that country, but they are making too much money out of our gold. What do other

countries do ? They buy the gold. The United States government buys all the gold that comes to them ; and so does the British government and the French government. And I believe that Russia and Australia do the same. And Canada should do the same. There is no reason why our Canadian government should not buy every ounce of gold we produce in the Yukon. It is a pretty good thing to have a few millions of gold lying around, whether for a country or for a man.
Just in passing, let me congratulate Canada on the fact that she is going to have a mint. I do not know of any one thing that the Canadian government has done in the last decade which will have a more widespread or more beneficial effect upon the world at large regarding Canada and upon Canada herself than the fact that we are to coin our gold. I do not believe it is possible for a nation to do anything that more clearly gives it the stamp of nationhood than the issue of its own gold coins. I do not believe that the Transvaal republic did anything in the course of its career that did as much to give it a standing amongst the nations of the world as the minting of its own gold coins. Mr. Speaker, I shall never forget the moment when, in London, I saw for the first time an Australia sovereign. That coin told me more about Australia than a hundred bank notes could have done. It told me that Australia had a civilization ; that she produced her own gold, and coined her own money, -and stood upon her feet in financial affairs. I am sorry that Canada had not a mint years ago. I believe we would have had it years ago if the banks were not opposed to it. Of course, they are opposed to it. for every five-dollar gold piece in circulation means one less five-dollar note to put out by the banks. I am glad that the Finance Minister was able to tell us that the foundation for the mint was already laid and that shortly we shall have it in operation. In California to-day it is difficult to get paper money-I speak particularly of San Francisco. Go into a business house in San Francisco and ask for paper money, and they begin to wonder where you have come from. They say : We do not use paper money ; we are afraid of it : we have the gold. In England they have comparatively little paper money-the smallest is the five-pound note. The money of the common people is the gold. Let us have fewer five-dollar bills and in their place our own five-dollar gold pieces. I do not know how it is with others, but I certainly feel richer with a twenty-dollar gold piece than I do with a twenty-dollar bill. Australia had a mint in Sydney as early as 1855, and another in Melbourne in 1872 and another in Perth in 1897. And even Newfoundland has had a two-dollar gold coin for years. Yet, Canada, though the premier colony and the brightest gem in
the British crown has no gold coin of her own. Our mint is not yet ready. But we in the Yukon are ready ; we are producing $10,000,000 or 811JXI0,000 of gold a year. -and we have to sell it to the United States. Why should it not come here to Ottawa ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear. hear.


Alfred Thompson: Now, I have a proposition to make to the government. Suppose our government proceeds to make money-that is, they put upon our gold ' the guinea stamp,' to use the poet's phrase. My proposition to-day is that they should issue government certificates -for our gold. We will take these certificates and use them for money, selling the government say $10,000,000 of gold per year. Here is a scheme for the Finance Minister to consider. Canada to-day is paying through her savings banks 3 per cent per annum to the people for their deposits. Here is $10,000,000 a year which the government may have for not one cent of interest-simply the issue of certificates which we will use as money in the Yukon. I would like to have it explained how it is that, if that were brought into effect, Canada would not save $300,000 a year in interest. There is a nut for hon. gentlemen to crack. I see my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) is cogitating over it to see if there is anything behind it.


David Henderson: I think the Minister of Finance would like to see something behind it.


Alfred Thompson: He will have $10,000,000 of gold behind it. What more does he want ?


David Henderson: But if he deposits the gold in the vault what about the interest ?


Alfred Thompson: There -would be no interest-we would use the certificates.


David Henderson: Perhaps it would not work out exactly that way.


Alfred Thompson: - Well, it is something for my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) to think about.


David Henderson: I agree with you.


Alfred Thompson: I am glad to find even one man to agree with my position. To me it seems feasible, but whether it is feasible or not, we are sure the government should buy our gold. This gold should not go to the United States, it should remain in Canada and help build up our own cities. Eventually no doubt, as the Finance Minister said the other day, the government will buy our gold ; but in the meantime the miners are losing a good deal every year. The assay office is in Vancouver, whereas it should be in Dawson where the miner could go with his gold, put it on the counter and have it weighed by an official and get full value for

it on tlie spot, instead of allowing a middleman to make something out of the exchange. I hope the government will do that before long. This gold question is a very interesting one to me, I have thought and read a good deal about it; and I do not see anything against the government hoarding this gold until the mint is completed. The Finance Minister told us the other day that the Dominion government had to have 25 cents worth of gold on every dollar up to $30,000,000 given out, making $7,500,000. If my memory serves me right, he told us that the total circulation of the Dominion government was about $47,900,000. For every dollar above $30,000,000 the Dominion government had to put up dollar for dollar in gold. Now if there was $47,000,000 in circulation, that meant that he had $17,000,000 in circulation dollar for dollar in gold, and $7,500,000 as against the $30,000,000. making a little more than $25,000,000 in gold which the Dominion government had to keep on hand. So you see this gold proposition is not a new one with the Dominion government. As the Finance Minister pointed out. our circulation has vastly increased. I will read what he said, which will be found in the ' Hansard ' of May 17 :


Mr. HAGGART.: That includes the reserve the banks are obliged to keep in Dominion notes ?


Mr. FIELDING.: 

live government gave the Canadian Pacific Hallway 25,000,000 acres of land which is untaxable for all time to come, a concession that is wrong, I do not care who did it. The present government gave concessions in the Yukon to different parties-although I hope not for all time to come-which have proved a curse to that country and will always he a curse to it until they are removed. This fact was so impressed on the government that they appointed a Royal Commission to investigate that question and with your permission I shall refer [DOT] you and the House and the country to what Judge Britton found when he went to the Yukon. Under the heading :
Hydraulic leases attacked.
Judge Britton enumerates the following concessions :
1.	Lease No. 9, comprising a tract of land situate between Adams creek and Fox gulch, on the left limit of Bonanza creek, having a frontage of 1J miles, issued in favour of C. A. Mats'll and associates, and known as the Matson concession.
Right in the very heart of the richest gold-bearing district in the world.
2.	Leases Nos. 2 and 8, comprising a tract of land situate between Boulder creek and Fox gulch, on the left limit of Bonanza creek, having a frontage of 55 claims, issued in favour of J. J. Doyle and associates, and known as the Doyle concession.
3.	Lease No. 5, comprising a tract of land commencing 24 miles from the mouth of Bonanza creek and extending up that stream for a like distance, issued in favour of the Hon. E. H. Bronson and 'C. C. Ray, and known as the Bronson and Ray concession.
These gentlemen live here in Ottawa.
4.	Lease No. 18, comprising a tract of land commencing about li miles from the mouth of the Klondike river, thence up stream for a distance of 6'72 miles, issued in favour cf M. J. Boyle, and known as the Boyle concession.
5.	Lease No. 10, comprising a tract of land situate on Quartz creek, a tributary of the Indian river, in the Yukon Territory, having a frontage of 3J miles, and known as the Quartz creek concession.
6.	Lease No. 1, comprising a tract of land, situate on Hunker creek, below the mouth of Last Chance, having a frontage of 2J miles, and known as the Anderson concession.
7.	Lease No. 33, comprising a tract of land, situate on Gold Bottom creek, a tributary of Hunker creek, issued in favour of C. J. Hermann, and known as the Hermann concession.
8.	Lease No. 30, comprising a tract of land, commencing at the mouth of Miller creek, -a tributary of Sixty-mile river, and extending up stream a distance of 3'38 miles, issued in favour of the North American Transportation and Trading Company, and known as the Miller creek concession.
He says:
There have been granted, in all, since the opening of the Yukon Territory, 40 hydraulic leases. Of these 13 have been cancelled, and 27 are standing. Of the 27. 8 have been at- 1 Mr. THOMPSON.
tacked. Only 2 others were mentioned as likely to be attacked, and no one interested took the trouble within the time given, to formally lodge any complaint as to those.
He discusses the various concessions and refers to the mining regulations and proceeds :
The matter was treated in the larger way, ignoring placer claims when they formed a small part compared with the large quantity of gravel ground which it was alleged could be worked only by hydraulic methods. There certainly wyas not, in the earlier days after the opening of the territory, sufficient care on the part of the officials in the territory to see that the regulations were strictly complied with	 It will be seen by a perusal of the lease that the conditions are exacting and carefully drawn, with the manifest intention of protecting every interest connected with the mining Industry. Under these circumstances, it has apparently been thought best to accept as representation work, work done by placer methods instead of insisting upon work by hydraulic methods.
Now, there is the gist of the question. These are so-called hydraulic leases. They should be worked and worked alone by hydraulic methods, but there is not to-day in the Yukon a single one of these concessions operating by hydraulic methods, and the government, as the judge points out here very clearly, has seen fit to accept work done by ordinary placer methods as work done by hydraulic methods. What is the difference ? The difference is this : A man gets forty or fifty acres of mining land in a concession on which he does .$5,000 worth of work. I will work a placer claim of 250 feet beside him and I have to do a great deal more work than he has to do in proportion and he has many privileges that 1 have not. It is not these concessionaries who have given us all this gold. I venture to say that they have given us only a very small proportion of the product of the Yukon. The small individual miner is the man who has produced this gold and he is the man from whom these leases have taken ground right in the very heart of the richest areas in the Yukon. Judge Britton condemns that practice. Unfortunately there are terms in most of these leases whereby a double construction can be given to them. They may be construed to mean that the concessionaries do not absolutely have to work by hydraulic methods, and that is the loophole through which the concessionaire has always crawled. He says further :
All these questions are beyond the scope of my commission as affecting the rights of parties respecting any particular concession, but are of Importance for the consideration of tho department upon the question of beneht or injury to the mining industry of the territory.
Here is this pregnant sentence :
The fact of these large concessions existing no doubt has a bad moral effect.
Why ? He discusses that.

A miner, on the 'look out for a placer location, makes a discovery, and upon application, finds that his ground is not open, because it is within the territorial limits of a concession. This annoys him, and he spreads what he calls his grievance far and wide, creating dissatisfaction among miners. Others, without attempting to prospect or locate, say they cannot, because all the ground is covered by concessions, and men who never were and never intended to be miners join in the cry against concessions.
That is his opinion : Then he offers some suggestions :
In reference to the benefit or injury of hydraulic concessions, I think it proper to make the following suggestions :
Here they are :
That placer work or ' preparation ' work should not be accepted in lieu of -what can properly be called hydraulic work, or hydraulic operations. An annual expenditure of $5,000 is very small for such large areas. If the conditions are not complied with, the lease should be cancelled.
Here is another important point:
The regulations define the width of an hydraulic mining location as one mile, but where it is situated in a valley, the location may extend in width to the ' limits of the valley,' if so ordered hy the minister.
They may extend these limits to the limit of the valley.
A very liberal 'construction has been placed upon the expression ' limits of the valley,' as it has been held to mean from * summit to summit '

These valleys are 400 to 500 feet deep with mountains and hills on each side of them :
-as it has been held to mean from ' summit to summit ' of the watershed on either side. I think that too wide, wider than the regulations were intended to authorize. Such locations should not extend beyond the summit of the first or lower hill on either side. It is too much to say that ' limits of the valley,' in defining a location, should include a succession of hills and valleys between, leading up to the summit of the watershed. The regulations should be amended.
He proceeds :
These hydraulic concessions would be more beneficial to the mining territory if they were considerably smaller

They cover acres and acres and miles.
-or the conditions should require a much larger annual expenditure than $5,000.
In coming to the conclusion mentioned before, that in certain cases lessees had complied with the conditions of their leases, I did so because it was proper to consider, and I was bound to consider, the interpretation which the department had placed upon ' representation work ' upon all the hydraulic concessions.
Now, just in regard to this question 1 would like to show very briefly a very small section of the argument which was submitted to Judge Britton, and which, I suppose, influenced him somewhat in making up his mind. I will not read it all. It was by the advocates who presented the case of the board of trade before the commission. This statement shows how many miles are included in a concession, how many placer claims would he worked in case these concessions were thrown open, and how much revenue the government would get from this ground from which now they practically derive no revenue. It says :
If the above estimate is correct the government would receive in entry fees when concessions are thrown open $23,000 ; 5,130 men would be given employment, and calculating gold at $15 per ounce, $9,618,750 would be produced on which the export tax at pressnt levied would be $240,468.87. If these same men chose to buy imported goods for themselves and families it may be fairly estimated that each would pay $100 into the customs, making $513,000 more. The revenue to the government in renewing 1,215 claims at $12 each would be $14,580, while the claims restaked would be 542, bringing $5,420. With an adequate water supply on fair terms these estimates are too low. But summarized they stand thus :
Pees receivable by government on opening above concessions	$ 23,000
Pees on claims renewed at end of first
year	 14,580
Fees on claims restaked at end of year 5,420
Export tax	 240,468
Customs (subject to 75 par cent reduction on account of consumption of Canadian goods)	513,000
Total revenue receivable at end of first
year	 *[DOT] 773,468
Reduction on account of use of Canadian goods	 384,750
Actual revenue receivable at end of year 388,718
These figures are the opinions of the gentleman who argued the case for the board of trade before Judge Britton's Commission and they may not be absolutely correct, but they have in them a very large grain of truth.
This, Mr. Speaker, is no party question. I will refer very briefly once more to the platform of my predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Ross, and I find that the platform he ran upon and the platform he was elected upon contains this plank :
Resolved, That a policy should be adopted which would prevent the obtaining of concessions for hydraulicing, except in places wbere the dirt is of such low grade that it could not profitably be worked by other methods, and that before any hydraulic lease should issue, notice should be given by the applicant by publication in the newspapers of his intention of applying for such lease, so as to enable protests to be entered against the granting of the same ; and that the ow-ners of hydraulic concessions already granted should he compelled to carry out the strict terms of their leases, and that in default of their so doing their leases should be cancelled.
That is what Judge Britton says also. This was a plank in the platform of the Hon.

V
Mr. Ross when he was elected by the Yukon people to represent them in this House : and my own views are even stronger. This land, in the very heart of our gold bearing district is locked up ; the government gets no revenue out of it, the people get no employment, and the men who own these concessions play the part of the absentee landlord in Ireland. They do not reside there ; they reside in Ottawa or somewhere else. Messrs. Bronson and Rae live ir. Ottawa, they hold thousands of acres which do not produce a dollar, and they have not employed labour in the past commensurate with the acreage -which they have. There is nothing to be gained by the government or the people from having these leases perpetuated. The system is wrong. Make these men carry out the terms of then-leases, or throw the ground open. If the government are legally bound to these men, and must stand by the contract, then they should require them to work the ground hydraulically, so that there will be no doubt that labour is being employed and that the gold is being taken out of the gravel. But now nothing is doing. These leases are lying there dormant. I suppose the rent Is paid and the representation work amounting to $5,000 a year, is done to the satisfaction of the government. But the thing is wrong ; these men should not be there at all. This ground is in the heart of our gold-bearing district, and if they had not possession of it, the miners wotild have a chance of prospecting it and taking it up if they found that it was good enough. This question of concessions is affecting the Yukon Territory, I believe, more than anything else. It has . damped the ardour of the people there. They find it difficult to go on and prospect with these blankets covering the territory. The concessions may be worth nothing, or they may be worth millions of money. We do not know what they are worth, simply because we cannot prospect them.
In almost every other 'country where there are placer mines, in every country that I know of except the Yukon, quartz mining is carried on. At the present time no gold is being won from quartz in the Y'ukon, although there are many prospects, and one mill is ready for operation. People have found it difficult to interest capital in the quartz mining of the Yukon. If to-day we had a population deriving their livelihood from that industry, hon. gentlemen can understand what a difference it would make in the stability of that country. Placer mining is more or less unstable, while quartz mining is stable. The man engaged in quartz mining invests his money for years, and the people interested in it would be glad if the government could assist them in some way, such as allowing their machinery to come in free, as some of the mills they require are made in the United States. When mills of the same kind are made in Mr. THOMPSON.
Canada, they cannot be brought in duty free; but the mills made in the United States are in some instances better suited for tbe class of ore we have in the Yukon than the mills made in Canada, and our miners would like to be able to bring these in duty free. This is a reasonable proposition. It would not cost the government any money : it might cost the Canadian manufacturer the sale of a mill or two, hut it would give an impetus to the quartz-mining industry of the Yukon. While on this question of bringing in mills duty free. I might refer to another industry which has just been started there, that is, the dredging industry. Dredges are also made in Canada, but as a Canadian it humiliates me to have to admit that better dredges for the Yukon are made in the United States, for some unaccountable reason, whether because they have a larger market or not. In the Yukon we are just on the eve of a great dredging era, and I submit for the consideration of tbe government that they .should remit for a term of years the duty upon mills and dredges made in the United States, which are more suitable for work in the Yukon than those made in Canada. If the government would do this, it would give a great impetus to the quartz mining and dredging industries of the Yukon. It would be also for the benefit of Canada as a whole, because Canada has no better customer to day than the Yukon. We produce nothing but gold. Every man,' woman and child there has to be fed and clothed, and Canada supplies 80 per cent of our food and clothes. In passing, I may say that, though we are not producing a dollar from quartz mining, the export duty on gold applies to it as well as to placer gold ; so that while the government are not getting a dollar of revenue from that tax, it militates against the investment of capital in quartz mining. That is another matter which I submitted to the Prime Minister, and he saw the force of the argument, and had that tax remitted for ten years. All these things the people oi the Yukon appreciate.
Another question to which I wish to refer is the importation of liquor into the Yukon There does not seem to be any reason why the people of the Yukon should have to pay $2 a gallon on Canadian whisky brought in there, when it can be sent to Nova Scotia without the payment of a cent. This is another matter which should be brought to the attention of the government. We are Canadians as well as you in other parts of this country, and there is no reason why we should be compelled to pay an extra duty on that article-and we use a fair quantity of it. While we use Scotch and Irish whisky, the great bulk of the whisky consumed is Canadian rye ; and we feel it to be a grievance that we have to pay an extia $2 a gallon on that, while the people of Nova Scotia and the people of British Columbia do not pay anything.

705S


David Henderson: Who gets the $2 ?


Alfred Thompson: The federal treasury.
-Mr. HENDERSON. Are you sure ?


Alfred Thompson: I am not speaking by the book, tout I think so. At any rate, I know that the money is paid, and that it is wrong to tax any .part of this country in a way in which no other portion of the country is taxed. Why should we in the Yukon pay this or any other tax that no other province pays ? There is no right or reason in such an imposition. It is a small matter, and I refer to it only in passing, being convinced that it only requires to toe brought to the attention of the government to have the injustice removed.
There is one other question, and that is the question of the Yukon Council, which, makes our local ordinances or laws. I submit that there is no principle so deeply imbedded in the hearts of the Anglo-Saxon as that of responsible and representative government. When you trace the history of this race from the time that history first discovers them on the banks of the Weser and Elbe, in northern Germany, down to the present day, you will find running through it that one bright thread. You will find that wherever they are, on any section of God's footstool, they want the right to elect their own representatives to govern themselves. In the year -118, when they were on the banks of the Elbe, they had their Moot hill or sacred tree, around which they gathered periodically fo elect their own overseers and settle their own communal affairs. When they went to England you find their earliest effort, an effort which they ever continued, was to have an extended franchise. And when they crossed the Atlantic ocean and landed in the United States they perpetuated the same idea ; and it was because the British government of that day refused to grant them this right, which is bred right in their bones, that it lost the half of this continent, to the British Crown. Then followed their career in Canada Take the province of Nova Scotia, where they laboured against the family compact of that day, which was the weakness of the institutions established by such governors as Lord Faulkner. Take New Brunswick, where the same tiling occurred. But fortunately in those provinces the difficulty was settled without an appeal to arms. Such was not, however, the case in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. How did the struggle for this very same principle there culminate ? It culminated in the rebellion led toy Papineau in Quebec and Mackenzie in Ontario. So long as this race is on this sphere, and wherever you will find a section of this race, you will find in the breasts of the people that love of self-government and that desire to elect their own representatives and legislate for themselves. So it is in the Yukon. Although we are 4.000 miles removed from
here, there is in our breasts the same sentiment which has animated this race from its dawn down to the present day, and until we get there what we enjoy here, we shall not be
satisfied. Trust the people every time; grant (them responsible government, and they will show themselves worthy of it. In our Northwest we have two great territorial divisions knocking at our doors for this same boon, and in a few days they' will be in the enjoyment of representative institutions.	[DOT]


David Henderson: With a limitation.


Alfred Thompson: I am not discussing this question from a political standpoint, but simply the principle of representative government. and I leave party politics to my hon. friend. We are about to grant those two territorial divisions representative government ; and while I do not ask this government to give us in the Yukon what they are giving the new provinces, while I do not ask for provincial government in its entirety', because we are not prepared for that, I do ask that we should be given that government which these Territories now enjoy. It is not responsible government that these Territories have now, but it is an advance on the system we have in the Yukon. Let me tell you what that system is. We have there a legislative body called the Yukon Council, composed of ten members and a commissioner. Five of these members are elected by the people, five are appointed by the government and the commissioner presides. Ills position is analogous to that of lieutenant governor, except in this respect, that he occupies the dual position of Speaker of our assembly and Governor of the Territory.


George Eulas Foster: Has he a vote ?


Alfred Thompson: He has the casting vote only, which is, of course, very rarely exercised. By that method of government you see that this the Dominion government always holds the power in the hollow of its baud', because it controls the five nominative members and the commissioner against the five elected members, so that should a division ever happen, as it did on oue memorable occasion, yvlien the five elected would be pitted against the five appointed, the decision would rest with the commissioner. You see, therefore, that that is not really a representative body. It is controlled from Ottawa, and the time has come when we may, without any fear, I believe, ask the Dominion government to give us greater power. The personnel of this council is composed of Mr. Sinclair, the Gold Commissioner, who is the head of our gold court and lias the standing somewhat of a lesser judge ; Major Wood, who is Commissioner of the Northwest Mounted Police, and is like the general of an army with Ills staff under him"; Mr. Girouard, who is registrar of titles ; Mr. Litligow, who is comptroller' of

finance, analogous to our Finance Minister ; and there is Judge Dugas, who is the senior judge of our territorial court, and whose position is analogous to that of the chief justice in a province. I know all these gentlemen personally very well, and I know them to be all estimable gentlemen. They are Canadians down to the ground and good citizens, and in the main have done goon work. But every one of these derives his sustenance directly from our federal government and, being human, must necessarily be biased at times and biased against the interests of the people. In saying that I am not uttering one word against these men personally, individually or officially, but I am simply pointing out that in the very nature of things they cannot be relied upon to advise always in the best interests of our people. What I ask is that we should give the people of the Yukon the right to elect the ten members of their council and let the commissioner preside as at present. In case the government should see lit to graut this reasonable request, I think they will not have) reason to regret their course. These people are not novices iu the art of self-government. Every man in that country went In there as an adept in that respect. Like myself and like you, Mr. Speaker, every man there has been accustomed from his boyhood to cast his vote for the representative he desired' in the legislative halls of his province, so) that you are not risking any experiment iu giving the people of the Yukon these rights. I have sat in that council, and I know that) the people there are quite well fitted to) select men to represent them in their little' local parliament, just as are the people in' the other provinces to elect their local* representatives.
They are the same race, they are of the same blood, they speak the same language, as the people of Quebec, Ontario, and the other provinces of Canada. I am not asking anything new, but simply that the same right that Canadians have Claimed, the right that our forefathers in Canada fought for. shall be conferred upon their sons who reside in the Yukon. You can see whatj the effect would be. Or, if the government will not grant full elective power, then the alternative would be-and it is only an alternative and can only be adhered to for a short time-to nominate men completely outside the ranks of those who derive their support in any way from the Dominion government. We want the whole number of them elected ; but if the government will not concede that, then we are prepared-I think I may say we are prepared-to accept for a time the nomination of men who are outside the government employ altogether.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Alfred Thompson: 


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 150) respecting the Interprovin-j cial and James Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Devlin.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed motion for Committee of Supply.
['GERVAIS presented the fifth report of the select committee appointed to supervise the official report of the Debates of the House during the prersent session as follows :\nYour committee recommend that Mr. Rodolphe Laferrifire be appointed translator of the official report of the Debates vice Mr. H. R. Fiset, *whose services have been dispensed with.\nThat the said appointment and remuneration, viz.: $1,500 per annum, date from the adoption by the House of the foregoing recommendation All of which is respectfully submitted.\nH. GERVAIS, Chairman.']
Alfred Thompson: Mr. Speaker, when you left the chair at six o'clock I was discussing the Yukon council, our local legis-i lative body in the Yukon Territory, and showing how necessary it was that we, should have a body fully representative of the people to prepare our ordinances, which have the ett'ect of laws. During my argument I referred to Judge Britton's report on the Treadgold concessions. I was interested when reading that report to notice that Judge Britton had found in the Yukon so many new words that he was unacquainted with, that he made a little glossary of them at the end of his report. I mention this in passing to show the House how. difficult it is to convey to the minds of lion, gentlemen here things that may be urgently needed in the Yukon. The very terms we use there in discussing some of our commonplace events, are strange to, men like Judge Britton and lion, gentlemen in this House. It is not necessary for me to enumerate them. The question of a; fully elective council for the Yukon is not a new one there, nor is it one that any) particular party has a monopoly of. Every) platform that has been framed in the last four years has contained this plank. Again, I refer the House to the platform of the1 Hon. James Hamilton Ross, and with your permission I will read one of the planks : '
That the convention (that is the convention which nominated Mr. Ross) views with satisfaction the increase of the number of elective members of the Yukon council-
I should say in explanation of that that the Yukon council at first was composed only of two members elected ,by the peoi pie, and that the government two years) ago extended the number to five. He went on to say :	,
-and urgently recommend that the membership of the council be made wholly elective without delay ; and further, that all matters of a purely local character be committed to the council for deliberation and determination.
That is one of the planks in the platform! upon which Mr. Ross appealed successfully to the people of that territory for their, suffrages; and I have no doubt that, al-thought he is now in the upper chamber, he) is of the same opinion to-day. Now, Mr.l Speaker, in closing this particular phase of! the question, I only have to add that thd Yukon Territory to-day is the only terri-j tory organized in Canada that is without

a fully representative government. I do not include the Territories of Ungava and Mackenzie, as I do not think they have any organized governmtnt at this time.. The other Territories have been married off, so to speak, and there is only the Yukon Territory left. I hope that the government, after considering this matter will see fit to grant the Yukon Territory that measure of self-government which I have
advocated.	.
A few days ago the right lion, the Prime Minister suggested that in the disposition of these Territories remaining after the erection of the two new provinces, they might profitably be allotted to the various provinces that now have representative and responsible government. A few days after that I took occasion to rise in my place in this House and, in the name of the people of the Yukon, entered a protest against its being disposed of in that manner. I did not go into the question extensively then, but with your permission I will do so briefly now. In view of the fact that we have produced so much wealth, that we are producing so much wealth, that we have a population there that is more or less permanent, we feel that we lia\e a future of which the past is only an earnest, and that we we are fit for responsible government. I think it would be an igno-; minious end of our territorial career to tag us on to the upper end of British Columbia. Neither do I think it would be well from the standpoint of British Columbia, as being the best province, in fact the only one, geographically speaking, to which we could be attached. ' British Columbia at this moment has ail the territory that she can manage, in fact, with all due deference to my hon. friend opposite from that province (Mr Galliher), she has a little more than she'can conveniently manage. The credit of the province of British Columbia is none too good, the government of British Columbia is none too safe, nor has it been as stable as it should be during the past decade And. Sir. that fact I have just mentioned. the instability of the government of British Columbia, has done more than anythin"- else to check cnnital coming into that province from abroad, as it would have done immediately after the breaking out of the Boer war. I know for a positive fact that the money markets of the world, at the breaking out of the Boer war. turned to the American continent for safe investment: I know that British (capitalists turned their eyes towards British Columbia; and T also know that, because of tlm labour troubles that existed in that province: then, these English capitalists did not invest their money there as they otherwise would have done. Now. Mr. Speaker, we in the Yukon have troubles enough of our own without desiring to graft upon them those of British Columbia.
I said that I had faith in the future of that country and when X say that X am simply reflecting the prophecy of Dr. Dawson m 1887 that he had not the faintest doubt that the Yukon Territory would still be part ot Canada's great reserve. I wish very briefly to point out to the House the evidence 1 have regarding the future of this territory which I have the honour to represent, and m doing so I shall quote first from the Statistical Year-Book of Canada for the year 1904, and show the House what this territory has done in the way of producing wealth as compared with the other provinces of Canada since 1802. I have here the Statistical YearBook of Canada prepared by our own Mr. Johnston whose name is sufficient as he is very well and creditably known. This book shows the quantities of gold produced by the different provinces. For instance Ontario has produced $2,124,429 in gold ; Saskatchewan has produced $293,946 ; Quebec lias produced $295,053 ; British Columbia, a province that has been mining-well, I have its production here since 1862 and I believe it was mining earlier than that-has produced in that time $90,271,226. Nova Scotia has also been producing gold since 1862 and the inhabitants of that province think they have produced a good deal of gold. I shall show you by comparison that they have produced very little. Their product is $16,728,319.
I have given you the figures for these provinces and territories. What has the Yukon done in this time? Up, to last year-that is not including the present spring's clean up 'which I expect will be in the vicinity of $10,060,000 -up to the end of 1904, we have produced $118,000,000 in gold. How does that compare with the total output ? The total output of gold in Canada since 1862 lias been $-11,000,000 in round numbers. Over half the gold produced in the whole of Canada since 18 )2 has been produced by the Yukon and the greater portion of that has been produced since 1896. In nine short years aye. in eight short years, we have produced over half as much gold as the whole of the Dominion m-cluding what the province of British Columbia lias produced since 1862. Is that not a record that any province, let alone any territory, might be proud of ? To show the House the extent of the gravels that we have in that territory I shall quote a letter from Dr. Robert Bell, director of the Geological Survey, whom I asked to measure for me if possible the auriferous deposits according to the map prepared by, Mr. McConnell who mapped that country; His letter is dated May 30. 1905, and is as follows :
Dear Sir - i have had Mr. Seward, our geographer fin consultation with Mr. McConnell, who has returned from Europe), make as careful an estimate as possible of the acreage of the gold-bearing gravels of the Klondike. Mr. McConnell divides them into the river gravels and the white channel gravels. On the autho-



[Stage Direction]
The total length of the auriferous portions ot the creeks of the Klondike district is about llo miles, that is in the well-defined portions alone, to say nothing of the Kluane district, in the southern part where creeks known to carry gold extend over twenty-five miles. No man, .even if he had the eye ot a prophet, could foretell the future of that territory. In an earlier portion of my address I stated that in an inhospitable region in Russia, the Vologda district is to-day sustaining a population of over a million souls. t\ lien one realizes what tiiat means the imagination fails to grasp what the Yukon may be doing twenty-five or fiftv years from now. Mr. Joseph StcGillivrav, a hydraulic mining engineer of extensive'experience both in California and in tiie Yukon subnutted for the consideration of the Board ot Trade of Dawson, in 1004. a letter a portion of which I shall read. I am now trying to show the House that this countrv is'not a country of a day, that this gold is not going to peter out, so to speak, in a few months or years; I wish to impress on the House that m tiie Yukon we have a countrv that is not a country of to-day, but that with a little help at the present juncture it will be a country of a century and perhaps even more than that. Mr. McGillivray says
The following is an estimate of the amount of gravel on these white channel benches alone which measure about 27 miles in length with an
SVh, :'250 feet " Wi:lth 100 'feet " !hls ls a very conservative estimate of the depth, as these same benches on Bonanza Klondike and Hunker are much deeper than that, especially where they near the Klondike, l here a depth of 100 feet is attained. Taking this conservative average the estimate is * 27 miles 142,560 running feet. 1,250 feet wide' wl feet deep, 17,820,000,000 cubic feet The7f7=
cu'bfc'yards0 CUWC b3' 27 W°Uld sive 660,000,000
waTsh .^amount oV grav^- ' in WWch f°
grirvfd 777th? ,7me' not tLe amount of giatei, that I wish to impress on the House.
waterlt(e„e„^Tlme^t,hat 5'000 miners' inches of I (equalling 7,o00 cubic feet tier minute)
fafinnFQ°<S t0 w^ite channel by gravitation at a sufficient elevation to give a hvdraucienPcve oTwater 10°7et °r " ™ ' efflers° inch to everv '-Wal^ng should be one miners inch to every , cubic yards of gravel every
Mr. THOMPSON	"
"4 hours. Each inch is equal to 11 cubic feet per minute. That is to say, 5,000 miners' inches or water washing 7 cubic yards to the inch ever} „4 hours would equal 35,000 cubic vards every 24 hours.
tlle summer mining season here is short, days is a liberal estimate of the lime in wmich to carry on such work. Thus 35,000 yards per day for 130 days would equal 4,550,000 yards each sep.son.
The time it would take to wash out these benches alone with 5,000 inches of water each season of 130 days, would therefore be 660.000,-)00 yards at 4,550,000 a year, 145 years and 70 1-7 days.
That is the estimate of the time it would take to wash out gravel benches near Dawson with 5,000 inches of water, something that we have not now and will not have for some time to come. One more quotation trom Mr. McGillivray :
I feel confident there is enough of pay gravel t0 ,asVfor tIle next hundred years at the rate it could be worked with the water system I have already described. When I say that the system could be put in for $3,000,000, I am stating an outside figure and one which would cover all the expense of installing the electric power plants. This might not be deemed advisable at the beginning of the enterprise ; the initial cost for simply bringing on the water to work ^grounds might possibly come under $2,-
He was discussing the water svstem then He proceeds :
h,lf„'.his government water supply system should be put m l see no reason why our annual output ol gold should not be increased to $50,000,000 annually, and kept at that amount for many 7,7s' an<J-what sueh a building up of this disilneatl t0 the rest of the Yukon and 77 wealth and prosperity of the whole Dom-mion, I need not point out.
I will not weary the House with any further reference to the extent of the gravels we have there. I just want to show the House now why Canada should help us in developing this vast territorv. We are all your own people and we are doing our best m the Yukon to build up Canada and to perpetuate the Canadian interests. We of us who are Canadians have upheld Canadian civilization, encouraged Canadian ideas and
vof, 7 £anadian trade- Let me inform you, Sir. Speaker, that we are not all Canadians m the Y'ukon Territory. A very large portion of our population conies front other countries ouiside our own. Canada has no better customer in the world per head today than the Yukon. I will show you how, ns I said before, we produce absolutely nothing but the gold. We have no manu-lactures ; we have no agricultural products. M e have to import everything and the people there live well. Every mail, woman and cWid who comes over the White Pass into the Yukon has to be clothed and fed and every man woman and child should he clothed and fed by our own Canadian manufacturers and producers. Is there any coun-

try in the world that Canada clothes and feeds ? To-day our people are scouring the world for new markets, establishing consular agencies, of which I quite approve and I only hope there may be more of them when right here at our own doors, within our own Dominion, we have a market, which, if encouraged will prove of greater benefit to Canada than any market in Brazil, the Indies or in the old country. To show you that I am not saying anything that is not an absolute fact I will read an extract from a statement prepared for me by Mr. Bain, of the Customs Department here, and by this extract I hope to show the House what the Yukon has bought from Canada within the last few years. I hold in my hand a 'statement of Canadian and foreign goods entering northern British Columbia and Yukon Territory, via the White Pass and Yukon route, during the fiscal year
1903-4.' I will not weary the House by reading over the different months, but I will give the total which will convey to the minds of hon. members what I wish to convey and that is that in 1903-4 the Yukon Territory bought from Canada $4,034,385 worth of goods. Remember this is not a bartering trade, but it is a trade for which we pay absolutely every dollar in cash and every dollar in gold at that. With other countries you have a bartering trade. It is not so with us ; you send your goods there and get tiie money. Is that not a market worth cultivating ? Here you have a territory right within our own Dominion-which will buy from you over $4,000,000 worth of goods per year and it does not cost yon a cent to establish a consular agency there. The people within the bounds of that Territory are only too glad to come here, to Montreal, to Toronto or to the great manufacturing and farming centres of Canada and buy their food and clothing. Every pair of shoes, every suit of clothes, every shirt, every hat, every overcoat, absolutely everything that we use to clothe our bodies and to feed them has to be imported into the Yuk-on. Nor does it stop there. Absolutely everything we use to work our mines we have to. import from the outside. In the early years of that Territory Canada did not get as much of the trade as she gets to-day, but due to the fact that the Customs Department have there a competent and efficient officer in the person of Mr. Busby, Canada and the Canadian manufacturers have, within the last turn or three years, received a very much greater percentage of that trade than they did in former years. In 1898 the Canadian people only received 7 per cent of the Yukon trade. Now, in the Yukon we buy SO cents in every dollars worth that we import into that country from Canada-eighty .per cent now as against seven per cent then, due very largely to the fact that we have there men -who are alive to the trade of Canada .and to .the fostering of that trade. We have to-day in Dawson
24 bonded customs warehouses and 5 inland revenue warehouses. Just one quotation more to show you what we have bought from Canada. There are no returns available previous to 1898 although we were .doing business there for two years before that time, but since 1S98 we have bought $13,976,000 worth and we have paid to the Canadian government in duties $3,412,980. These figures are from the Customs Department, they are absolutely correct and they speak for themselves. That is all I have to say upon the trade of Canada and the Yukon ex-cept to impress upon the House and the country that right here in our own Dominion we have a market that can be and should be supplied by our own people. Now I have finished.
David Henderson: Before my hon. friend sits down may I ask him if that $13,000,000 represents entirely imported goods ?


Alfred Thompson: This is a ' statement showing the value of exports from and goods entered for consumption in the Yukon Territory during the undermentioned fiscal years.' Does that answer my friend's question ? [DOT]


David Henderson: Y'es, that would he imported goods.


Alfred Thompson: Altogether, except that some of them may have been imported from the provinces of Canada. As to that, however, I am not quite sure. Since 189S we have bought very nearly $14,000,000 worth of goods. I say, that I have finished. If I have succeeded in laying before this House and this country the wants of the people of the Yukon I am content. 1 have come over
4.000	miles to Ottawa to lay before the Canadian parliament the cause of the miners in the Yukon. To me that country has a fascination that is felt by nearly every one who has lived there. But, it has more. It has a future in which I have every hope, and it is populated by a people in whom I have every confidence. They have braved everything in following the fic-kle wand of fortune. The work they have done in developing that country in the past eight years is simply marvellous ; but it is only an earnest of what they will do if they get some assistance from this government. On behalf of our Yukon population, I appeal to you, not as a party man appealing to party prejudices, but as a Canadian appealing to Canadians for help at the present juncture for the great Yukon.


Mr. BERGERON.: Mr. Speaker, before my hon. friend sits down I want to ask him one or two questions. During his remarks this afternoon he said thaU$28.000,-OuO worth of gold had been taken out of the Yukon. I want to ask him how much the Yukon has paid to Canada since 1S96 as royalty upon that gold, and how much the Yukon has cost the country altogether 1


Alfred Thompson: I regret that I cannot answer the question of my hon. friend regarding the amount of royalty and export tax which we have paid ; but, speaking without the book and from memory, I would say that up to the end of June a year ago we very nearly paid our way, except for the two charges mentioned-$750,-
000	for the Yukon field force and $400,000 for the Mackenzie & Mann settlement. We bought nearly $14,000,000 of goods and paid nearly $3,500,000 in duty.


Mr. R. G. MACPHERSON (Vancouver City).: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed very much the speech of the hon. member for the Yukon here to-day. It has been a source of a good deal of enlightenment to all of us. Many of the things he has said I heartily coincide with, because I know a good deal about the Yukon country ; for, though
1	have never been there, the province of British Columbia is contiguous to it. But the hon. member said one or two things which, as a representative of British Columbia, I can hardly let pass. If the hon. gentleman knew the people of British Columbia better than he does, he would not consider it a bad province to tie to. I am not prepared to say whether it would be a good thing for the Yukon Territory to be joined to the province of British Columbia ; but the Yukon country produces gold alone, while British Columbia is the next largest gold producer of the Dominion, and has solved to a great extent many of the problems presented to any new gold-producing country. The hon. member has made a comparison between the Yukon Territory and the other parts of Canada in regard to the production of gold. Figures can almost prove anything. We have not complete returns of all the gold that has been produced in British Columbia from the first finding of gold in the Fraser river in 1858 ; because British Columbia did not then belong to the Dom-i inion of Canada, but was a crown colony, and there was not a very accurate record kept of the gold production, so that statisticians can only guess what was taken out. But if we are to believe many of the men who worked in the Cariboo and Cassiar districts in the early days, millions of dollars which were never kept track of were taken to the United States. I fancy that the same thing would apply to the Yukon. There is no doubt that the province of British Columbia has been a very large gold producer. In the comparison which my hon. friend made, he said that the province of British Columbia produced some $90,000,-OoO of gold while the Yukon produced in its short history $120,000,000. But I would like to call your attention to the fact that the province of British Columbia is the great mining region of the Dominion of Canada. Last year, that is, in the year 1903-4. that province produced gold-and it was almost all placer gold-to the value of $5,373,000, silver to the value of $1,521,472,


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: copper to the value of $4,547,000, lead to the value of $639,000, iron to the value of $6,870, coal to the value of $3,504,000 and coke to the value of $327,000, making in all a mineral production of $16,970,000. In the same year the whole of the rest of Canada produced in gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, nickel, coal and coke, $22,000,000. and the Yukon Territory produced $12,200,000. In the year 1902-3 the province of British Columbia produced $17,000,000 odd, the rest of Canada, $20,000,000 odd, and the Yukon $14,000,000 odd. I have not at hand the figures for last year, but I recollect reading in the report of the Minister of Mines that the province of British Columbia produced, nearly $20,000,000, of which $6,000,000 was placer gold. I just mention these facts to show that the province of British Columbia, which my hon. friend has not a very good word for, has added pretty largely to the mineral wealth of this grand Dominion of ours. I am not here to say anything derogatory of the Yukon country. It is a grand country, producing a great deal of gold, and has been the means of opening up great riches to many men in the Dominion of Canada-not to as many as we would like ; because Canadians were not the first to go to that country ; the Canadian is not a miner. Outside of British Columbia and the Yukon Territory, there is very little gold mining in the Dominion. The more gold the Yukon Territory produces, the more riches there is for Canada; and the greater the mineral production of the province of British Columbia, the greater is the mineral wealth of Canada.
I agree with my hon. friend, that for many years the Yukon will produce a great deal of gold, and the same may be said of British Columbia ; and I am of his opinion that it would be infinitely better for the Yukon country-I do not know whether it would be good for the province of British Columbia or not, but I think it would-to be joined to British Columbia and become part and parcel of that province. Out in the Yukon you have a fairly large population as compared with Britisn Columbia, and in the latter province we have also a fairly large population, but spread over a considerable extent of territory, and consequently not as compact as the populations in the other provinces. We have also the same resources as the Yukon, the same class of people, we require the same laws ; and if these two were joined together they would be a greater factor in the Dominion than if separate, and no doubt the production of mineral wealth would be greater. The very trouble which the hon. gentleman lias pointed out as impeding the progress of the Yukon, namely, the timidity of capitalists to imvest their money there on account of its unsettled laws and mining regulations, would be wiped out entirely, because in British Columbia wre have, if not the best mining laws in the world, very

good mining laws. We have been mining there fifty years and have solved many of the problems that are still awaiting solution in the Yukon. By the union of the Y'ukon with our province many of the difficulties there would disappear. With regard to the suggestion of my hon. friend, that British Columbia has not been very prosperous the last few years owing to the unsettled condition of its labour market, I might reply that in my opinion we have not had a very disastrous time in our province. True, we went through some trouble a few years ago, but it was not the unsettled condition of the labour market, nor was it strikes or other labour disturbances which were the main causes. What gave that province the worst black eye it ever had, as far as mining is concerned, was not the unsettled condition of the labour market, nor the paying of too high wages-because you cannot pay miners too high wages in my opinion-tout the greed of speculators in eastern Canada, who bought up pi'ospects and mines and capitalized them for extravagant amounts, and then sold tiiese stocks to the general public, although they knew very well it was impossible to pay dividends on the capital floated. That has been the curse of our province, but that has gone by the board to a great extent, and the people out there are once more getting on their feet. Last year we produced nearly three million dollars more than we did the year before. That increased production was due to the fact that stable people were taking hold of our mines and working them for the minerals they contained, and were not depending for their profit on the sale of stocks and the gullibility of the public. We in British Columbia have the warmest feelings for the Yukon. Possibly 'per capita' more money went out from British Columbia to develop the Yukon than from any other part of this continent. We all have faith in that country, the majority of our people know what mining is, they have done their share towards the building up of the Yukon Territory, and the more that Territory' prospers the better for our province, and the coast cities in particular. For those reasons, 1 should be glad to see the Y'ukon Territory and the province of British Columbia joined together as one province.


Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Kootenay).: Representing, as I do, a mining district, I can appreciate to the full what my hon. friend from the Yukon has stated to this House. There are but one or two points in his discourse on which I propose to touch at present. His reference to mining machinery deserves the consideration of this House. My hon. friend said that, not only for placer mining, but quartz mining also, the machinery made by Canadian manufacturers was not equal to the American implements. No doubt that is true, but it is easily explained. Mining in Canada, both quartz and placer, is practiaclly in its infancy, whereas in the United States mining has
been going on for a much longer time and on a much larger scale. In the United States the manufacturers, for many years past, have been making mining machinery and have had a large market for it in their own country and abroad. Consequently, they have familiarized themselves with a particular class of machinery suitable to the reduction of certain classes and grades of ore. For years they have been engaged in solving these problems and devising machinery to meet the requirement. In Canada, on the other hand, the manufacture of certain classes of mining machinery has only recently begun. True, for certain purposes, the Rand Drill Company make machinery equally as good as any made in the United States.	*
But there are other processes for the reduction of ores, and other machines for, carrying out those processes manufactured, in the United States that are much better suited for the purpose than are our Cana-( dian-manufactured machines. I do not} say that in disparagement of our Canadian! manufacturers. They are doing very weli indeed for the experience they have had and the time during which they have been manufacturing this class of machinery. But the law providing for the free adrnis-' sion of mining machinery not manufactured) in Canada should be much more liberally! interpreted than it has been hitherto. At| the very least this should be the case until; time and experience have enabled the Can-) adian manufacturer to produce an articlei as good and as well suited for the purpose as that produced by the American manu-) facturer. There are certain supplies used in mining to which the same principle! would apply. For instance-though it may seem a simple thing-candles should he admitted free. In working in shaft or tuni nel the miner must use a candle. Now, we| have no mining candles manufactured in) Canada. Therefore, that is an article that should be on the free list. There are other articles that are in the same category ; and I think that when the commission sits-as I understand it will in the near future-to consider all tariff questions, I will be pres pared to furnish them with a list of those) articles that are not manufactured in Cans ada and that, though small in themselves when combined, represent a considerable) share of the cost of mining in any part ofl Canada. There is no reason why these ar-i tides should not be on the free list, be-i cause their free entry would not involve competition with any Canadian manufac-! turer. By the free admission of machinery) and supplies needed by miners and not manufactured in Canada you can help the) mining industry greatly. I believe that,) for a time, there was an exemption in the) case of mining dredges imported into the| Yukon. That exemption was for a year,) and, at the end of that period, it was ex-| tended for another year.
*071


Alfred Thompson: Not now.


William Alfred Galliher: I suppose that the time granted by the extension has also expired.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It expires this July.


William Alfred Galliher: My hon. friend (Mr. Thompson) referred to the mining regulations in the Yukon. Of course, were the Yukon a province, it would be entitled, like' other provinces, to make its own mining *laws. But while they remain a territory, with the lands owned by the Dominion government as representing the Crown, of course, the Dominion will make its own laws and regulations. But let me say- and it seems to be an opportune time to approach this subject-that mining does not receive the special attention it should [DOT]receive. Mining matters come under the care of the Department of the Interior. We ail know that that department covers a great variety of subjects-the Geological [DOT]Survey, Immigi-ation, Indian Affairs, Mining. I need not enumerate them all. But, it seems perfectly clear to me that this department involves a greater range and variety of duties than any single minister, no matter how capable he may be, can give proper attention to. And I contend that the mining industry of Canada has reached a stage when it must be regarded as one of our most important industries, an industry that is entitled to have a separate portfolio presided over by a responsible minister. Under this new department, if it were created, would probably come the Geological Survey, which. I believe, is more closely allied to mining than to any other branch of industry. In my opinion, and not only in my opinion, but in the opinion of all those who live in our mining sections, the time has arrived when the government should look to the establishment of a separate portfolio of mines. The existence of such a department would be a great benefit to the country. The minister at its head could give much more careful attention to mining affairs than can the Minister of the Interior who has so many other affairs in his charge. That new minister would be in a position to take the course suggested by my hon. friend from Yukon (Mr. Thompson) or some similar course-he could thoroughly acquaint himself with the laws governing mining affairs. He need not confine himself to the Yukon or to British Columbia, but could consider the mining laws of every province of Canada and those of other countries, including the laws of the mining states of the union, where mining laws were in existence before we had any such laws in Canada. And the framing of regulations by that minister, I .believe, as does the hon. member for Yukon, would be greatly in the interest of the people of our mining regions and of the people of Canada gen-


William Alfred Galliher: erally. One of the first and greatest results of the existence of a separate department of mines under a responsible minister would be to give confidence in Can-]
[DOT] adian mining investments to capitalists abroad. In my opinion it would do far more to bring about that result than even, the best laws and regulations of any separate province. If you have one federal bureau of mines with a minister presiding over it you can collect data from all the provinces, and it would be presented noli in a sectional way as it might by the representative of one province who is bent; upon upholding that province as the best field of investment. That information, would be from reliable sources and centralized in one bureau at Ottawa it would be a source of information to people outn side. This would give the greatest impetus that has yet been known to the invest-, ment of foreign capital in the mining industries of Canada.


Mr. A. ZIMMERMAN (West Hamilton).: I desire to say just a word in relation to the subject so ably dealt with by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Thompson). I wish to congratulate him on the splendid address he gave us this afternoon. It was certainly a very interesting speech. I was dissap-pointed in hearing his statement that although the Yukon has produced $128,000,000 in gold during the last eight years, we have received but $13,000,000 worth of trade from that country. Certainly these figures are out of all proportion, there must be something wrong. I think if the Canadian government purchased the gold produced in that country it would to some extent overcome that difficulty. The fact of all that gold going into the United States and being purchased there, means that the miners must get most of their supplies in that country. I think the time has come when we Canadians should receive the benefit of our own natural weath. The hon. gentleman also spoke with regard to free mining machinery. Now, Sir, I claim that the increase in the business of mining is so great that it should stimulate Canadian manufacturers to enter into the business of making mining machinery. That business has become great, and is rapidly growing. My hon. friend stated that it would probably lissome years before mining machinery could be manufactured in this country that would be suitable, and therefore no duty should be placed on mining machinery, it should be admitted free. I claim, on the contrary, that the longer you leave the duty off the longer will you have to wait to see this machinery manufactured in Canada. Again I thank the hon. gentleman for his statement. It was a great delight to me, and I believe it will do much good in the country. It is to be desired that we hear more frequently in this House speeches of that kind

that have the true Canadian ring about them.


Wilfrid Laurier: The House is undoubtedly very much indebted to my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Thompson) for the very able address with which he has favoured us this afternoon. It was all the more able that it was so temperate and judicial in tone. He has spoken his mind in a manly fashion, concealing nothing, and endeavouring to please no one, but merely to state the facts. He was enthusiastic in describing the character of the country which he represents, though I do not think he was unduly enthusiastic. We knew a good deal of the Yukon and of its possibilities, we know more of them now. If there was one part of his speech that I enjoyed more than the rest, it was the statement he made that the Yukon is not only a gold producing country, but that also it has possibilities for agriculture which few of us had suspected. If it be true that this distant part of our northern continent can produce wheat, that wheat can ripen there, I think that fact should be even more satisfactory to us than its mineral riches. Because after all, the great source of wealth of any country is not its mineral resources, but its agricultural resources ; and if we have in that northern part of Canada a soil and climate in which wheat will ripen, as well as other cereals, and some fruits and vegetables, the future of that country is assured, even when, hundreds of years from to-day, the gold has been exhausted.
(But undoubtedly, the most interesting portion of the address of my hon. friend was his remarks with regard to the reforms which are needed in that country. On the whole the government cannot complain of the manner in which he approached this subject. He has shown that the administration has not been free from faults, but I think on the whole we can reasonably claim that the faults have been very few, having regard to the condition of things we found there seven years ago. One of the important points to which my hon. friend addressed himself was the character of the mining regulations. I did not understand that he complained particularly of the character of the regulations which exist at the present time. One thing w7hich he insisted upon strongly was that these regulations should have the stamp of stability put upon them. He stated that of late changes had been made. I think that is true, but I am not aware that of late there has been any marked change in the regulations. But it was unavoidable that in the early days of the discovery of gold, when miners rushed in there by thousands every year-it was unavoidable, I say, that there should have been mistakes made, and it was at first impossible to give that country the institutions which have been found to be most desirable for t(he development of the gold
industry. I would remind my hon. friend of the conversation, which he himself repeated, that he had with Mr. Murray, the Prime Minister of the province of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia, I think, has a very satisfactory mining code at the present moment, and he asked Mr. Murray if they had always had that code, and Mr. Murray told him they had not. but it was the result of successive experiments, and of frequent conferences with the miners, and that only after long experience had they been able to evolve a code which at this moment gives so much satisfaction to all the parties concerned. No doubt some improvements can be made in the Yukon, but I do not know7 that at present there is much to be reformed. I noticed that one of the reforms to which the hon. gentleman wanted immediate attention to be given, was the size of the claims. At present the size of the claim is 250 feet by
2,000	feet ; he would have the size doubled, so that a claim should be 500 by 2,000 feet. If I remember right, nothing in the regulations has been changed so often as the size of the claims. They have varied frequently, time and again we have made changes ; but these changes were only made after consultation w'ith the parties interested, after inquiry, and upon representations that the regulations w7ere defective in that respect. In the early days of the Eldorado, in 1897 and 1898, the claims were very rich, and they were not as large as they are to-day. But though they were smaller in size than they are to-day, still representations were often made to us that they ought to be changed, and it was only after a series of changes that they have attained to their present size. I must say to my hon. friend that I have not heard any complaints made as to the present size of the claims, still he desires that some alteration be made in the regulations in this respect and apparently he speaks by authority.
I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Thompson) that I do not know7 how far it would be possible and proper or that the time has come w7hen we should have a mining law enacted by this parliament. Up to the present time we have not thought it advisable to have mining law7s enacted by this parliament because we thought it would be preferable to vest the power of passing such laws in the Governor General in Council, so that changes might be made promptly where changes were found necessary, but now that the condition of the country is more certain and is better known, and now that we have come to what we should call a condition of practical settlement, perhaps it may be advisable indeed that we should have a mining law enacted by this parliament. But, although this is the case, for my part, I have always expected that we would be informed in this matter some time or other by the Yukon Council. I have been expecting-and in this I have been dis-1 appointed, I must say,-the government has

been expecting that at some time the Yukon Council would he able to send us at least the skeleton of a mining Act which could be taken up by the department here to prepare legislation. If this is not done, I do not know that the government may not profit by the suggestion of my hon. friend of sending a commissioner to interview the miners, to confer with them and report the result of his investigation and make this the basis of legislation say for the next session of parliament. It is a suggestion which is very well worthy of consideration and the government will give it due attention. The next thing to which my hon. friend addressed his remarks is one as to which I must say I hardly think I can agree with him ; it is with regard to what he calls the export duty on gold. The export duty at the present time is simply a royalty. We have given it the form of an export duty for reasons which I shall explain in a few moments but it is with a view of collecting the royalty more easily. First of all should we have or should we not have a royalty on gold ? My hon. friend represented to the government some time ago that the duty should be at least suspended upon all gold produced in the lTukon whether by placer or quartz mining. The government had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that upon all gold produced by quartz mining there should be a suspension of the duty for ten years, and we have applied a similar exemption also to copper, but I submit to my hon. friend if he has the opinion and will persist in the opinion that there should be a suspension of the duty ou gold produced from the placer mining that if there is a principle which is sound in political economy it is that a moderate tax should be put upon the production of the precious metals. This is done in many countries. My hon. friend stated that in the United States there is no such tax. I was not aware of the fact; I take his word for it, but in most civilized nations of the world there is a small royalty put upon the gold produced. In the province of Nova Scotia which has as was stated by my hon. friend a moment ago a very good system of mining laws, there is a small royalty if I am correctly informed, not only upon placer mining which is not carried on in that province, but upon quartz mining, and for this reason I submit to my hon. friend and I would submit also to the people of the Yukon generally, that in order that they should bear their share of legitimate taxation which all parties have to bear it is not unreasonable that they should submit to a moderate royalty. If the royalty is too large at the present time that is a matter for consideration and debate. In tne enrlv days we imposed a royalty of 10 per cent and I agree that this was a very exorbitant tax. At that time, however, I. do not think it was felt to be too hard, because the production was so abundant, the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
gravel was so rich, that I think the people submitted willingly to the tax. After a few years we reduced it by one-half and brought it down to 5 per cent, and we again reduced it to 21 per cent. Now, as I un; derstood my hon. friend he did not ask that it should be abolished altogether, but that it should be suspended for a certain number of years even if only for three years. Before I would give assent to this suggestion I think it would be worth while considering again as I said a moment ago, and I would like the consideration of my hon. friend and of the people whom he represents if it is not reasonable and fair that they should bear their share of the taxation which of course they have to bear like all others, and having a particular branch of wealth which is very productive indeed, I do not think it would be unfair for them to consider that after all they should bear that tax if it is too heavy at 2i per cent, I think I would be open to consideration of this, but as at present advised I do not think it is too heavy or too large. My hon. friend suggested that if we are to maintain the export duty it should be applied only to the gold which really goes out of the country and not to the part of the gold which remains in Canada. As to that I do not think I can at all agree with my hon. friend. The export duty is made not for the purpose of discouraging the sale of gold outside the country ; it i's simply to facilitate the collection of the tax because in reality it is a tax and nothing else. At the present time, by putting the tax in the form of an export duty the miner is entitled to go to the bank, sell his gold and get a draft from the bank which he can collect in the east after he leaves the Yukon. It seems to me that in the interests of the miner it is far preferable that he should dispose of his gold before he quits the Yukon and put his wealth in the shape of a draft which is safer, more easy to carry and not so susceptible of loss, and which can be cashed by him whenever he comes out into the outside world again where he can use his wealth. For this reason, I think my hon. friend will agree with me that perhaps if there is to be a tax upon gold this is the best way of collecting it. I sympathize to a large degree if not entirely with my hon. friend as to the suggestion which he has made with regard to the disposition of the gold. He suggests that the gold should be bought by the government and not by the banks. For my part, I sympathize altogether with that suggestion. I think the government should buy the gold if it was in a position to buy it, but I must say to my hon. friend that no government can buy gold unless it has a mint to coin it. Gold is a merchandise like everything else and if we buy it we must sell it. When we have a mint we will coin the gold. Every ounce of gold brought from the Yukon will then be brought to Ottawa

or to an assay office at Dawson, and I think we should have one here, we should have an assay office in the Yukon. Then the miner can take the gold to the assay office and dispose of it there to the government. Then it would be brought here and be coined, it would go into circulation for the purposes of the country and what is not required for the use of the country would have to be exported abroad, like every other merchandise. This is the way it is done elsewhere, this is the way it must be done here. I must say that I could not exactly realize my hon. friend's meaning when he said that we should buy the gold and give treasury bills for it and then treat it as we treat the savings of the country when they are brought to the savings banks. It seems to be a plain business principle that if we buy gold we must buy it simply as merchandise, and I agree that the government is the proper party to buy that merchandise, because the government, having a mint, is in a position to sell it. Otherwise I do not think it would be practicable.
My hon. friend spoke of the hydraulic concessions which have been given. I may say and say in all frankness that I am ready to believe that in this respect the policy which has been followed by the government has not been satisfactory. The motive was good and if the policy was excellent in itself, if that policy has been carried out as it was intended, it would have been of very great benefit to the Yukon. My hon. friend stated and stated truly that the want, if not the chief want of the Y'ukon, is water. Water is almost as precious as gold in the Yukon. One thing which the miner must have and without which he cannot prosecute his industry is water. These hydraulic concessions were in every instance for the purpose of promoting water development. Unfortunately these concessions have not produced the results anticipated, and I believe the policy of the government will be henceforth not to give any more concessions? In obedience to the suggestion which was made by my hon. friend when he came here a few months ago we have sent a mining engineer up to the Yukon to make a hydrographic survey, after which we will be able to resolve a new system of disposing of the water there which, we hope, will give more satisfaction to the people of the Yukon than the system which has been pursued in the past.
My hon. friend has made another suggestion for the develoi>ment of quartz mining which, I am afraid, he will find some difficulty in passing through this House. My hon. friend has suggested that we should have mining machinery and dredging plant made free ; that is to say that the miners should be at liberty to import from the United States the mining machinery and dredges which they require for the prosecution of their avocation. We have a ' law-my hon. friend has alluded to it-which permits at the moment the free introduction of mining machinery of a class not now made in Canada, but the suggestion is that we should confer this privilege not only in respect to machinery that is not made in Canada but also in respect to machinery that is made in Canada. I am afraid that my hon. friend will find very serious opposition to this, because, after all, we have a tariff which has been adopted for purposes which were deemed sufficient by the parliament and people of Canada, and if under this tariff men have been induced to put their money into the production of dredges and into the manufacture of mining machinery, and if they were to be subjected to competition which they did not expect and which deprived them of their market, undoubtedly very serious complications would result and there would probably be very serious representations made to parliament and to the government. I do not think it would be possible to encourage quartz mining in that direction. I am afraid that the miners in the Yukon who, I understand, are now going from placer mining into quartz mining, will have to make the best of their situation, but I believe that quartz producing will be sufficiently remunerative to induce them to put their money into that industry even apart from the advantage which my hon. friend would like them to have.
My hon. friend has also spoken of the extra duty which is imposed upon liquor going into the Yukon of $2 a gallon. If my hon. friend had been here some few years ago he would have been aware of the discussion which took place on that question. There was a movement at that time to prevent liquor from going into the Yukon. There was quite a feeling in the country that the Yukon should be a prohibition country. We did not think it advisable to yield to that request, but we thought that it would at all events be advisable to put a restriction upon the consumption of liquor and it was done in this way. On the whole I think that the Yukon, although it is not a prohibition country, is a temperate country. I do not think there is a greater excess of drinking in the Yukon than there is in any other part of the country. However, we will certainly feel it to be our duty to consider the suggestion that my hon. friend makes that the extra $2 per gallon shall be dropped.
But, the most important part of the observations of my hon. friend to the House this afternoon was what he said about the Yukon Council, and his remarks upon that subject certainly ought to command our best attention. Everybody will agree with my hon. friend that the Yukon, like every other part of Canada, should have representative institutions. But, I ask my hon. friend : Is the government, or is parliament at all derelict in its duty in regard to that matter 1 It is only eight years since

the Yukon was discovered and brought into civilization. Up to that time it was an unknown country. All of a sudden, in 1897, there was a rush of population from all over the world, not only from Canada but from Europe and America, into that distant country. Under great difficulties, in the face of great inconvenience and obstacles, they rushed into that country and things were rather unsettled. My hon. friend will agree with me that it would have been extremely unwise if we had given to this new population coming from all parts of the world representative institutions. Those who came from outside of the British empire would have been voters, but the few who came even from the British empire would have been lost, or would have been mixed with such a large number of the foreign element that it would have been extremely unwise to have given at once an elective council to this new community. We proceeded then to appoint a commissioner giving him an advisory or a legislative council composed of a certain number of officials and one or two elected members. That was sufficient for the time, and X think served the purpose very well. As the country became more settled and as it commenced to have a permanent population the system was changed and the council was constituted of five elected members and five nominated members. At that time it was impossible to do better. My hon. friend has found some fault with the character of the men who are nominated by the government. They are all, as he said, officials of the government. That is very true. At that time, four or five years ago, when this was done, I think it would have been unwise to have had any other members appointed to the council than those who were officials of the government. They had been sent from the east, they were known to the government and therefore, to some extent, the government could rely upon them. But, that time has passed, I am quite prepared to admit. My hon. friend says : I will not say whether or not the government at this moment should make the whole council elective, but if they do not make the whole council elective they should withdraw the present nominated members and appoint members who are absolutely independent of the government. I am quite prepared to consider that. I think It is perhaps a wise suggestion and I am quite prepared to-consider the suggestion in favour of making the whole clause elective. That it must be made elective at an early date goes without saying, that it must be made elective almost immediately I am quite prepared to consider also, hut I submit that if it should be done to-day it should not have been done before, and that the government has not been remiss in the character which it has given to the institutions of the Yukon. Let me remind my hon. friend of the fact, as I said a moment ago, that it is only since Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER.
1897 that there has been a population in the Y'ukon. It was not five years after the commencement of the movement of population into that Territory that the Yukon was given representation in this House, and nothing is better for the Yukon than to have a representative on the floor of this House who can speak for the people of that country and who can perform the duty which my hon. friend has performed so well to-day of informing us what is wanted by them. My hon. friend says : I speak for the Yukon; I speak for the people who are there and who have sent me here, and I say that you must change the character of the executive and legislative council as it exists to-day, you must give it new life and make it more accessible to the people. You must make it more representative than it is at the present time. I am quite prepared to agree to that. All I have to say in defence of it is that we did uot know that it would be advisable to do this at this moment. The government will be bound to consider the observations made by my hon. friend on that subject.
I will uot enter to-day upon another question raised by my hon. friend, as to whether or not the Yukon should be ans nexed to British Columbia. I would not say yes, and I would not say no. Speak-, ing a few days ago on this subject, I stated that there were in our country some territories which in my opinion ought to be aunexed to the older provinces. I spoke for instance of the territory of Mackenzie, the territory of Keewatin, the territory of Franklin and ithe territory of Ungava. So far as we know these districts, they are not of the same character as the Yukon, they cannot have, so far as I know, any agriculture, and where there is no agri->
culture there can be no permanent popu-i lation. Therefore these Territories are not likely to have such a character as to in->
duce any government to make them into provinces. But if the Yukon country is of a different character, if we are to have there a permanent population, it has certainly the space to make a province, andi therefore we can leave this question for future consideration. My hon. friend does not expect or desire that the Yukon should he made a province at the present time ; but what he wants to be assured in advance is that it shall not he annexed to another province, even if it be the good, fair and rich province of British Columbia. I think I can asure my hon. friend so far, that we have no intention of marrying the Yukon to British Columbia, and if it puts, an obstacle to the banns, I may say to him that I have never had that- idea in my. mind at all. I have only again to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for the manner in which he has introduced thisi subject, and for the very valuable information which he has given us, and to assure

him that the government will deem it their duty to give the subject their very best consideration.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN (Carleton. Ont.) Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the congratulations which have been extended to the hon. member for the Yukon for the very full and well informed address which he has given to us respecting the conditions in that territory; and I think we may, also congratulate ourselves that certain me-, thods which were employed to prevent the return of that gentleman to represent the Yukon proved unsuccessful at the last moJ ment, owing to the determination of the people of the Yukon not to permit such methods to prevail as those which had prevailed there previously. I was a little pained to observe that the Prime Minister, did not meet the request for free mining machinery with that generous enthusiasm for free trade which inspired him during his tour of the west in 1894, when he declaimed against protection of any kind as bondage in the same sense that American slavery was a bondage, and declared, that he would not rest in his political career until the full measure qf free trade as it is in England was obtained for this country. I would have thought, from his utterances of those days, that the Prime Minister would have said to my friend from the YTukon that this was a slight instalment of that free trade towards which we have been tendinv so rn-hlly during the last eight or nine. years, and that the request of the people of the Yukon in that regard would be granted at the earliest possible moment. However, it was the ill fortune of my hon. friend from the Yukon to find the Prime Minister in a somewhat unsympathetic mood in that regard. Pen haps he may be less obdurate on some futi ure occasion.
I was glad also to receive from the hon. member for the Yukon an assurance, which has already been given in certain official publications of this government, that that 80 per cent of the trade of the Yukon at the present time is in the hands of Canadians. I am glad of this, because we have had from the Prime Minister on many occasions since what is known at the Mackenzie & Mann deal *was defeated in the Senate, various lamentations that a certain railway proposal of this government to which I have just referred was not carried through, and that bj means of the action of the Senate at that time the trade of this country had been thrown into the hands of the people of the United States. Well, it appears that these apprehensions of the Prime Minister and his colleagues were wholly unfounded ; and I was glad that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was so well advised as to congratulate the hon. member for the Yukon upon a result 225
which the Prime Minister himself said as few years ago would never obtain unless *the proposed railway was built. The speech of the hon. member for which ha has been congratulated by the Prime Min-, ister is the best possible vindication that}: could be offered of the action of the Senate of Canada in doing what it did at that time.
In regard to the many matters of inter

est which have been alluded to in the speech of my hon. friend-and I regret that I was not able to hear all of it, having been called out of the House during a portion of the afternoon-I would like to say just a word or two with regard to only a few of them. In the first place, as to the concessions to which the hon. member made reference, I see no reason why' the government should not at once accede to the proposal which he has made, and call upon the men who have obtained concessions of gold mining territory in the Yukon, to fulfil the conditions upon which they obtained those areas. Is there any possible reason why that should not be done? We had some discussion on these matters a few years ago, the result of which was that a certain commission was sent by this government to investigate the position of affairs with regard to the Tread-gold concession and with regard to concessions generally. Representations of a very strong character had been made by the miners of the Yukon at that time, charging not only unwisdom in the making of those concessions, but in some cases at least actual fraud. Well, the government propose to issue a commission, taking good care to exclude from the terms o! that commission any opportunity to the commissioners to investigate those charges. They were carefully eliminated, after and in spite of debate on this House before that commission was sent forward. The commission did go forward and their report was delayed for a very long time. We urged the government to bring down the report in order that it might be debated, and eventually a certain member of the administration who has a seat in another House stated that the report would not be brought down at all. His colleagues did not concur in that view. The report was brought down after an announcement had first been* made in the public press that the commission was to be cancelled, and it was cancelled. Well, there are other concessions in the Yukon, and, so far as I am able to gather from the remarks of the hon. member, the present position of affairs permits these areas to be held for future development, and the government is not calling upon those who hold them to fulfil the Conditions which are essential to the proper development of that country. That is a condition of affairs which should not be permitted for a single moment. The re-1 suit of permitting that to continue is tbati



these lands are held for the benefit of men Who may not intend to develop them at alii "but may Intend to hold them in order to bbtain in the future that Increment of profit which will arise from the efforts of the (ordinary miners in the Yukon, and which Will make those properties very much more valuable than they are at present.
My hon. friend from the Yukon referred, 1 think, to the representation fee ?


Alfred Thompson: 
Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has made a statement of facts-unwittingly I have no doubt-which is entirely disproved by the evidence. He stated that in the commission issued to Judge Britton to investigate certain matters of the Yukon the government had carefully omitted any instructions to inquire into questions of fraud


Robert Laird Borden: That is my recollection.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) is quite mistaken. I would refer him to the commission as printed In the return included in the report of Judge Britton himself as brought down in return to an older of this House dated March 17, 1904. Judge Britton says :
The undersigned commissioner and Benjamin Taylor A. Bell were appointed by letters patent under the great seal, dated 30th day ot July, 1903, to inquire into and report upon certain matters and things more particularly mentioned and set out in certain Orders in Council bearing date respectively the 29th day of May and the 30th day of June, 1903.
These Orders in Council state-
225i
The sections are set out in order, and section 10 is as follows :
10. That it has been alleged that the hydraulic claims granted in pursuance of the regulations for the granting of hydraulic claims in the Yukon Territory have been procured by fraud and misrepresentation, and that the material conditions of the leases, have not been observed, thereby rendering the same liable to cancellation.
I have only had time to look at one or two pages of the report with regard to this point, but I find that, at page 16, in dealing with the hydraulic concessions generally, Mr. Justice Britton says, among other things :
If there has been shown any fraud or misrepresentation by reason of which a concession has been granted, my commission enables me to deal with such. It may he taken for granted that if a hydraulic concession is only of such a mining location as is contemplated by the regulation and if that location is worked as such, it must necessarily be beneficial to the mining industry of the Yukon Territory

And so on. Dealing with the various concessions separately under different heading, Mr. Justice Britton reports, as will be seen at page 17 :
Within the period set out in the public notice given by the commission, protests were filed against the following hydraulic mining leases, and representations were made that these leases had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of the applicants, and that the holders thereof had failed to comply with the requirements of the leases of such concessions.
Then, dealing with the Matson concession, he says page 19 :
It is of considerable Importance in dealing with the question of fraud and misrepresentation that :
1.	The application was made before the regulation ; and
2.	That everything which could possibly be ascertained by the applicants was supposed to be known by Mr. Ogilvie and Mr. Ogilvie speaks in his letter of 16th of September, 1899, of some of those located as merely speculators. See also his letter of 11th November, 1899.
In the face of what had been done by the holders and accepted by the department, and sentation on behalf of the applicants, and that the conditions of the lease have not boon complied with.
And in dealing with the Doyle concession and the Bronson and Ray concession he refers to the question of fraud :
In the absence of evidence contradicting Mr. Ogilive, commissioner of the territory, or evidence showing bad faith on his part, fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the applicants cannot be found.
I merely rose to call the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) to a very serious error on his part, imputing to the government something which, I ain sure, he would not have imputed to them had he correctly remembered the facts.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt) has not convinced me. I remember distinctly the debate that took place in the House and the controversy between the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) and myself in regard to the appointment. The Postmsater General made a speech in which he announced that the commission would be issued, and in that speech said that it would be given the widest terms. I do not know the terms in which it was issued-
Mi-. BELCOURT. I have just read them.


Robert Laird Borden: But the proposal which the Postmaster General brought down to the House, and which, I have the right to assume, covered the terms in which it would be issued, was very much narrower than the speech which he made, and we had a .prolonged debate as to the terms of the commission, in which we urged that it should be made wider. I have sent for ' Hansard,' and I think I can satisfy my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) that my remarks of a few moments ago were not at all out of place in view of what occurred on that occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-a line or lines of steamers to run between St. John, Halifax and London, $40,000.	.
Wilfrid Laurier: This service is now performed by two lines, the Canadian Pacific and the Furness lines. The contract was entered into in November last and expired on the 31st of May. We have asked for other tenders, the time allowed for tendering to end in July next.


Mr. DANIEL.: Do I understand that tenders have been asked for, and the time not yet elapsed ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. The service is in operation now', and was last winter. We have asked for more tenders to be received in the month of July.
A line or lines of steamers to run between St. John and Halifax, or either, and the West Indies and South America, $80,700.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is an old subsidy. Under the present subsidy there are two lines of steamers which are subventioned. One subsidy for which we pay $65,000, now goes to Messrs. Pickford & Black, that is the subsidy for a service between st. John and Halifax and a number of islands in the West Indies, among which are Bermuda, St. Kitts, Antigua, Dominica, St. Vincent, Grenada, St. Lucia and Trinidad. The imperial government also pay them a similar sum of $65,000. Besides. we pay Pickford & Black $15,000 as a subsidy for a direct service between St. John and Halifax and St. Domingo. That subsidy has expired, we have asked for tenders, and have received a tender from


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Pickford & Black. But they have asked for certain modifications in the service, dispensing them from calling at certain islands, and as the imperial government is equally interested in the service, paying one-lialf, we are now in correspondence with them with regard to the matter.


Herbert Brown Ames: Wrould the minister be willing to let this item stand over ? Considerable correspondence has been exchanged between various boards of trade on this matter. I did not anticipate it coming up to-night, and have not the correspondence with me.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.
Steam communication between a port or ports In Prince Edward Island and a port or ports in Great Britain, $7,000.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: When that matter was up before, the minister promised to give some information with regard to the trips made by one of these steamers.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is the information which is furnished me by the minister.
The vote for 1903-4 for this service was $7,000, though a contract was in force with Messrs. Furness, Withy & Company, for $5,000. Of this, only $2,600 was expended. Two half trips were made in the fall of 1903, that is to say, in October, 1903, and November 28th. 1903. There was some disarrangement of the dates of sailing, owing to disaster to the ' Manchester Trader,' in the St. Lawrence. It was found that the * Manchester Trader' would be unable to take up her sailing, and no other steamer being available, Messrs. Furness, Withy & Company, were permitted to have the ' Manchester Ti ad-er ' call at Charlottetown on the Montreal service ; and it was agreed that the ' Manchester Trader ' thus calling at Charlottetown should only be entitled to claim for half a trip. When the second call had to he made, the repairs to the * Manchester Trader ' were not then completed, and the department permitted the ' Manchester Engineer ' to call on the voyage from Montreal, under the same conditions, that is to say, that the call at Charlottetown should be considered half a trip.


Mr. ALEXANDER MARTIN.: I would like to say with regard to this item, that the service so far as it relates to Prince Edward Island is not very satisfactory. We have in our province two large articles of export, cheese and butter. At present, cheese sold for Great Britain has to go first to Montreal ; so with butter in many cases, eggs and ham and pork, they go to Montreal, where they have to be transhipped to Great Britain. Any one can see how the farmer in Prince Edward Island is handicapped in the price which he receives for these articles compared with prices received in other parts of Canada. The trips these boats make are very irregular, they call at no stated times. There is no definite time for them to sail. Sometimes they sail on the date agreed upon, and sometimes they do not. Farmers in the island are at a loss,

and shippers are at a loss, to know when to prepare their cargoes for these boats. At present people have first to ship their cheese up to Montreal and then tranship it to Great Britain, or else send it to Halifax, which involves a very large expense, three transhipments, and three short hauls over [DOT] railways at a very heavy railway rate, and thence to Great Britain. The apple trade with Great Britain in the fall of the year is handicapped in the same way. I would like if the government would insist upon these boats sailing at stated days in the season, which would be advertised three or four months ahead, so that the farmers and shippers would know beforehand what accommodation they were to receive, and when to bring their cargoes to the place of shipment. Sometimes when the ship does call, the shippers not knowing ahead when she would call, are not ready with their freight. But if these trips were made regularly and at stated times, the people would be relieved of a great deal of difficulty which they now suffer.


Wilfrid Laurier: In view of the information which I have in my hands, I do not think the criticism of the hon. gentleman applies, because the contract stipulates absolutely at what times the trips are to be made. The terms are two complete round voyages, the first trip to be made in the month of October, and the second trip prior to the 15th of December. So the people of Prince Edward Island can know that in the month of October next this ship, ' The Manchester Trader ' will call at Charlottetown, and then some month or six weeks afterwards it will call again. So there is no necessity of giving any notice in advance when the ship will call, because it is stipulated in the contract, and the subsidy cannot be earned unless the ship calls at Charlottetown at those stated periods. Let my hon. friend tell the people of Prince Edward Island that the subvention cannot be earned unless this ship calls at Charlottetown at the times mentioned in the contract.


Alexander Martin: All I know is what has happened there before and what may happen there again. Although the sailings of these vessels are advertised and are in the contract I know from my own experience in shipping in the province that very often when these days arrived the vessels were not there, and I remember some years ago when I was in this House, that in the spring of the year it was given out that the steamer was to call at the province and a great many farmers fattened their cattle for export to Great Britain, but when the time arrived, there was no boat, no boat called at the province to its great detriment. The same thing happened only a few years ago and I think that while two trips a year may be all right-I suppose that would supply the province with some little accommodation-I think a trip in the spring of the year if it could be arranged would be of great advantage to the farmers for a great many feed their stock during the winter and ship it in the spring, and at present they have to take the roundabout way of first shipping them to Halifax and re-shipping them from there afterwards. However, perhaps after this more regular trips may be made ; I am only speaking of what has happened before and what I hope may not happen again.


Wilfrid Laurier: This subsidy for which we are now asking is for only two trips in October and December. No provision is made in these estimates for any more trips than that.


Alexander Martin: How much is the con-, tract ?


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Alexander Martin: That would be only $5,000.	1
Sir'wiLFRID LAURIER. $5,000, yes.


Alexander Martin: Then there is $2,000 more ?	1


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes,-I am informed by the deputy that it is hoped the service can be improved and that perhaps one or more additional trips can be provided for but at present the contract is only $5,000 for two trips. We have not been able to get anything better but we hope we can get some company to earn the $7,000 we offer.


Alexander Martin: That is the very complaint I am making, the very great uncertainty of the service. There may be three trips or there may be only two trips, that it creates the uncertainty which causes the uncertainty of freight also.


Wilfrid Laurier: At the present time we have settled for only two trips under the arrangement, but we hope to perfect this arrangement and to provide for two or more additional trips. At present all we can be certain of is the two trips.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: My hon. friend from Queen's (Mr. A. Martin) was right in his statement that on several occasions there has been a great deal of uncertainty in the sailing of these boats. I have myself known occasions when the people have been at a loss to know when if at all they were going to have a boat. I would suggest now that' , the two trips are certain and definite and as the government has in view the getting of another steamer for a spring trip, the arrangement should be made at least some months ahead or the people would not be in a position to know whether they are to have the ! spring trips or not. I would like to ask how* i the trips are published, in what manner the 1 shippers become cognizant when the sail-

ings are to be made in October and possibly six months later.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand tltat a part of the terms of the contract is that there is to be an advertisement published 20 days in advance of the exact date at which the boat will be at Charlottetown.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is there any authority at Charlottetown to publish this to the shippers on the island ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The notification is sent to the newspapers by the agent of the company.


Angus Alexander McLean: I would urge on the Prime Minister that the rates of freight charged by these steamers should be the . same as can be obtained at Montreal, St. John or Halifax.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is part of the contract.


Angus Alexander McLean: And that should be indicated in the contract ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is.


Angus Alexander McLean: And there should be no doubt about it. During the last few years when these steamers went down there they charged whatever they felt like charging, and there is no rule to guide the Steamer or shippers. I think it should .be definitely stated and the public should know what the rates of freight are which these steamers are permitted to charge to shippers.
^ Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Hear, hear. That is quite reasonable, and I am very glad to be able to inform my hon. friend that it is part of the contract that the freight rates are not to be greater between the ports mentioned than the current rates between Montreal and Manchester. There are to be the same rates between Prince Edward Island and Manchester as between Montreal and Manchester.
Winter navigation between Quebec and St. Lawrence harbours, down to Murray bay and River Ouelle, $12,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say we have no contract. We have not been able to find any steamer to provide that service, but we are taking the appropriation in the hope that we may find a steamer this year.
Steam service between Victoria, Vancouver way ports and Skagway, $12,500.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a somewhat important service. It is altogether performed by the Canadian Pacific Railway-Company. It is really two services, the particulars being as follows :


Route A.: Victoria, Vancouver and Skagway four complete round trips in June, July. August, September and October, three complete round trips during March, April and May, two complete round trips during Mr. LEFURGEY.
May', November, December, January and February.	<


Route B.: -Victoria, Vancouver, Naas Harbour and Skidegate, calling at way ports 2 round trips each month.


Route C.: -Victoria and Ahousset Quat-sino and Cape Scott and way ports, 4 round trips from April to September, inclusive as follows : 2 from Victoria to Ahousset, 1 to-Ahousset and Quatsino and Cape Scott.
During remaining months 3 round trips from Victoria to Ahousset one to be continued to Cape Scott calling at way ports.
Steam communication between Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton and Newfoundland, $8,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Might I ask for the ports of call for this service in Prince Edward Island ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have a contract with Robert J. Leslie, of Halifax, who has two steamers, the ' Amelia 3001 'tons capacity with passenger accommodation for twenty-five first-class passengers and 100 second-class passengers, and the [DOT] Helen May Butler ' with a capacity of about 05 tons and with adequate passenger 'accommodation. The ' Amelia ' will sail, from Charlottetown to Placentia, Newfoundland, calling both ways at Pictou, Souris, Cheticamp, North Sydney and Sydney' with the option of calling at St. Pierre>
'and Miquelon, and to omit the call att 'Souris on the return voyage from Placentia to Charlottetown. The ' Helen May Butler ' will run a subsidiary service from and to Bridgetown and Cardigan Bridge, Prince; Edward Island, calling at the public wharfs on both sides of the Grand and Cardigan rivers and connecting at Pictou with the* " Amelia.' There will be a regular semi-j monthly' service between the aforementioned ports.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like to ask 'the bon. First Minister if there was not a request from the board of trade or from some other authority on the island asking; that these steamers call at Summerside also? Summerside is one of the principal shipping ports off Prince Edward Island. In the schedule of these boats it is leftt out altogether.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am informed that there is no recollection of such a representation being made to the government from Summerside. I cannot say positively that there was none made, but the deputy informs me that he has no recollection of it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is it not a fact that one of these boats was lost or got into1 trouble lately?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, one of these boats has got into trouble. We have not yet got full details.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is the department taking any steps to have her replaced?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, the contractors are doing their best to replace the boat; otherwise, they cannot earn their subsidy.


Alexander Martin: In these estimates 1 observe that there is provision for a subi sidized service between New Brunswick; and Nova Scotia and the West Indies. Bei tween Prince Edward Island and the West! Indies there formerly existed a large trade, but that trade has been gradually decreas-, ing on account of the large subsidies to services from both Halifax and St. John and because there have been uo subsidized boats running between the West Indies and the province of Prince Edward Island. It is well known that the fisheries of Prince Edward Island constitute a most valuable industry. In codfish and other articles that province has a large production. It is a hardship to the province that while the provinces around it have the benefit of cheap transportation by subsidized boats. Prince Edward Island has to depend on its own resources for the transportation of its products. I understand there has been a proposition to subsidize a line of boats* from Montreal to the West Indies. I would suggest to the l'ight hon. First Minister that if that should materialize, Charlotte-' town be made a port of call between Mont-i real and the West Indies in order to five the province of Prince Edward Island 'the means of carrying on trade with thei West Indies, which I am sure, would increase very largely if there was a boat calling at that port.
gir WILFRID LAURIER. I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Alex. Martin) that we have in contemplation at the present time >a service between Montreal, Cuba and Mexico. I would not be too sanguine or give too much hope to my hon. friend, butt if that service comes into operation, if we succeed in getting somebody to undertake it as we want to, we contemplate having the vessels call at Charlottetown.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: When this item was before the committee on a former occasion. I entered my protest against it. It was pointed out to me, in answer to some observations I made, that this service was to call at certain ports in my own constituency, and that one of the ports was Glace bay. Upon the assurance that the present service was to make Glace bay a port of call, I withdrew for the moment any opposition to it. I find, however, that, whereas on a former occasion the itinerary included Glace bay, the list as read UH bight does not include Glace bay. I would like to ascertain how it is that Glace bay has been dropped out of the list of ports at which this service is to call. !


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand the contractors say that they could not cat* at Glace bay.


Alexander Johnston: There is a very simple and a very short answer tot the contractor. I am sure the contractor) would not undertake to give me that an-t swer for the simple reason that while ho might undertake to fool the department he) would scarcely undertake to fool anybody) who is familiar with the situation. I think that in view of the fact that representations were made to the effect that tbisj service "was to make Glace bay a port of call there should be some better explanation.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will take a note of it and see what we can do.
For services of -wrecking plant on the St-Lawrence for the year ending June 30, 1906, $10,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: I beg to move to drop that vote. This has been transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Item dropped.
Steamboat service between Canada and New Zealand, $50,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We will require some explanation as to that. That is a .new service.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have at the present time a growing trade with Newi Zealand. We have extended to them the) preference which we give to British colon-i ies and they have extended to us theirt preference. ' There is a growing trade and we have taken this appropriation in tliet endeavour to have a contract entered into, but we have not yet made any arangement:
Amount authorized by statute, $73,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: "in regard to this item there is an error which I want to correct. The appropriation last year was S-224.0C6.C6. This year the appropriation that we ask is only $73,000. This is an error. There was an appropriation of $<3,000 last year for the service which we had with Japan. This year we have made an appropriation for a steamship service with France under statute which will cost $133,333, so that in reality the decrease is not. as it Is stated there, $151,666.66, but only $18,333. In other words, what we propose to expend this year out of this amount of ^-4,-000 which is authorized by statute, is as follows :	$73,000 for the service between
Canada and Japan and $133,000 for the service between Canada and France.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there a contract signed for the service with France ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes ; the contract was signed in the month of February

last, anti it is to commence with the opening of navigation in 1905, and to expire at the opening of navigation in 1908. The contractors are the well-known firm of H. & A. Allan. The steamships to be placed on this line are the ' Laurentiun ' (4,522 tons) the Pomeranian ' (4,258 tons), the * Sardinian ' (4,349 tons) and the ' Buenos Ayrean ' (4,164 tons). The minimum speed is to be not less than 10 knots wlien loaded at sea. The terminal points are Montreal or Quebec during the season of navigation on the St. Lawrence, and Halifax or St. John during the season of closed navigation. The ports of call in France are Cherbourg or Havre at the contractors' option. Each east-bound trip may be extended at the contractors' option to a port or ports in Great Britain, but the first port of call after leaving Canada shall be a French port and the last port of departure for Canada shall be a port in Fiance. The number of round voyages from France to Canada and return shall be not less than eighteen yearly ; that is to say, during the months of May and November, inclusive, in each year there shall be run not less than two full round voyages each month ; and during the remaining months, from December to April, inclusive, m each year, the remaining voyages shall be performed. The number of round voyages from France to Canada may be increased to twenty-four per annum. The subsidy stipulated is $100,000 for eighteen voyages or $133,333.33 for twenty-four voyages. The vessels are to be fitted with such amount of cold storage accommodation and under such regulations as the minister may require, and thereafter during the continuance of the contract this is to be at all times subject to the approval of the minister. The minister may at any time revise the freight rates to be charged on all articles or classes of goods. In no case shall any discrimination be made against Canadian merchants or shippers, who shall always have preference. The steamers are also to carrv mails.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I presume the terminal points on this side of the Atlantic are left to the option of the steamship company V


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Thursday. June S, 1905, SPEAKER took the Chair at Three


FIRST READING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr! McCooi? ^ the reUef 0f PhiliP Vibert Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Mr. H.: GERVAIS presented the fifth report of the select committee appointed to supervise the official report of the Debates of the House during the prersent session as follows :
Your committee recommend that Mr. Rodolphe Laferrifire be appointed translator of the official report of the Debates vice Mr. H. R. Fiset, *whose services have been dispensed with.
That the said appointment and remuneration, viz.: $1,500 per annum, date from the adoption by the House of the foregoing recommendation All of which is respectfully submitted.
H. GERVAIS, Chairman.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. BRODER asked :: 1.	At what date was A. P. Lefebvre, postmaster at Markstay, dismissed ?
2.	For what cause1 was he dismissed ?
3.	Was there any investigation before dismissal ?
4.	Has any person been appointed to fill the vacancy ? If so, whom, and where from ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (for the Postmaster General) :: 1.	Mr. A. P. Lefebvre was removed from the postmastership of Markstay on the 1st April last.
2.	He was dismissed because of great carelessness in the management of his office and for serious irregularities in his accounts.
3.	There was a full investigation before dismissal.
4.	Mr. Norbert Roy has been appointed to hll the vacancy.


CACOUNA WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	What sums of money were voted last year for the wharf at Cacouna, in the county of Tem-iseouata ?
2.	What sums were paid and expended ?
3.	Wrhat works were done ?
4.	How many employees were there ?
5.	What was the employment of each of them, and were they employed as permanent or extra employees (& quel titre) ?
ti. What was the salary per day of each, and what were the sums received by them last year'
7.	What report has been made ?
8.	How long did the works last ?
9.	Who w'as the engineer in charge of such works, who was the superintendent, or superintendents, foremen, assistant engineers, &c.?
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 1.	$1,250.	*
2.	$1,249.27.
3.	The top planking and stringers were raised and levelled on a length of nearly 400 feet, the railing was replaced or repaired on the entire length of the wharf ; the extension was sheated on the outer end with hardwood and strapped with iron ; a stairway was built on the east side of the ex-



JUKE 8. 1905

[Stage Direction]
tension, and the bottom of the wharf, which was disintegrated at places, was repacked with stone.
4.	Eleven men.
5.	Zephirin Levesque, foreman in charge, $2.50 per day, total amount paid, $172 ; James Johnson, carpenter, $1.50 per day (15 days as labourer at $1.25), total amount paid, $91.50 ; Francois Berube, carpenter, $1.50 per day, total paid, $102 ; Alphonse Morin, carpenter, $1.50 per day, total paid, $84 ; Auguste Gagnon, carpenter, $1.50 per day, total paid, $90.75 ; Maxlme Bosse, labourer, $1.25 per day, total paid, $75.62 ; Paul Lepage, labourer, $1.25 per day, total paid, $38.12 ; Johifny Lausier, labourer, $1.25 per day, total paid, $38.12 ; Alfred Cot6, labourer, $1.25 per day, total paid, $35.62 ; William Kirouaek, tinsmith, $1.50 per day, total paid, $r.50 ; Arthur Pelletier, carter, $2 per day, total paid, $24. AH men on this work were employed by the day.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Engineer in charge made usual reports as to progress and completion of work.
8.	From the 12th of August to the 31st October, 1904.
9.	The work was in charge of District Engineer J. A. Tremblay, of Montmagny.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	Has Elie Martin, a retired farmer, living on his revenues (cultivateur et rentier), of the parish of Saint-Arsene, in the county of Temis-eouata, any employment in the Customs Department ?
2.	If so, what is that employment?
3.	How long has he been appointed ?
4.	What is his salary ?
5.	What are his duties ?
6.	What reports has he made to the government, and when ?
7.	What sums have been paid him since his appointment ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LATJRilER (Prime Minister). Eilie Martin, of the parish of Saint Arsene, county of Temiscouata, has uo employment in the Customs Department.

Mr. A. A. MACLE AN asked :: 1.	Have any, and what, timber limits, situated in Manitoba or the Northwest Territories, been advertised for sale by the Department Of the Interior since 1st October, 1904 ? If so, what are the dates of the advertisements, the conditions of sale, and in what newspapers were such advertisements inserted ?
2.	If any sale or sales of timber limits have bc-en made by the Department of the Interior since 1st October, 1904, in Manitoba or the Northwest Territories, i(a) where are such timber limits situated ; (b) what extent of territory does each such timber limit comprise ; (e) what is the name of each purchaser; (d) what is the amount of the consideration or purchase money for each such sale; (e) what were the sales made by public competition, and what were the sales made by the minister or by officials of the department ?


Thomas Hay: I find that it will take some time to prepare the information asked for. It is now 'being got ready and will be laid ou the table of tbe House as soon as completed.



COLONIAL CONFERENCE.

[Stage Direction]
Ou the Orders of the Day being called, .
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a despatch which appeared in the Montreal 'Star ' of last evening from London, to the following effect:
London, June 7.-It is announced to-day in the most positive fashion in the Radical papers that Laurier, replying to Lyttelton's communications re the next colonial conference has * firmly refused to take part in any tariff discussion until the opinion of this country has been ascertained at a general election.' The Leeds 1 Mercury,' which is bitterly anti-Cham-berlainite, rejoices over the announcement, and says that Laurier and other colonial ministers ' see through the Chamberlainite scheme and fully appreciate the difference between the pinch-beck imperialism of the protectionists and the pure gold of disinterested sentiment, of which Rosebery is the leading exponent.'
Official circles here are very reticent and will not confirm Laurier's alleged refusal, but it can be confidently stated that if the Canadian Prime Minister has refused, the conference of 1906 will not be held.
If a Liberal ministry is returned here at the next general election, their present intention is to let the conference meet in the usual course with a clear prior announcement, however, that all schemes for a preference involving a British tariff against the foreigner are impossible.
It is noteworthy that in the second report of Mr. Chamberlain's tariff commission respecting the cotton industry issued yesterday, great stress is laid on the fact that an equitable Anglo-colonial scheme of preference is essential to the future stability of British trade and the proper expansion of imperial resources.



WINDERMERE.

[Stage Direction]
I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give to the House upon the matter set forth in this telegram, and especially whether or not the alleged policy of the Liberal party in Great Britain referred to in this telegram, if they should be returned to power in the next general election, would toe likely to call into active exercise the declaration made by the members of this government, who attended the colonial conference, and renewed by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech! of two years ago, when it was declared ini effect that unless some preference to Canadian products should be granted in the markets of Great Britain and Ireland this government would hold Itself at liberty and, in fact, would propose to withdraw the preference which has already been given to certain British products in our markets.
Wilfrid Laurier: My attention was drawn last evening to the despatch which has been published in the ' Star.' r have simply to say that there is no foundation at all for the action or words attributed to myself. I have received no communication from Mr. Lyttleton or from any qne else on the subject of the proposed Colonial Conference or upon any matter which might be discussed at this conference. I have made no communication myself to Mr. Lyttleton or any one else on that subject, and with regard to any change in our policy which might be affected by any change in the government of Great Britain, I have only to say to my hon. friend, to the House and to the country generally, that our policy stands as it is and cannot be affected toy any changes that take place in England or elsewhere.



HALF-BREED SCRIP.

George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask for a little more information with reference to land scrip in addition to the small amount which has already been applied for. I would like to get all Orders in Council respecting scrip and grants thereof, either money or land, to half-breeds in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories since February 15, 1903. There is a report which brings the record up to that date, but I wish the Orders in Council which bring the record down from that date. Then I want the reports of Cote and McLeod, who were appointed commissioners for settling the half-breed claims under Order in Council of March 2, 1900, and what disposition, if any, has been made of the claims reported on by them. There were two commissions. This was for Saskatchewan. I find the rei ports of the other commission for Alberta and Assiniboia ; but I can find no trace of any report from Cote and McLeod on the results of their work. Then X would like a return of the eases dealt with under Order in Council of the 20th of March, 1897, all claims for half-breed children's scrip, giving the applicants, assignees, locatees, patentees, and all correspondence in respect thereof. There is a reference in McKenna's report of 1901, in which he said that he had thirty reserved claims sent to him by Cot6 and McLeod, and of these he had allowed three, disallowed nine and reserved the other eighteen. I would like to trace what became of these disallowed and reserved. I would like also a complete set of the forms and instructions in use in the department in regard to applications for scrip, its transfer and location, including the forms of receipts for the different kinds of scrip. There are four or five or six different forms or scrip issued. I see by the papers, and I would like the printed form of each of these, together with the form of application. This is only a small Bill, and will not take a great deal of time.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Wilfrid Laurier: I will endeavour to satisfy my hon. friend, but when he says that it would take only a short time, I am not so sure of that. His mppetite is like that of the Frenchman, it grows by eating; the more jie has the more he wants.


George Eulas Foster: I have got that from association with my right hon. friend and imitation, they say, is the sincerest form of flattery.



THE BUDGET SPEECH.

George Eulas Foster: Before sitting down, I would like to ask the Finance Minister if by any chance he has made up his mind -whether he will give a budget speech this year or not; aond if so, when ? Is he waiting until all the estimates, railway subsidies and everything else are through ?


William Stevens Fielding: The country is getting along so happily, that if by chance we missed the budget speech, I thina the country would still prosper. I cannot think we are dependent for the prosperity of the country on the budget speech, although budget speeches do sometimes help that prosperity. I think an understanding was reached some time ago that the budget would not be brought on until the Northwest Bills were disposed of. I hope that at an early day we shall dispose of whatever blocks the way, and then the budget will come on.



THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr- BERGERON. I desire to ask the [Minister of Finance -when we may expect a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee ? Last week we had a meeting, which was postponed for lack of a quorum, and it was then understood that we would have a meeting to-day. I understand that my hon. friend the Finance Minister has been absent. Now that he is back, would he be kind enough to say when we shall have a meeting of the committee ?
William Stevens Fielding: I came to-day expecting to find a meeting, and I came up this morning at some inconvenience to myself to find that there was none. So many members are absent that we camnot apparently have a full meeting at present; but I think we should have a meeting next week.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend understands that the chairman is away. He said last 'week that he would not be here today, and I thought my hon. friend might be in a position to authorize the calling of a meeting in the chairman's absence.


William Stevens Fielding: As a matter of courtesy I have sometimes been consulted, but the chairman would be quite free to modify the arrangements. I am reminded by one of my hon. friends that the chairman will toe here on Monday, and I think a meeting should then be called immediately.



THE TREADGOLD CONCESSION INQUIRY.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to refer to a difference of opinion which I had yesterday with my hon. friend from Ottawa (Sir. Belcourt) as to a matter connected with the Treadgold Commission of 1903. The instructions to which I referred in speaking yesterday are to be found on pages 4486 and 4487 of ' Hansard ' of 1903. There was not only a debate upon the character of the instruction. But Mr. T. Chase Cas-grain, then the member for Montmorency, moved a resolution in regard to them ; and in the second last paragraph of the resolution attention is specially called to the fact that the provision which the opposition thought should be inserted in those instructions had not been inserted. It is possible that some further instructions were sent to the commissioners afterwards, because I observe, in the pamphlet which the hon. gentleman was good en.ough to hand to me, [DOT]reference to an Order in Council of July 30.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: A return to the House.


Robert Laird Borden: That Order in Council was never before the House. The instructions 1 referred to were those set forth in the speech of Mr. Casgrain.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I understood the hon. leader of the opposition to say distinctly yesterday afternoon that the government had refused to instruct the commissioners to inquire into the question of fraud and misrepresentation in the obtaining of the concessions. I called my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the return brought down and printed and distributed among the members of this House for some time, showed clearly that the instruction's contained in paragraph 10 were distinct and e'ear instructions to the commissioners to investigate questions of fraud and misrepresentation, and I pointed out to my hon. friend, that the judge, in various parts of his report, had referred to those instructions, and had stated distinctly when the commission opened, that he was empowered to investigate questions of fraud and misrepresentation. I pointed out also that he had heard evidence in several cases tending to prove or to disprove that there had been fraud and misrepresentation. I pointed out that in every oue of the cases referred to him in which charges were made, the judge reported that no fraud or misrepresentation had been proved. So I think the hon. gentleman owes it to the House to say that he was mistaken when he said that it is hot fair on his part to say that there were no such instructions.


Robert Laird Borden: I repeat again that the instructions which were brought down and in respect to which the debate took
place in this House, did not contain any such instructions to the commissioners.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That was not my hon. friend's statement.


Robert Laird Borden: May I say further than that, that the Postmaster General, upon the resolution moved by the hon. member for Montmorency, distinctly said that the government would not insert any such instructions to the commissioners. Not only that, but a division was taken on the resolution, and the members of the government, and my. hon. friend himself, voted that no such instructions should be inserted. The words of the resolution which was moved by the hon. member for Montmorency were these :
This House regrets that by the Instructions given to the commissioners to be appointed to investigate this subject 'and which were laid on the table of the House on the 8th of June instant, the proposed investigation is limited to the question as to whether the grant or concession to A. N. C. Treadgold and his associates of the 21st April, 190'2, and other similar concessions are likely to be beneficial or injurious to the mining interests of the Yukon Territory.
That was the shape in which the instructions were presented to the House, and upon which the division was taken, and it was to that I referred in my remarks of yesterday.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House, I want to say that I was clearly within my right in calling the attention of the House last night i j ,the fact that my hon. friend's explanation was not satisfactory to me if it was to other members of the House. My hon. friend stated distinctly that the government had refused to instruct the commissioners to investigate the question of fraud and misrepresentation in connection with these 'concessions.


Robert Laird Borden: So they did on that occasion and changed their minds afterwards.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I say that these were not the instructions of the government. The instructions were distinctly and clearly to investigate all questions of fraud and misrepresentation and I have proved that.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend say that any such instructions as those he has just mentioned are contained in the instructions laid on the table ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I say that the return-
Mr R, L. BORDEN. I am not talking about the return but about the instruction.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I say that the return laid on the table of this House, and which has been for months in the possession of hon. members, shows clearly that these instructions were given to the commission-

ors, and that the commissioners had acted upon them in every case, and reported in every instance that there was no fraud or misrepresentation in connection with these concessions. It is du,e therefore to the House that my hon. friend should say he was mistaken.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not mistaken. I have seen no instructions other than those to which I have referred, and r am not aware that there were any others laid on the table. The instructions which were laid on the table, and in respect of which this motion was moved, are instructions which limited the investigation to the matters to which I have referred. Upon the resolution, a vote was taken and my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) voted against any extension of those instructions to the commissioners-a circumstance which I think he should have remembered.



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition informed me some time ago that he wanted to make some observations with regard to clause 16.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to make a few observations with regard to the supposed difference between section 16, No. 1- by which I shall designate the section as at first introduced-and section No. 2, by which I shall designate the section as now-proposed by the government. In one or two speeches recently delivered by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) he remarked that I had been a long time coming to a conclusion that there is no difference between the two sections. My hon. friend was somewhat forgetful in making that statement, because he sat in the House and followed me in debate on the 22nd March, when I expressed the opinion that the two were the same in principle, were practically the same in detail, and certainly the same in substance. No doubt my hon. friend forgot that although he immediately followed me in debate and although the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), who spoke a day or two afterwards, controverted very strongly the view I had expressed.
The supposed difference between these two sections has beeii discussed by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). The argument of the Prime Minister iu favour of the amended section as con- J


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: trasted with the original section was this : tie said that the Act of 1875, section 11, was restricted in its operation by an ordinance, and that Sir John Thompson, who was then Minister of Justice, would have disallowed that ordinance in 1890 except that such disallowance would bring into effect another ordinance, the time for disallowing which had expired, and the conclusion of the First Minister, based upon this premise was that, under these circumstances, to bring into operation the Act of 1875 purely and' simply would create confusion. I am not able to follow the argument of the Prime Minister in that regard for several reasons. The Act of 1875 has been variously called a sacred compact, a constitutional right, a solemn promise; and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), in dealing with it on the 3rd May, said :
Dealing now with section 16, I would like to say that the second paragraph of that section was added-although in my opinion unnecessarily-because it was not thought advisable to re-enaet the provisions of section 11 of the Act of 1875. This is for the purpose of making it quite clear that this parliament was merely carrying out a solemn promise already made. That very paragraph was intended to give legislative sanction to the conditions now existing) with respect to grants in aid of education.
And further on he said :
What are we doing ? I say that in the future history of our legislation and in the records of this parliament, it would be a serious reflection upon the people of the Dominion if the solemn promises made in 1875, repeated in 1880, and oft repeated since, were not carried out.
I can hardly understand the argument of my right hon. friend when he suggests that a solemn promise of that character is likely to create confusion. It seems to me that the carrying out of a solemn promise, if it is as distinct and explicit as has been suggested, could not possibly cause any confusion.
Tbe Prime Minister is easily answered. In the first place tbe Act of 1875 could not be restricted by an ordinance. I take Issue with him there, and I base my argument in that regard upon very good authority, namely, the authority in the first place of Sir John Thompson himself, and in the seeond place that of the Minister of Justice of to-day. Sir John Thompson, in dealing with this question in his report of the 10th January, 1890, said this :
The ordinance respecting schools does not contain the provision that the statute requires it to contain, but merely contains the provision that the minority may establish a separate school in an organized public school district, thus placing the minority at the mercy of the majority, and only giving the minority the right to establish a separate school, if the majority think proper to organize a public school. It is necessary to point out that the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act, before cited, cannot be abridged by the ordinance and must be considered as still in force, notwithstanding the restrictive terms of the ordinance. In so far

as it is attempted by the ordinance to declare i the meaning of the Northwest Territories Act, i the ordinance fails of that purpose, and is oh- < jectionable as being an interpretation by an , inferior legislative body of the Acts of its superior.
That was Sir John Thompson's view, and it is a view in which I think every lawyer in this House would at once concur. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice, speaking in this House during this session, on the 10th May, voiced the same opinion. He said :
In my judgment, section 93 would bring in all the rights and privileges which existed in favour of the denominational schools in the Territories at the present time or at the 1st July coming. These rights and privileges would include all those rights which are covered by section 11 of the Act of 1875 and any subsequent legislation up to the present time, and, in my opinion, and I must sav I have given this matter most careful consideration, and it is my settled opinion- it would cover all the privileges conferred by the Act of 1875, notwithstanding the provision of any ordinances that may have been passed by virtue of that Act. .
So, in view of these expressions of opinion by Sir John Thompson himself and by niy h'on. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), I cannot think that there is anything in the distinction which has been claimed by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) between section 16, No. 2, and section 16, No. 1. And let this also be observed in this connection

that in the report to council of Sir John Thompson from which I have just quoted he was not dealing in any way with the character of the schools. The only circumstance to which he was calling attention was this : That whereas the Act of 1875 gave to the minority in the Northwest Territories the right to establish schools whether majority schools had been established or not, the ordinance to which he referred cut down that right, in his opinion, not in respect of the character of the schools, hut in respect of the locality in which they could be established. That is to say, the Act of 1875 provided that the minority anywhere might establish a separate school ; whereas, the ordinances passed by virtue of that Act declared that the minority might erect a school in any district where a majority school had been established-in other words they might create a separate school 'in any established school district.
Now. the Minister of Justice read a very carefully prepared opinion with regard to the supposed difference of section 15, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2. I have heard my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) sometimes compliment hon. gentlemen on this side of the House upon their efforts to becloud the issue. I feel very much like returning the compliment to my hon. friend on this occasion. Let us see just what the hon. gentleman did say on this subject. I am not confining myself to his opinion read in the House on May 15th, hut I am also taking-as I have a right to do-the expression of his opinion given to the House and to the committee on previous occasions. Relying on all these sources of information, what do we find that section 16, No. 1, accomplishes. according to the argument of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who, outside of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), were, I believe, the principal speakers on that side of the House with regard to this question 7 The effect of section 16, No. 1, according to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) in the speech which he delivered on the second reading of this Bill was as follows :
The Bill re-enacts clause 14 of the Act of 1875, and thus it is revived, crystallized and made absolutely certain.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton), no doubt, referred to clause 11 of the Act of 1875, because that clause is numbered 14 in the Revised Statutes, and in that way he got the number as 14 instead of 11. So, section 16, No. 1, revised, crystallized and re-enacted section 11 of the Act of ls75. Now, what *did section 11 of the Act of 1875 mean 7 What did it accomplish 7 My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), in the opinion to which I have already referred, passed over the meaning of section 16, No. 1, very lightly. He declared :
The meaning of this section was expressed in the earlier school ordinances.
That is a very important statement indeed by the Minister of Justice. I rely upon it because he was not speaking without preparation ; he was not speaking in the heat of debate ; he was reading from a carefully prepared opinion. Therefore, I attach an importance to these words which I would not feel inclined to do if I were dealing with the words of the Minister of Justice in ordinary debate. Well, then, we are to get the meaning of the Act of 1875 by referring to the earlier school ordinances. Let us see what the earlier school ordinances were, because according to the deliberate opinion of the Minister of Justice they set forth the meaning of the Act of 1875. My hon. friend the member for Brandon has relieved me of the necessity of quoting the earlier school ordinances, because he has set forth in his speech on the second reading of the Bill the effect of these earlier school ordinances, and I will read his words as a fair statement of what the earlier school ordinances accomplished. He said, referring to the Act of 1875 :
What followed the passing of this law ? There was established In the Northwest Territories a complete dual system of schools, a system of schools under which the denomination regulated the text-books and the conduct of the teacher, and by which everything which pertains to the

Roman Catholic schools wa-s directly under the control of a Roman Catholic board of education. We bad dn the Northwest Territories at that time under that Act, to all intents and purposes what are generally known as church schools or clerically controlled schools.
To the same effect is the opinion of certain members of the legal profession who sit on the other side of the House. For instance the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont) said :
The Act of 1875 would fasten on the Territories for all time to come an absolute dual system of sectarian schools.
And the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) said :
The minority, under the Act of 1875, might be entitled to a full system of separate schools.
And the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) said referring to the Act of 1875 :
We would fasten on the new provinces the system of clerical schools which the people abolished in 1892.
This, then, according to the direct statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and other gentlemen on the other side of the House is the effect of section 1C, No. 1, because it brings into force according to their argument, section 11 of the Act of 1875.
Now we come to consider the meaning of section 16, No. 2. we have to inquire in what respect section 16, No. 2, differs from section 16, No. 1. Section 11 of the Act of 1875, omitting the immaterial words-is as follows-and I adopt, for the sake of convenience, the summary of that section which is given by the Minister of Justice in the opinion which he read to this House :
Section 11, Act of 1875, empowering the majority of the ratepayers of any . . . portion of the Northwest Territories ... to establish such schools therein as they may think flt, and the minority of the ratepayers in any . . . portion of the Territories to establish ' Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools.'
Now let us look at section 16, No. 2, and see what becomes of it. Subsection 1 of section 16, No. 2 is as follows :
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 I have already explained in this House that in my opinion section 16, No. 2, does not in any way .perpetuate a system of schools in the new provinces to be established in the Northwest. The people of the new provinces in the Northwest can, under the proposed law, make any change in their system that they see fit, subject to the provision contained in section 16, Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
No. 2, that separate schools must toe at all times established in the new provinces, provided the minority claim and demand such schools. It is not a system which is being perpetuated, it is a certain limitation upon the legislative freedom of the new provinces which is toeing perpetuated by the legislation we have before us. Let us see what, are the rights and privileges which the minority thus receive under section 16, No. 2. Let us remember that nothing in any law which shall be passed by the new provinces is to prejudically 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. Chapter 29 of the Revised Ordinances of the Northwest Territories, section 41, is in these words :
The minority of the ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish a separate school therein, and in such a case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools, shall be liable only to assessment of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereto.
If I understand the English language, you have in chapter 29, section 41, which is thus perpetuated as part of the constitution of tlie new provinces for ever, exactly the same provisions as those which are to be found in the Act of 1875. Every important or effective word, so far as I understand it, that Is to be found in the Act of 1875, is to toe found here. Section 16, No. 1, perpetuates the Act of 1875 in so far as that Act provides for separate schools in the Territories. That was the intention, that was the direct enactment, of section 16, No. 1. Section 16, No. 2, does the same thing indirectly. It does not directly re-enact the Act of 1875 as a. part of the constitution, tout it re-enacts this part of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories as part of the constitution, it reenacts the chapter and section of the ordinances to which I have just referred, and which are thus made part of the constitution of the new provinces for all time to come. The provisions of that section are to all intents and purposes, so far as my understanding goes, the same as the Act of 1875. Let us test the question in another way. Up to the present time I have been comparing the Act of 1875 with section 16, No. 2, and X have done that because the Act of 1875 was re-enacted in section 16, No. 1. Let us now take section 16, No. 1 directly, and compare it with section 16. No. 2, and with the ordinance which is brought into force by section 16, No. 2. In subsection 2 of section 16, No. 1, omitting the immaterial words, you have the words which constitute a protection to the minority in the Northwest. I will read them, omitting ail immaterial words, as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has done in regard to the Act of 1875. Section 2 of sec-

tion 16, No. 1, omitting these immaterial words, is as follows :
The minority of the ratepayers therein (that is to say, in any established school district), whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and In such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools, shall be liable only to assessment of such rates as they impose upon themselves with respect thereto.
That is the essential and material part of section 16, No. 1, so far as it perpetuates the right of separate schools in the new provinces in the Northwest Territories. Now let us read chapter 29, section 41, of the Northwest ordinances once more, and see how the words of that section, which is perpetuated by section 16, No. 2, compare with those I have just read :
The minority of the ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish a separate school therein, and in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessment of such rates as they impose upon themselves with respect thereto.
There are the same identical words with one or two absolutely minor and immaterial changes, the words of chapter 29, section 41, on the one hand, perpetuated by section 16, No. 2, and on the other hand, the words of the Act of 1875 which I have just read, perpetuated as a part of the constitution of the Territories by section 16, No. 1. The expressions in both cases are in meaning absolutely the same, and in form of expression almost identical. To sum up : Section 16, No. 1, according to the view of the government as expressed by the Minister of Justice, brought into force the Act of 1875, both by means of section 93 of the British North America Act and by direct re-enactment in subsection 2 of that section ; section 16, No. 2, brings into force the same Act of 1875 by preserving all rights under chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances, in which chapters everything in this respect contained in the Act of 1875, is directly set forth and re-enacted. In other words, section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2, proceed by different routes, but arrive at precisely the same goal in that regard.
Now. my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, at page 5985 of * Hansard,' uses language which was apparently intended to suggest that under section 16, No. 2, less rights and privileges are accorded to the minority than under section 16, No. 1. I have already demonstrated, to my own satisfaction at least, that section 16, No. 2, gives all that the Territorial Act of 1875 give, because it practically re-enacts it; in truth, however, it seems to me to give more : in the first place it gives the right of separation which is the only thing given by the Act of 1875. The expression * separate schools ' is not a technical expression ; it has not so far
us I understand any technical meaning ; it means exactly what it says : the right of separation. Section 16, No. 2, also gives the half hour of religious instruction and this was not guaranteed by the Act of 1875. The position then of the hon. member for Brandon is this : that he resigned as a cabinet minister because of the provision of section 16, No. 1, and he came back under the provisions of section 16, No. 2, which, so far as the character of the schools is concerned concedes all and more than all that was guaranteed by the Act of 1875. And yet, he reflects upon his colleagues by referring to his own independent acjtion, laughs at the draughtsman who framed these clauses, and professes thoroughly to understand the effect of section 16, No. 2. I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Sifton) if he were here, that the next time he undertakes to set his wits against those of the draughtsman, in the preparation of Bills, it would be well for him to get some member of the profession to come to his assistance, because I think I have already demonstrated (and I intend to still more fully demonstrate) that in this respect the hon. gentleman does not know exactly where he stands, and that instead of section 16, No. 2, being any concession to the opinions which he voiced in this House, section 16, No. 2, goes further away from these opinions and from the policy which he has expressed in the past than did section 16, No. 1.
Section 16, No. 1, contains certain provisions with regard to state aid ; section 16, No. 2, also contains certain provisions with regard to state aid. The hon. member for Brandon was very much exercised about the possibilities under section 16, No. 1. He said, speaking in this House, ' Hansard,' page 3106 :
I am fairly confident that it is an opinion that will be Justified by any court to which it may be referred, that the effect of that clause will be that if twenty years from now the province of Alberta undertook to appropriate $250,000 to build and equip a provincial university, a proportionate amount of money, proportionate to the number of separate schools as compared with the public schools, would have to be set aside for the establishment of a separate school institution.
Let us look at the provisions of section 16, No. 1. They are as follows :
In the appropriation of public moneys by the legislature in aid of education and in the distribution of any moneys paid to the government of the said province arising from the school fund established by the Dominion Lands Act, there shall be no discrimination between the public schools and the separate schools ; and such moneys shall be applied to the support of public and separate schools in equitable shares or proportions.
The provision in section 16, No. 2, is as follows :

In the appropriation by the legislature or distribution by the government of the province of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with said chapter 29, or any Act passed in amendment thereof, or in substitution therefor, there shall be no discrimination against schools of any class described in said chapter 29.
To understand what schools are described in chapter 29 we must go to the provisions of that chapter, and we find that in section 4, to which reference is made, the following schools are described :
The department shall have the control and management of all kindergarten schools, public and separate schools, normal schools, teachers' institutes and the education of deaf, mute and blind persons.
As will be readily seen by any lion, gentleman who has followed my remarks the effect therefore, is simply this :	under
the terms of section 16, No. 1, there shall be no discrimination in state aid between public schools and separate schools; according to section 16, No. 2, there shall be no discrimination in state aid against kindergarten schools, public and separate schools, normal schools or teachers' institutes. In this there is no reference to universities and no words wider than ' public and separate schools.' If we read into section 16, No. 2, the material provisions of the ordinance chapter 29, section 4, which I have just read, then section 16, No. 2, will read as follows :
In the appropriation by the legislature of public moneys there shall be no discrimination against public or separate schools.
That is what my toon, friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) is willing to accept and The provision which he was not willing to accept Committing the immaterial words) was;
In the appropriation of public moneys by the legislature there shall be no discrimination between the public schools and the separate schools ; such moneys shall be applied in support of public and separate schools in equitable rates or proportions.
Now, to sum up, the effect is just this. The same schools are named in section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2 ; in the one case they are named by express mention and in the other case by express reference. In the next place, if the word ' school ' includes universities the danger which appals the hon. gentleman for Brandon still remains. If the word ' school ' does not include universities, then the danger that appals the hon. member for Brandon never existed. That is the sum and substance of the difference, the alleged difference, the supposed difference between section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2, so far as state aid is concerned.
But the hon. member for Brandon was not quite equal to the draughtsman in another respect. Section 16, No. 1. did not define the meaning of the words 'by law ' Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
in section 93, subsection 3 of the British North America Act. Therefore there was grave doubt whether remedial legislation could be enacted by parliament by reason of laws existing in the new province while under, territorial restriction. This of course would not apply to laws enacted by the provinces after they had been constituted as provinces. Section 16, No. 1, left the constitution untouched in that respect; section 16, No. 2, defines the words ' by law,' as meaning the law set out in chapters 29 and 30. The effect of this is to give further opportunities for remedial legislation and to leave all Canada liable to be disturbed by future agitation which in my opinion should he entirely confined to the provincial arena. In this respect also the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) was not, I think, quite equal to the occasion when he undertook to revise or consider the work of the draughtsmen in that regard. The Minister of Justice said a very significent thing on one occasion in this House. He said that some censure had been .passed on the draughtsman of the Manitoba Act; he was determined that no such censure should be passed upon the draughtsman of the Alberta and Saskatchewan Acts, and I think I may fairly congratulate the Minister of Justice on this that he has at least proved himself more than equal to the member for Brandon in any little skirmishing that has taken place between them in connection with the wording of these sections.
But the draughtsman did not finish with the member for Brandon here. There is another little point that seems to have escaped the observation of that hon. gentleman. Section 16, No. 1, brought into force section 93 of the British North America Act with certain, amendations. I shall read that subsection ;
The provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said province as if, at the date upon which this Aot comes into force, the territory comprised therein were already a province, the expression ' the union ' in the said section being taken to mean the said date.
Now section 93 of the British North America Act subsection 1 is as follows :
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.
This therefore preserved rights in respect of denominational schools and in respect of denominational schools only. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and a great many other speakers in this House have declared and reiterated that there are no denominational schools in the Northwest and therefore a provision preserving rights in respect of denominational schools west and in that case a provision preserving would have no force in the new provinces. In order that I may not do

the hon. member for Brandon any injustice, as lie is not present here to-day, 1 shall read his remarks upon that subject. His words are these :
I have read these extracts for the purpose of showing that when the ordinance of 1892 was passed the distinctive character of these schools as separate schools, as denominational Schools, as schools controlled by a sectarian body for sectarian purposes absolutely disappeared.
You will observe he says their character as denominational schools absolutely disappeared. He goes on further referring to subsection; 1 of section 16, No. 2 :
This section preserves the right of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority to have their school, a separate school in name, but a public school in fact, in a separate building if they wish. That is the right it preserves. It preserves secondly the right of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority in such school to have religious teaching from 3.30 to i o'clock in the afternoon. ... In the first place there is no such thing as a denominational school. Whether it is a separate school or a public school, a Catholic separate school or a Protestant separate school, it is a secular school from 9 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.
Therefore according to the statement of the hon. member for Brandon, according to the argument advanced by the gentlemen from the Northweest, there are no denominational schools, and therefore no rights to be preserved, but in the amended section 16, No. 2. the word ' denominational ' which occurs In the British North America Act is changed to the word ' separate.' Under the New Brunswick Act as has already been pointed out, a question arose with regard to the character of certain schools as to whether or not they were denominational and it was held that they were not denominational and therefore no rights were preserved. The word ' denominational ' would not preserve certain rights but the word ' denominational ' is changed by section 16. No. 2 to which I have referred and in that respect a material departure from the British North America Act is made by that section 2,' although not by section 16, No. 1.
Now one or two general observations with regard to the opinion of the Minister of Justice. I pass over for the moment the circumstance that he entirely ignores the possible effect of section 2. I think on one occasion in this House lie stated that section 2 of this Bill as well as of the Hauit'ain Bill might possibly make section 93 applicable-he may have done so here.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not in my statement. but in my speech ; I argued in my speech that section 2 made section 93 applicable.


Mr.   I@: I shall pass that over for the moment but I shall speak of it before I close. The Minister of Justice also declared that not a single province 226
can exclusively make laws at the present time with regard to education. That is true in one sense and not quite accurate in another sense. As was pointed out by the hon. member for the city and county of St. John (Mr. Stockton), the legislature of New Brunswick is the only authority within the province of New Brunswick which can deal with the question of education. The same thing is true of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and British Columbia. But it is quite true- and I have no doubt itbe Minister of Justice meant this-that, if any one of these provinces should confer by law certain privileges on any class of persons resident within the province, then the remedial powers of the Dominion executive and of the Dominion parliament could be invoked.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is a reserve power in the Dominion.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: The point I desire to emphasize-and I know the Minister of Justice and I are absolutely at one about it-is that until the legislatures of these provinces voluntarily put themselves in a certain position defined by the British North America Act, they have the exclusive right to deal with the question of education. As soon as they confer any rights and privileges on the minority then they subject themselves to the remedial powers which are familiar to every hon. gentleman in this House, and if they do that they do it voluntarily, and within their own powers ; they are not acting under any compulsion, but their will is absolutely free aud untrammelled.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The result is to bring them under the restriction of section 93.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so, and I pointed out I think in speaking on the second reading of this Bill that possibly that very circumstance, that very provision of the British North America Act, has deterred the legislatures of those provinces from enacting legislation conferring rights by law upon minorities which they otherwise would have enacted. The moment they give the minority certain rights by law, then they subject themselves to the remedial powers of the Dominion executive and parliament, and this seems to me a very apt illustration of the truth that sometimes an attempt to force by law that which would be freely given without compulsion is in the end of no effect.
Then the Minister of Justice refers to the Bill suggested by Mr. Haultain. It is sufficient for tbe present purpose to say we are. not discussing tile Bill submitted by Mr. Haultain : we are discussing the Bill introduced by this administration. If thp administration desire to rely upon any provisions in Mr. Haultain's Bill-and my



bon. friend the Minister of Justice was referring to clause 2 of that Bill-we can put the matter to a very simple test. Eliminate section 16, No. 2, as you have already eliminated section 10, No. 1 and let this question be tested upon the provisions of section 2 of this Bill which are suh-iStantially the same as those of section 2 of Mr. ilaultain's Bill. If Mr. Haultafh's Bill was sufficient to accomplish the purpose claimed by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, there need be no further discussion about the question at all. Eliminate section 16, No. 2, as you have already eliminated section 16, No. 1, and let all parties stand upon their rights in respect of section 2 of Mr. Haultain's Bill. I might also observe in passing that in discussing the effect of section 16 of this Bill and section 2 of Mr. Haultain's Bill, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice seems to me to have overlooked the definition of the words ' by law ' which he has introduced into section 16, No. 2.
The Minister of Justice also says that he has merely defined the word ' province ' and the words ' at the union ' in order to remove doubt ; hut my hon. friend is too good a lawyer to require to be told that express legislation may be affected by definition. Here it is just the same as if he had substituted a new section containing the interpretation which he has given to those words. There cannot he any doubt about that, and I know that my hon. friend has not any doubt on that point. My hon. friend also observed at page 6201, unrevised ' Hansard,' that under the present ordinances the schools are schools of all the ratepayers. Is this intended as a distinction ? By chapter 29, section 41, and chapter 30, section 8, of the ordinances, the minority ratepayers are taxed for only their own schools.
Now, I have just one further observation to make with regard to the reliance which has been placed upon what has been called the sacred compact, the constitutional right, the solemn promise, made by the Act of 1875, and to which it is alleged that the people of the Northwest Territories are entitled under the provisions of the British North America Act. I would like to observe to my hon. friend the Prime Minister that if section 11 of the Act of 1875 was a sdlemn compact, how does he distinguish the provisions of the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1886, chapter 50, section 110. which were first enacted in the year 1881 ? That section was as follows :
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person In the debates of (he legislative assembly of the Territories and in the proceedings before the courts; and both those languages shall be used in the records and journals of such assembly; and,.all ordinances made under this Act shall be printed in both those languages.
It does not seem to me that because a 1 Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
particular provision was made in 1S75, and another particular provision was made in 1881 by the same authority, the latter is less a pledge or a promise or a constitutional right than the former. In the one case, in 1875, a certain temporary provision, as I understand it, was made with regard to separate schools in the Territories so long as they should he Territories. In the other case, in 1881, a particular provision was made with regard to the use of the English and French languages in the debates of the council and the legislative assembly of the Territories ; and if you are to call one a solemn promise and compact and constitutional right, why should you not call the other a solemn promise and compact and constitutional right ? I do not at the moment have my atteiition called to any possible distinction which could he made in principle between the one and the other. My right hon. friend very well remembers that in 1890 there was a debate in regard to this matter, and a Bill was introduced, I think, by the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy ; and eventually, at some stage of the debate, the following resolution was moved by Sir John Thompson ;
That this House having regard to the long-continued use of the French language in old Canada, and to the covenants on that subject embodied in the British North America Act, cannot agree to the declaration contained in the said Bill as the basis thereof, namely, that it is expedient in the interest of the national unity of the Dominion that there should be community of language amongst the people of Canada. That, on the contrary, this House declares its adherence to the said covenants and Its determination to resist any attempt to impair the same. That at the same time this House de.cms it expedient and proper, and not inconsistent with those covenants, that the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories should receive from the parliament of Canada power to regulate, after the next general elections of the assembly, the proceedings of the assembly and the manner of recording and publishing such proceedings.
That gave occasion for debate, and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister supported this resolution of Sir John Thompson, saying in part as ifollows :
The amendment of my right hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, tends to uphold provincial rights and local autonomy, and I am happy to extend my congratulations to the Prime Minister and to his government that more and more and day by day the force of circumstances brings them over to the principle.
I am afraid that 1 can hardly convey the same congratulations to the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues in respect of their attitude upon the Bills which are now before the House for discussion. The right lion, gentleman continued :
I always have stated publicly, as well as privately, and I have never disguised my thoughts on this matter, that, in my judgment,

sooner or later, this question had to be settled upon the broad basis of local autonomy.
Referring to Mr. Beausoleil, a former member of this House, he said :
1 know he is acting for the best interests of his country, according to his lights, and 1 am sure he will give me credit that in voting as I shall have to do with the government on this question, I do so not out of any love to the government, but with the conviction that in so doing I am acting in the best interest of my party and my country.
The resolution to which I have referred was followed by legislation in 1801, which practically re-enacted the Act of 1881 which I have just quoted, but added to it the following proviso :
Provided, however, that after the next general election of the legislative assembly, such assembly may, by ordinance or otherwise, regulate its proceedings and the manner of recording and publishing the same and the regulations so made shall be embodied in a proclamation which shall be forthwith made and published by the lieutenant governor in conformity with the law, and thereafter shall have full force and effect.
The result of that was that on the 19th of January, 1892, it was moved in the Northwest assembly by Mr. Haultaiu, seconded by Mr. Tweed, and resolved :
That it is desirable that the proceedings of the legislative assembly shall be recorded and published hereafter in the English language only.
As I said before, if the Act of 1&75 was a solemn compact, why have we not in this Bill some provision for preventing the provinces from abolishing the French language? Why have we not some provision for enforcing the compact made in 1881, which, if we are to regard the Act of 1875 as a compact, is equally binding upon us ? Our position is to apply tbe constitution and abide loyally by tlie result. Tliis position is regarded in some quarters as intolerant, but it is infinitely more tolerant than those who rail against it.
It. is said by some in this House-not by tbe Minister of Justice, be would be tbe last to say it-that tlie enactment of section 10 in the form in which we have it to-day will prevent any litigation or contest in the courts as to its meaning. Nothing more ridiculous could emanate from the mouth of any hon. gentleman in this House. The constitution has been interpreted by the courts, I suppose, a thousand times since 1807. I am sure it has been interpreted in the courts of my own little province at least a hundred times. It will continue to be interpreted by our courts. The complexity of human, of national affairs, is so great that it is absolutely impossible to make in any written constitution everything so absolutely plain that we shall not have recourse to the courts. Tlie history of tlie United States for 130 years, the history of ' 226}	"H
our own country for thirty-five years, gives ample proof of what I am saying. Those who speak of preventing recourse to the courts do not understand what they are talking about or they have very little knowledge of the extent to which our courts have been appealed to for the purpose of interpreting the constitution.
As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stand by every compact. I am reminded by the presence of my hon. friend from La-belle (Mr. Bourassa) that he rather misquoted me in making some observations on my speech on the second reading. He said I referred to a written contract. I did not use the word ' written.' I said I was prepared to stand by any compact. When my hon. friend, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur) endeavoured to point out a certain compact by which we were hound I asked him this question :
What I would like to know is whether the hon. gentleman contends that in this compact to *which he has just referred, and which was made in London, there is anything which Is not also in the British North America Act.
He replied no, there was not. Weil, Sir, the position of myself and of those who think as I do in this regard is that the whole compact is in the British North America Act, and that we do full justice to all rights-to the rights of the majority as well as those of the minority-when we apply that Act to the new provinces.
My hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, was good enough, for the purpose of convenience, to place in my hands an opinion prepared, as X understand, by bis deputy minister-a very able lawyer, for whose opinion both tlie Minister of Justice and myself have tbe highest possible regard-with regard, not to clause No. 16 wliich we are now discussing, but clause 15, and with regard to certain criticisms which I made upon tlie language of that section. I observe that my hon. friend, the Deputy Minister of Justice, considered that the criticisms which were made by myself and others on that clause were based on w-hat he regards as a misunderstanding. That may be quite true, but I think there is also a misunderstanding upon tlie part of tbe deputy minister. That gentleman failed to realize that when we are dealing with clause 16 or clause 15 or any other clause of this Bill, we must in the end, on this side of the House, direct our criticism towards such amendment as will, according to the views of the law officers of the Crown, bring about the results we desire. We may have our own views as to what tlie clause is, but in the end the government will insist that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown shall guide them,- and properly so. No government could be administered on any other principle. Therefore the ultimate criticism which we may make upon clause 15 or clause 16 or any other clause, must naturally and necessarily

have regard to the legal opinion of the 'Minister of Justice, In so far, of course, as it does not affect any question of principle upon which we stand. 1 am speaking now altogether of the framing of the sections, the forms of expression, after once the principle has been determined. But my friend, the Deputy Minister of Justice, used language in this memo, which, I understand, I am at liberty to use 1


Charles Fitzpatrick: I look upon it as the statement of a public officer which is free to every member of the House, and bearing in mind that he was the draughtsman of section 15.


Robert Laird Borden: I am aware of that. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice will stand by section 16 and will not deny himself the right of claiming that he is the draughtsman of that section. I shall read certain observations of the Deputy Minister of Justice, in this opinion, which seems to me to illuminate very greatly the question to which I have just now been adverting- the question as to whether or not the Act of 1875 constitutes a compact to which regard must be had when we are framing a constitution for the new province; and I do not think anything has been said or quoted by any hon.' gentleman on this side which is more absolutely destructive of the position of the government in this regard than are the words of the deputy minister to which I now call attention. In referring to clause 15, lie says :
The criticism of the clause is, I think, largely, if not altogether, founded on misapprehension. It is, as I understand it, suggested that these words may enlarge or limit the constitutional powers of parliament or the legislature of Alberta. They can, I submit, have no such effect.
He is dealing with clause 15, which contains a reference to certain laws now in force in the Territories, and the question was whether or not, by the language of section 15, those would be continued as a part of the constitution of the Northwest Territories, so that they could not be changed afterwards, either by the parliament of Canada or the legislature of a province. It is necessary that I should state that, in order that hon. gentlemen on both sides may realize the full significance of the words of" the deputy minister. I shall begin agaiu the quotation, in order not to interrupt the continuity of Mr. Newcombe's opinion :
The criticism of the clause is, I think, largely, if not altogether, founded on a misapprehension. It is, as I understand it, suggested that these words may enlarge or limit the constitutional powers of parliament or of the legislature of Alberta. They can, I submit, have no such effect. The Northwest Territories Act, so far as it affects constitutional powers, is merely a delegation by parliament to the assembly of the Territories of certain legislative authority for the government of the Territories provisionally. The territorial assembly is, with all its con-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
stituent authority, by the provincial Acts abolished, and two new legislative bodies are established with provincial powers. They differ in their nature from the Territorial assembly, and are in no proper sense successors to it. It cannot, I think, be argued that because the Territorial assembly had certain legislative powers, the provincial legislature, in the absence of provisions to the contrary, must thereafter have the same powers. A provision in the Northwest Territories Act, for instance, that the Territorial -assembly may legislate in respect of eduoation, could not, by reason of the clause in question, be held to confer any power with respect to education upon the provincial assembly. First, because it is no application whatever to the provincial assembly, and secondly, because the constitution and powers of the provincial assembly are comprehensively provided by the express provisions of the provincial Act.
Nothing mope forcible or severe could be said with regard to the Act of 1875. The Deputy Minister of Justice, in giving this opinion, was dealing with the question of legislative power. He said that we cannot because a certain power was possessed by the Territorial assembly ai'gue, under section 15, that any similar power shall he possessed by the provincial legislature. Tenfold stronger, it seems to me, is the argument that we cannot in any sense argue that, because there is a restriction upon the legislative assembly of the Territories, that same restriction shall continue as a restriction upon the legislatures of the new provinces. The argument is more forcible in the case of a restriction than in the case of a power. He continued-1 omit some portion referring to my contention as to section 15-
The other section to which Mr. Borden refers is section 14 of the Northwest Territories Act with regard to education. This seems to be a case where it is clearly otherwise provided by this Act, inasmuch as the provincial Acts contain express provisions determining the provincial powers with regard to education, but if they did not contain any such provisions I do not see how it could be argued that a power, which -the Territorial assembly had, can without apt words be made to apply to the two provincial assemblies; they are not continuations of the Territorial assembly ; they derive no powers by reference to its constitution; they are new bodies created in the execution of special powers by parliament, and there is no room for the application to them of the laws previously defining the constitution of the Territorial assembly.
Now, I venture to submit that the observations of so eminent a lawyer as the Deputy Minister of Justice, concurred in, as they seem to be with respect to -section 15, toy my -hon. friend the -Minister of Justice, apply with even more force to the argument which has been made by -the government as to the necessity for embodying the Act of 1875 in the constitution of the new provinces. As has been forcibly pointed out by Mr. Newcombe, the legislative assembly of the province is not the successor of the legislative assembly of thf

Territories. Parliament, in 1875, was making a temporary provision for the Territories as territories. In 1905 parliament is creating -a permanent constitution for the new provinces in the Northwest, a constitution which this parliament cannot alter or amend after it has once been framed. My observations on the matter which I have just referred to are connected, to a certain extent, with the discussion of section 16 and with the discussion of 'Section 2, which is to take place, as 'I understand* by arrangement, at the same time. They are not, of course, directly connected with the subject upon which I first addressed the House, whether or not there is any real, substantial difference between the effect of section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2. And, while I have every possible regard for the opinion of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick)-a regard so high that when I find myself differing from him I always have a great deal of doubt as to the correctness of my own opinion-yet I must add that, after all, I do not find in the opinion of the Minister of Justice, read in this House on May 15th anything that controverts what I have said to-day. For he took particular pains, it seems to me, not to state that there was any real difference between section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2. He only said, so far as section 16, No. 1, is concerned, that the meaning of it was expressed in the earlier school ordinances. That is all he says about it ; but then he goes on to tell us what is his view as to section 16, No. 2. I do not find in his opinion, after all, anything that is diametrically-or, indeed, at all-opposed to the view which I have expressed to-day. And it gives me a great deal of satisfaction to find that, in expressing the view I have just ventured to place before this House, I do not find myself, as it seems to me, in conflict jvith the opinion of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice.
Hon. GHARlL.ES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice). I do not know that it would be possible for me to add very much to what I have already said on this subject. I do not think there is anything very new that I have to offer ; and. perhaps my hon. friends opposite may say. there is nothing very useful in what I shall add. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has been good enough to say that we differ iu our opinions as to the meaning of these two sections 16-No. 1 and No. 2. I regret that we should differ ; because I had hoped that on a matter of this sort the lawyers in the House who have given this question their serious consideration might have been at one. However, lawyers, like doctors, X presume. must agree to differ. Having listened with the greatest possible attention to what my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) said, when speaking on the second reading of the Bill and to what he said to-day, I am inclined to believe that Mr. Haultain was
quite right when in the interview published in the ' Mail and Empire,' and afterwards in the Winnipeg ' Tribune,' he stated that he had a great deal of difficulty in convincing the leader of the opposition to take the position he now takes.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 was not aware that Mr. Haultain had so stated.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) was aware of it. But I will read what Mr. Haul-taim said. This was 'published in the Winnipeg ' Tribune ' of May 12th, 1905, and purports to be a reproduction of the correspondence of the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' :
Mr. Haultain is confident that his contention as to the unconstitutionality of the autonomy measures, so far as the educational clauses are concerned, is sound, and cannot be successfully assailed. He goes even further than Mr. Christopher Robinson in this respect. There were those at Ottawa who were ^ disposed to view with complacent concurrence this element of the Rills as but confirming by statute what already existed. Mr. Haultain had difficulty in convincing those that the proposed legislation was not only constitutionally defective in its conception, but would prove extremely dangerous in its application. It was some time before even Mr. Borden would recognize this, and it required deep reasoning with him to convince him that it was so, but finally he saw the weakness of the thing and the result was the magnificent speech which he delivered on the constitutional aspects of the legislation.


George Eulas Foster: May I ask if that is Mr. Haultain's statement ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think I made it quite clear that I quoted from the Winnipeg ' Tribune ' what purported to be a reproduction of the correspondence of the Toronto ' Mail and Empire.'


George Eulas Foster: So it is a correspondent's statement.


Robert Laird Borden: I never heard of it before.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think that I was quite justified in drawing attention to it, because really if Mr. Haultain did make such a statement he is in the Invidious position of saying that Mr. Christopher Robinson is all wrong, Mr. Borden is all wrong and Sir John Thompson was all wrong in 1891, but Mr. Haul-in in is all right. But those who differ from him are in excellent company.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I should have a great deal of doubt that Mr. Haultain ever expressed himself in that way, it is not likely.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is what he is reported to have said in these newspapers. I have here a report of an interview with him, published in the Toronto ' News ' of

April 14, where he discusses the ordinances of 1892, and expresses himself in almost the same language with respect to Sir John Thompson. He does not mention Sir John Thompson, but those who'are familar with all the occurrences know that he refers to Sir John Thompson. In this interview, Mr. Haultain :
Denies that the ordinance of 18&2 was a stroke which swept away the dual system, as Mr. Sif-ton contends. Still more strongly does he deny that the law of 1892 was unconstitutional He absolutely denies that he ever admitted that it was ultra vires. On the contrary, his written official statements are accessible, and they emphatically defend that -legislation, while the ordinance of 1892 was a consolidation, and the principal portion of the educational legislation had been passed in 1891 and earlier.
As my hon. friend will see, Mr. Haul-lain here -states himself as opposed to so eminent an authority as Sir John Thompson. However, that is by the way. X did not intend to take up the time of the House with matters of that sort; I will now come down to these two sections.


Robert Laird Borden: I think perhaps my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is doing Mr. Haultain an injustice, because I happen to have a copy of this interview. The report containing the opinion of Sir John Thompson was made in 1890 ; Mr. Haultain is referring to the ordinance of 1S92 in this Interview.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I' will deal with that further on. We are now endeavouring to deal with the two sections, No. 1 and No. 2, following the description given of them by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition for greater accuracy and perhaps for greater clearness. My hon. friend has said, though I am sure he did not really mean it, that I attempted to befog the issue, and endeavoured to gather clouds about these two sections instead of pointing out what is meant by them. I will endeavour now to make my meaning clear so far as it is possible for me to do so. The first paragraph of section 16, No. 1, provides :
The provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the sail province as if, at the date upon which this Act comes into force, the territory comprised therein were already a province, the expression ' the union ' in the said section being taken to mean the said .date.
_ Now what is the effect of that provision if this Bill becomes law ? Thd effect would be to apply section 93 of the British i'orth America Act to the new provinces, and section 93 would apply in this way :
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect -any right or privilege with respect to de-


Charles Fitzpatrick: nomination al schools which any class of persons have by law in the -province at the union.
At the time a territory came in as a province, that is what the words would mean. Now what is it necessary for us to do ? All that it is necessary for us to do is to understand the meaning of the words ' by law ' and ' right or privilege.' M'hat are the rights or privileges which any class of persons have by law in the territory at the present time '-assuming of course that there will be no change before the 1st of July. They have at the present time by law all the rights and privileges which are guaranteed by the Act of 1875, section 11. Now what are the rights and privileges which are guaranteed to them by section 11 of the Act of 1875 ? I said that these rights and privileges have been incorporated in the earlier ordinance I referred to, the ordinance of 1884. What does the ordinance of 1884, No. 5, section 25, say :
In accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Northwest Territories Act, 1880

That is the Act continuing the Act of 1875, and practically it is the same Act, providing for the establishment of separate schools.
-it shall be lawful for any number of property holders resident within the limits of any public -school district, or within two or more adjoining public school districts, or some of whom are -within the limits of an organized school district, and others on adjacent lands not included within such limits, to be erected into a separate school district by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, with the same rights, powers, privileges, liabilities and method of government throughout as hereinbefore provided in the case of public school districts.
There is the reproduction in terms of the Act of 1875. Now how was that acted upon, what was the result ? The result was that you had in the Northwest Territories four classes of schools: the Protestant public school, the Oatholie public school, the Protestant separate school and tiie Catholic separate school ; or in other words, Protestant schools, either public or separate, and Catholic schools, either public or separate ; therefore you have a dual system of education. Now what happened after that ? You have then the ordinance oi 1887. I fear I may weary the House by reading these ordinances, hut perhaps they may be useful for reference. Section 37 of the ordinance of 1887 provides :
In accordance with the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act providing for the establishment of separate schools, it shall be lawful for any number of the ratepayers, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, the same being a minority of the ratepayers resident within the limits of an organized public school district, to establish a separate school therein, by proclamation of the lieutenant governor, with the same rights, powers, privileges, liabilities and methods of government as herein provided in the case of public school districts.

That is the ordinance of 1887 which is reproduced in the ordinance of 1888, almost in words. There is a slight difference with respect to another section which I have not read, and which is not important for my present purpose. Now there is a departure from the principle settled by the Act of 1875 which created a dual system. This Act provides that it is only the minority of the ratepayers in a school district that have the right to establish a separate school.


Robert Laird Borden: That was not a question of the character of the schools ; was it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course It was a question of the character of the schools.


John Graham Haggart: Would the Minister of Justice, so as to make me clear about it, say what is the difference between' a Catholic public school and a Catholic separate school ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The difference consists in this : That a Catholic public school is a school of the majority in a district where the Catholics are in the majority, and a Catholic separate school is a school of the minority in a district where the Catholics are in the minority. There is no difference between them ; they are both separate schools except that in one case it is the school of the majority and in the other case it is the school of the minority. In reality there is no distinction under the Northwest system, as I understand it, between Protestant and Catholic schools ; the distinction is between the schools of the majority and the schools of the minority.


Mr. STOCKTON.: Would It not be a public school in both cases ; there would be no Catholic or Protestant about it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: When the ordinances of 1888 were submitted to the Minister of Justice for revision as it is usual, he examined this particular section to ascertain how far it was iutra vires of the Northwest assembly. Here is what Sir John Thompson said :
The undersigned has, however, to call attention to another particular, in respect of which he finds that the ordinance does not strictly conform to the requirements of the -Act under which it was framed.
Section 14 of the Northwest Territories Act (chap. 50, R.S.C.) provides, that ordinances in respect of education may he made in the Territories, but stipulates that in such ordinances it shall ' always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion ot the Territories, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor, and also that a minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein.'
The ordinance respecting schools does not contain the provisions that the statute requires it to contain, but merely contains the provision that the minority may establish a separate school in an organized public school district, thus placing the minority at the nyercy of the majority, and only giving the minority the right to establish a separate school, if the majority think proper to organize a public school. It is necessary to point out that the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act, before cited, cannot be abridged by the ordinance, and must be considered as still in force, notwithstanding the restrictive terms of the ordinance. In so far as it is attempted by the ordinance to declare the meaning of the Northwest Territories Act, the ordinance fails of that purpose, and is objectionable as being an interpretation by an inferior legislative body of the Acts of its superior.
The undersigned only refrains from recommending the disallowance of this ordinance in consequence of its being merely a re-enactment ot an earlier ordinance which disallowance would not affect, and which was allowed to go into operation, probably because attention was not called to this provision. The undersigned has the honour to recommend that the ordinance bringing these revised ordinances into effect, be allowed to go into operation.
So that you have it oil the authority of Sir John Thompson, that the ordinance of 1888, of which he was speaking at the time, was an' abridgement of the rights conferred upon the Roman Catholic minority of the Northwest Territories by the Act of 1875.


Robert Laird Borden: Purporting to abridge it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, he said it effectively abridged it.


Robert Laird Borden: I think not.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It goes further than that ; it not only purports to abridge it but it actually omits from the ordinance the words which govern with respect to the majority in any school district when that majority happens to be Roman Catholic. The words are used in the ordinance of 1884, but they are omitted in the ordinances of 1887 and 1888 and they have Deen omitted in every ordinance which has been passed since that time.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But still the law of 1875 was always in force.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course that follows, the Act of 1875 remains in force and is in force to-day in the Territories. But as a matter of fact, the Roman Catholic minority, notwithstanding that by the ordinances their powers are abridged, have been in enjoyment of all their rights which they had under the Act of 1875, and where they are in a majority in a school district they control the school, they control the trustees, and trustees control the teachers, and to-day in the Northwest the organization of the schools, -whether they he public

or separate, is absolutely under the control of the Northwest legislature. On that point, perhaps I may be permitted to read a brief memo, that I prepared in this connection, and which states my view absolutely, as I understand it, in such a way as it leaves no doubt about it. But perhaps I had better leave that aside until I deal with other points.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend ; I know how difficult it is


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not trying to make a speech.


Robert Laird Borden: It is conversational ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Conversational entirely.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand the Minister of Justice, that the words he said were .omitted from that ordinance which were made necessary by the Act of 1875 ; were words applying to the character of the schools or only to the locality in which they should be established.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Now these are the words :
-but it shall therein be always provided that the majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Northwest Territories or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they may think fit.
That is to say the majority have the right to establish such schools as they think fit. If the majority happen to be Roman Catholic they may have what I described a moment ago as a Roman Catholic public school. These words are omitted from the *sections of the ordinances of 1887 and 1888, and the only words that are repeated are :
And the minority of the ratepayers therein whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and that in such latter case, &c.
In effect there is provision contained in the Act with respect to the case of a school district in which the majority of the ratepayers happens to be Roman Catholic. That is what the original clause lfl was intended to continue. The original clause was intended to continue to the minority in the Northwest Territories all the rights that they had by law, and one of the rights they had by law was this right Mr. FITZPATRICK.
to organize their schools under the Act of 1875.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is clause 10, No.
1.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, I am dealing with that. Now let us come to clause 10, No. 2, or clause 10 in its amended form. It gives to the minority whether Portestant or Catholic in any district the right to establish a separate school therein. That is to say, a school to which sections 41, 42, 40, 44, 45 of chapter 29 are specially applicable. In effect these sections give the minority the right to organize a separate school district in which district the minority can establish a separate school. First the district, and then the school in the district. But, after the district is erected the board of trustees, which board controls the schools, shall possess and exercise all rights, powers and privileges and be subject to the same liabilities and method of government as are provided in the ordinance in respect to public school districts.
With respect to public schools which are the only schools available to Roman Catholics in these school districts where they have a majority, the ratepayers have no rights or privileges secured to them under this clause as a result of that amendment made in 1887 and 1888. Now that is the position, and when my hon. friend said, if he is correctly reported at London, that section 41 of the ordinance which is referred to in section 16, No. 2, repeated in terms the provisions of section 11 of the Act of 1875, he must have been in error, because the first part of the Act of 1S75 is omitted in section 41 of the Northwest Territories Act.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as separate schools are concerned.


Charles Fitzpatrick: So far as separate schools are concerned, and that is what we are dealing with.


Robert Laird Borden: I say it is the same section so far as separate schools are concerned.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 11 of the Act of 1875 is cut in two and all that part which is applicable to a majority in a school district is omitted and that part applicable to the minority is inserted so that one-half the section is omitted.


Robert Laird Borden: That is right. I observe my hon. friend places emphasis on the expression ' such schools therein as they think fit.' That is not in the separate school but in the general school district. Does he regard the words ' such schools therein as they think fit' as qualitative,-indicating the character of the schools V


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think so, and my reason for so thinking 'is that the ordinance of 1884 enacts that the majority in a case of that kind may establish a separate

school. That is the .provision of section 25 of the ordinance of 1884. That is 'the construction put upon the Act of 1875 by the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories. Now I shall not detain the committee at any greater length upon this subject. There is the whole matter so far as X am concerned, and to those who want to listen and who want to understand it seems to me I have made myself absolutely clear. The firsit sedtion 16 re-enacted or made provision rather for the perpetuation of the dual system which was provided for by the Act of 1875. That is what it did, it perpetuated section 11 of the Act of 1875. The second gives effect purely and simply to those provisions of the ordinance of 1901, which are applicable to separate schools and as 1 have pointed out in the opinion of Sir John Thompson, the provisions of the Ordinance of 1901 which merely reproduces the ordinances of 1887 and 1888 abridge the right of the Roman Catholics in such a way as to give to the minority in a school district the right to a separate school and makes no provision for a majority.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Of Catholics ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of Catholics.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I think that the Minister of Justice has somewhat mystified the law with respect to the different qualities or characteristics of the schools existing in the Northwest when he seeks to impres's upon this committee that there were under the Act of 1875 four conditions of schools in the Northwest Territories, that is a Catholic public school and a Catholic separate school, a Protestant public school and a Protestant separate school. I do not find that in the law. It is true that the majority can organize a section or can organize a school. If the majority of the ratepayers doing that were Roman Catholics that would not make it a public Roman Catholic school, or if the majority were Protestants that would not make it a Protestant public school, any, more than a public school in the Norths west now would be a Presbyterian publics school or a Methodist public school because the majority of 'the ratepayers happen to, belong to that denomination. There is just one difficulty that I myself find in respect to the statement of the Minister of Justice and I have listened with some degree of interest that is that the rights have been cut down by subsequent legislation or by tlie ordinances accorded by tbe Act of 1875. I am not quite sure about that. I would cehtainly defer very largely to the legal opinion of my bon. friend tbe Minister of Justice, but does be not think that the Act of 1875 would be a part of tbe constitution of the Northwest Territories. That would bo a question for tbe Minister of Justice to consider, could the ordinances of the Northwest Territories cut down or impair the
authority of the Act of 1875 ? If the legislature has granted power, that is if this 'parliament has granted power under the 'Act of 1875 with respect to education then it does seem ito me that any attempt by ordinance to cut down that power, if that has been attempted, would be ultra vires of the power of the Northwest council, and if that is so, why then the Act of 1875 continues in all its power from the time It was passed until the present time.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That Is right, that is what I argued for about ten minutes.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: with respect to public schools. Now with reference to the difference of meaning between section 1G, No. 1, and section 10, No. 2, I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition as to the legal effect of the language used in these two sections. No. 2 goes as far as No. 1, as originally introduced by the right hon. First Minister ; and if we attempt to whittle down the meaning of No. 2 by saying that it does not go as far as No. 1, then the duty is cast upon those who argue in that direction to show where there is a limitation. I can find none in the section itself, and I have not understood the Minister of Justice to make the statement on the floor of the House that there is a less power in section 1G, No. 2, than there is in section 1G, No.
1.	I did not understand the Minister of Justice to say so to-day ; I did not understand him to say so when he made his explanation the other day. I think section 1G, No. 2, is as full and ample to give separate schools to the constitutions of the new provinces as section 16, No. 1. I may be mistaken about that. I would like to hear from the Minister of Justice as to whether he is of opinion that section 16, No. 2, does not go as far as section 16, No. 1. If the Minister of Justice will make that statement, I would like him to say in what respect he is of opinion that it does not go as far.


Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE.: He said it twice.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Had we not better let the Minister of Justice speak for himself ? If he will stand in his place and make that statement, it will simplify the matter very much.


Mr. BRODEUR.: My hon. friend said that he did not know that there were four-kinds of schools in the Northwest Territories. I have in my hand the report of the superintendent of education, for 1901, on the first page of which four classes are specified : public school districts, Roman Catholic public schools districts, Roman Catholic separate school districts, and Protestant separate school districts.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: The report may put it that way, but the schools are not so constituted under the Act of 1875.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That classification is still maintained.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: The fact that it is so stated in the report of the officer of the government does not make it the law.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This report is accepted and published by Mr. Haultain.


George Eulas Foster: Is it a legal document ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose it must be. It has been accepted by the Attorney General.


George Eulas Foster: Is it a clause of an Act ?


Alfred Augustus Stockton: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it is a report.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend from St. John is perhaps somewhat justified in saying that he did not catch my statement in respect to the . difference between clause No. 2 and clause No. 1, in so far as clause No.
2 abridged the right of the minority, because I was unfortunate enough to read the statement as to the effect of that clause ; and, in reading, one cannot make his meaning quite as apparent as he can when speaking. But I will read again what I said on that point :
In effect, section 16 (that is No. 2) gives the minority the right to erect a separate school district in which district the minority may establish a separate school ; but after the district is established, the board of trustees shall possess and exercise all rights, powers and privileges, and be subject to the same liabilities and methods of government as herein provided in respect of public school districts.
That is, the same right, so far as that particular minority is concerned, as they have under the Act of 1875. But where the minority in the Territories happens to be the majority in the school district, then they have to avail themselves of the public school ; and, so far as that public school is concerned, they have no right or privilege whatever secured to them under that clause. The minority in the district, where it happens to be Roman Catholic, will have certain rights and privileges secured to it under clause 2; but where the Roman Catholic minority of the Territories happens to be a majority in the school district, then it has no right whatever. Then, the;e is the other abridgment referred to by Sir John Thompson, resulting from the legislation of 1891, that the organization of a separate school district is dependent upon the action of the majority in the district. If the majority or the governmet does not organize a school district then the minority is without eny privilege whatever.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has certainly said something to-day which he did not say in the opinion which he read in the House before.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have endeavoured to avoid repeating what I said. I quoted Sir John Thompson's opinion when I spoke first.


Mr.   R.@: Xj. BORDEN. Is there any opinion of Sir John Thompson's along the line which the hon. gentleman read to-day ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is the same as my hon. friend read.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the question of separate schools is concerned, the expression on which the Minister of Justice relies does not occur in that particular portion of the clause of the Act of 1875 at all. I will just read it iu order to make my meaning perfectly clear :

The Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of the council or assembly, shall pass all necessary ordinances with respect to education ; but it shall therein be always provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Northwest Territories, or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they may think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor.
That is so far as the majority are concerned. And further :
That the minority of ratepayers therein, whether Protestants or Catholics, may establish separate schools therein.
So far as the latter words are concerned, those relating to the establishment of separate schools, I do not understand my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to controvert the statement which I made, namely, that the effect of section 10. No. 2, is the same as that of section 10, No. 1, but he goes back and relies upon the language contained in the previous clause :
The majority may establish such separate schools therein as they may think fit.
These words he interprets as meaning that they may establish separate schools of such character as they may see fit. I venture to submit that they cannot have any such meaning. They do not refer to the quality of schools or the regulations under which they are carried on, because that would destroy altogether the legislative power already conferred upon the council of the Territories by the words I have just quoted :	' The Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of the council or assembly, may make all necessary ordinances with respect to education.' But if you take the view of the Minister of Justice, you absolutely take out of the hands of the council the legislative power with regard to the character of the schools, and you would have absolute self-government, in respect of the character, the regulation, the superintendence and the control of the schools, conferred upon the majority in each district. That, I submit, is not the meaning of the words ' may establish such schools therein as they see fit.' Those words are always subject to the controlling power of the Northwest Territories Legislature with regard to education. To give them any other meaning would absolutely take out of the power of the Lieutenant Governor, acting with the advice of the council or assembly, all further control of the schools. Surely my hon. friend does not contend that that' is absolutely the meaning of the Act of 1875 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think that is the meaning put upon it bv the ordinance of 1884.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORiDEN. The ordinance of 1884 cannot controvert, alter or amend sec- 1
tion 11 of the Act of 1875. It cannot affect that Act in any way. I understand now what I did not understand before. I understand what my hon. friend the Minister of Justice meant by saying that the Act of 1875 was interpreted by an earlier ordinance. Let us understand the situation. Under the Act of 1875, you might establish a dual system of schools, if you saw tit, but you were not obliged to do so. That is the distinction. There was the power but no obligation. The Act of 1875 did not mean that the majority of ratepayers of the Northwest in any particular district could make chose ordinances with regard to education, the power to make which had already been conferred on the Lieutenant Governor, acting by and with the advice of the council or assembly. Yet the very reverse is the construction to which we would be driven by the argument of my hon. friend this afternoon. ' May establish such schools therein as they may think fit.' But those schools must be established subject to the controlling power of the council or assembly. Therefore it does not seem to me that this new and very ingenious point, suggested for the first time to-day by the Minister of Justice, is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the statute. The Lieutenant Governor in Council makes ordinances regarding education, and he must give power to the majority to establish such schools as they think fit, but not schools of such character as they think fit or subject to such regulations as they think fit, or subject to such superintendence or control or inspection as they think fit. because with regard to all these matters the power has been conferred, not upon the majority in each district, but upon the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice of the council and assembly.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In what respect then did the omission of the first words of the Act of 1875, section 11, abridge the rights of the minority, as stated by Sir John Thompson?


Robert Laird Borden: In this respect that, as I understand the report of Sir John Thompson, the Act of 1875 declared that the majority of ratepayers In any district or portion of the Northwest Territories might establish separate schools ; but by the ordinance, which he thought to be beyond the powers of the Territories, that power was restricted to those districts which had been organized as public school districts, and he thought that in that respect there had been an attempted abridgment of the right conferred by the Act of 1875. At least that is the way I construe his language.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not want to tire my hon. friend the Minister of .Titstice. but I desire to ask him one or two questions. We seem to have come down to this, that

all the work of parliament is confined to finding out what clause 16, No. 1, and what clause. 16, No. 2, really mean. Would not these words in the A-ct of 1875 * May estate lish such schools as they think fit' mean that the Roman Catholics, who are the ones intended to be benefited by the law of 1875


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, the minority, whether Catholic or Protestant.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend will allow me my own opinion, and that is that the law of 1875 was intended for their benefit. It must have been as hard then, as it is now, to speak of those questions.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


An hon. MEMBER.: There were bigger men then.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There were then fresh in the minds of. everybody the promises which had been made by the Canadian government to the people in that country, and it was on account of these promises that clause 11 of the Act of 1875. was passed. What I wish to know is whether these words ' as they may think fit ' did not mean that the minority could have the kind of schools they wanted. There was no law then to tell them what kind of schools they should have. I want to be posted on that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You will have to post yourself. The statute is there.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But I should like to have th'e opinion of the Minister of Justice. Had they the right to teach French in the schools by the law of 1875 V Would not that right flow from their right to establish such schools as they saw fit. And as a matter of fact, was not the French language taught in the schools then ? By the clause 10, No. 2, which puts in force only the ordinance of 1901, have they the right, whether in a separate or a public school, to teach the French language ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, but they do it as a matter of fact.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understood my hon. friend some years ago to declare by his vote that the French language was not an official language in the Northwest.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where and when did I do that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Does not my hon. friend remember that that question came up before the House in 1890? A long discussion took place in this House on the question whether the French language should be an official language in the Northwest or not.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not remember the occasion. And still, less, if possible, do T remember voting that way. Now there is another point "which I "want to ask the Minister of Justice about. It would seem that ' separate schools ' under the Act of 1875 meant a very different thing from what we understand to-day by separate schools. At that time what was understood was a separate system of schools for the minority, whether Protestant or Catholic. What we understand by ' separate schools ' to-day is simply that the minority in a school district, whether Catholic or Protestant may establish a separate school, but, as a matter of fact, the teaching Is all the same, whether in the public or in the separate school. Is not that the case ? It seems to me that it is only by putting questions in this way that we can properly discuss this question. When a question is put and answered, we hit the nail squarely on the head. It is far better than long discussions in which the members try each for liim-[DOT]self, to bring out all the points involved in this measure. My hon. friend from St. John city and county (Mr. Stockton) does not see any difference between section 16, No. 1. and section 16. No. 2. For my part I believe there is a difference, but it seems to me that the Minister of Justice has not stated the differenc plainly. I would like to get it from him, because, in this discussion it is to him we naturally look for light.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My recollection is that the Act of 1875 was passed as a result of the agitation that grew up in Canada as a result of the New Brunswick school question* and not on' account of any promise it made to the people of the Northwest Territories. Of course, I do not say that definitely, but that is my impression. I have endeavoured once or twice to make my meaning clear about the difference in these two cases. The first section would give to the minority in the Northwest Territories all the rights they have, de jure and de facto, at the present time. That would include all the provisions of the Act of 1875, section 11.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the House of Commons in 1889 or 1890.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would like to be shown that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend does not remember that ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No, it would have to toe shown me very strongly to make me believe it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 


George Eulas Foster: That is clause 16, No. 1, would do that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes. Clause 16, No. 2, would give to the minority in the Northwest Territories those rights and privileges which they have, not by the law at large as in force in the Northwest Territories, but by the particular law enacted under chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances.


George Eulas Foster: Which would be

?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The right of the minority in a school district to establish a separate school under section 41 and following sections.


George Eulas Foster: Now let a layman have about a minute or two to get in his question. Do I understand the matter right if I state It this way ? Under the Act of 1875, the Roman Catholics if they were a majority in a district had the right to establish a school such as they thought .proper. If they were a minority they had a right to have a school as laid down in the law. Now, under section 16, No. 1, these two rights are perpetuated. But clause 16, No. 2, makes a distinction. It conserves to the minority the right they had under the Act of 1875-


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, not all.
^ Mr. FOSTER. All the right they have Its a minority to erect a minority school in the school district ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: With an exception. That is to say, the right of the minority to have a separate school in a district is contingent upon the exercise of the right of the majority to establish a public school. That is the only distinction.


George Eulas Foster: That is right. Well, suppose there is that little distinction-they are not allowed, under clause 16, No. 2, to erect their minority school unless the majority have organized a school district.


Mr.   I@: Or the government have organized it.


George Eulas Foster: If the majority refuse to erect a school district, it would be necessary that the government should intervene in the interest of the children of the majority in that district, and also in order not to deprive the minority of their right to organize. The other right they had under the Act of 1875. which was conserved under section 16, No. 1-the right of the majority in the district to have such school as they thought lit-is taken from them ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: If there is anything in that such as taking away the privilege in the latter case or granting a privilege in the former case, it will all depend on what you say is meant by such school ' as they think at.' The Minister of Justice holds that this has relation to the quality or kind of schools otherwise, it would have been no privilege to them in 16. No. 1 : and if that is not so, it is no deprivation to them in 16, No. 2. Now, let us look at that- of course, I do not discuss the legal aspect of the question. Is it reasonable to suppose that you could have a school system if the majority of the ratepayers in any
district might establish such schools as they thought fit, iucluding in that the power to determine the quality of its teaching, the hours and everything that goes to make up the conduct and discipline of the school ? Suppose that were accepted, where would it land us ? Why, the Roman Catholic majority in one case, the Protestant majority in another case, the Mormon majority in another case, the Doukhobor majority, or the Galician, or Hungarian or Polish majority, could establish such schools as they thought fit as to the quality and management of the schools. If this were so, I venture to say you could have no school system which would he worthy of the name. The majority might put in incompetent teachers. If it was a Polish majority, they might insist on teaching nothing but Polish and refusing the right to attend to an English-speaking or French-speaking boy. This is a wide power. The Mormon majority in a district could establish a school and in it teach their peculiar doctrines. If that is the meaning of it, we reason to an absurdity. It surely cannot mean that.
They may want a primary school, they may want a higher school, they may want one of different grades ; such a school as ' they think fit ' in that respect they can have, such a school as they think fit In respect to number and the like of that, but under this clause, always subservient to and determined by the general laws, rules and regulations which establish and perpetuate the school system. That is the point that puzzles me as a layman. If that is the interpretation, namely, that such schools ' as they think fit' refer to the matters of quality, discipline, order and everything which is taught in them, you would reduce the whole matter to an absurdity, go it seems to me the common sense principle of interpretation is not in respect of quality, but in respect of what I have spoken about in regard to the question of 'schools. Now does the Minister of Justice think that if the Poles were in a majority, that under the Act of 1875, and that law still has power, they couid by a majority erect and establish such a school ' as they think fit,' saying that it shall be taught by a Polish teacher, who need not liave a diploma, who need not have attended a normal school, who need not teach more than two hoars a day, who need not do any of these things, and yet that they could avail themselves of the privileges of pay which go along with the erection and conduct of a school, and be a part of the system which is in vogue ? Does he think tiiey can do that ? He does not, I do not think he can, then I think he will have to modify his interpretation of the phrase ' such a school as they think fit.' That is the practical difficulty that suggsets itself to my mind. But legal interpretations are sometimes wonderful things, and I do not know whether I am right or wrong. But I think mine is the common sense opinion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend picks two or three words out of the section and attempts to construe these words without regard to the context. He has to look at the whole context in order to understand the true intent and meaning of each word ; he has to look to the words 1 Protestant and Catholic ' which are mentioned further on in the section, and which are practically the governing words ; that is to say, the schools which are to be established are those which will provide for the necessities of these two classes of persons. Now my hon. friend, if he is anxious to understand what the intention of the legislature was at the time this section was introduced, has only to refer to the debates of that time, and he will find that, dealing with that particular section which was introduced at the suggestion of Mr. Blake, Mr. Blake said :
There should be some provision in the constitution by which they should have conferred upon them the same rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction as those possessed by the people of the province of Ontario. The principles of local self-government and the settling of the question of public instruction it seemed to him ought to he the cardinal principles of the measure.
His meaning was that they should have conferred upon them the same rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction as those possessed by the people of 1be province of Ontario ; and Mr. Blake who was the father of the clause, used these words in explaining it, and pointed out that the intention was to provide for a separate school system as between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Then the hon. gentleman will find further on, if lie wishes to inquire, that by the ordinance of the Northwest Territories of 1884, effect was given to that section in the sense indicated by Sir. Blake, who was responsible for it.


Robert Laird Borden: Was effect given to it in such a sense as to empower a majority of each district to establish schools of any character they saw fit ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is a separate school system.


Mr.   R.@: Xj. BORDEN. But we are dealing with a majority school system.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The minority in a district are entitled to establish a separate school in that district; that is section 25 of tile ordinance of 1884.


Mr.   R.@: I,. BORDEN. Upon a well recognized principle, as a particular part of this section deals with separate schools we are not to suppose, without express words, that another part of the same section is also dealing with separate schools. A particular part of this section deals with the minority schools, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic ; the minority of the ratepayers, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Paster) had to construe the words to which he drew attention, because the Minister of Justice was bounding his argument upon them-* may establish such schools therein as they think fit.' It seems to me that the results which have been pointed out by the member for North Toronto would ensue by the adoption of the interpretation of the Minister of Justice. Sir John Thompson certainly never adopted that interpretation, or we would have heard something about it in his report to council. His only objection to this ordinance, which he considered carefully, and he was a great lawyer, and would not be apt to overlook a point of this kind-his only objection was not that which is raised by the Minister of Justice to-day ; his objection was that the ordinance provided for the establishment of schools only in districts where majorities had decided to create the area into a school district. Now it does seem to me, with all deference to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, that it is not possible to place such an interpretation upon this clause as that which he has suggested. That certainly was not the interpretation which occurred to the Minister of Justice in the first instance when he drew section 10, No. 1, because lie himself told us in this House that he intended section 16, No. 1 to preserve the rights as they are at present, and therefore he could not have had this point in his mind then. It is obviously something that has occurred to him since.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They had all these rights in 1875.


Mr.   R.@: b. BORDEN. If my hon. friend the Minister of Justice had had this argument in his mind, if he had held this opinion which he has put forward to-day, at the time he drafted section 16, No. 1, he could not have stated in this House, as lie did state, that section 16, No. 1 was designed to preserve the rights of the minority as they exist in the Northwest Territories to-day. Those two things would be absolutely inconsistent ; therefore I am within my right in insisting that the interpretation now relied upon is not the one that occurred to the Minister of Justice when he was drafting that clause. It did not occur to him for the very good reason that au interpretation of this kind is one to which the Minister of Justice would onfy resort when he found no other one would meet the case. To say that you must interpret this clause in that way is going very far indeed, much beyond any canon of legal interpretation with which I am familiar. As I pointed out, you have power vested in the legislature of the Territories to enact laws with regard to education; you have a'limitation upon that, a proviso attached to it that the majority may establish * such schools as they think fit.' But that does not permit them to establish schools of any such character as they see

fit, because to do that would Involve, in tlie first place, that they might apply religious tests :	they might say, no child
shall go to that school unless he or his parents make profession of a certain religion ; no child shall go to that school unless his parents agree that he shall learn a certain language and no other ; no child shall go to that school unless it is carried on subject to such regulations and such supervision, such control and Inspection, as are provided, not by the legislature of the Territories, but by the majority of that particular school district : and I fancy that upon reflection the Minister of Justice would hardly like to persevere in a contention of that kind.


Mr. BOURASSA.: There Is one point that seems to be overlooked. The object of the legislation of 1875 was not to deal with the minority of -any particular district, but was to deal with the rights of the minority in tlie whole territory, and therefore they had to provide for the same rights for every portion of tlie country, no matter whether a particular district contained a majority or a minority of one class or of the other. The conclusion to which the reasoning of the leader of the opposition would lead us is this, that the legislature of 1875 intended to give some protection to either the Protestants or the Roman Catholics when they constitute a minority in any particular district, hut cannot give them auy protection if they happen to constitute a local majority, although forming part of the minority of the whole territory. If section 11 is read, not in the light of too much legal knowledge but in a simpler light


Mr.   R.@: 
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What does he consider to be guaranteed to the minority where it is a minority in any particular district, by the Act of 1875 ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am coming to that, 1 was about to say that if instead of interpreting the Act of 1875 with too much legal lore, we interpret it simply by bringing to bear on it the common sense of the ordinary man, we might better be able to understand it. If you refer to the speeches that were made in this House in 1875, and especially to the speech of the Hon. Edward Blake at whose suggestion, nud I believe under whose guidance this clause was drafted, you find that the object of it was to protect the rights of the total minority of the Territories whether it he Protestant or Roman Catholic, and whatever might lie tlie division of territory that should be adopted by the Northwest government. That is made entirely clear by the part of the clause relating to the school districts. What they wanted to provide
for was the establishment of separate schools for the minority of the Northwest Territories, and to provide for separate schools in every district whether that minority might be represented either by a iocal minority or by a local majority. It would be absurd to think that Mr. Blake meant to give separate schools either to the Protestants or to the Roman Catholics of the Northwest, only when they happened to be a minority in a particular district. For instance, let us take the facts as they have developed. To-day the Roman Catholics in the two new provinces are represented for nine-ten fhs of their population by local majorities. Was it the intention of the Act of 1875, and would it be the intention of this legislation, that one-tenth of the Catholics of the Northwest Territories would be entitled to separate schools and that nine-tenths of the Catholics in the same W Suiqjou of poippio oq pimm sauopjjox all ? Does the leader of the opposition intend to say that in case the majority of the people of the Northwest were Catholic, the Protestants would be entitled to separate schools only when they were a minority, hut would be subject to the Catholic regime everywhere they formed the majority ? The conclusion would lie absurd. I believe, the whole clause means that either the majority or the minority nyist be considered not in the light of whether they belong to this place or to that place, but whether they belong to the Protestant or Catholic religion.. What is guaranteed is the right to tlie majority to chose what kind of schools they would have with respect to the division that has been adopted throughout tlie Dominion of Canada, so far as the separation of schools is concerned. If the Catholics are in the majority they can organize Catholic schools under the guidance of the state under the same limitation that is provided in the former portion of the section ; and if the majority is Protestant the majority may organize either a Protestant school or a non-sectarian school, because it is well known that on this question Protestants are not a unit and that sometimes they prefer sectarian and sometimes non-sectarian schools.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend observes of course that the word ' majority ' is used in connection with the district or portion of tlie Territories. Does he not think the word 'minority ' is used in the same connection?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought he said tlie word minority meant the entire minority in the whole Territories.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: On the contrary


Mr. R. B. BORDEN.: Quite so I want to ask my hon. friend another question. Suppose there was no majority of either

Protestants or Roman Catholics in the district ; suppose there was one-third Protestant, one-third Roman Catholic and one-third Jews and Mormons; does he not think that the word ' majority ' in section 11 would enable the majority of inhabitants to establish a school?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, I do not think so.


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, well


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am taking the intention of the legislator as stated in Mr. Blake's speech. As the Minister of Justice has just said, Mr. Blake referred to the case of Prince Edward Island where the discussion was as between sectarian schools and non-sectarian schools. The right to have sectarian schools is claimed by Catholics, and as the Prime Minister well stated in his first speech on this subject, tlie right to have sectarian schools has never been claimed by the Protestants of this country as a whole. it has been claimed as a preferable system by some Protestants, but it has never been claimed as a conscientious right by any unit of Protestants in this country nor by the Protestant majority of any part of the country; it has only been claimed by the Protestant minority of Quebec. The object of the clause, as I have stated was to provide for the rights of the total minority of the Territories, and therefore when it speaks of the majority and the minority of any particular district it must mean that the majority or the minority of that district belong either to the majority or the minority of the total population of the Territories. I therefore hold that the reference to the establishment of schools as the majority may think fit, must be interpi'eted in the same way as the separate schools mentioned in the second paragraph, just as the word majority must be interpreted in the same way as the word minority in the second part of the section; that is : that the majority may choose to have a sectarian school whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, or a non-sectarian school; and that the minority whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may secede from them and have a Protestant school if the minority is Protestant, and a Catholic school if the minority is Catholic. The Minister of Justice has referred to the ordinance of 1884, but if the leader of the opposition refers to the ordinance of 1885- which is in fact the first ordinance adopted in the Northwest Territories because the ordinance of 1884 has never been put in force-he will find that the idea was There indicated in the clearest way possible. There was to be established public schools, non-sectarian or sectarian, for the majority and separate schools for the minority of any particular district. If the majority of a district choose to establish a non-sectarian school, then the minority Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
could separate and establish a separate school either Protestant or Roman Catholic. If the majority chose to establish a sectarian public school then the minority could secede. That was clearly the intention of the legislature of the Northwest when it provided a council of public instruction in two sections, leaving to the total council the superintendence of the non-sectarian public schools, and to the Catholic and Protestant sections respectively the conduct of the Catholic and Protestant public and separate schools. I am not disputing the legal opinion of the Minister of Justice or of the leader of the opposition, but it will be clearly seen from the discussion in 1875 that it was the intention to give to the majority of any particular district the right to establish such school as they thought fit and that that meant that they could establish a public school, either Protestant or Catholic, I fail to see that it meant that the pouter of the government to regulate both public and sectarian schools was abridged by that, and I do not see how by re-enacting that legislation we would create any other state of things than the state of things that existed up to the time the Northwest legislature endeavoured to infringe on the powers that were given to the minority by this parliament, as Sir John Thompson stated.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: When the committee rose at six o'clock there was a somewhat informal discussion as to the meaning of section 11 of the Act of 1875. Might I ask the Minister of Justice to give his attention to it. It says :
When, and so soon as any system of taxation shall be adopted in any district or portion of the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of the council or assembly, as the case may be, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education.
I pause for a moment upon these words, and it appears to me that they govern and to a certain extent interpret what follows;
All necessary ordinances in respect to education, but it shall therein-
That is in the ordinances.
-be always provided, that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Northwest Territories, or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they may think fit.
Now what can that mean ? That under the law the council passes the ordinances relating to education, and that all schools are established so far as the administration is concerned in accordance with the provi-

sions of these ordinances and in accordance with the free will as the case may be of the trustees or the authorities in the particular districts. It says :
Shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education, but it shall therein be always provided, &c.
Therefore the management, the administration of the schools under that, if you go back one section, is in accordance with the ordinances under the good judgment and common sense of the trustees or the authorities for the time being, and not as the trustees or authorities for the time being may deem tit. It is under the control of the ordinances as passed under the authority of the law.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to me that a good deal of unnecessary confusion has been imported into this discussion simply because we have ignored the historic conditions under which this legislation has been arrived at. If you take this law, the Act of 1875, or indeed any law that you have in the statutes whether of Quebec, of Ontario or Manitoba, if you take them by themselves, without having any reference whatever to the historic conditions which have necessitated that legislation, you are at once confronted by a mystery which seems to be insoluble, but if you take the history, the conditions which have made this legislation necessary, or if not necessary advisable, then it seems to me that the conclusion is very simple, and that you have at once the explanation of the difficulty that was presented this afternoon. First of all as to the main point of discussion of to-day, that is the difference between section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2. In order to examine them fully, let us come at the principle, let us look first at the law of 1875 incorporated in clause 16, No. 1.
Subject to the provisions of the said section 93, and in continuance of the principles heretofore sanctioned under the Northwest Territories Act, it is enacted that the legislature of the said province shall pass all necessary laws in respect of education, and that it shall therein always be provided (a) that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the said province or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name it is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessments and collection of rates therefor.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) very properly asked : What is the meaning of these words, that the ratepayers in the school district shall have the power to establish such schools therein a,s they think fit. These words are very broad, they must be qualified In some way, they must have some meaning. It cannot be meant that they can have such schools as In their own will or fancy are 227
fit for them. There must be some qualification necessary to interpret the clause. Everybody will agree with this. And now you have the explanation under what immediately follows :
(b) That the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and make the necessary assessment and collection ot rate3 therefor.
You give to the minority the privilege of having separate schools when the majority in that district has had the privilege of establishing such schools as the}7 think fit, and that privilege is given not to everybody, not to the Jews, as was suggested by the hon. member for Toronto this afternoon, not to the Mormons, but to either Protestants or Catholics.


George Eulas Foster: That is the minority ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The minority has that privilege, not the Jews, this is not given to the Jews.


George Eulas Foster: I did not refer to the minority schools, I was arguing on the majority of ratepayers.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly. But the qualification comes in and applies in the same way to the majority as well as to the minority in this matter. The privilege is given to the minority, to a certain minority, that Is to say to the Protestant or Catholic minority. There must he some reason for the difference. In the discussion which is going on to-day in certain parts of the country you often hear : But if you give that privilege to the minority, why not give it to the Jews, the Mormons and the Greek Church ? I am not concerned with these ; that is a matter for the local legislature ? but so far as this parliament is concerned, we have only to deal with the law as we find it, that is to say the privileges given to the Protestant or to the Catholic minority, not to any other. When this law was first established in the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario, and subsequently in the province of Manitoba, the great body of the Canadian population was divided between Catholics and Protestants. There were very few people of other denominations. There are more now, but at that time there were no denominations to be reckoned with except the great body of Protestants and the great body of Roman Catholics and the law was made for them. Now if you give the privilege to the minority whether it be Protestant or whether it be Catholic to secede from a school which has been established by the majority since the privilege is given to the Protestants or to the Catholics, it is because there must he in the school something offensive to the conscience of the Protestant or of the Catholic. You cannot conceive any reason for distinction and separation except for that. If



' the separation had been given to any other body than these religious bodies, you might say'there was something else in the mind of the legislature, but as the legislature has provided to give that privilege only to the Protestant or Catholic it follows as a necessary consequence that this privilege is given where something is [DOT] taught in the school is offensive to the conscience of the Roman Catholic or to the conscience of the Protestant. I>et us take a concrete example. Here is a school established say by a Roman Catholic district in the province of Quebec then their catechism will be taught, the Roman Catholic catechism, that is to say the Roman Catholic form of Christianity will be taught iu that scbool. If there is a minority there composed say of Presbyterians, of that very fine body of men, who as they claim themselves with some pride, are fed on oatmeal and the shorter catechism, that naturally is very offensive to them, and they would have the right to secede. Take the converse proposition. Suppose there is in Quebec as there is in the eastern townships, a school where the Protestants are in the majority and then the shorter catechism is taught. That would be offensive to the Roman Catholic minority and there they would have the right to secede also. Take another case. Suppose there is a Protestant school where no religion is taught and there is a Roman Catholic minority [there and ithey want to have religion taught, it is offensive to their conscience that no religious instruction should be given to their children : there again provision is made that they nave the right to secede. There are only -two kinds of education which can be given in a school, secular or religious. It is conceivable and easily conceivable that religious education which is given in a scbool may be offensive to the conscience either of the Catholic minority or the Protestant minority if there is such a minority in that school. But when you come to secular matters it is different. And yet, Sir, in the manner in which secular education may be given, there may be something offensive to the conscience of the minority. There can be only one way of teaching arithmetic or grammar, and that cannot offend the conscience of any one, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. But every one knows that it is not so in regard to the teaching of history, for instance. History may be taught in a manner which will be offensive to the Protestant minority or to the Catholic minority. There are some text books of history the truth of which would not he admitted by Protestants, and there are some tile truth of which would not be admitted by Roman Catholics. Under such circumstances the minority may have cause for offence in the manner in which even secular education is given, and in that case provision is made that the minority may secede. Now._ I need not tell the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
House, for it is known to everybody, that the Roman Catholic church has always sought to have for herself the privilege of secular education as well as religious education ; and when the Act of 1875 was passed, the majority and the minority were given the privilege of having the education of their respective churches in the schools if they saw fit. That law, legally or illegally-I shall not discuss this point at this moment, but I shall do it later on-was interpreted by the legislature as conveying to the minority the right of having a separate organization for the tuition of their own children. There were two systems of education established-a system for the Protestants and a system for the Roman Catholics. This condition existed for some years, but it was a cause of great friction, and it was finally changed by the legislature, which passed an Act taking to the civil power the teaching of secular education and leaving religious education altogether apart. Now, this was a grievance to the minority. If you look at the correspondence which took place on this subject, you will find that the removal of the peculiar arrangement which existed, and which permitted Roman Catholics to have the organization of their own schools, was the grievance which was felt by them with the greatest acuteness. But the legislature thought otherwise. They were persevering in their views, and they would not yield upon that point. Let me now explain the law which has been substituted for tbe law of 1875. As I said a moment ago. tbe characteristic feature of the present law, which was enacted to take the place of the law of 1875, is this, that the legislature has separated absolutely religious education from secular education. Secular education has been made by the legislature the sole privilege of the trustees in every district. Under the ordinance, chapter 29, which contains a new clause in substitution of the old law, the state does not pretend to have the slightest control of religious education. At half past three in the afternoon the secular education is at an end, and then the trustees can come In and have whatever sort of religious education they desire. It may be the shorter catechism, it may be the Roman Catholic doctrine, it may be any of the doctrines of Protestants. But up to the hour of halfpast three in the afternoon the state insists upon having' the control of tbe schools absolutely-insists upon having all the teachers certificated by tbe state, insists on having all the inspection done by the state, insists on having all the text books selected by the state. Whether the schools are separate or public, the state has absolute control of them to-day. Now, this is a grievance on the part of the Roman Catholic minority. They have always thought that they should have the control of their schools for secular education as well as for



TUNE 8 1905

[Stage Direction]
religious education. But a question now arises, which I will not discuss at this moment, but I will do so later on, whether or not the old law of 1875 is still in force, or whether the new ordinance, which has done away with the control by the minority of the secular part of education, is in force. Now, we are asked, what is the difference between clause 16, No. 1, and clause 16, No. 2 ? The difference is simply this, that in clause 16, No. 1, the law of 1875 was enacted, giving to the minority- I suppose the Roman Catholic minority- the control over secular education as well as the control over religious education, whereas the new clause brings into force the existing law of the territories, the o^inance of 1901, by which the state has absolute control over the secular part of education!, and the people have |control simply of the religious part of education from half-past three in the afternoon. This is the absolute difference which exists between the old clause and the new clause. X have for my part agreed to the new clause 16, and in so doing I know that I have restricted my fellow-religionists in regard to some of the rights which they think they have at this moment. I shall explain in due time why I agreed to do so. But my duty at present is to state what the difference is, and there it is in a few words. If this law passes, as we think it ought, the legislature will have full control over the secular part of education, and the people will have full control over the religious part. The legislature does not attempt to control the religious part of education ; but if the old law had remained in force, the legislature would have surrendered its control over the secular part as well as over the religious part of education. Now, I think I have made very clear what is the difference between section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2. The motives which have influenced us in agreeing to that change I shall explain at the proper time. I do not propose to do so to-day, for this reason. I look at the House before me, and I see it absolutely disorganized. There are few members from the Northwest Territories, if there are any, present ; and as they are most interested in this question, I want to discuss it in their presence. At the present moment I merely explain the difference between the two sections.
Robert Laird Borden: Will my right hon. friend.be good enough to cite the words in the Act of 1875 which, in his opinion, give the control of secular education to the minority V


Sir WILFRID  RATJRIER@: The words are there in substance.


Robert Laird Borden: I want them in the statute.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman cannot have them in the statute if 227J
they are not there ; but I have given the interpretation as we understand it-' May establish such schools therein as they think fit.'


Robert Laird Borden: That is majority schools.


Wilfrid Laurier: The minority schools are also provided for : That the minority of the ratepayers therein, may establish separate schools therein.' So I can only emphasize what I said a moment ago. The right to establish a separate school in a district which has been established by a majority is not given to a minority of lawyers, farmers, mechanics or any profession, but is given to a religious body

to the Protestants or the Catholics, nobody else. If that privilege is given to the minority of Catholics or Protestants, what can the reason be ? It must be that they are not satisfied with the teaching which is given in those schools of the majority, because they believe in them their consciences are oppressed. I cannot see any other interpretation.
'Mr. R. L. BORDEN. As I understand the right hon. gentleman, his view is that these words give the right of complete control over school education : ' The minority of ratepayers therein, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, may establish separate schools therein.' That, in his opinion, gave complete control over school education.


Wilfrid Laurier: No. What I say is this, that if the minority are not satisfied with the manner in which education is given in those schools, they have the right to secede. In other words, the right of secession, when it is given to a religious body, can have only one raison d'Stre, and that is that the conscience of the minority is oppressed. There can be no other reason.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not controverting anything the right hon. gentleman has said, but am merely endeavouring to understand his argument. He says there are some words in the Aot of 1875 which give the minority an absolute right to the control of the education in their separate schools, and I have read him the only words in the Act of 1875 from which that right could be deduced : ' The minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestants or Raman Catholics, may establish separate schools therein.' It is upon those words the right hon. gentleman, must depend.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Exactly the same words are contained in section 16, No. 2.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well ; but my hon. friend has forgotten that if in section 16, No. 2, these words are found; there are also other words found in chapter 29, and these words are :

No school shall be organized, whether separate or public, unless it he under the supervision of the province or the authority created by the province.
There is a board of instruction which .shall decide what books that separate school shall use, which Shall give certificates to teachers, and so on ; and, therefore, in section 16, No. 2, it is stated :
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.
To-day, under the ordinances, though there are separate schools, the people who have formed those separate schools have not the right to select their own books or teachers or supervise their own schools as they did before. Many of the rights which existed before the ordinances of 1892 are denied them, and therefore there is all the difference in the world between clause 16, No. 1, and clause 16, No. 2.


Mr.  R. I.. BORDEN@: If those words have the construction which the right hon. gentleman claims for them in the Act of 1875, it inevitably follows that they have the same meaning in the legislation introduced by section 16, No. 2. Those words in the Act of 1875 are : ' The minority of ratepayers therein, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, may establish separate schools therein.' In section 16, No. 2, the words are:
* The minority of ratepayers in any district, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, may establish separate schools therein and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor, and that in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessment of such rates as they impose upon themselves with respect thereto.'


Wilfrid Laurier: That is from chapter 29.


Robert Laird Borden: These words are exactly identical.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
Mr. ft. L. BORDEN. If they have the meaning attributed to them in the Act of 1875, surely they must have the same meaning in clause 16, No. 2.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Mr.   I@: We will see about that. I do not know for what reason you can differentiate, but I would like to have some authority from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice other than that which has come to hand up to the present, to convince me that the words ' separate schools ' have any such technical meaning as has been given them by the Prime Min-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
ister and the Minister of Justice. The term ' separate schools ' in the statute of Canada has no technical meaning. It means exactly what the statute says. It means that the minority may establish separate schools. The right hon. gentleman says that the right to establish separate schools implies the complete control of the education given in those schools. It is sufficient to show that the Act of 1S75 does not declare anyhimg of the kind. It simply establishes one principle, namely, the principle of separation. But my right hon. friend, when pressed upon that point, says that he relies upon the interpretation made by tbe territorial government when it enacted the ordinances under this legislation. Hie spoke of confusing the issue. There lias been no confusion of the issue such as he himself created when he made that remark. There was nothing in the Act of 1875 to prevent the Territories from establishing separate schools of that character if they saw fit, nor was there anything in that Act to impose upon the territorial legislature the necessity of establishing such schools. In other words, such wide powers were given by the Act of 1875 to the Territories that they could establish denominational schools if they saw fit. There was nothing to restrict them, but neither was there anything in the Act of 1S75 to impose the obligation of establishing denominational schools. The term used is not * denominational schools,' but the right hon. gentleman has thus interpreted it. The term used is ' separate schools ' and separate schools only. I see that my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne) is impatient. There is evidently something on his mind which troubling him.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: In our legislation, is not ' separate schools ' synonymous with denominational schools ? In section 93 of the British North America Act we see the term ' separate schools ' employed once and the term ' denominational schools ' also employed once, thereby showing that they mean the same thing.


Robert Laird Borden: The Supreme Court of New Brunswick must have been very much astray, if theft is the case.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think that was the opinion of the Privy Council.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: That case was confirmed by the Privy Council.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. member will tell us why tbe term ' separate schools ' is used instead of ' denominational schools ' in section 16, No. 2, if they are equivalent to each other.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is used because they are taken as synonymous.


Robert Laird Borden: Then would my hon. friend support a motion to restore tbe words ' denominational schools,' if both terms mean the same ?



JT7NE 8. 1905

Armand Renaud La Vergne: That will depend on the motion.


Robert Laird Borden: That shows how very sincere the hon. gentleman is in the opinion he has put forward. However, I was dealing with the right hon. gentleman and not with the hon. member who has just interrupted me. 'The minority of ratepayers therein, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, may establish separate schools therein.' That is the language of the Act of 1875. The word ' separate ' has no technical meaning, as I have pointed out. It is not denominational schools but separate schools. A distinction has been drawn in the courts between those. The word * separate ' simply implies separation, but the right hon. gentleman sees a great deal more in it. And why ? Because the territorial legislature established a dual system of schools-clerical schools and public schools ; but surely the most cursory glance at this Act of 1875 should inform him that it was perfectly competent for the territorial legislature to do that, but not necessary that it should do it. It was perfectly competent for that legislature to establish a dual system of schools. He speaks of interpretation, hut we cannot get any aid from the Territorial legislation, because the Territorial legislature had no power to interpret this [DOT]enactment. The ordinances of 1884 and 1887 were measures which the Territorial government passed, and which were within its powers as defined in the Act of 1875. They cannot be regarded as interpretation of that Act because they might or might not go to the full extent of the power which it conferred. The situation seems to me so absolutely plain that it is almost impossible to argue it. They bad the power to establish clerical schools and public school, if they saw fit. It appears they did so by the ordinance of 1884. And. because they did so under the full powers given them, it is said they interpreted the Act of 1S75 in the sense that that Act made it necessary for them to do this. According to that argument, you would say that because parliament could pass clause 16, No. T, having the power to do so ; therefore, there is a constitutional obligation on this parliament to pass that clause. It is merely necessary to state the proposition to [DOT]confute it. Then, come down, in the end. to the expression ' separate school ' which the right hon. gentleman defines as having a certain meaning, for which definition he has no other warrant than the interpretation-as toe calls it-of the Territorial government in 1884. And merely to speak of that is to indicate in the clearest manner that no such so-called interpretation could have any effect. Suppose some one were to go to court to-morrow and contend that the Act of 1875 made it necessary to establish a dual system of schools in the Territories; and the judges should examine the Act and [DOT]declare that they found no expression of
that kind in it; and counsel should answer :	' Ah, but the Territorial legislature,
under this Act, did establish a dual system.' Any man who would make that argument before a court, it seems to me, would not favourably impress the court; the argument would he laughed to scorn. You must distinguish between the power given by the Act of 1875, and the restriction imposed by the Act of 1875 with respect to the establishment of separate schools. There was power, I repeat, to establish a dual system of schools, but there was no obligation to do so. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) goes back to the expression ' separate schools ' for his sole warrant that under the Act of 1875 the schools were to be controlled, so far as their teaching is concerned, by the particular body that established them. 1 cannot see any room for such an argument. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman desires to make some observation before I deal with another point.


Wilfrid Laurier: No ; go on.


Robert Laird Borden: This Act of 1875 must have been of a most extraordinary character, if we are to tkke the two interpretations placed upon it to-day by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House wuo have spokeii. According to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) it meant, in the first place, that the Territorial legislature, although it received the power to make ordinances with respect to education, was to have no control over education, but that the majority in each district was to make the ordinances, the laws, the regulations with regard to that district. Therefore. you might have not merely five or ten, but forty or fifty different systems of laws in the Territories under the provisions of the Act of 1875. It seems to me it is not necessary to mass arguments to refute an interpretation of that kind. And then my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) declared further that the majority of the ratepayers who were to establish what might be called the majority school was a religious majority and not a majority of the ratepayers. That is, the hon. gentleman's argument would mean that in a district in which there were
2.000	Protestants, 2,400 Roman Catholics,
and 500 of other religious denominations, it would be impossible to establish schools, for the simple reason that there would be no religious majority. Or take another illustration :	Suppose there were
2.000	Protestants, 2,400 Roman Catholics, and 500 of other denominations. According to the argument of the hon. member for Labelle it would be impossible for
2.000	Protestants and 1,000 Roman Catholics to unite as a majority for the purpose of establishing schools. You could not, by any combination have a school established in such a district. Will any hon. gentle-

man in this House, whether a lawyer or not, believe for a moment that such an interpretation could be placed upon the statute ? Why, absurdity could not go further. Under the law the majority of ratepayers in a district can establish such schools as they think fit, and it would not make the slightest difference whether they were all Protestants or partly Protestants and partly Roman Catholics ; or whether they had among them Jews and Mormons-they would be a majority for the establishment of a school. And, when these schools had been established the minority could establish separate schools. But the word ' separate schools ' to my mind does not impart anything more than separation ; it does not involve the idea that the separate schools so established should be absolutely under the control of the persons who established them, any more than is the majority school. I do not think that any such result could follow without a fuller and more definite expression of that intention than we find in the Act of 1875.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has travelled very far afield, but, for my part, I do not wish to depart from the point he raised this afternoon as to the difference between section 1C, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2. My hon. friend has gone back to that old heresy and fallacy of his that there is no constitutional obligation upon this parliament to pass this legislation. I shall not touch further upon that now,'though I may exchange some words with him upon it later on. But let me show him again, since he has declined to see it, so far, the difference between section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2. Under section 16 No. 1, which practically re-enacted the law of 1875, there was no restriction whatever upon the power of the minority to establish such schools as they thought fit. So far as I know there was no restriction whatever. My hon.
[DOT] friend says that in that ease, you could have many different laws for different districts. Sir, that would have been the legitimate and logical conclusion of the law. And, in order to obviate that in the Territories, they did what has been done in other places

they provided for a board of education which was separated into two sections, one to legislate for the Catholics and the other to legislate for the Protestants.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Will the right hon. gentleman permit me a question ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: If the statute conferred the absolute right to do that, how could the Board of Education interfere with them ?


Wilfrid Laurier: If the laws which are meant to be interpreted by j school trustees were always interpreted by Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
able lawyers, perhaps many things would not be done which are done; but unfortunately these are often interpreted by the man on the street who does the best he can according to his knowledge. The legislature of that time thought it advisable to have two boards of education; they thought differently afterwards and abolished them, whether they acted within their right or not. Suppose the Act of 1875 did not authorize that to be done ' <'ter it had been in force for a number of years it was withdrawn, and it was held to be a grievance, and that grievance has been felt ever since. My hon. friend is familiar with the correspondence which took place between Archbishop Taebo and others when this law was withdrawn in 1892, they made it the subject of complaint. My hon. friend might think that if the archbishop had been as good a lawyer as he is, he might have concluded that they had ne right under the law of 1875 to this extra board. But tliey thought they had. Now we have enacted the law of 1875 again, so that they may not begin again. Although I have great respect for the opinion of my hon. friend, there are other lawyers besides himself in this House and out of it, who differ with him. and who believe that the establishment of the second board and its organization was a legitimate consequence of the law of 1875. And as we are not here to legislate simply for fancy purposes, but for useful purposes, we desire, in order to give satisfaction to the people, to pass such laws here ns may not be exposed to the quibbles of lawyers in future years. Let us come now to the practical part of the case. What was the legitimate consequence of the law of 1875? If we take chapter 29, we find that the power to establish in a school district such a school ns they think fit. is taken away from them. My hon. friend did not quote that, but it is a qualification of what he did quote, he only quoted section 41. I now quote from section 29 :
The minority of ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish a separate school therein, and in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school, shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
Then with a tone of triumph the hon. gentleman exclaimed: Is not that the same thing as we had before? Is there any difference? Is it not the same as the Act of 1875? I say no, it is not the same thing, and the reason is because there is something in this clause 29 which the hon. gentleman did not quote. It is this :
There shall be a department of the public service of the Territories called the Depatment of Education, over which the member of the executive council appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the seal of the Ter-

ritories to discharge the functions of the commissioner of education for the time being, shall preside.
The department shall have the control and management of all kindergarten schools, public and separate schools, normal schools, teachers institutes and the education of deaf, deaf mute and blind persons.
Therefore, the board of education has control over separate schools. And what has the board power to do ?
The commissioner, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, shall have power to make regulations for the department.
For the classification, organization, government, examination and inspection of all schools hereinbefore mentioned.	,
That is to say, of public schools and separate schools.
For the construction, furnishing and care of school buildings and the arrangement of school premises.
For the examination, licensing and grading of teachers, and for the examination of persons who may desire to enter professions, or who may wish certificates of having completed courses of study in any school.
For a teachers' reading course and teachers' institutes and conventions.
To authorize text and reference books for the use of the pupils and teachers in all schools hereinbefore mentioned.
Then my boa. friend quoted section 41 as giving 'the same privileges to separate schools as given under the law of 1875. My hon. friend sees there is a great difference. Under these ordinances the minority have no longer the power to establish such schools as they see fit, they may only establish such schools as the Board of Public Education sees fit. Therefore there is a great difference. When it comes to the matter of religious instruction, however, here is what tile law says :
No religious instruction except as hereinafter provided shall be permitted in the school of any district from the opening of such school until one-half hour previous to its closing in the afternoon, after which time any such instruction permitted or desired by the board may be given.
Then when it comes to half-past three, in every school, whether public or separate, the board may provide for such religious instruction as they want. The state does not follow education beyond that point. The state concerns itself only with secular education. Therfore I say again, section 29 has made a difference in the law of 1875. And here again I say that my fellow coreligionists have made a great sacrifice. It may not perhaps be a great sacrifice of power. In his opinion they may not have made such a sacrifice, but in their own interpretation of the law, they made a sacrifice, and therefore it is that we are asking for this safeguard to our co-religionists.


Mr.   I@: I would like the contention of the right hon. gentleman
made perfectly clear. He has referred to the right of the majority to establish such schools therein as they may think fit, going back to the argument made by the Minister of Justice this afternoon. He has also referred to the Act of 1875 as possibly providing that there should be a separate board of education, or a separate board of control. Now what does he mean ? Let us not confine ourselves to vague expressions-what does he mean? Does he mean that a majority of the ratepayers in any district could, under the Act of 1875, make laws absolutely with respect to schools to be established in that district, making, regulations with regard to pupils, and who should be admitted? Could they establish religious tests ? Could they make provision as to text-books ? Could they declare that certain children should not be admitted to the schools ? Could they do everything that is embraced in the expression ' pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education '? Or does my hon. friend mean that under the Act of 1S75 majorities could not do this, but that there was to be a separate board of education, a separate board of control in respect of separate schools? The two propositions are absolutely distinct. We have already had one this afternoon. My right hon. friend, while apparently adhering to that puts forward another view as to a separate board of education. What is the position of the government with regard to that when they come to define the difference between section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2, because it is a very important point.


Wilfrid Laurier: The position of the government is this: that the minority claim that under the Act of 1875 they had the right to select their own text-books. They claim also, as the correspondence of record will show, that they have a right to separate school boards. They have that or they have not. and in order to make it absolutely sure, we have abandoned that clause and taken the other.


Robert Laird Borden: I asked my right hon. friend one question and he slipped away very conveniently to another. The words ' as they may think fit ' do not occur in respect to minority separate schools. Does not the right hon. gentleman remember the section ? I asked him a very distinct question as to the meaning of the words ' such schools therein as they may think fit.' These words do not occur in connection w-ith the provision for minority schools, but they do occur in connection with the provision for majority schools, about which the right hon. gentleman was speaking. When I ask him about that, he leaves that part of the section and goes to the next part of the section, which does not contain these words at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may tell my hon. friend, without being offensive to him, that 1 knew these words were not to be found in the second part of the section. 1 read [DOT]
That a majority may establish such schools therein as they think fit . . . the minority may establish separate schools therein.
Ihe words are not reproduced in tne second part of the section, but in my estimation it is a distinction which is unworthy of my hon. friend to say that the minority under such circumstances would not have the fame right as the majority. If the majority has the right to establish such schools as they think fit, the minority has that same right also, though it is not expressed in so many words.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. What does the right hon. gentleman then conclude as to the meaning of the words ' such schools as they may think fit ' ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I say that in the opinion of the minority the words ' as they may think fit ' gave them the power to select their own text-books. That has been taken away from them. Their contention was right or it was wrong, it was legal or it was illegal, but whether it was legal or illegal they thought they had iit, and in order not to create the impression on their mind we have taken that away and put in the other.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman does not contend there is any real distinction ; he only says that the minority thought there was a distinction.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let us put it that way if you want to.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, after all, there is no effective argument that there is any real distinction between section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2, but that a certain class of our citizens (the minority in the Northwest) had a certain opinion, and therefore there is a distinction between section 16, No. 1, and section 16, No. 2. If it comes down to that ; if that is the argument, it seems to me that there is not very much need of discussing it further. If the'govem-ment take that position, they simply abandon the contention that there is any real distinction between section 16, No. 1, and section 10, No. 2, and confine themselves absolutely to the position that certain of our citizens who are interested in this question had that opinion.


Wilfrid Laurier: If that is not a good argument for my hon. friend, it is a good argument for me, and, I hope, for many other members of this House. We should not legislate here in order to convey to men the impression that they are given bread when they are given a stone. If the minority for the last fourteen years have thought Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
that they had been deprived of their right, but in order to have peace and harmony they abandoned that right and agreed to live under a system which has given satisfaction to everybody, it is, I think, a good reason why we should have no equivocation about it; why we should know where we are, and legislate accordingly.


Robert Laird Borden: That would be an excellent comparison, except that the change was made, not at the instance of the minority, but at the instance of the majority.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, because if the majority aud the minority had not agreed to that, there would be the same thing as occurred elsewhere, and which we do not want a repetition of here ; we do not want to have another Manitoba school question, we had enough of one.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not hope, after the discussion we have had, to shed any new light on tlie interpretation of section 11 of the Act of 1875, but perhaps I may be permitted to give the committee my interpretation of that section. The House is face to face with two interpretations ; one given by the leader of the opposition and concurred in by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and the other interpretation given by the Minister of Justice this afternoon. I shall endeavour to state briefly any reasons for adopting the opinion of the Minister of Justice. The interpreation given by the leader of the opposition and by his hon. friend (Mr. Fostei') is what I would term a strictly narrow, judicial interpretation of the statute. It is the interpretation which a court of justice might give, and I think I am stating the case fairly when I say that the leader of the opposition informed the House that his interpretation is that which would be given by a judge if that section were brought to a court to be interpreted.


Robert Laird Borden: What other interpretation should one put upon it ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Permit me to say that in my opinion the canons which should be adopted toy parliament in interpreting a statute differ in many respects from the canons which govern a court of justice. The interpretation by a judge is according to the language of the statute and that only ; a judge does not look to the extraneous or surrounding circumstances which existed at the time the law was passed ; a judge would simply interpret the language to the best of his ability according to the dictionary and according to jurisprudence. Parliament, in interpreting a statute, must and should adopt a much wider view ; parliament, I submit, must, in intex-preting a statute, look at the conditions as they were at the time the law was passed ; parliament must look at the intention of the legislature which passed that law ; it must look at past history ; it must look at every circumstance

which can, in any way throw any light upon that law. We all know that the Act of 1875 was passed somewhat hurriedly ; we know that section 11 was introduced after the other provisions of the statute had been discussed by the House. A subject of great importance, such as the question of education, was treated in a very short section and in very few words. It was passed with apparently no contentious discussion in the House ; it was passed, as I remember, unanimously, and there was no discussion whatever as to the meaning and effect of the terms used. We know that in 1875, when this law was passed, it was but a few years after the passage of the British North America Act. It is a matter of history that in Canada so far as legislation is concerned the meamiug of the words ' separate schools ' is synonymous to ' denominational schools ' : in the British North America Act the same sense was attached to it as to the words ' denominational schools.' We had only two kinds of schools in Canada at that time, viz., the public school and the separate school. Separate schools were introduced in Ontario in 1860, and they were then intended to be, and have ever since been, denominational schools. So it is in the province of Quebec ; the separate schools of the province of Quebec are to-day denominational schools and so they are in Ontario. I appeal to any member in this House to point to me a single instance in any province of the Dominion where there is a separate school which is not, to all Intents and purposes, a denominational school.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood that a great many members on the other side of the House have alleged that the separate schools in the Northwest are not denominational schools.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: As I understood it, the argument of gentlemen on this side is that the school which it is now intended to have under clause 16, No. 2, will be non-denominational schools. I never understood any one on this side of the House to say that the separate schools which existed under the dual system put into force by the Northwest Territories was not a denominational school.


Robert Laird Borden: I mean the separate schools that are there to-day.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: So far as ,1 understand it, the schools existing- in the Territories under the Act of 1875 and the ordinance of 1884 were, to all intents and purposes, denominational schools.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the bon. gentleman take the ground that the separate schools in the Northwest to-day under the present schools in the Northwest Territories, at all times denominational schools.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No, I do not, I did not say that.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman said that you could not have separate schools which were not denominational.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I said that the separate schools of Canada, whether in the east or the west, the north or the south, have been, perhaps with the exception of -the present schools in the Northwest Territories, at all times denominational schools.


George Eulas Foster: In Quebec are the Protestant schools which are separate schools denominational schools ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not know what they are de facto, but they are de jure. They can be made denominational schools to all intents and purposes under the law.


George Eulas Foster: According to the argument of my bon. friend it is the de facto and not the de jure that ought to rule. My difficulty is that you have a Protestant school, a minority school ; I suppose it *'does not often happen that that minority school is not made up of different denominations of Protestants. If you have Baptists and Presbyterians and Methodists, making up the minority forming a school that is a separate Protestant school, how are you going to make that a denominational school ? Because the tenets of these three denominations are different. You could not teach the Presbyterian catechism because the Methodists do not like it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: As far as I understand the legislation of this country, whether it has been Dominion or provincial legislation, denominational schools have been confined to two classes of His Majesty's subjects, that is the Protestants on the one hand and the Catholics on the other. That is the only distinction, that is the only division or separation which any of our laws has ever contemplated and I say when the Confederation Act of 1867 was framed it was-


Robert Laird Borden: That may be very true, but still would not what has just been suggested by the hon. member for North Toronto prevent the Protestant schools from being denominational in the sense which the hon. gentleman has mentioned ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No, I do not think so, because the words ' denominational schools ' is used in a general sense as far as Protestants are concerned. My hon. friend must admit that the expression 'denominational schools' was a distinction between Protestant and Catholic schools, exclusively, and I say all through our legislation they have been treated as such. Nobody has ever thought in speaking of denominational schools of attempting to give the Mormons, the Doukhobors. the Galicians or any other sect, separate schools, it has always been a separation as between Protestants and Catholics only.


George Eulas Foster: Does the law of 1875 exist simply for the year 1875 ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Not at all.


George Eulas Foster: Or for all years and all conditions ? And not for each year which the law is in force.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not think that is a difficult question to answer.


George Eulas Foster: It is not a difficult question to answer but any judge or court in interpreting the law of 1875 would interpret it for 1905 under different conditions. How is the interpretation going to go ? Is u going to go according to the conditions of the year 1875 or to the conditions of 1905 ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is exactly the point I am trying to make. I submit as a matter of sound parliamentary interpretation of law, that in the interpretation of a law by parliament and not bv a court of justice


George Eulas Foster: I am speaking of a court of justice.	[DOT]


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: j Mr. BELCOURT. A court of justice Mould not look at the circumstances of today or of 30 years ago.


George Eulas Foster: Then my hon. friend has no argument at all.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I have no argument ? That is a mere affirmation. I am going to make an argument and if I cannot impress my hon. friend perhaps I can impress somebody else.


George Eulas Foster: I will try to be impressed.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: So far as the judge is concerned, I quite admit that the hon. member for North Toronto who took such pains this afternoon to say he was not going to argue as a lawyer, but as a parliamentarian or common sense man, argued it from the most narrow, contracted view that any lawyer could take.


George Eulas Foster: That shows that the law and common sense go side by side.,


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: 
Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I was coming to that. My hon. friend was going to tell me that would be inconsistent with the first portion of the section.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I was not, I was going simply to ask whether or riot the hon. gentleman concurred in the view of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) that the majority mentioned in that part of the clause is a religious majority ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Quite so, tfhat is my *view.


Wilfrid Laurier: taken their choice.
They have


Robert Laird Borden: Well then he said ; You are not to consider Mormons or the possibility that Mormons and Jews and inhabitants of different religious belief from either Protestant or Catholics, may affect the situation. But if it is a religious majority we know we have in portions of the Northwest Territories, a considerable number of Mormons. For example, what will you do where you have say 2,000 Mormons, 1.000 Protestants, and 1,000 Roman Catholics ? What will you do about establishing a school ? What I desire, to know is, does that condition under the Act of 1S75 prevent the establishment of a school section at all?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: My answer to that is this, that the Mormons and the Galicians and every other religious sect outside of the Roman Catholics and Protestants have nothing whatever to do with the question.


Mr.   I@: I see.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That they are outside of it altogether.


George Eulas Foster: There is no law for them?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: There is no denominational school law for them. I am speaking of the law of 1S75, interpreting that law, and I say the law of 1875 as well as the Confederation Act, 1867, did not assume to Ixither itself with any other religious sect but these two. That is my argument. I may be wrong, but surely that is very plain.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose for example you had in a school section 1,000 Roman Catholics, 500 Protestants, and 2.000 Mormons. In my hon. friend's view of the law the 1,000 Roman Catholics would be the majority mentioned in section 11. He would disregard the Mormons or the Jews altogether.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Certainly. That is my view, and that seems to have been at all' times in our history the only view which received the consideration of parliament. In 1867, at the time of the Confederation Act, we were not worried over any class but Roman Catholics and Protestants. There was no attempt made at that time, and so far as I know there has been no attempt made at any time or anywhere in Canada, to pass legislation conferring any special right on any other religious denomination than those two.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: May I ask my hen. friend a question ? Does he know the position of the Jews in regard to schools in the province of Quebec ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, they are under the control of the Protestant Council of Public Instruction.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, they have taken their choice, but that proves that the law provided for only the two classes, Protestants and Catholics.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is a fact which must be apparent to everybody. Legislatures have never at any time in Canada provided for separate education except t\ ith reference to these two denominations ; and if we bear that in mind, we must come to the conclusion that the only object of section 11 of the Act of 1875 was to make legislation to cover those two cases. Now, v hat does the law say ? It says that the majority in a district may establish such schools therein as they think fit. Take the esse submitted to me by the hon. leader of the opposition. If there are 1,000 Roman Catholics and 500 Protestants in a district -I take no note of the others, because it seems to me they do not enter into the ac-count-the 1,000 Catholics who are in the majority will establish such schools as they think fit. The next paragraph of the same section provides for the establishment of a Protestant separate school. It may be said that this interpretation would be in conflict with the power conferred upon the legislature of the territory to make regulations and ordinances in respect to education. That is an objection which evidently must be met, and the way in which i meet that objection is this.	I
say that the Act of 1875 intended that there should be a dual system of schools in the Northwest Territories, either Catholic or Protestant, and that the legislature should be given the power to make necessary ordinances in respect to education, subject to and within the other provisions of section 11. That is, where a majoritv of Catholics wish to establish a school of their own, the ordinances and regulations which the legislature of the territory is given the power to make, would have* to be consonant with the religious belief Of that majority. That that was what was intended is evidenced by the fact that the first legislation which was passed by the Northwest Territories _ to put the law of 1875 into operation established a dual board, having control, one of Roman Catholic schools and the other of Protestant schools. It seems to me that we are beside the question when we import into the interpretation of section 11, elements which at that time did not enter into the contemplation of parliament, and which should not to-day. Now. my hon. friend the leader of the opposition argued this afternoon that we on this side of the House were wrong in assuming that section 11 created an obligation which ought to be respected today. My hon. friend argued that because in 1886 we who speak French and who want

to continue to speak French had allowed (but not without protest) the abolition of the French language in the Northwest Territories, we should be willing to-day to consent to the abolition of religious instruction in the schools. I think that my bon. friend will on reflection admit that that is a rather curious argument. Is it because the Roman Catholic French Canadians of the Northwest have been deprived of the right to teach French in their schools that they must also be deprived of the right to have religious instruction in their schools ? Is it because the lamb lias been shorn of half his wool, that he must be compelled to give up the rest ? That is a curious sort of argument. So far as I am concerned. I have no hesitation whatever in adopting the interpretation put on section 11 by the Minister of Justice to-day. I say that under the Act of 1S75 the majority in the Northwest Territories, whether Catholic or Protestant, had the right to establish their own schools as they might think fit; and that there was to all intents and purposes established by that Act in the Territories a dual system of schools, to the same extent and in the same manner that that system was ..established in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec before confederation and as they now then exist and are maintained. If I am right in my interpretation of section 11, it follows as a necessary corollary, that the distinction between clause 16, No. 1 and clause 16, No. 2 is very evident. It is quite plain to me, speaking as a Roman Catholic and a French Canadian, that by clause 16. No. 2 we have given up something which we certainly were' entitled to under the original clause 16, No. 1 and under the Act of 1875. If the Act of 1875 is still law to-day, and I believe it is, we are entitled in the Northwest Territories to a system of separate schools as a matter of right, not merely for the purpose of giving half an hour or an hour of religious instruction, but we are entitled to the absolute control of our schools. I submit that not only parliament, but even any court of justice should give that interpretation to the Act of 1875. So far as parliament is concerned, I think we have something more to do than to give a narrow and contracted interpretation to that Act. I think it is the duty of every member of this House to inquire and find out for himself what was the intention of parliament at that time-to look at the extraneous and surrounding circumstances in order to determine what that intention was and what the interpretation should be. I do uot think it should be circumscribed or narrowed down to the circumstances which exist to-day ; but we should go back to the circumstances as they existed at the time the Act of 1S75 was passed and interpret the law accordingly.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: 


Alfred Augustus Stockton: My hon. friend who has just taken his seat has given expression to some views with respect to interpretation which have somewhat astonished me. Section 11 of the Act of 1875 says that the majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Northwest Territories may establish schools. As I understand the interpretation put upon that by my hon. friend, you have to eliminate from these words ' the majority of the ratepayers,' ail who cannot properly come under the denomination of Protestants or Roman Catholics ; therefore Doukhobors, Jews, Galicians and Mormons would not he included in that category. I think that is the argument of my hon. friend.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is quite right.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Then, if we have a district in which the people are all Jews, for instance, the parliament of this country must entirely ignore that class of people, and you cannot have any education there. Under the argument of my hon. friend you cannot institute a school system.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I did not argue that. I did not say that these people were to go without education.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: How will they get it if they cannot establish a school system of their own ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: They are not entitled to schools of their own. They can get their education either in Protestant or Catholic schools.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: That is not the argument of my hon. friend. He said that the majority means either Protestant or Roman Catholic, and that you could not establish a public school except by a majority which should be Roman Catholic or Protestant.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I did not say that.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I am glad be is taking it back because he evidently did not understand exactly the force of his argument.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not take it back. What I said was that the majority whether Catholic or Protestant, have an absolute right in the Territories to establish schools of their own, in the words of the statute, as they may think fit.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hon. gentleman this question ? He said if you had a thousand Catholics and five hundred Protestants and two thousand Mormons, Jews and others, the thousand Catholics would be the majority, and my hon. friend said distinctly yes. He would ignore the Mormons altogether.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: He said they could not have any schools.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: What I saiil was that if there were a thousand Catholics as against five hundred Protestants and two thousand Mormons the Catholics, as a matter of right, under section 11 of the Act of 1875. would hare the right to establish schools as they might think fit, and the tire hundred Protestants in the minority would be entitled to separate schools of their own. As regards the Jews and Mormons and others, they would have to go either to the Protestant or Catholic schools.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: That is exactly what I said was the argument of my hon. friend, and ft follows that if there were neither Catholics nor Protestants in any locality, there would be no schools for the Jews or Doukhobors or Galicians or whatever else the population might be composed of.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I did not say that.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Where are they going to get their education if they are not free to establsh schools of their own ? Surely that is not the interpretation of section 11 of the Act of 1875. Let Us read the English language according to the plain meaning of it. It says the majority of taxpayers. Is a Jew not a taxpayer and a citizen of this country just as much as a Protestant or a Roman Catholic ? Are you going to invite those people to this. country and then deny them the rights of citizenship, although they have to bear the burden of citizenship along with ourselves.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is beside the question altogether.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: It is not. You are going to put the burden of citizenship on these people, and yet you say that they have not the right to establish public schools in the district in which they live, if they happen to be the majority. That is what he said.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No. They might establish a Protestant school or a Catholic school if they wanted to but not a school of their own.


Mr.   POSTER@: Where would the rights of conscience be then ?


Alfred Augustus Stockton: For the sake of argument I will say yes they might, but it is not very likely they would under those circumstances. There is another point that I thank my hon. friend for.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to put him a question ? Are not the Jews in Montreal under the Protestant Council of public instruction ?


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I do not know.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, they are.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Then they are treated as citizens and better treated in the city of Montreal than my hon. friend would treat
them in the Northwest, when these new provinces are organized, according to his argument.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Not at all.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I am glad my hon. friend sees the weakness of his argument in that respect and is willing to withdraw it. '


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Not at all ; I do not withdraw it.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: He sees now where his argument will lead him and he wants to withdraw it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not want to withdraw anything.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Then I would ask him to stick to just what he has said.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I would not rely upon the hon. gentleman to quote correctly what I have said, because it is evident the hon. gentleman will not state fairly what I did say.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I do not wish to state anything unfair with respect to my hon. friend and I presume that ' Hansard ' tomorrow will show exactly what he has said ; and when he comes to read it in cold type, he will see that the interpretation I put on his argument is exactly correct and in accord with what I have stated.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Not at all.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I have to thank my hon. friend for another argument he has made to-night. He says that the judges and the courts would put the same interpretation upon this Act that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) would put upon it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I said they might. I did not say they would.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Does he say they would not ? I understood him to say they would.


George Eulas Foster: He withdraws that.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Does he withdraw that or will he stick to what he said ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Perhaps my hon.
friend thinks he is lending to the dignity of parliament by this manner of carrying on discussion, if my hon. friend wishes a passage of arms of that kind, he may proceed but I shall not lend myself to that line of argument.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I am lending myself to the arguments which I understood he made.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I would not offer a challenge of that kind to my hon. friend because I would not be in it with him.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I am lending myself to the argument I understood him to make. I understood him to say that, under a strictly legal interpretation, the courts would decide according to the interpretation put upon the Act by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto. If I misunderstood him in that respect, I shall be very glad to be corrected. If that be the case, where do we go for the interpretation of statutes except to the courts ? And if the courts decide as to what the correct interpretation of a statute is, can we come to this legislature to ascertain its meaning ? We pass laws here every day, but this parliament does not interpret the meaning of the statutes which it passes. The courts interpret the meaning of those statutes ; and therefore I was surprised at the statement I understood my hon. friend to make, namely, that a strict judicial interpretation would be according to tile meaning put upon the Act by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto, but that a broad, liberal interpretation would be according to the , opinions expressed in debate here in parliament. If my hon. friend admits that, he admits then the position taken by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto, and I thank him for that argument.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If I may be allowed to interject a few remarks into this hair splitting controversy which we are now having, I might remind my hon. friend that the courts interpret statutes liberally according to the intention of the legislature, and I might refer my hon. friend to the decisions of the courts on the law of patents. I am not surprised that my hon. friend did	not	understand	the	argument of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) because it took him two hours	this	afternoon	to	understand the argument of the Minister of Justice, who repeated the same thing that he had said a couple of weeks ago, and it was only on a third repetition of the argument for	his	own benefit that myhon. friend	understood it.	My	hon.
friend has taken under his wing the Jews and all those who do not fall under the denomination of Catholic or Protestant. Well, it is quite clear, both by the law of 1875 and the British North America Act, that denominational or separate schools, which are synonymous in the law, apply only to the dual system of Catholics or Protestants. and that the Jews or the Mormons-the latter of whom seem to be the favourite proteges of our hon, friends on the other side-if they want schools of their own, must choose between the Catholic and the Protestant system, as they do in the province of Quebec, where we have the most perfect system of separate schools In confederation. That therefore is not an Mr. BELCOURT.
argument which my hon. friend can bring against section 11 of the law of 1875. This is the first time in the history of Canada that the interpretation given to that section by the leader of the opposition has been given to it. On every occasion before, when we have had a debate on the question of separate schools, the interpretation we, on this side, have given of this law has never been questioned.	,
It is quite clear, and if my hon. friend takes the trouble to read it over once more, he will see that the adjective 1 Protestant ' and ' Roman Catholic ' is applied, and that when it speaks of the majority, that is only as co-relative of the rights given to the minority. Of course, the rights given to the majority must be the same as those given to the minority-you cannot deprive the great number of rights that are given 'to the few. So. I think that it is only hair-splitting that wTe have been given tonight. As to section 16, No. 2. it deprives the Catholics of the Northwest not only of the right to have their schools where they are a majority, but of a great many things they would have had under section 16, No. 1. I do not wish to go into the merits of the difference between these two proposed sections-that will come later on. But, if there are any people interested in the rights of the Catholic minority in the Northwest they are the bishops of the Northwest. And we have heard their opinion. And if there is a man who desires to see that minority deprived of its rights, it is the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton). And that hon. gentleman has come back to the support of the government because section 16, No. 2, deprived them of *rights which section 16, No. 1, would have given them. These things, I think, he no doubt knew as to the relative meaning of the two sections.


Mr. PRINGLE.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armand Lavergue) a question. Does he concede that under the amended clause 16, the Catholics are deprived of any rights to denominational 'schools other than the right to religious instruction? Under section 41, chapter 29, the minority of the ratepayers in a district whether Protestant or Catholic have the right to establish separate schools. Under section 45, that school must be established subject to the privileges and according to the method the government has provided in chapter 29. Now, under that, are the schools separate and public, placed upon the same footing except in regard to religious instruction ?
>Mr. A. LAVERGNE. That is my opinion. And that has been corroborated by a Conservative paper in Quebec called ' L'Evenement.' That paper says that today denominational schools in the Northwest Territories have ceased to exist since the ordinances were passed. I may say in
%

a few words, that the separate schools iu the Northwest to-day are not denominational schools as we Roman Catholics understand that term.


Mr. BARKER.: I rise only to correct an expression used by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) with regard to the meaning' of the expression 'separate schools. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that throughout Canada that expression had a recognized meaning, that it meant a religious school of the Roman Catholics or -the Protestants. Now, there are only two provinces, Ontario and Quebec, that have separate schools. And, certainly, iu one of these two provinces the province of Ontario, the expression 'separate schoolhas not the meaning the hon. gentleman stated. I have here the school law of Ontario, and I find that separate schools may rneau Protestant schools, or Roman Catholic schools, or coloured schools.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: For Catholic or Protestant.


Samuel Barker: No. The coloured children do not go to a Protestant separate school, or the Protestants to a coloured separate school.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: If my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) will permit me-I was addressing myself simply to the religious distinction and not to points of race or colour. My argument was that whenever parliament or **the legislatures had attempted to deal with schools in the light of religion, they made a distinction only as between the Catholic and the Protestant.


Samuel Barker: But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) was speaking of separate Schools. Now, after dealing with Protestant schools the statute of Ontario says :
And, upon the application in writing of five or more heads of families resident in any township, city, town or incorporated village, being coloured people the council of such township or the board of school trustees of any such city, town or incorporated village, shall authorize the establishment therein of one or more separate schools for coloured people.
After that I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) will desire to withdraw his *expression with regard to separate schools *of Catholics or Protestants. The expression means precisely what it means in English words-a school separate from the schools of other people. And when the hon. gentleman said that separate schools had a recognized meaning throughout Canada, he made a mistake in saying that it meant only Catholic or Protestant separate schools.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: What I said was that whenever parliament has legislated with reference to separate schools, it had recognized only Catholic and Protestants. I was
not dealing with racial distinctions. Evidently there are none so blind as those who will not see. I have made the statement half a dozen times, and have made it as plainly as my command of English will allow. I say I was dealing with denominational schools and that I spoke of those alone.


Samuel Barker: But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt was defining the expression ' separate schools,' and I hold him to that, if he will allow me. He asserted that that expression had a recognized particular meaning, which meaning he gave. I quote this statute to show that it has no such meaning. And I would ask him where he finds the legislation, when he speaks of school legislation by this parliament. School law is provincial law, and he has to go to the provinces to find that law, except for the provision of the British North America Act. And so I bring to his attention the separate school law of Ontario showing that the words have no such recognized meaning as he says they have, and this is one of the only two provinces in which they have separate schools by law.
Mi-. BELCOURT. Well, If my bon. friend (Mr. Barker) is satisfied, I am.


Robert Laird Borden: I certainly thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) was defining separate schools as denominational schools-I thought that was part of his argument. If I understood him wrongly, 1 am sorry. But I followed him carefully and understood him to say-and he was supported by the hon. member for Mont-ruagny (Mr.* A. Lavergne)-that separate schools meant necessarily denominational schools, and therefore, as he said, the word ' separate ' in section 11 of the Act of 19X5 meant not merely a school separated, but meant a denominational school. If I did not hear the hon. gentleman make that argument my ears deceived me. As to the misunderstanding which occurred between tbe bon. gentleman and my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Stockton), I certainly did understand the member for Ottawa to say this, in answer to a question of mine : I asked bim whether the majority mentioned in the first part of section 31 of the Act of 1875, was a religious majority, and the hon. gentleman said, yes. Then I asked him whether, in a community iv here there were 1,000 Roman Catholics, and 500 Protestants and 2,000 Mormons, the 1,000 Catholics would be the majority within the meaning of the statute, and he said, yes. I do not think my hon. friend will deny having given that answer. It seems to me a very extraordinary result. For example, in a community of 1,000 Mormons, not having a school established, if one Roman Catholic or one Protestant should enter, then the one Roman Catholic or the one Protestant would be the major-

ity within the meaning of the Act of 1815 -lor I think the statute requires 5 : if 5 Homan Catholics or 5 Protestants entered a community of 1,000 Mormons, then the 5 I!oman Catholics or 5 Protestants would he a majority within the meaning of the Act of 1875. Well, that may be the ease, my hon. friend may be right, but if so, it only adds one more to the extraordinary interpretations which we have been forced to place upon this Act of 1875. So far as the word ' separate ' is concerned, I adhere, with ail due deference, to the view that it means exactly what it says, a separate school, it implies nothing more. And when you draw illustrations from provincial legislation you are at once met with the illustration mentioned by my hon. friend from Hamilton, that in the province of Quebec you have a separate school which does not depend in any respect upon the religion of those who constitute the pupils.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think we have not made very much progress, and I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sjr Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 9.50 p.m.

Friday, June 9, 1905.