1905-03-30

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information for the House in reference to the filling of the vacant portfolio of the Minister of the Interior ? It is a question of a great deal of moment, and we have not yet had a really thorough answer from the Prime Minister.


Rt.   H@: I have no information to give to my hon. friend to-day.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

George Eulas Foster: Then I suppose I will be equally successful when I make a plea for that return with reference to the transport of hay to the lower provinces, which was ordered by the House on January 25. A second order in reference to the matter was passed a fortnight later, and the return to that has been brought down, but it is absolutely useless without the other.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I shall inquire about that.



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara reminded us, last evening, several times in the course of his speech that he comes from that part of Canada surnamed the Garden of Ontario. It was necessary that he should do so, as his violent delivery and forcible language might have led us to believe that he was not a resident of that rich and beautiful country surrounding St. Catharines, but rather that his mind had been impressed by the sight of Niagara's surging waters and his ears filled with the

Kimberley be moved to submit to the Imperial Parliament, at its next session a measure:
1.	Confirming the Act of the Canadian Parliament, 33 Vic., cap. 3, above referred to, as if it had been an imperial statute, and legalizing whatever may have been done under it, according to its true interests.
2.	Empowering the Dominion Parliament from
time to time to establish other provinces, in the Northwestern Territory, with such local government, legislature and constitution as it may think proper, provided that no such local government or legislature shall have greater power than those conferred on the local government and legislatures by ' The British North America Act, 1867,' and also empowering it to grant such provinces representation in the parliament of the Dominion :	the Acts so
constituting such provinces to have the same effect as if passed by the imperial parliament at the time of the union.
It is subsequent to this that the Imperial Act of 1871 was passed. Sir John Macdonald had not only applied for authority to lay down the terms and conditions on whirh the Territories might be admitted, but also for authority to frame their constitution ; and that constitution was to be such as the Dominion parliament would deem proper to grant them, provided it did not give them greater powers than the other provinces enjoyed. Under these circumstances, the imperial parliament enacted for us section 2 of the Act of 1871 :
The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any of the territories then forming part of the Dominion of Canada, but not comprised in any province of that Dominion ; and may, at the time of said establishment, enact provisions for the constitution and administration of any such province and for the passing of laws concerning the peace, order and good government of such province and for its representation in said parliament.
Well, that clause providing for the creation of new provinces, enacted at the request of Sir John Macdonald, in the words just quoted, and contained in the very Act which confirms that of 1870 to restrict the powers of Manitoba, that provision, as all will see, is very broad in its wording. The imperial parliament was aware of what had occurred in the case of Manitoba. It was stated at the same time in section 5 of the same Act, that the Manitoba Act ' would be and was considered as having been in force ' ; that it was not void, as had' been contended ; and with a knowledge of these facts, parliament, in the broadest terms, authorizes parliament to establish new provinces. If the Dominion parliament desired that we should not have the right to restrict the powers of the new provinces, that was evidently the time to say so.
The hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara spoke last evening of mandator and mandatory. I am glad he has suggested such an example. Let us suppose that in the ordinary course of things a proxy informed his principal that he has possibly Mr. L. P. DEMERS.
exceeded his powers and requests him to endorse his action. Suppose also that by the same deed the mandator authorizes his proxy to make similar agreements ; would there be any court of justice to decide that the proxy had exceeded his powers in acting as formerly ?
But some object-and I regret that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), a distinguished lawyer, professor of constitutional law, who made an eminently patriotic speech the other evening, has thought fit to uphold the first contention of the hon. leader of the opposition. He claimed that parliament had not the power to restrict provincial rights. He said [DOT] When I consider the wording of the Act of 1871, I am forced to the conclusion that, in accordance with the construction generally put on it, this clause would give parliament unrestricted powers : however, on closer consideration, I come to a different conclusion. He takes up, to begin with, the words : ' To constitute and establish.' These are not the words used in the Act ; in the French as well as in the English own- the word 'constitution' is used. Accoiding to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, constitute ' would mean to fix the boundaries of the provinces and to decide on the date o'* their admission into the Dominion, and also to manage their affairs up to the date of the coming in force of the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, such a construction is in contradiction with the meaning given to the word ' constitution ' in chapter 5 of the British North America Act. It is seen there that provincial constitution applies to the executive and the legislative power. Should there be any doubt on this point, we might consider the other terms used in section 2 . of the Act of 1871, which enables us not only to enact provisions for the constitution and government of the provinces, but also ' for the passing of laws concerning peace, order and good government ' ; which evidently apply to the legislative power. If we were merely to admit these new provinces into confederation under the provisions contained in the British North America Act for Ontai'io and Quebec, they would be without a constitution, since they have not any as was the case with the province which came into confederation in 1867. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island had their constitution just the same as Ontario and Quebec. But in this case it is necessary to decide on the terms of the constitution of these new provinces. since they are without a constitution at the time we are granting them provincial autonomy.
Other objections are made : If you are entitled. they say, to interfere with some of their rights, why not with all ? Has not the Dominion parliament enacted laws concerning property in connection with railways, although that is a matter which comes within the purview of the provinces. Why should we have all these Dominion laws

relative to property ? Because they were needed in order to ensure the successful working of the laws enacted by the Dominion parliament. 1 might quote other examples. Courts have decided in many instances that we could legislate incidentally on the matters enumerated in section 92 although these matters are left exclusively to the provinces.
There is another argument, and I am glad that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has brought it up. He claims that there should have been no inequality between the various provinces. But do we not find in the constitution provisions made for the protection of minorities ? Does not section 80 enact that twelve counties in the province of Quebec are in a way set apart for the English-speaking minority, and that the limits of these counties shall not be changed without the consent of the majority of the representatives of these counties? That is a restriction on behalf of the English-speaking and Protestant minority of the province of Quebec, a restriction which is not found in the case of any other province.
In the provinces other than Quebec, the use of the French language is not official, nevertheless we find here a provision stating that in the province of Quebec, the English language shall be on the same footing as the French.
The imperial parliament having made all these various restrictions, without thinking that they .were interfering with provincial rights, are we not thereby justified in following the same rule as regards the protection to the minority in the new provinces.
But that has not been sufficient to allay the fears of some of our hon. friends on the other side, and the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) sent in haste a telegram to a high legal authority in Toronto ; he asked the opinion of a leading lawyer. Mr. Christopher Robinson, as to the meaning of section 93 of our constitution. Mr. Robinson made his opinion known, and if the member for East Grey had been a lawyer, and not a doctor, he would have soon realized that Mr. Robinson was making fun of him when he answered that the power of parliament was not beyond question. Now, is there anything on earth that is beyond question, or which a lawyer may question ? Have not books been written denying the existence of God : have not even some philosophers turned out volumes expressing doubt as to their very existence ?
Mr. Speaker, the power of parliament having thus been vindicated, the stand taken by the hon. leader of the opposition appears in a new light. While he states that section 93 has no application, his colleague from the province of Quebec asserts that it has. Under these circumstances, the country faces a conflict of opinions, a difficulty which should be solved by parliament in order to avoid all trouble. So that, if the hon. leader of the opposition is not in a position to satisfy the House that his first proposition is well founded, we have to come to the conclusion that he is not desirous of seeing the question settled.
So much has been said about this section 93 that I need not quote it, every one of us knows it by heart. However, I shall venture to say one word as to its construction. There are two ways of interpreting a statute : liberally, and literally. If I give it its liberal interpretation there can be no doubt that the first clause of section 93 applies under the circumstances. Mr. Robinson, in giving the aforementioned opinion claimed that no part of section 93 applied. If that section has no application, then it will be contended that section 92 settles the point. Notwithstanding my deep respect for Mr. Robinson, I have no hesitation in saying that his view of the case is evidently wrong. The Privy Council have decided so in the case of Brophy versus the Attorney General of Manitoba. The Manitoba Act contains a clause corresponding to clause 2 of the Bill now before us, in regard to which the Privv Council made the following comment, page 212 L. R.. 1895 :
The second section of the Manitoba Act enacts that after the prescribed day of the British North America Act shall, ' except those parts thereof which are in terms made or by reasonable intendment may be held to be specially applicable to or only to affect one or more but not the whole of the provinces now composing the Dominion, and except so far as the same may be varied by this Act, be applicable to the province of Manitoba in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the several provinces of Canada, and as if the province of Manitoba had been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.' It cannot be questioned therefore that section 93 of the British North America Act (some such parts of it as are specially applicable to some only of the provinces of which the Dominion was in 1870 composed) is made applicable to the province of Manitoba, except in so far as it is varied by the Manitoba Act.
So that should section 10 of the Bill disappear, section 93 of the British North America Act would still be applicable, in virtue of section 2 of the Bill, to which no exception is taken. What the learned lawyer, Mr. Robinson, must have meant was that subsection 1 and 3 of section 93 were not applicable.
We should put a liberal construction on that statute. Maxwell, in bis work 'on statutes,' lays down the following rule :
Except in some lew cases where a statute has fallen under the principle of excessively strict construction, the language of a statute is generally extended to new things which were not known and could not have been contemplated by the legislature when it was passed. This occurs when the Act deals with a genus, and the thing which afterwards comes into existence is a species of it. Thus, the provisions of Magna Charta which exempts lords from the liability of having their carts taken for carriage w7as held to extend to

degrees of nobility not known when it was made, as dukes, marquises and viscounts.
If we apply that rule of interpretation, taking into account the fact that no provision has been made specially for the Territories, then we reach the conclusion that the word ' province ' is applicable also to the Territories which we acquired in 1870. Now, that power granted by section 93 is not unlimited ; it is restricted by subsection 1 and 3. Such is the meaning of that section when liberally interpreted ; and even if we should interpret it literally, it is still open to the same construction. Words should here engross our attention. *Warfare is being carried on about the words ' province,' ' legislature,' and ' date of union.'
It is contended that the word province does not include territory. The definition of that word is not given in the English statutes, but it is given in ours. The Canadian legislature has stated what is the meaning of the word 'province.' We read in our statutedoook what should be understood by the word ' province.' Subsection 13 of section 7 of our interpretation Act says :
The expression 'province' includes the Northwest Territories and the district of Keewatin.
It is thus seen that the word ' territory ' is synonomous to ' province ; ' even the word ' district ' is covered by its meaning, as in the case of Keewatin, for instance. Hon. gentlemen on the other side contend that the schools of the Northwest cannot be considered as actual statutory enactment, that they are mere ordinances voted by a mere council. Let us see what is the meaning of the word ' legislature ' according to the Interpretation Act.
I shall read subsection 14 of that same section 7 :
The expression ' Legislature,' ' Legislative Council ' or ' Legislative Assembly,' includes the Lieutenant Governor in Council and also the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the district of Keewatin.
Therefore, Sir, ' province,' ' territory,' legislature ' and ' assembly ' have the same meaning for us inhabitants of Canada. In fact, the definition which I have just given is in accord with the principles laid down by the Interpretation Act of 1889 in England, as regards the word legislature. It is as follows :	Any authority other than
the imperial government empowered to pass laws within the British possessions. So tliat, according to the imperial interpretation Act itself, the Northwest Territories were governed by a legislature and the laws passed by that body are the laws of a legislature. Let us now pass on to the word * union.' That word may mean Canada or the Confederation. It is the latter meaning which should be given to the word.


Louis Philippe Demers: 1 read the following in the American and English Encyclopaedia of Language :
' The teritories are as much a part of the United States as are the states. The ultimate purpose is that they shall, as soon as practicable be organized into states, which shall take equal place or part in the union.'
As to the term ' date of union', its meaning for the four provinces is the first of July. 1867. For the others, it means the date of their admission into the Dominion.
*Section 109 shows this. Although that section mentions the three provinces of *Canada, Nova Scotia, and New* Brunswick, the Privy Council has decided that it applies to all the provinces. It will not be contended by any one after this that the words ' at the date of union ' mean in this ease the first of July, 1867.
*ilr. Speaker, in voting for the Bill which is now* submitted by the government, we' are not, as I am aware, granting very much to the minority in the provinces of the Northwest. We are only confirming the present state of things. That state of things may not be very satisfactory ; but legislators are often obliged to take circumstances into account. To those who may taunt him for not granting any more, the Prime Minister may say, like Solon : I have not given them the best taws, but I, have given them the best laws they were capable of standing. Mr. Speaker, since the outset of this debate, we have had surprise after surprise. Hon. _ gentlemen on the other side are not generally very well disposed towards the provinces. w*hile the-Liberal party has always upheld their authority and sought to vindicate their- rights. The other day, the hon. member for South York, (Mr. Maclean) assailed the right lion. Prime Minister, called him a tyrant and what not. It is not many years since I entered this House, but I have in the meantime became acquainted with the true inwardness of the feeling of hon. members on tlie other side as regards provincial rights. In 1902, in the course of a debate, the hon. member for South York spoke as follows :
I say that the interpretation of th-e law that has been given by the English Privy Council in regard to the distribution of rights as between the provinces, and the federal power, has been against the interest of the country as a whole. That I regret, I agree with the honourable member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) that some day we will have the whole jurisdiction in this parliament and in some way we will work it out, and In some way we will increase the federal power and wipe out gradually the provincial power. I take issue directly with the honourable gentlemen who oppose that view, I say that provincial government and the enlargement of provincial rights has not been in the interest of this country, and I say that Sir John A. Macdonald was right, and was a most far-seeing statesman if he believed in a * legislative union and desired it carried out in this country.
Such are the feelings expressed by the lion.

member oil behalf of jirovincial autonomy ; such are his tender mercies towards the provinces.
There is also the question of vested rights. In 1875, parliament passed a law granting a temporary constitution to the Northwest Territories, and by that constitution parliament declared that certain rights granted to the minority would be for ever assured to them. The rights of the Catholic minority were recognized by representatives of a different religious belief, and it was Mr. Blake himself who brought up the question. That same policy was confirmed, in 1880, by the Conservative government of the time. It was enacted once more that the Catholic population would have their separate schools, and parliament is to-day bound in honour to continue that system. The government itself through its officers has declared that the Dominion of Canada had guaranteed that right to the minority. I find the proof of this in a pamphlet published by the Department of Agriculture for the information of those who wish to settle in the west. The following is au extract :



THE GREAT CANADIAN WEST.

[Stage Direction]
Information for those who wish to immigrate, published by the Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, 1881.
The settler, before leaving, does not only take into account the material advantages offered by the country wherein he wishes to make are the political and religious institutions of his home. He is also desirous of knowing what the community in whose midst he is to live.
It is in order to satisfy that legitimate curiosity that we propose giving, from that standpoint definite information as regards the position in Manitoba. The institutions which exist in that province will be more or less models to be copied by the other provinces of the great Canadian West when they come to be organized.

[Stage Direction]
The school system is copied on that of the province of Quebec, that is to say that Catholics have full control and management of their schools, while Protestants have the same rights, the same privileges.
Such were the assurances given to immigrants In 1881. Not only did the government of Canada assure them of the existence of a good law ; but It pledged itself to maintain these same rights on. behalf of the minority when these future provinces would be con-stitued.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate, we have often heard about provincial rights; hut we have heard very little about other rights of much more value, I mean Individual rights. Among those privileges which, in England, Simon de Montfort and the other Norman barons forced King John to grant them in that Magna Charta so dear to the English heart, was not personal liberty the most precious of all ? And why was that personal liberty so dear to the English people ? It was because they, even .at that time understood the true principles
which have since prevailed in the government of progressive nations. However, we still find to-day people who are prone to return to the old notions which were current in the days of tyranny. ' I have here a letter published in o up of the city newspapers against separate schools, under the signature of a man of some education. In support of his view, he quotes Aristotle, in the following words : ' The state, as regards its citizens. plays the part of an educator. It *strives to regulate their actions. Tlie most despicable of states is that which lets each one live according to his fancy. . .. Education should be public and common '. Such, Mr. Speaker, was the tyrannical system of the Ancients. The Spartans, in the interest of the commonwealth, deprived the head of a family of his children when they were seven years old; a kind of broth was to be the only nourishment of all ; strict regulations were enacted on all subjects. The individual was nothing ; the commonwealth was all. As a result, Sparata ruled over Greece, but left a hateful name in history.
However, there appeared a man in the world's history who changed all these conditions. He abolished slavery ; he declared that per:on-al liberty was a boon of greater value than political rights. Of what use is it to me to have a vote in parliament, if I am not the master in my own house, the 'master on my own property, if I have not control over my children ? The father of a family is intent in transmitting to his child not only his name and his property, but also, and particularly, his traditions, those beliefs which were imparted to him on Ills mother's knee. That is the most sacred inheritance. Personal liberty has precedence over provincial rights.
How could a nation be happy if that liberty is not safeguarded ? That principle had been well grasped by the fathers of confederation. Anxious as they were to guarantee the rights of the individual, they chose that system of federal union.
What the fathers of confederation desired, Mr. Speaker, was it not to preserve for each one of us, his tongue, his faith, in a word his individuality ? These great men believed that if Providence had allowed the representatives of the two greatest nationalities in Europe to be partners in the ownership of these lands, it -was not for ns to pretend to be wiser. They' believed that happiness reigns in a country when the individual rights of each citizen are safeguarded. They believed that the Roman wisdom of the Englishman. combined with the Athenian genius of the Frenchman would ensure to this country not only peace and wealth, but also lasting glory when the hour would come for us to take a seat at the banquet of sovereign nations.
Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with pleasure to the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. COMMONS
D P. Demers) who has just taken his seat; and although I would be very happy to address the House in the beautiful language in which he has done, I crave the indulgence of my colleagues if I speak the language of the majority. In listening to tny hon. friend I have been astonished to observe the conclusions at which he has arrived. My hon. friend has discussed only one phase of the measure now before the House, which indicates, I suppose, the great interest that is taken in the clause respecting the schools, while as a matter of fact there are other things to be considered. My hon. friend commenced his remarks by casting reflections upon those who preceded him. He endeavoured to make political party capital of the question which is now being debated in parliament. It is true, it is a political question ; but we were toid, at the commencement of the discussion o! this measure, that we had to stand upon very high ground, because it was a very important and very dangerous question to discuss. My hon. friend, in the beginning of his remarks referred to the educational system in the republic to the south of us ; he then spoke about the Educational Act of Manitoba ; he went on to say that this was a question of justice ; and, after speaking on the interpretation of our constitution, he concluded by saying that he would not be able, by the vote which he intends to give, to render to those who are interested in this measure, ail that he would like to give them, but that he would do the best he could. My hon. friend, in speaking about the constitution, reminded me of an old saying of an American politician, that patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels. Here I am afraid we have been playing a great deal with the British North America Act. Although my right hon. friend the leader of the government stood upon the rock of the constitution when he spoke on the 21st of February, and although my hon. friend the leader of the opposition also stands on the rock of the constitution, to my mind that rock is not very solid ; and since 1896, the Jess \ve speak about the British North America Act the better. To show how little we can depend upon the rules which were laid down at the time the British North America Act was passed, my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) said a few moments ago that you would find in that Act that In the province of Quebec there must for ever be twelve counties represented by Protestants.


Louis Philippe Demers: I beg pardon. I did not say that. I said that so long as the majority of those twelve counties did not want to change the boundaries of those counties the majority of the province could r.ot change them.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: troduced that Bill. I go further. Being *convinced that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) had had a great deal to do with the framing of this clause 16, and recognizing in the manner in which that clause was drafted the high qualifications which we all know that hon. gentleman to possess, I thought that I recognized in it a kind of vindication of the position taken by the Liberal party in 1896 upon a similar question. To my mind it was the only thing the right hon. gentleman could do, and I shall say why. In the discussion which is taking place, I was not here one evening when my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) took some part in it and made some remarks, which of course do not give any idea of what he will say when he speaks at length on the measure. But some hon. members have said that clause 93 of the British North America Act settles the case. I think that is pretty well the opinion expressed by my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers). The moment a territory becomes a province, they argue, it comes in with whatever system of education it enjoys at the time of the union. Others take the opposite view and say that clause 93 does not go so far. And I imagine that it was in order to dispel any doubt on that point, that the Minister of Justice drafted this clause 16 as it appears in the original Bill.
There is undoubtedly a law concerning education in the Northwest Territories to-day. They certainly have not got an educational system by tolerance. They have it by right. There is to-day in the Northwest Territories a law governing education which was enacted and granted them by the parliament of Canada in 1875. . Clause 11 of that Act of 1875. and 14 of Revised Statutes of 1S86. reads as follows :-
The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education. But it shall therein always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, 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 the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catho"c. :rav es'abi'sh senarate schools therein. and in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic schools shall be liable only to assessment of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
The other subsection does not amount to a great deal, but I will read it also :
The power to pass ordinances, conferred upon the Lieutenant Governor by this section is hereby declared to have been vested in him from the seventh day of May, one thousand "'ight hundred and eighty.
There is the law. Now, I contend that this law has never been repealed. It could [DOT]only be repealed by an Act of this parlia-Mr. BERGERON.
ment. It is the law which everybody throughout the world, going to the Northwest Territories, was supposed to know. Everybody was supposed to know' that there wmre separate schools in the Northwest carried on upon the same lines as those in the province of Quebec or those in the province of Ontario. Now, I take section 16 of the Bill-


Mr. BRODEUR.: Before my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) leaves the part of the subject he is discussing, I desire, with his permission, to ask a question. Does he contend that clause 11 gives to the minority the same rights as were given by the British North America Act to the minority in Ontario and Quebec ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: As a matter of law ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I may say that it is not clause 11, but clause 14-


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: It is clause 11 of the original Bill, but clause 14 of the consolidation.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I contend that, in relation to the question before the House, this w'as the law and is the law. And, w'hile I am prepared to rely upon my own opinion in that matter, I would refer to the Bill brought down by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in support of my position. What is clause 16 of the Bill now before us ? It is in effect a reenactment of the section of the British North America Act. It was put in the Bill ns originally presented by the Prime Minister as a matter of precaution-in case any person might otherwise carry the matter to the courts and plead that we had not made it apply to those new provinces by an Act of the parliament of Canada. Now', section 16 says :
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 Act comes into force the territory comprised therein, was already a province

That w'ould settle the argument of my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. L. P. Demers). And then we have added the following words, in order that there may be no question as to the use of 1 province.' ' territory,' ' district ' or any other word :

the expression ' the union ' in the said section being taken to mean the said date.
And subsection 2 is as follow's :
2. Subject to the provisions of the said section 93, and in continuance of the principle heretofore sanctioned under the Northw'est 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, and (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 of rates therefor, and (c) 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.
And, In case it should be asserted, as it was in 1896 in the case of the Remedial Bill that, because no money was provided for the maintenance of the separate schools, therefore it was no good, my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) made the following provision :
3. 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 proportion.
There is the law that the right hon. Prime Minister wanted for the new provinces in the Northwest Territories, and I repeat-and I am not afraid to give my opinion or to state my reasons for it-this had my entire approval. To me, it se'ems simply a case of rendering justice to whom justice was due. To me it seemed an act of fairness to these 125,000 people that, my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) said, went into the Northwest Territories upon the faith of that law. In effect it declared to them :	You have not been deceived by
the government of the Dominion of Canada.
It has been said in this House in the course of this debate-1 cannot remember by whom-that it was an evidence of great generosity on the part of the people of the Northwest Territories that, in 1875 the Mackenzie government then in power in the Dominion, granted separate schools for the Northwest. Well, Sir, I do not give any member of this House new information when I say that in 1875 the majority of the inhabitants of the Northwest Territories were French Canadians and Catholics. That being the case, it was merely an act of justice to give them the schools they wanted.
Now. I shall be told that there were ordinances passed after the Act of 1875. So there were. I will take these up in their order. In 1885 there was an ordinance passed effecting the organization of the school system. When I quote that ordinance it will be seen that its effect was to establish such a system as we have in the province of Quebec. In that province we have a council of public instruction
composed one-half of Protestants and one-half of Catholics, the Protestant managing the affairs of their schools and the Catholics managing the affairs of their schools. This is a system of separate schools not merely in name, but in fact.
The Lieutenant Governor in Executive Council may appoint and constitute a board of education for the Northwest Territories, composed of five members, two of whom shall be Roman Catholics, and two shall be Protestants, and the Lieutenant Governor, who shall be chairman.
Now, I refer to clause 6-the clauses before that have nothing to do with the subject I am now discussing, but relate merely to domestic affairs. Clause 6 says :
The hoard of education shall resolve itself into two sections, the one consisting of the Protestant, and the other of the Roman Catholic members thereof, and it shall be the duty of each section :
1. To have under its control and management the schools of its section, and to make from time to time such regulations as may be deemed fit for their general government and discipline, and the carrying out of provisions of this ordinance.
This was the ordinance of 1885. When this was passed, the law of 1875 was still the law, and this ordinance was merely providing an organization for carrying that law into effect. How long did it last ? Unfortunately, in the Northwest as in Manitoba and elsewhere the new-comers, honest men, no doubt, and sincere in their convictions, by degrees have taken away nearly everything that was granted to the minority under the Acts of 1875.
The ordinance of 1892 was promulgated on December 1, 1892. There is the first blow at what I call separate schools. The name did not disappear ; it was put in golden letters here the other day by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), but the system of separate schools commenced to be torn to pieces in 1892. What was done then 1
The Lieutenant Governor by and with the advice and consent of the legislative assembly of the Territories enacts as follows :
The first three sections deal with expressions such as ' school districts ' &c. Clause 4 reads :
There may be established, subject to the provisions of this ordinance and to the regulations of the council of public instruction, the following classes of schools, namely :
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish yon to follow these words with the closest attention.
(a) Public schools for pupils between five and twenty years of age, in which instruction shall he given in the elements of an English and commercial education.

(b) Separate schools for pupils between five and twenty years of age, in which instruction shall be given in the elements of an English and commercial education.
Why call it a separate school ? Is this not irony ? Why not have only the one school ? Was it for the sake of giving some gentlemen an opportunity of saying that hy voting for the amendment of my hon. friend they are keeping separate schools in the Northwest ? It has only to be read to be understood. That was done on the 31st of December, 1902, and it was the law and in fact it is the law brought down to the ordinances 29, 30 and 31 of which I shall speak later on.
I have shown what is to be taught in those schools. Clause 36 reads :
After the establishment of a separate school district under the provisions of this ordinance, such public school district shall possess and exercise all rights, powers, privileges and be subject to the same liabilities and method of government as is herein provided in respect of public school districts.
The very same thing. It was called a separate school but we found it was a public school, and I am not sur-praised that my bon, friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and even the ultra-Protestant member for Brandon, (Mr. Sifton) have changed their minds after their little stampede. The opinions of those in- this House who do uot believe in separate schools, who were honest about it, I respect just as much as I want them to respect mine. II know as a matter of fact that there are men who are sincerely convinced that public schools would be better, just as I am convinced that it is imperative that separate schools be maintained if the views which I hold are to be carried out, that is to say that the children of our country are to be brought up in the way their parents desire. To those who are voting for the amendment of the Prime Minister, because it is in favour of separate schools, I would quote this section :
83.	All schools shall be Taught in the English language and instruction may be given in the following branches, viz.: Reading, writing, orthography, arithmetic, geography, &e.
84.	Any school the officers of which shall knowingly allow such school to be taught or conducted in violation of the provisions of this ordinance or of the regulations of the council of public instruction, or of the superintendent of education, shall be liable to forfeit all rights to participate in any of the grants provided by this ordinance to aid the schools of the Territories, and, upon satisfactory evidence of such violation, such grants may be withheld.
85.	No religious instruction, such as Bible reading or reciting, or reading or reciting prayers '(except as hereinafter provided), or asking questions or giving answers from any catechism, shall be permitted in any school in the Territories, from the opening of such school at nine o'clock in the forenoon, until one-half hour previous to the closing of such school in


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: the afternoon, after which time any such instruction. permitted or desired by the trustees may be given.
86.	Any child attending any school shall have the privilege of leaving the school room at the time at which religious instruction is commenced as provided for in the preceding section or of remaining without taking part in any religious instruction that may be given, if the parents or guardians so desire.
And these are called separate schools. This is the ordinance of 1892. I may be asked : Wliy was not that vetoed ? I need not tell bon. gentlemen that there was a great deal of agitation at that time in the Territories. I need not say that Monseigneur Tache, whose words were read the other day by the bon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), and others, who took a great deal of interest in the educational affairs of that country, did everything they could to repeal that ordinance.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Has that clause been repeated in the ordinance, chapter 29 ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am coming to that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Can you not reach that now ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am getting to it by degrees.
Mr. FITZPATRICK!. You might forget it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It might please my hon. friend if I did forget it. It may be said : Why was there not an appeal or, why were not those amendments vetoed by the government at Ottawa, and the name of Sir John Thompson has been brought into the discussion. Sir John Thompson's opinions were well known on such subjects. I would not like to trouble the House with a great deal of reading, but I wish to point out first of all that when the effect of the ordinance of 1S92 was felt it was found that it was an enactment of something which had been decided in 1891, and that the time within which it could have been disallowed was past.	[DOT]


Charles Fitzpatrick: What, what, what, what ? I am sure my hon. friend is mistaken.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I will give very good testimony in support of what I am saying.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the reason given by Sir John Thompson.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What is the date ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The date of the pamphlet is 1894 and the letter is dated the 4th of January, 1894. Then, the Archbishop goes on in his memoir to say:
I was somewhat convinced that the honourable the Privy Council could not help seeing the dangers of those ordinances, but I thought there was no use going any farther in attempting to assist council by pointing out the dangers which were threatening. The honourable the committee is right in saying that appeals to the Governor in Council under the British North America Act in the matter of education from the provinces of Canada have not been established for the Territories. Such an appeal does not exist for the Territories.
Then he repeats the answer which was given to him by the then Minister of Justice, or at least by the Privy Council, and he says:
Of course, if it is the committee's desire to grant an alternative answer to the prayer of the petitioners, there is only one remedy which remains. The veto is the only remedy which can be applied in response to the prayer of the petitioners who have submitted their case to the goodwill of the government. The honourable the committee says that it has not the right to do justice to the demand. In the face of that refusal, in one case because there is no power and the other because there is no
willingness to apply that remedy, the committee does not find itself in a favourable position.
Then the Archbishop cites the statute of the Northwest Territories of which the petitioners availed themselves as a proof that the Roman Catholics in the Northwest Territories have a right to their separate schools, and he says that it is to be regretted that such a right should have been abolished by the ordinances of 1892. I will now read for the benefit of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice an extract from the report of the hon. the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on February 5, 1894. I shall only read that part of it which has to do with what I have already read. This is in answer to those who say to us: Why did your friends not disallow those ordinances? Why did your friends not render justice? Your premier was a Roman Catholic; why did he not act? This is the answer:
While an appeal in the sense of the provisions of the British North America Act, referring to appeals to the 'Governor in Council, on matters affecting education in the province of Canada, is not established as regards the Territories, the committee of the Privy Council feel confident that any suggestion having your Excellency's authority would be given all proper consideration by the assembly and by the council, and the committee consider themselves justified in entertaining this confidence, more especially as in the same enactment as that under which the Northwest Assembly is organized and exercised its functions (the Northwest Territories Act, section 14) the following provision is made.
Then it recites the clause which I have read a few moments ago. There is no question that the Privy Council made a remonstrance against those ordinances to the council of the Northwest Territories. There is no question that a demand was made not to put in force those ordinances of 1892, the effect of which, as a matter of fact, was to abolish separate schools in the Northwest Territories. What was the answer ? Nothing was done.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Trust the west.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is right. It is a matter for reflection. Those gentlemen who were at the head of affairs in the Territories listened to all these prayers, they knew that these petitioners were right; still they did nothing. Why? Because the majority, I imagine, were opposed to a change. We might as well accept the truth of the doctrine that under a constitutional government it is the majority that rules. That is why, I think, it is very dangerous to put on the statutes of Canada laws which purely and simply will he footballs later on for the fanatics in politics or anywhere else.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Before my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) leaves that subject, I understood him to say a few moments ago that

347fr
the ordinances of 3892 could not be disallowed because it was too late when the petition was presented to the Dominion.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That was the first reason given, and the second reason that wa# given in this memorandum of the Privy Council was that they could not do it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think that in that respect my hon. friend is entirely mistaken. The government simply refused to disallow the ordinances. They never pretended that they had no right to disallow the ordinances, but they simply said in the report that my hon. friend has just read that they did not consider it advisable to disallow the ordinances. They never pretended for a moment that they had not the right to disallow them.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Evidently the Minister of Inland Revenue does not understand what I have read. I read from the complaint of the minority the first time ^ its representatives appeared before the Canadian Privy Council to complain of the injustice done them. The ordinance of 1892 that they complained of was a re-enactment of a previous ordinance passed in 1891 and they were told that it was too late to disallow the ordinance of 1891.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was not too late to disallow the ordinance of 1892.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No, but they were told that even if the ordinance of 1892 were disallowed, yet, as the ordinance of 1891 was still in force and it was too late to disallow it, no good would result from the disallowance of the ordinance of 1892.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Why was it not disallowed in 1891 ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Because an appeal in the sense of the provisions of the British North America Act on matters affecting education, was not established as regards the Territories.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was not a question of appeal ; it was a question of disallowance.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The appeal and the disallowance go together and you cannot disassociate them. At all events the result was that the ordinance of 1892 remained in force. But why are my hon. friends opposite plying me with all these questions and all these objections. What is their object in that ? I am afraid that it is politics which prompts these interrogations, and I hope that politics will be excluded from this discussion, I trust to be able to treat of this matter aside altogether from petty politics. It is too serious a question with me to allow political considerations to enter into it and I am afraid that these gentlemen opposite have the idea that later on they will be able to say : the Conservatives were in power Mr. BRODEUR.
and they did not do justice to the minority. Well, Sir, if the Conservatives did wrong, they have had their day of reckoning, and if the Conservatives did wrong that is noreason why a Liberal government in power should perpetuate injustice. I have read the reasons which were given for not disallowing the ordinance of 1892, and I would hesitate long before I would come to the belief that Sir John Thompson would sacrifice the Catholic minority of the Northwest Territories. I believe he would have come to their relief unless good and strong reasons prevented him. Sir John Thompson was Minister of Justice at the time, and I take it for granted that he studied the case carefully, and I believe if he had been able to disallow the Act of 1892, or if its disallowance would have been of any avail to the minority, Sir John Thompson would have disallowed it. But the ordinance of 1891 remaining in force, and it being too late to disallow it, no good would be accomplished by disallowing the ordinance of 1892. What is the use of splitting hairs on a question of this kind ? I want to take a large view of it; I want to see what has happened ; I want to know where we find ourselves to-day and to what cause our grievance may be attributed. There is no doubt that since 1892 there are no separate school's in the Northwest Territories. Whether that be the fault of the Liberals or the fault of the Conservatives does not amount to anything in the present discussion ; that will have to be settled before the electorate. Our duty here is to make laws and just laws. Perhaps it is, that because the Conservative government may have been guilty of neglect of duty in this particular, that when the present Bill was introduced into the House of Commons it contained the original clause 16, which was an intimation to me that at least this government was doing its duty- it did not do it long though. Let us refer for a moment to the ordinance of 1891. The rights and privileges of the minority in the Northwest Territories were not taken away abruptly ; there was a gradual encroachment until we reached chapter 29 of the ordinance of 1891, the third paragraph of which reads as follows :
There shall be a department of the public service of the Territories called the Department of Education over which a member of the Executive Council appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the seal of the Territories to discharge the functions of the Minister of Education for the time being, shall preside.
This was a new feature of the school law of the Northwest Territories. It gave the Territories a Minister of Education or a Commissioner of Education as he is called. It brought education into politics ; it abandoned the first council ot public instruction that was formed arid which was satisfactory; it abandoned the second hoard of education which was also more or less satisfactory,

and it brought education down to the political arena. This ordinance further says :
The Lieutenant Governor may appoint such officers, clerks and servants as are required for the proper conduct of the business of the department and for the purpose of this ordinance, all of whom shall hold office during pleasure.
Now. here is what this Department of Education is authorized to do :
The commissioner, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall have power to make regulations for the department.
(2) To authorize text and reference books for use of the pupils and teachers in all schools hereinbefore mentioned as well as such maps, charts, and other apparatus or equipment as may be required for giving proper instruction in such schools. To prepare a list of books suitable for school libraries and to make regulations for the management of such libraries.
There shall be au educational council consisting of live persons, at least two of them shall be Roman Catholics, to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, who shall receive such remuneration as the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall determine.
We see from this that the board of education consists of a member of the executive council with two Catholics and two Protestants appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Councii, but these gentlemen have not the right to vote. I think I have given the information which my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) asked for as to chapter 29 of the ordinances, which is the law in the Territories to-day. I have read to the House clause 16 of the original Bill as submitted to parliament by the Prime Minister.
Clause 16 to my mind was what it should have been, and I would have supported it, because it was giving the minority in the Northwest justice. Of course, I am speaking for myself and expressing my own views.
I am in favour of separate schools ; I believe in separate schools-not merely in the word ' separate,' but in the tuition which children get in separate schools. I want religion to be taught in the schools. I want the child to hear of God and to pray in the school-not all the time ; but I want it to be understood that the name of God shall be mentioned there. I have heard men who -are very sincere say :	' You are a
broad-minded man ;. why not let all the children go to the same school together, with the national flag floating from the top of the building ? Of course, there would be no prayer in the school, because it would offend the Roman Catholics, the Methodists, the Presbyterians or the Baptists. There would be no religion taught. The children would simply go there and learn what is necessary to earn their living. They would play together, and would grow up to respect each other.' I do not believe in that kind of school, and I do not believe that is true. I remember that when I was attending college there were some Americans 111
there, and it was not very long before we were separated. Our differences would come out without thinking about them, and, though we commenced by playing, we would finish up by fighting. My hon. friends opposite know the college-it is the Jesuits' College. They have now a separate college for English boys. The cause of difference between the boys was not religion only ; it may have been something else ; but, at any rate, we fought together. As men we are surrounded by friends who have been brought up in different schools, and we appreciate one another ; but that appreciation is not developed in children. A man appreciates in another man certain qualities for which he respects him, but a child cannot do that. I do not want to convert anybody to my opinions, because I know that those who have opposite opinions are as sincere and honest in holding them as I am in holding mine. But I am explaining my opinions ; and, holding them, when clause 16 of this Bill was brought down I hailed it with pleasure, and I was happy at the deliverance which my right hon. friend made on that occasion. It did not last, however. Why did it not last ? My hon! friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) says we are not doing what we would like to do ; we would like" to do more, but we do what we can in a country like this. This is not the way our forefathers talked. This is not the way the men who built up Canada talked. When Sir John A. Macdonald, in 1863, voted for separate schools in the province of Ontario, the province of Canada at that time, he was not doing what he himse'lf preferred, for he was in favour of public schools ; but he did so because he thought it was the best thing that could be done in the province of Canada at that time, on account of the different nationalities and creeds in Upper and Lower Canada. We have often seen occasions of the same kind. Shall I speak of something nearer to us ? In 1896 we had before parliament a question very much like the present one, except that we were dealing with a state of things which was existing at that time, whilst at present we are creating a state of things. In 1896 the Manitoba school question was before parliament. It had been before the country since 1890. I heard the other day the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) boast of having had a great deal to do with the Manitoba school business. I was sorry to hear him talk like that, although he gave some reasons, in a very clever way, which hid if I may use the word, the odious part of the business. He declared that the separate schools were not efficient, that they were not what they should have been, and that money was squandered on them. I need not tell the House that those statements have been refuted time and time again. There may have been some abuses, as there are in most things, but on the whole the



separate schools in Manitoba were good schools and the teachers were good teachers. In most cases, the people not having the means to pay teachers, the parish priests were the teachers, and we know that they -are men of education. My hon. friend from Brandon knows that politics had a great deal more to do with the abolition of those schools than the question of their efficiency. There was some railway business which put the government into a very bad position, and something was needed to divert public opinion from the deeds of the ministers. Our friend Mr. Dalton McCarthy had gone *on a tour through the province of Manitoba. He was dissatisfied because Sir John Thompson had been chosen as Minister of Justice. He had hopes of being offered that position, although he might have refused it, and he went to Manitoba and inflamed the passions of the people. He told them that something should be done to deliver them from the influence of the hierarchy. It was there that he commenced his fight against the hierarchy, and questions of that sort will always greatly inflame public opinion. In a short time the hon. member for Disgar (Mr. Greenway), who was at the head of the Manitoba government, and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) deprived the minority of that province of what they were entitled to. We have been told that the question in Manitoba was not the same question that we are discussing to-day-that in Manitoba, the provincial government had given separate schools and that the provincial government withdrew separate schools and the official use of the French language ; and that was provincial rights. The minori-tv complained. I need not give the whole history of the case. The question came before parliament; and I may say in passing that the Northwest ordinance was passed while we were in the midst of that turmoil. The question was before the Privy Council and before the courts. We were taunted on the stump everywhere because the Conservative government had not disallowed the Act of the legislature of Manitoba. My right hon. friend the leader of the government was sitting on this side of the House at that time, when the Hon. Edward Blake moved a resolution declaring that it would be wise for the Dominion government not to use the right of veto in cases involving religion or nationality, and that resolution was looked upon as such a wise one that Sir John A. Macdonald, sitting where my right hon. friend does now, rose and said : ' This is a motion which should have the unanimous support of the House ' ; and it had. This is why that Act was not vetoed. At that time my right hon. friend and his friends in the province of Quebec said that the government did not act because it was under the heel of the Orangemen of the province of Ontario.
And it was said in Ontario that the government was. under the heel of the hierarchy in the province of Quebec. This lasted from Mr. BERGERON.
1890 to 1S96. The constitutionality of the Act of the Manitoba legislature abolishing the separate schools had gone before the Supreme Court of Canada and the Privy Council, and the Privy Council in its first judgment declared that the Act was intra vires the Manitoba legislature. Again there was an appeal to the Privy Council, and that court declared that although the Manitoba legislature had the right to pass a law taking away the schools of the minority in that province, the minority had a grievance, and it was within the rights and the powers of the Dominion government to come to its rescue and remove that grievance. Then we had the Remedial Bill submitted to the Dominion parliament, and we all know what happened. When my right hon. friend moved the six months hoist, we were at the end of the session. But when the second reading of that Bill was proposed and carried by a majority of the House, who were the members that voted for it ? Who were those who voted to do justice to the minority of Manitoba and to stand upon the rock of the constitution ? It was, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party which took that stand. And I say it to the honour of the Protestants and the Orangemen of Ontario and the maritime provinces, that they voted to do justice to the Catholic minority. I remember well Mr. Fairbairn, an old representative of the province of Ontario, declaring in this House, that although he was an old Orangeman lie was going to vote in favour of the Catholic minority because he had sworn to be a defender always of minorities, whether Catholic or Protestant. I am reminding the House of these facts in order that, in these days, when we read so much in the newspapers about the intolerance on this side of the House, I may give my testimony on behalf of the Conservative English Protestants of this Dominion. In my opinion, the newspapers are in many instances doing more harm than good and inflaming passions and prejudices where it should be their endeavour to allay them. I have seen caricatures published of my right hon. friend which did not at all meet my approval and I have also seen caricatures of some of my hon. friends orythis side which I think were altogether out of place. I regret these methods. I regret this holding up of our public men to undeserved ridicule and obloquy, because it cannot fail to have a mischievous effect on the people. I can sympathize with my right hon. friend in his present position. I can appreciate the difficulty in which he found himself, when the exMinister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) came back and took him by the throat and possibly threatened to inflame public opinion, I can well understand that my right hon. friend then found himself between two fires. On the toe side was the persistent Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who stuck, and rightly stuck, to his clause. On the other was the Minister of the Interior (Mr. MARCH 30, 1905
Siftou), who in all probability was going around to members of parliament-good men, honest men, against whom I have not a word to say, for I have nothing to say against men who may have different opinions from mine-going around to members not only from the Northwest but others, and saying to them :	You cannot accept this ; this
will give clerical schools ; this is putting for ever the majority of the Northwest Territories under the shackles of the hierarchy of Rome. Then, my right hon. friend no doubt felt convinced that in order to have peace he must accept the amendment now proposed. I remember hearing him very often say in this House that he never said anything until he had pondered it well, but that when he did, he stuck to what he said. He has not done so in this instance, and I am sorry for it. What is the proposal before us now ? Those who want public schools are all right, public schools by this proposal will be established in the Territories for ever. But in what position will be those who are in favour of separate schools, who want to go home and say : I have supported separate schools ; I voted against the amendment of the leader of the opposition because he said let us leave those new provinces to construe the British North America Act as they desire and establish what system of schools they choose. Some of my hon. friends will say: We could not accept that amendment of the leader of the opposition and therefore we voted for the amendment of the right hon. gentleman. But what is the amendment of the right hon. gentleman, and what is it going to give the minority of the Northwest Territories ? Here is the amendment:
Section 93 of the British North America Act, 1S67, shall apply to the said province, with the substitution for subsection one of said section 93, of the following subsection :
1. 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.
Where the expression ' by law ' is employed in subsection 3 of the said section 93, it shall be held to mean the law as set out in said chapters 29 and 30, and where the expression ' at the union ' is employed in subsection 3, it shall be held to mean the date at which this Act comes into force.
That means that there shall be given to the minority in the Northwest Territories all the separate schools they want, so long as are instituted in those provinces the Protestant or public schools granted under the school ordinance, chapter 29 of 1901.
What are these schools ? There are the public schools established by law by the Act of 1S75 passed by a Liberal government, then re-enacted in 1885, obliterated in 1892 and smashed to pieces in 1901. These are 111*
the schools which the minority will have in the Territories the moment this Bill passes. It seems to me, Hr. Speaker, that there is something higher than office. In 189(3 the Conservative party went down to its defeat because it stood by a principle. It has been badly rewarded.


George Eulas Foster: Heaven remains.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But in this instance my right hon. friend has yielded to what he thought was a threatening majority. Well, what kind of schools is he going to give the minority in the Northwest Territories ? Let me show by some hon. gentleman opposite what they are. What did the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) say ? It was a sight for the gods to see how zealous were some of these gentlemen after they came back to the fold. The Minister of Finance does not think that the constitution compels us to give a system of schools to the Northwest Territories.
For the purpose of record, just let me read the section in the Act of 1875-section 11, chapter 49, Act 1875 :
I have already read this, but I will quote it again so that it will appear in ' Hansard ' with the rest:
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 ; 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; and further, that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and that, in such latter case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they may impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
Now the Minister of Finance says lie wants to explain that. He goes on :
That is the clause in the Act of 1875, and with the change of a few words, which in no way disturbs its substance, that is the clause we find to-day in the Northwest Territories Act.
The hon. gentleman makes a mistake there. Further on he says :
Again I say I do not for a moment contend and I do not understand that my right hon friend contended, that, as a matter of constitutional right fixed by the words of the statute, we are obliged to re-enact that clause. I go further. I do not hesitate to say that in my view, at any time since 1875, it was within the power-I do not say the moral right-but un-

doubtedly within the power of this parliament to repeal the Act of 1875.
What does that mean ? It indicates that this has never been repealed. If so, what can that mean but that it is the law of the Northwest Territories ?
Therefore, I am not claiming that there is any binding legal obligation, but I do say that we are obliged to look carefully into the circumstances under which that Act was passed ; and if we find that at the time it was regarded by its friends and supporters, and parliament generally, as an Act which was passed, not only for the present but the future, that creates a moral obligation which this House may well take into consideration.
Now, if I remember the words of the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to section 16, his statement was that we were obliged by the constitution to grant what is granted under this section. But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) says something else. He goes on and wants to show that these schools are Protestant schools. And he insists upon it.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Where does the Minister of Finance say that these are Protestant schools ? Can the hon. gentleman point that out ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes, if my hon. friend will wait. I have a good deal of it to read yet. One of the things mentioned in the regulations quoted by the Minister of Finance is :
To authorize text and reference books for the use of the pupils and teachers in all schools hereinbefore mentioned, as well as such maps, globes, charts and other apparatus or equipment as may be required for giving proper instruction in such schools.
That is, the curriculum of both public and separate schools. Then he goes on :
What is there, Sir, in ail this to which anybody can take exception ? These details constitute the essential elements of a national school system. That system prevails to-day in the Northwest Territories, and that system we propose to continue by the legislation which we have presented in this House. Well, there is still a shadow of difference. The difference between a minority school and a majority school in the Northwest Territories is so exceedingly small that he who would attempt to make a definition of it would find himself in difficulty.
What is a public school in the Northwest Territories? Is it a Protestant school or a national school ? If it is a national or Protestant, where is the difference ? What does my hon. friend call a sectarian or Protestant school if not one where from the time the child ,oes in at nine o'clock in the morning until he goes out agnin at half-past three in the afternoon, he hears not one word of religion ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: What does my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) say? Does he designate that as a Protestant school ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend (Mr. A. Johnston) ought to put that question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), for it is his speech that I am reading.


Alexander Johnston: I ask the question in all seriousness. I am as much interested in this matter as is the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron). He 'has made the statement that the Minister of Finance said in the course of his observations that these were Protestant schools. As I understood the hon. minister, he made no such statement. I would like to know if the hon. gentleman can refer me to any such statement on the part of the Minister of Finance.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We do not need to-discuss matters of that sort in connection with the points I am making. So far as I am concerned, schools in which there is not a word of religion are non-sectarian, or what I have been accustomed to hear called Protestant schools.


Mr. FIELDING.: I understand the hon. gentleman said that I had called them Protestant schools.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I may have expressed myself that way, but what I meant was that I had inferred from what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) said that he spoke of these as Protestant schools.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not had the advantage of hearing this whole discussion, but I may say that I have never used such a statement.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That may be. But I have not finished what I was saying. It may be that the minister (Mr. Fielding) did not use the word ' Protestant.' But I infer from the way he treated the matter that he referred to what I have been accustomed to hear called Protestant schools. Because to me schools where you do not speak of God are Protestant schools.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot admit that a school in which you do not speak of God is a Protestant school. I have always believed that there was a God in the Protestant religion as well as in the Roman Catholic.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes, but if you do not recognize Him, what is the use ?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) forgets that under the school law of the Northwest Territories there is provision for recognizing the existence of God, because where the trustees so desire the school can be opened with the use of the Lord's Prayer.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes, if they wish it. Rut it is left to the discretion-


William Stevens Fielding: Yes-no coercion.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But if my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) and I were boys together in such a school, the mere fact of the Lord's Prayer being used would not make it seem to me anything but a non-sectarian school. And the use of the Lord's Prayer is only permissive.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) will allow me, I can tell him that in the province of Ontario there are many public schools that are attended entirely by Catholic children.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not doubt it ; nor do I doubt that it is a good thing. Let me explain, so that my hon. friends and I may understand one another. Amongst our people in the province of Ontario-I have heard it often in electioneering-when they speak of the public schools they call them ' les ecoles Protestantes.' So, as I have been accustomed to think of it, the word ' Protestant ' in that connection does not mean the same as it means, perhaps, to the Minister of Finance or my hon. friend from Cape Breton. I am sure they will make allowance for my mode of expression. The hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Johnston) does not wish me to speak in French, I suppose ?


Alexander Johnston: No.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I have been quoting the speech of the Minister of Finance. I followed him with great care as he spoke. And I think I am right in saying that he sought to explain what had brought him back to the fold ; and the reason was that these schools were, as a matter of fact, public schools.
Then there is a further provision that all schools may he opened with the reciting of the Lord's Prayer.
It is permissible.
Does anybody object to that ? I hope not	 I want the House to consider seriously, I submit the proposition again, that if it be true, as I say, and I believe I am correct beyond the power of contradiction, that from the moment that the school opens in the morning up to half-past three in the afternoon there is no difference between a separate school and u free national school-


Rodolphe Lemieux: What do they do after half-past three ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They go out and play. My hon. friend knows very well that If he went to one of these schools, after halfpast three, he would go out and play, he would not attend religious instruction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think perhaps my hon. friend could not recite the Lord's Prayer at the opening of the school.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I have said it here in the chair very often before my hon. friend became a member of this House.

and if the only point of difference between
them is that half hour of religious instruction, is there enough in it to quarrel about ?
The hon. the Minister of Finance is making apologies because, forsooth, he says :

and if the only point of difference between
them is that half hour of religious instruction, is there enough in it to quarrel about, and to have public meetings and agitation throughout the length and breadth of this land ?
No, not for hon. gentlemen who are in favour of separate schools, but there is enough in it for those who want to keep schools from the minority in these provinces. Referring to those who are agitating against separate schools and who are not in favour of doing anything at all, so far as schools are concerned, in granting autonomy to the provinces, the Finance Minister says :
When they discover, as they will, in the light of the debate which will take place in this House now and in the next few days, when the people of Canada shall learn that we have in the far west to-day a system which is practically a national school system, and that the only point of difference between us is with re- . spect to that small matter of a half hour of religious instruction, I think the great mass of the Protestant people of Canada will say that they regret that there has been any agitation on the subject.
Well, I am not talking for those who are in favour of public schools when I call the attention of the House to these views. I want this speech to be translated and to go through the province of Quebec because my hon. friends who are from that province will go back to the people and say : We voted against the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, we were opposed to the amendment the object of which was to keep the minority out of their schools ; we voted for the party that has at its head the men who want to render justice to the minority ; we voted for the motion of the right hon. leader of the government. That is why the hon. Minister of Finance has said that these schools to all intents and purposes are national, non-sectarian schools. The Minister of Finance has said something in another place to which I wish to call the attention of the House. I cannot find it in ' Hansard ' but it is reported to me by another hon. member : I
I believe that the people of the Dominion today are not going to have their minds engaged with an elaborate analysis of constitutional questions, which nine out of ten of them will never read, and which the wllole ten will fail to understand.
Not very complimentary to the whole crowd.

34SS
I believe that the poeple of Canada, since this unpleasant question is brought before us, will expect us to meet it plainly and openly, and discuss it with the hope of finding a happy solution.
X believe there is a great deal in that. My hon. friend was not in at the commencement of my remarks but I said myself that I did not care so much what the constitution did as to provide such a solution of this matter as would contribute to the peace of the provinces which it is now proposed to admit to the confederation. I might also read what my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) has said. His remarks were about on the same line as those of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. He also tried to impress the House with the idea that we harm virtually national schools in the Northwest Territories and that we have no more separate schools in the proper sense of the word. I need not read what he said because what he said has been repeated in some other places and it is already in ' Hansard.' My hon. friend the Minister of Finance said one thing which I commend to the attention of the House and of the country. He spoke about good faith. He said that in keeping that national school system we have to allow a half hour for religious instruction because we have moral obligations towards the minority. That is right. I believe that to be the case but in such a matter as that I would go a great deal farther than the law. In a country like this we cannot have too much tolerance wherever it is honourable and feasible. My hon. friend the member , for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has said many things which I would like to touch upon but I do not wish to detain the House beyond six o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS: There it is again. He is not afraid to mention the word,

and to leave them Catholic separate schools
in name only, and such it is submitted is its obviously necessary effect.
This is not said in an ungenerous spirit. Amongst our people an English school is a Protestant school. They understand it in that way ; not in the improper sense of the word at all. We do not use the word 1 Protestant ' in a bad sense because there are-many good Protestants as there are good Catholics. The Archbishop uses that word only in that sense. Again, the Archbishop says :
In spite of all these protestations this ordinance in the dispositions which concerned us had and could have but one object, that is, the abolition of all distinct character of our schools. Thanks to that ordinance and to the regulations of the council of public instruction which followed, this end has been to-day practically attained. Nothing essential now distinguishes the Catholic schools from the Protestant schools hut the designation, now ironical, of separate schools.
Now this is Archbishop Tache who says that and it has not been denied. On tiie contrary it is brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) to show why he supported the amendment of the Prime Minister after resigning on account of the Bill as it was first brought down. He wants to show why be came back and says that -lie is supporting to-day by the amendment of the Primae Minister a system of schools which is in fact a system of national schools and to prove it he places on ' Hansard ' the words of a man whose utterances should have a great deal of weight with those who-are in favour of separate schools. Archbishop TacbG said:
Nothing essential now distinguishes the Catholic schools from Protestant schools but the designation, now ironical, of separate schools.
Then Judge Rouleau speaks in the sameline. Then what does the bon. member for Brandon say :

X 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.
That is in 1892.
We have it that the clerical control of these schools was absolutely abolished.
That is what the hou. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) says. This is the point which he has in view, that the clerical control of these schools had been abolished by the ordinance of 1892. He says :
It,seems to me perfectly clear, that in abolishing the distinctive character of the schools, the legislature of the Northwest Territories did go beyond the powers that were bestowed upon it by this section of the Act of 1875,
In making a report on one of the ordinances passed shortly before 1892 but somewhat similar in its effect-not so sweeping in its effect-Sir John Thompson in substance reported that this ordinance, contracts or diminishes the rights of minorities to an extent not contemplated by the Act of 1875, and that the Act of 1875 must nevertheless be held to remain in force notwithstanding the passage of the ordinance.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
T	After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was reading the words of the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), his own apolgy for the extraordinary position which he assumes on the measure now before the House. He left the government because he could not agree with his colleagues on clause 16 of the Bill as originally presented, and when he spoke here lie seemed to take a great deal of pride in the fact that the government had amended that clause and substituted for it the provision as to separate schools which we are now discussing. We have had it stated throughout the country, by the friends of the government in some quarters, that the government had not changed their policy on this question, and that the amended clause is in effect the same as clause 16, the difference being only in the phraseology. If we are to believe what the ex-minister (Mr. Sifton) says, and he seems to know all about it, it is quite clear that he carried his point against the government, against the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the framers of clause 16, and that these gentlemen had to take back water at the command of their ex-minister. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) said, * Hansard ' page 3103 :
Let me give what I conceive to be an accurate resume of the principles which are enforced and carried out by these ordinances. We have one normal school with uniform normal
training for all teachers, and when I say all teachers, I mean teachers of all schools, separate and public ; uniform curricula and courses of study for all schools of the same grade ; uniform text books for all schools whatever ; uniform qualification of teachers for all schools whatever ; complete and absolute control of all schools as to their government and conduct, by the central school authority set up by the legislature under the ordinances ; complete secularization of all schools between^ nine o'clock in the morning and three-thirty in the afternoon, except that any school, if the tius-tees so desire, may be opened with the Loid s Prayer ; distribution of the legislative grant to all schools according to educational efficiency on principles set out in chapter 31.
Then, where there is a public school, the minority, Protestant or Roman Catholic, may organize' a separate school ; hut every separate school is subject absolutely to all the foregoing provisions, and is in every sense of the term a public school. If the Protestants are in the minority in a district, their school is called a separate school ;

I call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that what we in the province of Quebec would call a Protestant school, is, according to the member for Brandon, a separate school when the Protestants of the district are in the minority. The ex-minister continued :
If the Catholics are in the minority in a district, their school is called a separate school , but both are public schools. They are absolutely similar save for one distinction : where the trustees are Protestant, there is Protestant teaching from half-past three to four, and where the trustees are Roman Catholic there is Roman Catholic teaching from half-past three to four. That is absolutely the only distinction between these schools.
Then the hon. gentleman read the amended clause 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.
Commenting oil this clause, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) is speaking to the element of our population who are opposed to separate schools ; he is making an apology for the amended clause, and he says :
What does that preserve ? I have read these ordinances through, and all that I can find this section to preserve-and it is an important thing-let us not exaggerate or minimize, let us know exactly what we are doing-I think that this is what we are doing and all that we are doing. 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 4 o'clock in the afternoon.

Further on lie says :
But there cannot be under this system any control of the school by any clerical or sectarian body.
The aim of the hon. gentleman is to show that he is opposed to clerical or sectarian teaching more than anything else. Well, Sir, let me tell him that those who are in' favour of separate schools in the proper sense of the word are in favour of clerical and sectarian teaching, or otherwise those schools would not deserve the name of separate schools. He says :
There cannot be any sectarian teaching between nine o'clock in the morning and half-past three in the afternoon. So that, so far as we have objections to separate schools based upon the idea of church control, clerical control, or ecciesiasticism in any form, this system of schools is certainly not open to that objection.
And yet the newspapers which are supporting the government in the province of Quebec are boasting that the Prime Minister is preserving for ever the separate school system which the people of the Northwest Territories had at first-not the present system of separate schools existing there, which does not amount to anything. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) goes on to speak of Manitoba and he boasts of what he has done :
When we in the province of Manitoba undertook to remove what was a- school system that I said was inefficient to the point of absurdity, we found ourselves confronted with many and serious difficulties.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I stated this afternoon what I believed to be the real cause of the changing of the school law in Manitoba, and when the member for Brandon says that the clerical school system is inefficient, I can refer him to such an excellent authority as the right hon. the Prime Minister who will tell him that he is entirely mistaken. If the hon. gentleman said that the elementary schools in our province, or in other provinces for that matter, if he said that what we call in French les petites ecoles are not perfect, there might be some ground for his statement, because it is unfortunately true that those who pay for the maintenance of these schools do not contribute sufficient to secure the services of first-class teachers. However, these elementary schools are mostly attended by very young children and up to the present time they have been found fairly sufficient for their purpose. But when the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) makes the sweeping assertion that clerical schools are inefficient he simply does not know what he is talk-1 ing about. Let him look around him in this House and see the men on both sides, who are the alumni of clerical schools. Let him look at the men in this chamber who have been taught in colleges and schools
Mr. BERGERON
conducted by priests ; let him look at the men who have received what he calls a clerical education, and perhaps he will revise his judgment. The hon. member for Brandon has not to look only on this side of the House ; let him look at the men sitting around him and beside him who have received their education in schools controlled by the clergy, and I think he will have to admit that they are men of education, men of high attainments, men of whom any country might well be proud.
More than that ; the hon. member for Brandon is unjust, because, if I am well informed-and I have taken my information from some newspapers of repute published in the province of Manitoba-the Catholic university of St. Boniface to-day is above competition. It is understood that in that university, the young men in the highest classes have nobody to compete with, from Toronto to the Pacific coast and they are obliged to compete amongst themselves. They have carried off prizes, medals and every distinction. Nobody knows this better than the hon. member for Brandon. These young men are taught by ecclesiastics ; they are the subjects of clerical schools. So I say to those who might be tempted to believe him that when the hon. gentleman talks of the inefficiency of clerical education, he is out of the way altogether.
In answer to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), who had declared that the proceedings of the Manitoba government in abolishing separate schools in that province might have been obnoxious to somebody, the bon. member for Brandon said :	' Well, Sir, I am here to say that
we cannot abolish abuses of that kind by handling people with kid gloves.' No, we all know that he did not use kid gloves. We all know that not only was the minority in Manitoba robbed of its system of schools, not only was the French language abolished, which is something appreciated by those who speak that language, but their buildings to the amount of $14,000 were stolen from them by the Manitoba government and were never given back to them. So when the hon. gentleman says that he did not use kid gloves, he is right. I would rather say he used a crowbar or a pince-monseig-neur to steal the separate schools of Manitoba, or what they had and their buildings.
My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) speaks very well-I have heard him before-but be always comes to a conclusion entirely different from his premises. Every time 1 have heard him on these subjects. I have always seen him starting against the government and finishing by being entirely with the government. He thought he would make a point in his speech by criticising my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He even went so far as to say that he had lost confidence in the leader of the opposi-

tion. Well, that did not pain my hon. friend very much, because he had never supposed that the hon. member for Labelle had any confidence in him. The hon. member for Labelle, if I infer rightly from the words he uttered, is entirely opposed to the amendment. Still. I believe, though he did not say so in words, that he will vote for the amendment. So it is no use for me to discuss his speech, because, though it was witty and well delivered, its conclusion did not follow from its premises ; consequently there is no result to it.
My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), in the very eloquent speech he made in the House in answer to the hon. member for Labelle, spoke of the generosity of those men whom the hon. member for Labelle was ready to asperse. My hon. friend from Peel forgot one thing, however, when he spoke of the generosity of Ontario, he should more properly have spoken of the generosity of the Conservatives of Ontario. My hon. friend said that only lately there was an election in the province of Ontario, and the Prime Minister of the day had said that if he came into power he would see that every nationality and creed would be represented in his government. What did he do when called on to form an administration? He kept his word ; he acted like an honourable man and according to the traditions of the Conservative party. Mr. Speaker, who was the man who for the first time, appointed to the upper House of this parliament a French Canadian from the province of Ontario-a man coming from your own city, the Hon. Mr. Casgrain ? Sir John A. Macdonald, whom the Liberals in our province have always tried to make a scapegoat of, as a Protestant and a fanatic. Who appointed the first French Canadian senator from the province of Prince Edward Island, in the person of the Hon. Mr. Arsenault, but a Conservative administration ? And when that gentleman died, our French Canadian premier replaced him with an English-speaking Canadian. Who appointed Senator Poirier, another French Canadian, from the province of New Brunswick, but a Conservative administration, which also appointed Judge Landry ? I am saying this to show that the Conservative party has traditions of which it may well be proud, and that it stands by those traditions. There may be in our party some gentlemen who have ideas different from the others, but the party ns a whole has a history of which it may well be proud. We cannot say the same of the other party. We know that if hon. gentlemen opposite have stood upon any platform in the past, it has been only to get into power. Their traditions are all new ; they have never been in use yet. In 1896, the Liberal party prevented the Conservative party from doing an act of justice in the settlement of the Manitoba school question. We may be
told that the province of Quebec has sanctioned that. It is true. There are many considerations for that; but it does not deprive the Conservative party of the honour of having done its duty. I heard my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) yesterday saying in a sarcastic way that hon. gentlemen opposite may boast that three appeals have been made to the people since that time, and that the people have sanctioned the position taken by my right hon. friend. What does that prove ? It proves only one thing-and I say it with all modesty-that they were believed more than we were believed ; but it does not prove that they were right. Sir, when I am speaking about traditions, I want to say this before I resume my seat, that upon all those dangerous questions, national or religious, the Conservative party has always been found in the path of duty, ready to do what was best in the interest of the country. They paid for it dearly sometimes ; but history is written, and when that history is read by those who will come later, the young men of the day, whether they are educated in separate schools or in public schools, it will tell them the truth. The Liberal party cannot continue to play double face with each and every one of these questions.
Something has been said, unfortunately, about the hierarchy ; and something has been written in the papers against the hierarchy. But it was defended here by gentlemen on both sides, and I was proud to hear gentlemen who do not belong to that creed speaking of the hierarchy in most eulogistic terms. Let me say that,' although we have had this measure before the House for over a month, I have never received a letter or word of communication of any kind regarding it from any bishop or priest, and I know a great many. What does that prove ? It shows, not that the Catholic clergy are not interested, but that they have too much delicacy and too much sense of their own dignity to undertake, without being requested to do so, to advise a member of parliament as to what course he should follow. Our clergy have been deceived in the past, and if my remarks have been long and tedious, it is because I wish to put on record in ' Hansard ' what I consider necessary to enable them to know who are those by whom they have been deceived. We have heard a great deal about petitions, and we have seen a great many petitions presented in this House, but the only petition that I have received from my constituency is one that is signed by fourteen Methodists -whom I know to be most respectable men-in the city of Valleyfield. We have been told of certain petitions which have been sent out in the province of Quebec by the Club Jacques Cartier at the instigation of some members of this House. But that statement was positively denied by my hon.

friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). My hon. friend stated positively that there was not a member in this House from the province of Quebec who had anything to do with these petitions. I am not pretending that there would be any harm in these petitions, people have the right to petition ; but X am merely pointing out that if any petitions were circulated, they were circulated by some one who took upon himself to do that work without having had any authorization from any member of parliament. I have not seen any of these petitions, but I understand that in all of them the right hou. gentleman is asked to stand fast by clause No. 16 of the Bill as introduced. The signers of these petitions were afraid that he might drop that clause ; they were afraid that he might be influenced by the other wing of the government, and abandon clause 16 for something else. Well, they were not wrong, because my right lion, friend has given up that clause and accepted an amendment which is satisfactory to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). One need not go far to show what kind of an amendment that must be.
I call the attention of those who are in favour of separate schools to Mr. Sifton's approval. If the amendment before the House is acceptable to the hon. member for Brandon, you may judge for yourselves how far it goes in favour of separate schools.
In 1896 there was a hierarchy in the province of Quebec just as there is to-day. What happened then '! After the elections were over and my right hon. friend was returned to power with a large majority from the province of Quebec, one of the boasts of the Liberal politicians and the Liberal press was that they had been able to carry the province against the hierarchy. If that were true, what did it mean ? It could only mean that the hierarchy had no influence at all. But if it had no influence, how could we be called a priest-ridden province ? It is not true, however, that the hierarchy had no influence, and I can tell my right hon. friend something which he knows quite well. The hierarchy in 1896 did not do anything. They did not do as much as I would have liked them to do in their own interests. So broad and nonpartisan were the mandements they published that they were accepted by the Liberals as being in their favour. But if the day should come when that hierarchy would feel impelled to take a hand in the contest, their influence would be soon felt. My right lion, friend remembers that when there was trouble in Manitoba, when a rebellion was threatened in that province, it was not on its troops that the government relied. No, the government of that day did not send out its troops, but telegraphed to Rome to his Lordship Bishop Tach6, and asked him to return home and establish peace in the province of Manitoba. Bishop Taehe did so. The government of that day must had confidence in his ability and Mr. BERGERON.	[DOT]
influence. Many were the promises which were made him then, but which have never been carried out. For this I am not blaming my right hon. friend. The responsibility lies with other public men, but unfortunately the Liberal party had more to do with it than anybody else.
To come back to the position taken by the Minister of Finance /(Mr. Fielding). We are now about to create two new provinces. We are in a sense enlarging Canada. We are making it stronger and more important. I -would advise the House not to stand so much upon the letter of the constitution, but to do what is best calculated to make all creeds and nationalities in these new provinces live together in harmony. What we require in this country is tolerance and conciliation, and we cannot have that when we call for the sacrifice of any principle or the destruction of any right. Every nationality and creed in this Dominion should be made to feel that it has the respect and the confidence of other nationalities and creeds, if -we want Canada to be united and ever to achieve anything.
I sincerely hope that the question now being discussed is the last of the kind that will ever come before parliament. I sincerely hope that in the end we shall all join hand in hand. I trust that every province and every Canadian worthy of the name, a nd who desires the welfare of his country, will join hand in hand with his fellow-citizens to work together for what we believe the best interests of Canada, and not allow national or religious questions to interfere with that work. .
In speaking of the position taken by my leader, I wish to say openly that, to my mind, he made an admirable speech upon this question, a speech to which nobody can take exception. We may not all share the conclusions to which he came, but every man on this side, and I believe on the other side as well is convinced that the leader of the opposition spoke in all sincerity, without any bias, and influenced solely by a desire for the welfare of Canada. So much is that the case, that if in that amendment of his, ten words were struck off at the end, I would be disposed to support it. And in doing so I would be standing on a good principle, namely, provincial autonomy and provincial rights ; and in my opinion clause 93 of the British North America Act would give the new provinces the school system they have to-day. But as a doubt has been expressed by the Minister of Justice, I would have clause 16. But here is where I think there is a difference between the position taken by the hon. the leader of the opposition and the right hon. the First Minister. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition leaves the door open by his amendment to the people of the new provinces to give themselves separate schools. From not one man on this side of the House have I heal'd a word against the system of separate

schools in itself. Those who have spoken have declared in favour of allowing the people to have whatever system of schools they please.


Mr. A. LAVERGNE.: Will the hon. gen-tieman (Mr. Bergeron) allow me a question?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes.
Mr, A. LAVERGNE. Was the hon. gentleman in the House when the hon. mernbe,r for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said that the' system of separate schools was a bad one ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I did	not	hear	thehon. gentleman (Mr.	Sproule)	say	that.


Mr. SPROULE.: Does the hon. gentleman for Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne) refer to separate schools as they exist in the Northwest ?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: X asked my hon. friend if he contended that the system of separate schools in that province was a bad one and he answered yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said that that system, in my judgment, was not a good one. But 1 added, in connection with the schools in the Northwest, that our light was not against the people giving separate schools if they desired to do so, but against interference with their rights to have any system they chose.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I accept the word of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and I would remind my hon. friend from Montmagny that it could not be otherwise, as the separate schools in the Northwest are, for all practical purposes, the very same as the public schools. Now, the amended Bill of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in my opinion, will prevent altogether the establishment in the Northwest of separate schools such as I would like to see. He perpetuates the provision of the ordinance now existing. And the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has declared that the schools under these ordinances are entirely public schools. Put this upon the statute-book and you prevent for ever the establishment of separate schools in the Northwest provinces. On the other hand, the position taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) leaves it open to the provinces to establish any system of schools they desire.
Now, I fear I have kept the House too long. I had intended to speak much more briefly. But hon. gentlemen will pardon me because this is a very important question, and I hope that it will be long before we shall be called upon to speak on any such subject so delicate and so dangerous. When I am called upon to address the House again, I hope it will be on some question upon which members of the same party can agree. Still, though this is an unfortunate question, a dangerous question, I wish to
pay this compliment to my colleagues in this House, on both sides of the House- that the newspapers of the country might well take a leaf out of * Hansard ' for they will find there that every man who has spoken has been able to express his opinion frankly yet in such a way as not to hurt the feelings of any of his fellow-members. Hoping, as I have said, that we shall not have again such questions to deal with, but that we may all unite for the best interests of Canada, I am reminded of the words of Tennyson, with which I close :
Let Whig and Tory stir their blood,- There must be stormy weather;
But tor true results of good All parties work together.


Hon. N. A. BELCOURT (Ottawa).: Mr. Speaker, will my hon. friend from Beau-harnois (Mr. Bergeron) permit me to extend to him my congratulations, and to assure him of the pleasure which I share with other gentlemen upon this side of the House, because of the fact that he will give his vote on the measure before you in support of the government of to-day. Whatever may be thought of the reasons which the hon. gentleman gave as justifying that conclusion, it is a gratification to know that, on this occasion, he will vote with us. He said that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassai had devoted most of his speech to remarks antagonistic to the course of the government, and still concluded by declaring that he would vote with the government. I am afraid that the hon. member for Labelle has found a very ready imitator in that respect, in the person of the hon. member for Beauharnois-in fact the hon. member (Mr. Bergeroul has gone the hon. member for Isabelle one better : the whole speech to which we have just listened, has been-I say it without offence-a tirade against the government of the day. He did not say at the end how' he would vote, but X presume he will vote against the amendment.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I may have forgotten to say that. I will not vote for the amendment.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Then, what has been said has been well said. The Canadian national family will extend to the two new provinces in the west their hearty congratulations when, on the first of July next, they take their place in the family circle and around the family table. I hope that by that time the note of discord which has been heard in one part of this country will have ceased to sound-I believe in fact that that will be the case, and that even if it still sounds, it will not mar the chorus of pride and satisfaction with which all Canada, will extend a welcome to the two new sisters in the west, with hearty good wishes for their progress, prosperity and happiness. In discussing this Bill I do not

in tend to take up the time of the House iu referring to those features which are not the subject of contention. As to irrigation, ns to financial arrangements, as to the division of the territory into one or more provinces-as to these, there seems to be but little dispute. With your permission, I will devote the time during which you may indulge me, to treating with the main question in dispute, the question of education, and incidentally, the control of the public lands. As to the question of education, section 16 preserves, in my opinion, what we Roman Catholics hold as part of our religious faith-religious instruction in the schools. I need not say that I am a believer in that doctrine, that I am in that respect, altogether at one with the church to which I belong. And it is a gratification to me to know, and I feel fortified to know, that there are many great men, not only in this country, but in the mother country and elsewhere, not professing the religion to which I am attached, who also believe in the necessity of religious instruction in the schools. I say that section 16 is altogether justified under the letter and spirit of our constitution. I say also, and I shall endeavour to demonstrate it, that, on grounds of highest public policy, the enactment of section 16 is altogether expedient and is rendered absolutely necessary. We know the rights which are preserved by section 16. If separate schools ai'e allowed, I care not whether they are called denominational schools or whatever name may be given to them. To my mind there is nothing in the name, or very little-it is altogether in the principle, a principle which is sanctioned, admitted, and perpetuated by section 16, insisting' on the right or privilege of the minority to give religious instruction in the schools of the Northwest Territories.
This privilege is recognized and in existence to-day by virtue of the statute of 1875 and by virtue of the ordinances of 1901 which have been passed pursuant to that statute. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition devoted a large portion of his speech to demonstrate as a legal proposition that the statute of 1875 could at any time have been repealed and that it could be repealed to-day. He cited the authority of Sir .John Thompson and others in support of that, contention. I do not think that any lawyer wall dispute that. It is quite clear and must be clear to any lawyer that the Act of 1875 could have been repealed and that it could be repealed now at this very moment. But, Sir, it has not been repealed. It is in existence to-day. The ordinances which have been made in pursuance of that statute are in existence and they will be in existence on the 1st of July when these two provinces join the confederation. The effect of section 16 is to preserve and perpetuate that right upon the admission of the two new provinces. I say, that, under the letter of sections 93 Mr. BELCOURT.
and 146 of the British North America Act, that clause is not only justified, but it is necessary. The real question with me is to determine what is the right of the province at the moment it enters the union in the words of section 93. The whole question with me is determined by the fact that the right or privilege mentioned in the section exists concurrently with the creation or birth of the province as a province. The* word ' province ' in section 93 means the province, not before, but the province at the moment that it enters confederation and for ever thereafter. But before it does enter as a province it is not a province of the union and consequently if it has been admitted as a territory the provisions of section 93 have no application. The provisions contained in the British North America Act, 1867, are provisions which apply to and which regulate the relations of the provinces of the union which determine the rights, privileges and obligations of the provinces as provinces. In section 1 to section 146 of the British North America Act are contained the provisions, stipulations and agreements made between the original partners to the confederation, which are applicable to the provinces of the union and to tlie provinces of the union only. Surely it cannot be contended that the original British North America Act, 1867. section 1 to section 146, was intended to regulate and determine the relations of any part of British North America other than the provinces which agreed at that time to form part of the confederation or which later on were to lie added thereto. I repeat. Sir, that the right to be preserved is the right concurrent with and co-existent with the creation of the province or existing at the time of its entering into the union. Take section 93 and what is its plain ordinary meaning? I say, referring to the words of the section, that the word province in the section-
-Any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.

means nothing else than a province coming into the confederation as a province and not as a territory. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in order to make good his point, says that because the Territories had been admitted into the confederation in 1870 section 93 has no longer its application; in other words, that the provisions of section 93 must be applied as to the Territories in 1870, because, according to him, that is the date at which they came into the union. Well, I say that in order to come to that conclusion my learned and hon. friend has had to do what he charged the government with doing in this case, he has had to interpolate into section 93 a word which is not to be found in section 93. He has had to interpolate the word ' territory ' into the section which is not to be found in the. section. He has had, in fact, to substitute for the

word 'province,'which is in section 93, the word 'territory,' which is not in section 93. I think I am not doing- my hon. friend an injustice in stating- that as his argument.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: 1 am not disposed to admit that my hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt) is exactly stating my argument. However, my argument is before the House and when we come to discuss this question afterwards in committee we will have an opportunity of interchanging opinions. But, I would like to ask my hon. friend one question, if he will permit me, and it is this:	I would infer from what he has just said that he considers section 2 of the Bill now under discussion as being sufficient to bring into operation in the new provinces the provisions of section 93, and that these provisions would perpetuate in the new provinces the provisions of section 14 of the Act of 1875. That is the logical deduction from what my hon. and learned friend lias just. said. Am I correct in so understanding him?
.Mr. BBBCOURT. If my hon. friend will permit me as my argument develops I will give him an answer to his question, although I am not quite sure that I thoroughly understand his question. It may be that it was doubtful, if. under the original provision of the British North America Act, 1867, we could admit the Ter-[[DOT]itiories otherwise than as provinces. I am willing to go that far on the lines of my hon. friend's argument. It is doubtful with me, if tlie Act of 1871 had not been passed, whether we could have admitted the Territories except as full-fledged provinces to the union. I have not the slightest doubt that the principal reason which prompted the Act of 1871 was the very doubt to which I have referred. But the passing of the Act of 1871 has, to my mind, removed any doubt which could have existed to that effect. What is the general scheme of the Confederation Act? The general scheme of the Confederation Act, as has been pointed out by others, was to establish a national partnership between then fully independent and autonomous provinces or colonies subject only to one jurisdiction, and that was the imperial jurisdiction, whatever it may have been and which I have no doubt varied from one case to the other. But the idea of the fathers of confederation was to make an agreement-a partnership agreement I will call it-for the purpose of determining tlie conditions, the powers and the relations of these autonomous provinces, as between themselves and for the sake of creating a centra] power and enlarging the importance of their positions in British North America. They came together for the purpose of determining the conditions of thht partnership. The Act of Confederation determined what tlie relations of these autonomous provinces as between themselves and the centra] power and what their powers, rights
and obligations would be. It also provided. by section 146, that later on these portions of British North America which at that time did not come into the confederation might do so, and I say that it was the intention then, under the letter of the constitution. and that it was then provided and stipulated that if other provinces should later on enter the confederation they should come in under the same terms and conditions, and that the conditions which were made applicable to the original provinces were uniform conditions applicable not only to the original provinces but to those which might be added to the partnership later on.
It was not contemplated by tlie provisions of the British North America Act, sections 1 to 146, that there might be admitted at that time as full-fledged provinces any portion of British North America then in process of formation. It was not thought that those portions of territory in the west, which at that time had very little population except the coureurs de bois and a few stray settlers here and there, should be admitted as provinces ; it was not contemplated at that time, for instance, that there was any possibility of admitting them except as temporary portions of the confederation. 1 say that the provisions contained in tlie British North America Act, 1867, so far as they concerned the original portions of the confederation, or such provinces which might be admitted later on, are absolutely immutable ; they are unchangeable, at all events, so far as this parliament is concerned, although they might, it is true, be subject to amendment by the imperial parliament. But the Canadian parliament cannot materially alter the specific provisions of the British North America Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are proposing to do it by this Bill.	.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Not at all. It has been argued, and it has been stated repeatedly, that the Northwest Territories, when they came into confederation in 1870, came in subject to all the provisions of the Act of 1867. Such argument would have some foundation, as I have said, if the Act of 1871 had not been passed, but the Act of 1871, in my opinion, was passed principally in order to get over that very difficulty. It -was thought at that time, after Manitoba and the Territories had been taken in, in 1870, that the provisions of the British North America Act. 1867, were insufficient to cover the case of the Territories. There arose a doubt at that time whether all the provisions of the Act of 1867 were applicable to the Territories upon their admission. There also arose another doubt as to whether the powers of this parliament in admitting territories as such under the provisions of section 146 had not been exhausted. It was thought by some that we had exercised the power given to us by section

146 in admitting these Territories as territories, and that being so, it was doubted if it was any longer open to us, if we still had the power to admit them later on as provinces. That. I think, was the principal reason of the amendment of 1871. That was tlie principal object of that legislation, and I think it was also the principal effect of it.


Mr. LENNOX.: If that contention is correct, what would be the effect now ? Would that statute that was passed then be sufficient to cover the case with which we are now dealing ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I cannot understand the hon. gentleman's question at all.	,


Haughton Lennox: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that it was thought that the power of section 146 of the British North America Act was exhausted.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I said a doubt arose.


Haughton Lennox: That was supposed to be the reason for getting another Act from the imperial parliament. If that Act was necessary at that time, would that Act be sufficient for the present case, or would it be exhausted by the exercise of it at that time?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I said that the Act of 1871 was passed for the purpose of allowing us to admit these provinces, on the supposition that the power conferred by section 146 had been exhausted.


Haughton Lennox: I have not recently been looking at the section with tnis particular point in view, but my recollection is that the statute only provides for the case of Manitoba, and would not be sufficient to cover the new province now about to be admitted.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It covered the case of Manitoba in so many words, but by necessary inference it covered the case of the Territories as well. The hon. gentleman must remember that when this Act was passed the Territories had been admitted into coned era tion as territories ; Manitoba had been admitted as a province, and the Act of 1871 was passed, as I have said, for the purpose of allowing us a power which it was thought we had already exercised under 146 by admitting them as territories, a power to admit them later on as provinces. I say that by inference the Act of 1871 enables us to do that to-day.
There was another reason to which the hon. gentleman also referred, that is, the provision for the control of lands under the Manitoba Act. It was thought at the time that that was possibly ultra vires, and that was another reason why the Act of 1871 was passed : but one has only to look at the preamble of the Act of 1871 to see clearly and plainly that these were the reasons that prompted that Act. The preamble reads :	[DOT]


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Whereas doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of the parliament of Canada to establish provinces in territories admitted, or which may hereafter be admitted into the Dominion of Canada, and to provide for the representation of such provinces in the said parliament, and it is expedient to remove such doubts and to vest such powers in the said parliament:
The preamble of the Act is plain, and seems to leave no question that the object of the Act was to remove the doubts to which I have made reference. Under the provisions of the Act of 1871 we have had the power ever since it was passed to apply to these Territories such provisions of the British Columbia Act as we saw fit. We have had the power to apply the original provisions of the British North America Act in whole or in part, in any modified manner that we chose, and we have had the power, as was pointed out by my hon. friend, to repeal these provisions aud, from time to time, to substitute for them other provisions of a similar or of a different nature. As far as the Territories are concerned, it must be remembered that they came iuto the confederation without any special -provisions applicable to them, that it was left to this parliament to determine, from time to time, what powers we should confer upon them. That seems to me to be absolutely justified. As I have pointed out, as every one knows, the Territories were then in their early infancy. They had a very sparse population, the whole matter was tentative ; the jurisdiction which the Act conferred on them must necessarily for manifestly obvious reasons be a tentative one; and, therefore, it was provided, under' section 2, that we might, from time to time, apply to them such provisions of the British North America Act as we should deem proper. I say that that discretionary power vested in this parliament with reference to the Territories was with reference to territories only, and not with reference to provinces. I say that under the Act of 1871 this parliament has not to-day the right to apply to any province coming into the union any but the original provisions, from section 1 to section 146, of the Act of 1867. I say that the Act of 1871 was made for the purpose only of the Territories, and cannot to-day have any application, and should not have any application whatever, when we are taking a province into confederation.-
The Act of 1871 was passed for the purpose of completing the Act of 1807 ; not for the purpose of modifying it, not for the purpose of repealing any of its provisions, but simply in order to add to the Act of 1867 provisions which it was found had been omitted from that Act. Its scope was limited, to the entry, control and government of new territories. Under the rules of construction, I submit that my argument is quite justified, because I think every lawyer in this House will agree with me that the modification of a

specific, clear, definite provision cannot be modified by another provision made in general terms to be found in the same Act or in another Act to be read together with it. All the provisions of the Act of 1871 are susceptible of application and are susceptible of interpretation apart altogether from the provisions of the Act of 1867. What better proof of that do we require than the course we have pursued for the last thirty-five years during which we have administered these Territories altogether by virtue of the provisions of the Act of' 1871. Since 1870 when these Territories came under our control, we have not governed them by virtue of the Act of 1867 but by virtue of the Act of 1871. Therefore, the Act of 1871 has not in any way modified or altered the specific provisions of the Act of 1867, and so long as these Territories remain Territories, this parliament of course continues to hold absolute jurisdiction over them. The legislation in these Territories shall be just exactly what this parliament chooses to make it; from time to time this parliament may repeal provisions previously enacted or substitute for them provisions entirely different. But when the status of the Territories is changed and they are made provinces ; when they are elevated to the dignity of provinces, then come in and are immediately applicable the provisions of tlie Act of 1867. The new provinces are entitled to all the benefits and all the provisions of the Act of 1867 ; they are entitled to all the provisions which were applicable to and which could be claimed by the original provinces of confederation. Therefore it is that I say, that when these Territories are being admitted as full-fledged partners in the original partnership of agreement, when they are admitted as full-fledged provinces of the union they are entitled to the full benefits of section 93 of the Act of 1867 and the rights or privileges referred to in subsection 1 of said section are preserved to the new provinces. Every one admits that we could have repealed the Act of 1875, that we could have modified it, and that we could have replaced it by another Act. If we had simply repealed the Act of 1875 the ordinances made thereunder by the Territories would have all been wiped out as a necessary consequence, but not having repealed the Act of 1875 the ordinances which have been enacted by virtue of that Act remain, and they will be in existence on the first of July when these provinces come into the union. It has been argued, and I am not prepared to dissent, that section 16 of the present Bill constitutes a modification of the Act of 1875. I shall not discuss whether it does or whether it does not, nor shall I say whether the modification if any is an important or an unimportant one. But the very moment it is admitted that this section 16 constitutes a modification of the provisions of the Act
of 1875, then there immediately arises the necessity for the enactment of this very section. It has been said that this section 16 of the Bill we are discussing is the result of a compromise, and that may be or it may not be the case. I admit that it is in some sense and in some respects a modification of the la-w of 1875, not a modification of the principle of religious instruction in the schools, which in section 16 is again upheld, but a modification probably in the manner in which the principle is to be applied, but the leader of the opposition has told us that because it constitutes a modification of the provisions of the Act of 1875 we are, in enacting section 16, amending section 93 of the British North America Act.
I do not think that is correct and I would like to ask my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) if he will contend that we could not to-day by a separate Bill enact the provisions of section 16.


Robert Laird Borden: You mean with regard to the Territories ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Why certainly we could enact any legislation with regard to the Territories, and we could repeal it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Quite so ; the jurisdiction is in this parliament and it will remain here until these new provinces come in. What is the difference then between enacting section 16 in this Bill or in a separate Bill ?


Robert Laird Borden: I would think there is a very plain difference.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not think there is.


Robert Laird Borden: I do.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I think not. We have the jurisdiction, and having the jurisdiction what is the difference between enacting section 16 by itself or along with other provisions ?


Robert Laird Borden: The difference is so extremely obvious that I would suppose it could hardly escape the attention of my hon. friend. In one case we are dealing with territories, which, as my hon. friend has just explained, are under the absolute legislative jurisdiction of this parliament until they are created into provinces. In the other case we are creating them into provinces subject to the provisions of the British North America Act as to the distribution of legislative power between the Dominion on the one hand and the provinces on the other. I would think that is a pretty obvious distinction, hut it may not commend itself to my hon. friend.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I fear the hon. gentleman has not appreciated my argument.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 am afraid I have not.
commons


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: For reasons whicli I am not going to discuss, it appears that the majority of the members of this House think that the time has arrived when the provisions of the Act of 1875 shall be changed. Some of us think it might be changed in a broader sense, while others think it might be changed in a more restrictive sense. Whatever of that there has been a compromise ; the majority in this House have agreed that the legislation of 1875 is not the legislation which should govern in the Territories to-day. I say then, that we have a perfect right under the constitution and under the provisions of the Act of 1871 to enact for these Territories which are still under our jurisdiction, Territories over which no other jurisdiction exists, I say we have the power to crystallize toy a separate enactment or as we are now doing as part of this measure the provisions of section 16 of this Bill, and these provisions would be in existence when these two provinces come into the union on the first of July next. In other words, we have the right to determine to-day what shall be the law in reference to education in the Northwest Territories. We have now the right and power to repeal or modify the provisions of the law of 1875 as to education.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly. I would like to ask my hon. friend a question just here. We have the right to determine that; therefore we can by an Act of this parliament withhold any power whatever in respect of education from these Territories while they are in a territorial condition. It would follow therefore, if my hon. friend's argument is correct, that we can do exactly the same thing when we create them into provinces and reserve to this Dominion absolute control of the educational system. Is that what my hon. friend means ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Not exactly.


Mr.   I@: I do not think it is, but it is the logical outcome of his argument.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: What I mean is this- my argument may not commend itself to my hon. friend, but I would like him to understand what my argument is.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like my hon. friend to make that clear.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: My argument is, that to-day with reference to education, and for that matter with reference to all other subjects, the Territories are under the jurisdiction of this parliament. We may repeal those rights or change them at any time we wish.
1 say that to-day a majority of the members of this House, representatives from all parts of the country, have agreed that the time has come when there must be some modification, important or unimportant, of the Act of 1875, and we have the right to make that legislation until our jurisdiction Mr. BELCOURT.
is exhausted, until it ceases, which will be only on the 1st of July next. Until then we have a right to make such legislation as we deem proper for the Territories in reference to education. I hope I have made myself plain.


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: I am trying to understand my hon. friend, but will put another question and see if I can make myself plain to him. As I understand his argument, We have full legislative jurisdiction over the Territories. We have seen fit to give them only a modified power to legislate with respect to education-that is to say, we have imposed a limitation on their power. Because we have done that, he says we have an absolute right ,<tq continue that limitation when they are created into provinces. If that is good argument, is not this good argument, that because we might absolutely withhold from those Territories, under our legislative power, any jurisdiction whatever in respect of education, therefore, for exactly the same reason that my learned friend has advanced, we can withhold from them when we create them into provinces any jurisdiction whatever in regard to education S That is my hon. friend's position.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Not at all.


Frederick William Borden: I would like to know what it is, then.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I will give an answer which may not be convincing to my hon. friend, but may be to others. It is this. My hon. friend did not follow me closely.
I said with reference to the special, clear, definite, specific provisions of the British North America Act, that it is not in our power to modify or change them in any way either with reference to the provinces which came in in 1S67 or with reference to those coming later on and one of these is the provision with reference to education contained in section 93. But I say that under the Act of 1871 our power of legislation with reference to those Territories is absolutely unlimited and now at this moment fully existent and unimpaired.


Frederick William Borden: When we form them
into provinces ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: To-day our power is unlimited.


Frederick William Borden: But when we form them into provinces ?
Ml*. BEDCOURT. That is another subject. I am not dealing with that. I say that to-day it is within our power to enact such legislation with reference to education in the Territories as this parliament thinks fit-so long as they are Territories, of course. When they become provinces, on the 1st of July next, our powers will have ceased. Whatever we may decide now to

be tbe law with reference to education, in the Territories will be the law and if that law Is in existence on tbe first of July next, when the new provinces come in, will be perpetuated by their charter by virtue of section 93. My hen. friend the leader of the opposition has told us that the provisions of the British North American Act apply automatically or mechanically-I do not remember which word he used.


Frederick William Borden: I did not go quite that far. If my hon. friend will pardon me -I do not want to interrupt him except when he does not state any argument correctly-I said that section 2 of this Bill would bring into operation section 93 of the British North America Act, so far as it could have any application to the Territories, and therefore I did not see any necessity or justification for section 16. That a moment ago-whether or not he thinks section 2 of the proposed Bill brings into force in the new provinces the provisions of section 93, and, if it does, whether or not the provisions of section 93 have application, considering the conditions existing at the time when the Territories will become provinces.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It is rather immaterial to me whether the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act apply automatically or mechanically, or whether the enactment of a clause like clause 2 is necessary to make them applicable. It is rather unimportant to me whether that is done by virtue of the Act itself, or whether tbe duty is imposed upon this parliament when creating provinces to say that those provisions shall apply. But I am not prepared to say that my hon. friend is not right. It may be that the provisions of section 93 apply, as he says, automatically or mechanically ; and I must say that I am inclined to believe they do. Of course, he and I disagree altogether as to the time when in this case the application is to be made. He goes back to the time of the entrance of these Territories into confederation, in 1870, and in order to do that he has to read into section 93 the word ' Territory.' which I do not find there. I say that the provisions of section 93 apply at the time of the entrance of the province as a province.


Robert Laird Borden: In order to understand my hon. friend's argument, might I ask him one more question ? In case my hon. friend is right in the view he has just taken, what after all is the necessity of section 16 ? Is it not superfluous, absolutely superfluous ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No. I stated that section 16 constitutes, in a measure, unimportant perhaps, but in a measure, a modification of the law of 1875, and for that reason there is a necessity for section 112
16 to-day. If the law of 1875 were not. modified in any way, perhaps my hon. friend would be right in stating that there would be no necessity for section 16, or for section 2 for that matter ; but section 16 is in some respects a modification of the law as it exists to-day, and that is why I say it is necessary for this parliament to enact it to-day, and this parliament has power to enact it. That is my argument.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The man in the street would have a hard time in getting that into-his head.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Well, I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I am hardly addressing my argument to the member for East Grey. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition also argued, and he relied upon the opinion of Mr. Christopher Robinson, that section 93 applied only to Ontario and Quebec.


Frederick William Borden: I will not interrupt my hon. friend, but I would rather have him take my argument as I stated it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not think it can be seriously argued that section 93 was framed for the purposes of Ontario and Quebec only, and that its provisions are to be applied only to Quebec and Ontario. It is true that subsection 2 of section 93 covers the case of Quebec and Ontario, that it was framed for that purpose, and that it protects the rights of the minorities in Quebec and Ontario only. But then I would like to ask, if it was intended by the general provisions of section 93 to protect the rights of the minority, whether Catholic or Protestant, only in Ontario and Quebec, why enact subsection 1. which reads as follows :
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions:
1. 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.
Surely this was not intended for the province of Ontario and Quebec only manifestly this was intended for provinces other than Quebec and Ontario. Surely this was intended for such other provinces as came into the confederation at that time and such as woulld come in later on.
I say that the opinion expressed repeatedly in this House that by section 93 it was intended to protect only Ontario and Quebec with reference to education has no foundation whatever, and the merest examination of section 93, subsection 1, will convince any one that it was intended to protect the rights of the minority in any part of the country which was then brought into confederation, or which would be brought in later on.



Otherwise subsection 1 has no meaning. No one in this House has endeavoured to give to subsection 1 any other meaning. It is not susceptible of any other interpretation or application. I say therefore, that when subsection 1 was framed, the fathers of confederation evidently intended by it that whatever other provinces might come into confederation, besides Ontario and Quebec, they should be similarly protected, so far as education is concerned, and the same provision applied to them or to any other portion of the British North America Act which might later on join the union. I have no hesitation in my mind regarding that conclusion. I have no doubt that the conclusion to which I have come, after considerable investigation and thought and research, is the right one. But it is quite evident that my opinion is not shared by every one. It is quite evident that it is not in accord with many of the legal opinions which down to the present have been expressed in this debate.


Mr.   R.@: 1,. BORDEN. Up to a certain point it is absolutely in accord with my own.
Mr. BELCOTjRT. I am afraid that my hon. friend and myself differ at the crucial point. It is not surprising that this should be the case because we are dealing with a very intricate constitutional question. We are dealing with the interpretation of the spirit and letter of a constitution, made nearly 40 years ago, and now being applied to conditions and circumstances which are very complicated, and which at that time could only have beeD pictured in the mind's eye. It is not surprising therefore that the Confederation Act should give rise to these legal divergencies and disputes. In fact it is rather surprising that during the forty years which have elapsed since that Act was enacted, there have not arisen more difficulties and divergencies ; and it speaks highly for the wisdom and ability of those who framed that Act that greater difficulties have not ariseD as to its interpretation both in the letter and the spirit. In any deliberative body, such as a legislature or parliament, it is very difficult to have constitutional questions calmly considered and threshed out as they should be and any opinion definitely agreed upon. But, however divergent may be our views upon the letter of the constitution, there ought to be no doubt as to its spirit. Any one who will read and scrutinize the various provisions of the British North America Act in the light of what happened before and led up to it cannot but conclude that it was clearly the intention of the framers of the constitution that the rights of the minority, whether Protestant or Catholic, should be protected. Whether that minority lived in the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario or was to be found in any other por-Mr. BELCOURT.
tion of British North America, the dominant idea was the. same ; and whether a man lived on the banks of the St. Lawrence or the Saskatchewan or the Red river, he was to enjoy the same rights and privileges as regards education and the exercise of his religion. The spirit which prompted the fathers of confederation to recognize the rights and privileges of the minority in matters of conscience surely had equal force whether that minority lived in the east, west, south or north. Therefore it is manifest that the fathers of confederation intended whatever may be said as to the effectiveness of the language used, that the same principle should apply and the same rights be respected and preserved in every portion of the Dominion. And because these differences in constitutional views have arisen to such an extent that it is difficult to get half a dozen men in this House to agree what the letter of the constitution means, it has become absolutely necessary to have section 10 enacted and made part of this Act.
I referred a moment ago to w-hat had preceded confederation. I referred to the rights of the minority Avith reference to the preservation and the recognition of liberty of conscience and liberty of religious belief. I say that from the very inception of British power in British North America from the very day of the conquest when the colony of Quebec capitulated to the British-from that day ou, at every stage, on every occasion when the imperial parliament and the Canadian authorities were called upon to deal with the rights and religious belief of the minority, that religious belief always received the sanction and protection of imperial and Canadian authority. By articles 2 and 6 of the capitulation of Quebec, that principle was sanctioned and recognized. By articles 27, 28, 29, 32 and 38 of the capitulation of Montreal, it was also recognized. By the treaty of Paris, clause 4, by the Quebec Act, clauses 5, 7 and 8. by the constitution of 1791 section 35, by the Union Act of 1840, clauses 42 and 46,-by all these Acts and on all these occasions religious freedom and liberty of conscience were absolutely recognized and granted to every subject, and more particularly to the Catholic minority in this country. It is not surprising therefore that when the fathers of confederation in 1863 met in the city of Quebec for the purpose of framing the conditions upon which the then provinces of Canad should come together and live together as a happy family, and upon which new provinces should be admitted in the union-it is not surprising that on that occasion what had been done on all the previous occasions to which I have referred should have been repeated, and the same rights and privileges and liberty of conscience should have received the sanction of those who were framing

the British North America Act. The whole principle which is crystallized in section 16 of this measure is one which is as old as British Dominion in America and which has been recognized on every occasion, from the very day the colony of Quebec capitulated down to the present. Why then in 1905 should the rights of the Catholic minority, which has grown from 60,000 to two million and over, not receive the respect and sanction of the parliament of Canada ? If it was just and proper, as the right hon. the leader of the House pointed out the other day, in 1867, that the rights of the minority in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario should be preserved, is it not equally just and proper that in 1905 the Catholic or Protestant minority in these new provinces should also have its rights recognized and perpetuated ? Where is the difference ? What was right and proper in 1867 is surely just and right in 1905.
Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks, I said I -would endeavour to show that according to the letter, as well as to the spirit, of the -constitution, section 16 was absolutely necessary. I also said that, for what I believed to be reasons of high public policy, it was expedient and necessary that we should enact section 16. In the divergence of opinion expressed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), by my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrop), by Mr. Christopher Robinson, K.C., and to-day by my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. L. P. Demers), for all of whose opinions I entertain the greatest respect, I find the strongest possible reason for saying that considerations of high public policy make it expedient and necessary to enact section 16, as we are now doing. Who in this House or in this country is yearning for a renewal of the agitation we had some years ago over the Manitoba Schools Act ? Who is willing to have the passions and the prejudices of the people aroused in the manner in which they were aroused at that time, bringing this country almost to the verge of civil war ? Who is willing to have the energies and activities of the nation paralyzed in the way they were paralyzed at that time ? I would ask the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. B. Borden) if he would be willing to-day to suggest that the Act of 1875, and the ordin-iances enacted thereunder by the legislature of the Northwest Territories, should be repealed ? Would my hon. friend rise in his place in this House and suggest that we should repeal the provisions of the Act of 1875 ?


Robert Laird Borden: I never suggested that.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I believe not.


Frederick William Borden: What I have said is that that is not a matter for me, but a matter for the people of the Northwest Territories. And I have said further that I do
112$	j,
not believe that we shall advance the position by passing a law which we have no power to pass. That is all.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I quite believe, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend (Mr. R. B. Borden) would not to-day suggest that the Act of 1875, and the ordinances enacted thereunder, should be repealed ; for I know he would not be willing to take the risk which that would involve. My hon. friend must realize that that is the position in which the government was placed ; and if my hon. friend the leader of the opposition were on the treasury benches, that is the problem that would face him.


Frederick William Borden: I do not so understand it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do, if the hon. gentleman does not. The government had to do one of three things-to continue the legislation of 1875 as it was, to repeal that legislation altogether, or to modify it. The government did not choose to repeal this legislation any more than the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. B. Borden) would have dared to advise the repeal of it had he been in power.


Frederick William Borden: Might I suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt) that section 15 of the Bill expressly continues the laws in force in the Northwest Territories ? The hon. gentleman apparently has not read the Bill.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes, I have read it, I still hold the opinion that section 16 constitutes a modification of the law of 1875. As I have said, I do not intend to discuss the extent of that modification ; but, as was demonstrated -by the ex-Mimister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), it does constitute a modification. I have no doubt on the subject, and I do not think there can be any doubt. Obliged to do one of the three things to which I have referred, the government did not dare, any more than the leader of the opposition would have dared, to repeal the Act of 1875. It chose to continue that Act in a modified form, thus doing one of the three things I have mentioned. But, in speaking as he has spoken in this House, the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. B. Borden) has virtually taken the position that the law of 1875 should be repealed. He has told us that this matter should be left entirely to the new provinces and that we should not interfere, and that there is absolutely no danger to the rights of the minority being in any way taken away or impaired, but that we must trust to the spirit of justice and fair-play of those who live in these new provinces. For myself, I have confidence in the spirit of justice and fair-play among the inhabitants of the Northwest Territories. But how long would that feeling exist and the spirit of justice remain if the agitation that hon. gentlemen opposite and their friends and their press have earied on in this province

were carried on in the Northwest ? How long would the rights of the Catholics to religious instruction in the schools of the Northwest remain, if the views of the. hon, member from East Grey (Mr. Sproule)-[DOT] which views, I have no doubt, he entertains sincerely, were carried out ? How long would the Catholic minority in the Northwest have the privilege of having religious instruction in their schools ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has never spoken or written one word that would be fairly susceptible to that interpretation.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Perhaps it is time to learn now where the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) stands.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I stand exactly where I have always stood. I objected to the interference with the rights of the provinces to deal with the subject.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: We are not dealing with the question of provincial rights now, hut with the question of religious instruction in the schools.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But we are dealing with a subject laid down in the British North America Act, a subject with which it is the birthright of every province to deal-the subject of education.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), no doubt, thinks he has triumphantly aswered my question. I submit that he has done nothing of the kind. What I ask is whether he is in favour of religious instruction in the schools or not ? Will he answer ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is my own business. I wish to say that I was led to refer to the question in the remarks I made upon the subject, by what the Prime Minister said in introducing the Bill. In reply to that, I referred to some matters which otherwise I should not have introduced into my speech at all.


Mr. SCOTT.: I would like to be permitted to put a question to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule). Will he deny that he wrote letters to residents of the Northwest Territories, even before these Bills were introduced, pointing out to these gentlemen to whom he wrote that this was the time for them to get rid of separate schools for all time ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I deny it. There is not a word of truth in it.


Thomas Walter Scott: I would like to say that I cheerfully accept my hon. friend's words and to add further that I have been misinformed by a gentleman who lives in the Northwest Territories.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is a great adept at Mr. BELCOURT.
beating about the bush and turning sharp corners. My hon. friend is not candid-I will not use another expression which I might-when he refuses to state whether or not he is in favour of religious instruction in the schools. But we know what his views are.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Better than he does himself.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: He is entitled to his views. He has consistently advocated certain views in this House and elsewhere, and they are not favourable to religious instruction in the schools. He has told us that in the House. He lias told us that he is not in favour of separate schools. What does he mean by it ? I do .not know, but I would assume that he was not in favour of religious instruction in the schools. If the hon. gentleman wants to be candid he will tell us that he is not only not in favour, but he is unalterably opposed to religious instruction in the schools.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman wants to cross question let him try his hand on the hon. the ex-Min ister of the Interior and the hon. Minister of Finance.


George Eulas Foster: They will be more sympathetic.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. member for East Grey is the witness now before the court, but it is very difficult to get him to give an answer. I am sure I am not going to tackle anybody else until I have got something from him. I take it according to the French maxim, qui ne dit mot consent, that the hon. gentleman is unalterably opposed to religious instruction. And he is not alone. I can count them by the dozens on the other side of the House who are opposed to religious instruction in the schools. We have heard them say so one after the other-yes, by the dozens on that side of the House who are opposed to religious instruction in the schools. Well, Sir, I want to know-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many on that side?


Mr. BENNETT.: Give them a run of the commandments over there.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I want to know, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentlemen who sit on that side of the House have their way whether you will have very much religious instruction in the schools of the Northwest or if you will have that spirit of fairplay and justice upon which we are told we must absolutely rely ? Why, Sir remember Manitoba. We had confidence in the spirit of justice and fair play of the people who inhabited Manitoba, but how long did it take to shatter our hopes and

our confidences in the spirit of fair play and justice?


Mr. INGRAM.: Who did it?
'Mr. BERCOURT. Well, the people of Manitoba did it and the people of the Northwest Territories to-morrow will do it if the hon. gentleman can have his way.


Andrew B. Ingram: I stood up in 1896 for the rights of the minority in Manitoba when tire hon. gentleman's deskmate refused to do it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Well, Sir, we have been told by other hon. gentlemen of what they did in 1896 and we were told yesterday by tile hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that what he did in 1896 he does not propose to do again. He gave us the reason why he did not propose to do it again. He told us that it does not pay politically.? That is the reason. I believe the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) will probably think also that it does not pay and he does not propose to do it again.	.


George Eulas Foster: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Well, well.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman has given an alleged reason as to why I said I would not probably do it again. His reason is-


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No, the hon. gentleman gave it himself.


George Eulas Foster: His reason was that I would not do it again because it does not pay. My reason was not that.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; it is exactly the reason he gave. He told us that in 1896 that the people did not appreciate his self-sacrifice. That in 1900 they did not appreciate his selfsacrifice; that in 1904 they did not appreciate his self-sacrifice and he said that politically it did not pay and for that reason he was not going to do it again.


George Eulas Foster: It is now put so baldly that I must deny it absolutely and ask the hon. member either to give his authority from the 'Hansard' or to immediately withdraw it-one or the other, and I appeal to Mr. Speaker to see that that is carried out.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: If the hon. gentleman gets very threatening perhaps he will not have it carried out. If he will appeal to my instincts and desire me-


George Eulas Foster: No.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I have the floor.


George Eulas Foster: And if you wish to persist in saying what you have you may keep it. If you do not wish to be honest and fair and do what an honest nnd fair man would do you may keep it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Well, if the hon. gentleman has ended this show of inflamed temper perhaps he will allow me to proceed. I understood the hon. gentleman to tell the House that in 1869 he had, much against his own inclination, much against his own desires, supported the Remedial Bill. He did it, he told ns, when he had no desire to do it. He did it because he wanted to protect the rights of the minority. I understood him to say that his course was not appreciated by the people of this country, that in the election which immediately followed this great act of disinterestedness on his part was not appreciated by the people and that on the contrary they supported the opposite side. I understood him to say that the same thing happened in 1900 and again in 1904, that it did not pay politically, and that as far as he was concerned that was the end of his sacrificing himself. If I am wrong in my understanding of what the hon. gentleman said I am wrong honestly. That is the impression which I gathered from his speech, but if the hon. gentleman tells me that it is not the language which he used I am prepared to accept his statement. Perhaps he will permit me to read what he did say on that point.


George Eulas Foster: Read; that will be better.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Now, Sir, I never was a separate school adherent, I never believed in separate schools as against national schools. In 1896 I stated my belief, as I state it now ; I knew it was not politically to my advantage, I knew it was not politically to the advantage of the Liberal Conservative party ; but, Sir, without thinking of ulterior things, I said to myself-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to read:
-there is the constitution, there is the pronouncement of the highest judicial tribunal in this empire, there is the minority coming with a grievance and having the right to appeal to the Dominion government and the Dominion parliament, the only power that has jurisdiction to right their wrongs I said to myself :
I believe it is right, I believe in the policy of attempting to carry out the constitution. Let me ask this question:	If my right hon. friend,
in 1896, had thrown his forces with the forces that made for remedial legislation, who can doubt that we would have carried it in this country ? No one can doubt it.
At page 3384 of ' Hansard ' the hon. gentleman went on :
And I make bold to say that as long as grass grows and water runs, I do not feel disposed to go against that will three times expressed of the people of this country.
I have nothing to withdraw, I refuse to accept the statement which the hon. gen-

tleman just now made because it was not a candid and honest statement.


George Eulas Foster: Then if my hon. friend will allow me


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman


Some hon. MEMBERS: A point of order.


George Eulas Foster: I rise to a point of order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) is rising to a point of order.


George Eulas Foster: My point of order is simply this, that I have been misrepresented, whether knowingly or not.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: X am quite competent to state my point of order and any one who takes exception to it may do so afterwards. But let me state my point first. I rise to this point that whether knowingly or unknowingly the member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) has misrepresented my position and he has

Mr. BEiLCOURT. I read ' Hansard.'
Mr. FOSTER

and he has misrepresented it on a very vital point.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I read 'Hansard.'


George Eulas Foster: He has declared that my position was this, that I did support remedial legislation in 1896 but that 1 would not support it again, and have so declared in the House, because it did not pay politically.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Now I think that is as clear a statement as I can make as to what the hon. gentleman has just said. I stated that that was not a proper representation of my position, that I have stated in the House that 1 was not an adherent of separate schools, but that I believed the constitution of this country gave to a minority one method of access for redress and that after the decision of the courts and the decision of the Privy Council had been given, that road was open and I said I believed that although it was not politically to my advantage, and it was not as I believed politically to the advantage of the party to which 1 belonged-


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Surely that is not a point of order ; 1 would like to know what the point of order is.


George Eulas Foster: I am stating my position-


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I would like the hon.
gentleman


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I want the hon. gentleman to state what the point of order is ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


An hon. MEMBER.: Wait until the Speaker calls him to order.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) cannot state my point of order. It must be my right to state my point and as he has interrupted me X shall have to commence a little further back than where I left off. I stated that, although I did not believe at the time it was my advantage politically, and I did not believe it was to the advantage of the party to which I belonged politically, I believed it was constitutionally right and that I did it because I believed it was constitutional and that it was my duty to do it. Then I said after that had taken place there was a power higher than the constitution and that power was the sovereign will of the people ; that after the position was laid before the people in 1896 in 1900 and in 1904 the people by their votes had endorsed the party that opposed remedial legislation and consequently, as long as water ran and grass grew, I did not think I would be found in that same programme. Now my position is as I have stated. The statement made by my hon. friend is exactly to the reverse. Mine gives as a reason a regard for the principle of the constitution and a regard for the will of the people. The hon. gentleman stated that my reason was that I would not do it again because it did not pay.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to continue this acrimonious discussion. I made a statement, I gave the proof and I leave it to the House to judge.
iSome hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I have nothing to withdraw, absolutely nothing to withdraw.


George Eulas Foster: May I ask the hon. gentleman one question ? Does he yet persist in saying that I declared yesterday in the House that I would not again vote for remedial legislation because it did not pay?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I did not make that statement at all ; that was not the statement I made.	,


Charles Marcil: The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) will admit that it is customary to accept a statement made by a member if he has been wrongly reported, misconstrued, or wrongly understood. The moment a member gives a personal explanation it is customary to accept the explanation.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I accept the personal explanation given by the hon. gentleman

and if it is as unsatisfactory to the other members on this side of the House as it is to me I am willing- to let it go for what it is worth.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that is quite right ; I do not think it is quite right for my hon. friend to take that position. There is a distinct rule laid down in books on parliamentary procedure that if an hon. gentleman in this House says that his remarks were not intended to bear a certain meaning that must be accepted unreservedly.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I have accepted the statement the hon. gentleman has made.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Beleourt) has not accepted it in my opinion.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Leave it to the ' Hansard.'


Mr. TAYLOR.: The ' Hansard ' does not prove it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I think I may go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr. DE'PUTY SPEAKER. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Beleourt) states that he understood the horn, member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) to state a certain thing. The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) gives an explanation and the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Beleourt) is willing to accept the new statement. I think the point of order is all settled.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I said I accepted the statement of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster).


Andrew B. Ingram: Then we understand that the member for Ottawa-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down ; order, order.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will ask Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER.: There is no point of order.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am in order ; I want to know first whether or not-
Somp hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. INGRAM

the member for Ottawa


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Mr. Speaker


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker I ask your ruling.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Order.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Andrew B. Ingram: I can stay here all night if my hon. friends-


Charles Marcil: I understand you rise to a point of order.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do.


Charles Marcil: Please state it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I want to know through jou whether the member for Ottawa used the words ' to pay ' and whether that is in order ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is decided.


Charles Marcil: I have given my ruling. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Beleourt) may have summarized unjustly the member for Toronto, but the member for Ottawa (Mr. Beleourt) has declared that he accepted the statement of the member for Toronto (Mr. Foster). I have given my ruling.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: We are told that iii this matter we should rely upon the spirit of fair-play and justice of the people in the new territories. I was proceeding to tell the House that we must in this matter remember Manitoba, when I was interrupted by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). I wish to say that in my own judgment in matters of this kind we ought to do w.hat good business people do in every day dealings and transactions. Whilst people believe and take it for granted that other people are honest and intend to be honest until the contrary is proven, yet they make an agreement, when they decide upon something, they reduce it to writing. Until the day of universal fair-play and justice, until the day of universal honesty, which I think most will admit is not going to be in the very near future, I think people will continue to have more confidence in and to place more reliance upon the written agreements of other people than they will upon their spirit of fair-play and justice. That rule applies to nations as well as to individuals.
We have made an agreement, we have decided what is to be done with reference to those new provinces and it is far better for the peace of this country, far better for every consideration, that that agreement should be committed to writing as it is by enacting section 16. When we look at what section 10 merely perpetuates it is astounding to hear the objections that are made to it. Section 16 simply consecrates the principle of religious instruction in the school, and I should like to ask: What principle is violated ; what wrong, legal, moral, natural, or constitutional is done ? Does the exercise of the privilege claimed by the minority cause injury to anybody ; does it entail upon any one in this wide Dominion the deprivation of any right or any privilege ; does it take anything away from anybody ; does it hurt, hamper or injure any one in the slightest degree ; does it do

violence to the conscience of any one that there should be religious instruction in the schools. Whose conscience is violated by the privilege that is given to the minority to have one of their own religion come to the school room at stated hours to give the children religious instruction ? Mr. Speaker, to put the question is to answer it. The principle recognized by section 16 hurts nobody, and yet for weeks and for months past the Conservative press, the public halls and some of the pulpits in this great province have been filled with angry and unjust declamations, with impassioned and violent denunciations, with appeals to the passions and prejudices of the majority against the minority. This House has been flooded with petitions protesting against the so-called tyranny involved in this legislation, and we have heard a great deal about the shackles and the fetters which we are about imposing upon the poor helpless provinces of the Northwest. The editor of one of the most prominent newspapers in this province had the temerity to say on the public hustings in the city of Toronto, that in this country you must have absolute unity of race and creed. Mr. Speaker what does that mean? It means that the Catholics of this country are to be absorbed or annihilated ; it means that the Catholics in general and the French Canadians in particular are to be wiped out. Why, Sir, we are told that the province of Quebec must be wiped out of confederation, all because forsooth the Catholic .minority in the new provinces want to have religious instruction in their schools. Our Catholic clergy have been daily assailed and insulted; our priests have been held up to the electorate of the country as retrograde, grasping and tyrannical. Under the pretense of protecting provincial rights in the new provinces ; the rights, the religious convictions, the prejudices if you will, of two-thirds of the Canadian people have been made the subject of harsh, unjust, unworthy and unfair criticism and attack. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been once again made the butt of prejudice and unfounded assertion. Sir, in the face of the storm which has raged in Ontario over this question it is only fair that I should contrast jhe calm, the moderation, the spirit of tolerance displayed by that very hierarchy which has been so ruthlessly assailed. Has any one heard the Catholic clergy or the minority in the west or elsewhere say a word in this crisis ? Has any one seen them stoop to pick up the gauntlet thus thrown down ; has any one heard them answer the insults levelled against them. No, Mr. Speaker, they have pursued a dignified course, conscious that the spirit of fair-play to be found in the Canadian Parliament will uphold their just rights. I should think that the contrast would be suflicient to bring the blush of shame to the cheek of those who profess Mr. RELCOURT.
to practise the true Christian spirit, but who seem to have forgotten it for the moment.
And Mr. Speaker, who are those Catholic clergy and who are the hierarchy who have been thus maligned ? They need no defence from me ; the history of British, North America is their best vindication. Let me remind its-detractors that the Catholic clergy' has done as much as any other body for civilization and Christianity on this continent-there has been in Canada no truer, no surer, no more constant upholder of British institutions and British power than this very clergy-if this country has been preserved to the British Crown, it is due in a measure to the loyalty and bravery of the French Canadians and in a greater measure still to the Catholic clergy. Let me place on record some of the utterances of Canadian Catholic bishops in defence of British connection. In the year 1775, the year of the American invasion, Moosigneur Briand, the bishop of Quebec, wrote on the 22nd of May to his flock :-
A body of revolted subjects against their legitimate sovereign, who is also our own, has just invaded this province, less with the hope of being able to maintain themselves within its limits than with the object of drawing you into their rebellion, or at least of inducing you not to oppose them in their pernicious undertaking. The particular kindness and gentleness with which we have been governed on behalf of His Most Gracious Majesty King George III., since the time when the fate of arms put us under his dominion ; the recent favours with which we have just been loaded by him, in being given back the use of our laws, the free exercise of our religion, in being made to participate in all the privileges and advantages of British subjects, would no doubt be enough to impel our gratitude and. to rouse our zeal in upholding the interests of the Crown of Great Britain. But motives still more eloquent must speak to your hearts at the present moment. Your oaths, your religion, impose upon you an indispensable obligation of defending with all your might your country and your king. Close then your ears, dear Canadians, and heed not the promoters of sedition who aim at your unhappiness and seek to stifle in your hearts the sentiments of submission to your legitimate superiors, which education and religion have embedded in them. Be cheerful, ready for anything that you will he directed to on behalf of a kind governor, who has no other aims but your welfare and your happiness. It is not a question of carrying war into remote provinces ; you are only asked for a helping hand to drive hack the enemy and check the invasion that threatens this province. The voice of religion and that of your own interest are here united, and assure us of your zealousness to defend our frontiers and our possessions.
In 1812, similar language was used by Mouseigneur Plessis, then bishop of Quebec. In 1813, similar language was used by Monseigneur Plessis in addressing bis people. In IbdT, at a time when the French Canadians were, not unjustly, complaining that they were not being treated as British subjects ought to be treated, the hierarchy of Quebec
\

*told the people what their duties were under the circumstances and counselled them not to join in rebellion. On the 11th of December, 1837, Monseigneur Signay, the bishop of Quebec, wrote to the people of his diocese :
That, by legal and constitutional means, one should endeavour to remedy grievances ot which one may think oneself entitled to complain, is a right which we do not pretend to deny any one, but that, in order to attain this object, one should resort to insurrection, is using means not only ineffectual, imprudent, baleful for the very ones who appeal to them, do we say, but moreover criminal in the sight of God and of our holy religion ; under the delusion of escaping an evil, it means throwing oneself into an abyss of irretrievable wrongs- and the experience of all the centuries shows that these our words are in accordance with the most absolute truth.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and cite several other extracts of that kind which I have here, but I do not propose to delay the House by doing so. I am much mistaken, Mr. Speaker, if six months hence people in this province who have indulged in these appeals to passion and prejudice, will not ask themselves, after all, what all this great to-do was about ; and I am much mistaken if some of them at least will not, in their own estimation, cut a very sorry figure when they look upon the part they played in this agitation.
But, Mr. Speaker, we were asked the other day, who is responsible for this agitation ? The hon. member for East Grey answered the question. Some other gentlemen on the other side of the House also answered it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not [DOT]Uiiuk that the member for blast Grey is a very profound thinker or a great orator ; I do not think he himself would lay claim to be either ; but there is one thing for which I am willing to give him the palm, that is, that he is a consummate actor. For the hon. gentleman, without a wrinkle on his face, without a smile, in tones of apparent earnestness and conviction, told us that the man responsible for all these appeals to passion and prejudice, the man responsible for this storm, is-who ? The right hon. gentleman who leads this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, and I repeat it again.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Why, Mr. Speaker, there is a pretty general opinion in this House that the petitions with which it has been flooded during the last few weeks have all originated with the hon. gentleman himself-that he is the father, the instigator, the propagator of these petitions -that he is the one who has gone into the by-ways and the hack townships to get them signed and sent here.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is entirely incorrect, allow me to say. I think I am within the mark when X say that half the petitions
which have come here never originated through me or by any suggestion of mine.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman has told us on several occasions that petitions which were being presented by other members had come to him, and that he had sent them to those members to be presented. Why, he was the manipulator, the whole thing, in connection with those petitions. They were his special business, and he gave it all the attention and the zeal he could. We know that the hon. gentleman has, through the press, in this House, at meetings of the great Conservative organization of which he is the sovereign grand master, and which he so consistently, so constantly and so profitably steers for the benefit of himself and the Conservative party, appealed to the brethren to keep up the agitation against this measure. It is a well known fact, Sir, that this campaign did not originate in the west, with the people most concerned, hut in the province of Ontario. I believe that before the Bill was introduced into the House, there was absolutely no feeling in the Northwest against the perpetuation of the privileges granted to the minority. I have it from hon. gentlemen from the west who sit opposite that they had to come to Ottawa to learn that there was such a thing as a school question, for they had never heard of it up there. But, forsooth, the hon. gentleman for East Grey and his friends had to start an agitation in the province of Ontario among people who were more interested in the matter than the people directly concerned. It is true, Mr. Haultain told us some time ago that so far as he was concerned, he had no objection to separate schools-that if he were a dictator there, he would not think of abolishing them. I am told that the draft clause in the Bill which he submitted two years ago is very much on the lines of section 10 of this Bill. It is true, he has changed his mind about that.


Mr.   I@: Which draft clause was that ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: In his Bill of 1902.


Robert Laird Borden: I have examined that Bill, and do not recall any such clause. Which draft clause does the hon. gentleman refer to ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The draft clause with reference to educational matters. I have not got it before me. It is true, Mr. Haul-tain has changed his mind, as is evidenced by the letter which he has addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that this agitation has been confined almost exclusively to the Conservative press and to gentlemen who belong to the Conservative party ? With the exception of a few misguided or misinformed or

renegade liberals, the agitation has been carried on


Haughton Lennox: What about the 'Globe'?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I said renegade Liberals. The agitation has been canned on almost exclusively by the Conservatives of this province. And is it not extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, how much religion people who, up to a certain moment, are known to have no religion at all, can develop on occasion ? It is perfectly extraordinary how much religion has been developed in this province within the last few weeks. It is extraordinary how much religion has been professed by people who have constituted themselves the doughty champions of a faith which nobody attacks, and which certainly is in no danger.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope the hon. gentleman will direct my attention to that clause. He has charged Mr. Haultain, who is not here, with having changed his mind, and I would like to see the clause he refers to. There was a clause like section 2 and one like section 15, but I do not recollect any like section 16. I am positive as to that. I think it would be only fair for the hon. gentleman to indicate to us what he means.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: If my hon. friend will permit me, I have the clause before me, and I will read it. I may be wrong as to the effect of it, as I was speaking from memory :
On, from and after the said first day of January, 1903, the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, except those parts thereof which are in terms made or by reasonable intendment may be held to be specially applicable to or to affect only one or more but not the whole of the provinces under that Act composing the Dominion, and except so far as the same may be varied by this Act,
shall be applicable to the province of -
in the same way and to the same extent as they apply to the several provinces of Canada and as if the province of 

 had
been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.


Robert Laird Borden: That is practically clause 2 of this Bill.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That may be.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is the clause equivalent to clause 16 of this Bill as to which my hon. friend said Mr. Haultain had changed his mind ? In justice to Mr. Haultain, who is not here, my hon. friend should read the clause to the House or withdraw that statement.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is the clause I read.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not clause 16.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The clause I read is the one Mr. Haultain proposed in his draft Bill two years ago.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: 


Robert Laird Borden: That is clause 2 of this Bill. My hon. friend as I understand, said that Mr. Haultain had placed in his draft Bill a clause the same as clause 16.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I said in effect, and I have read it.


Robert Laird Borden: Then my hon. friend says that clause 2 is the same as clause 16.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No. What I meant, and what I think I said, was that in 1902, Mr. Haultain, in submitting to the government a draft of the Bill providing for autonomy, submitted a clause which virtually had the same effect as section 16.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE.: I have in my possession that draft and would be glad to show the hon. gentleman section 13.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I doubt very much if the passions and prejudices of so many people would have been aroused to the extent they have been by hon. gentlemen opposite if they had not expected to derive some party advantage from it; and when the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) resigned his portfolio, they concluded that their day had come and that if they could only keep up the agitation and make the storm still greater, some very great material, political benefit would be the result. They succeeded in getting their leader who, we believe, up to that point was very undecided as to the position he should take, to adopt their views and take the course he did.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is stating that of which he has no knowledge and for which there is not the slightest foundation in fact. The statement is made recklessly, and should not be made by an hon. gentleman of his standing in the House, without better foundation than he can possibly have for it. It is absolutely untrue.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I am sorry to have aroused the ire of my hon. friend in this way. If my hon. friend says that he had made up his mind as to the course he was going to take on the very day this Bill was presented, of course I accept his statement.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend knows that that is not the portion of his remarks to which I was referring. He said that 1 was induced by pressure to take a course which I at first hesitated about. Naturally I looked into the constitutional question and made up my mind about that at the earliest possible moment, because it was upon that question alone that the right hon. gentleman relied in introducing the Bill. But when he suggests that pressure was put upon me by any hon. gentleman on this side to take one course or the other, or by any one outside the House,-with the

exception of letters, sometimes anonymous sometimes otherwise, which came to me from both sides and to which I paid no more attention than such communications deserve-apart from these no pressure was put upon me. It has been often stated in the press which supports the hon. gentleman, and with which he is connected, that pressure had been put upon me by my constituents in Carleton. That statement is absolutely false. Not one of my constituents, I am glad to say, ever communicated with me, verbally or otherwise, with regard to this matter up to the time I spoke in this House.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I accept unreservedly the statement of my hon. friend, but I had thought-and I think every member in this House will agree with me that it was a very legitimate thought-that the leader of one of the great parties in this House, in a matter of this kind, would naturally consult with his supporters and followers and be, to a very large extent, guided by their opinions. If he has not consulted the wishes of the people with whom he is associated on that subject, if he has not consulted the wishes of the county of Carleton which he represents, he is entitled to make the statement lie has. But I thought it was only natural that he would consult his followers and the constituency he represents.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend persists in his personal allusions. I say again that I did not think it was a question upon which I should consult my constituents or upon which I was bound to consult them. At aii events that is a matter for me to
judge and not the hon. gentleman. It is really a matter with which he has no call to interfere. I do not know that I ever constituted him the censor of my mode of dealing with my constituents nor have I heard that they have ever given him any mandate to represent them. So far as my own friends are concerned, none of them knew what course I was going to take on this Bill, as far as I am aware. I announced it in caucus the day before I spoke in this House, and I did not announce it as a matter on which they should dictate to me but as a matter on which I had made up my mind, and I spoke in the House in accordance with the position I then took.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I suppose the hon. gentleman thinks that, in a matter of this kind, it is not proper for him to consult his constituents or his followers in this House.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Neither did the First Minister.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I am sorry to have brought these hon. gentlemen to their feet so often. I had no wish to say anything offensive, and I submit that the remarks I made were quite within parliamentary rules. I am surprised to find that they should have caused so much trouble and
anxiety to hon. gentlemen opposite. I accept the statement of the leader of the opposition that he did not consult anybody, either his followers in the House or his constituents. But there is a very shrewd suspicion on this side that in taking the course he did, he took the lines indicated by the hon. gentlemen who follow him, whether he consulted them or not. There is a very shrewd suspicion that the game he is playing to-day is that which the gentlemen who sit behind him have set for him, that he is following the pace they set for him, and that, not with a great deal of relish, it is evident, but still bravely enough, he is trying to keep ahead of the procession which these gentlemen have organized. He realized at the outset that in doing so he was going to alienate a great many of his friends in the province of Quebec. He realized that the course he was inspired to take was going to alienate his friends in the province, and he tried to make up for it by paying them compliments. They asked him for bread and he gave them a stone. They asked him for bread, and he gave them petrified bouquets. I wonder if the hon. gentleman deceived himself to the extent of believing that any one in the province of Quebec is to be hoodwinked by these empty and sonorous compliments. If be did, he had a very prompt, rude and sad awakening. Within a few hours from the time he delivered his speech, the most accredited and influential of his lieutenants was on his feet, and in a remarkable speech destroyed to atoms the, speech which his leader- had so laboriously prepared and so j laboriously delivered. The example set by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)-and I hope my hon. friend will permit me to pay him the compliment of saying that he rose to a very high ideal and made a most remarkable speech-was followed to-day by my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), who told us that he also, like his colleague from Jacques Cartier, was going to vote against the amendment of his leader. He must realize to-day that the course he has taken with or without consultation with his followers has broken the ranks of his own party. He must realize to-day that, whether he intended it or not, his action on this question is a boomerang, and that while the ranks of the opposition to-day are divided, the ranks of the Liberal party present an unbroken front. When the vote is taken on this question there will be given for the Bill the largest majority that was ever given in this parliament on a great question.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken much longer than I intended to. But I think that if the interruptions with which I have been favoured were taken out of my speech


Robert Laird Borden: There would not be much left.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not think that remark is quite candid. If there was so little in my speech, I wonder why hon. gentlemen opposite so often interrupted me and asked questions. The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden), only a few moments ago, got up with his face white with rage. And yet he says there was nothing in my remarks. His earnest and very frequent interruption was one of the greatest compliments he could pay me.


Mr.   I@: I apologize.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the lesson that stands out most clearly in this controversy ? Is it not the lesson that in this country appeals' to race and religious prejudice, to passion, to intolerance, though they may yield some temporary advantage, yet, in the long run, are bound to re-act against those who resort to them ? Is it not the lesson that in this coufitry government is possible only by tolerance, by conciliation, by fair and honourable compromise ? To this policy the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads this House, early in his public career, devoted himself ; to this policy he has steadfastly adhered ; and of this policy he is the most distinguished and successful exponent in this country. His faithful devotion to this ideal, and his masterly application of the principle have made him the beloved and idolized leader of his party and have won for him the respect and admiration of all Canadians, including, I believe, his opponents, and have won for him no less the respect and admiration of the whole British empire. Before I close, I would like to quote to the House a passage taken from one of Burke's immortal speeches, covering, to my mind, a most significant and pregnant statement of the present situation in Canada :
All government, indeed every human benefit, every virtue and every prudent act is founded on compromise and barter. We balance in-conveniencies, we give and take ; we remit some rights, that we may enjoy others; and, we choose rather to be happy citizens, than subtle disputants. As we must give away some natural liberty to enjoy civil advantages, so we must sacrifice some civil liberties and advantages to be derived from the communion and fellowship of a great empire. But in all dealings	the thing
bought must ''bear some proportion to the purchase paid. None will barter away the immediate jewel of his soul. None of us who would risk his life rather than fall under a government purely arbitrary.' But, although there are some amongst us who think our constitution wants improvements to make it a complete system of liberty, perhaps none who are of that opinion would think it right to aim at such improvement by disturbing his country and risking everything that is dear to him.
Mr. Speaker, on these lines, and on these lines only, with these Ideals and principles, Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
and with these alone, can His Majesty's government in Canada be carried on. On these lines only can the people of different races and different creeds who Inhabit British North America continue to live at peace, in harmony and good-will. On these lines only, and with such conduct only, can we develop ourselves into the nation we ought to be in the time to come. On these lines only, Mr. Speaker, can we accomplish the high destiny to which Providence has called us.


Mr.  R. S. HAKE@Qu'Appelle: Mr. Speaker, it has been said on several occasions lately that this House is now dealing with the most important question that has ever come before it. May I go a little further and say that this is a great occasion in the history of the British colonial empire? Britain's greatest colony is proposing to give a constitution to one of.her own colonies. And, while I do not presume that there is any analogy between the powers which the mother country exercises in relation to her Crown colonies and the powers exercised by the Dominion in relation to the Northwest, still there is sufficient resemblance between the two to make it a matter of interest to observe tbe spirit in which Canada deals with her colony as compared with the spirit which has been shown by the mother country in dealing with her colonies, and with Canada herself especially. I ask that the same spirit which has been shown by the mother country in dealing with Canada shall be shown by Canada in dealing with her own colonies. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, the exhibition which we have seen to-night takes away a good deal of the hope which I might have cherished. I hope we may calm down a little as this discussion proceeds. What we are doing is being watched outside of Canada, and will have an influence far beyond our boundaries. I desire to acknowledge in a few words tbe welcome which the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) extended to tbe new provinces on joining the Canadian family circle. But I would remind him that the Territories are full-grown, and as such they feel themselves entitled to the full rights of manhood. If they are denied these rights, the relations within the family circle will be exceedingly unsatisfactory.
I am afraid I must spend some little time in going back into the history of this question. The matter which we have now before us was first brought prominently to the front on May 2nd, 1900. The first step in the movement was taken in the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories on that day, when a memorial was addressed to the Governor General in Council asking that this matter be dealt with. In November of that same year a Dominion general election was held. In December, 1901, at the invitation of the Dominion government, a conference took place between a sub-committee of the Privy Council and the repre-

sentatives of the Northwest: Territories. Af-_ ter the conference a draft Bill, setting forth ' ill detail the terms and conditions on which the Territory would be willing to become one of the provinces of the Dominion, was submitted to the Prime Minister. In the following spring at the next session of the legislative assembly that Bill was laid before the assembly and unanimously endorsed by them. The only dissenting voice was in reference to the question whether there should be one or two provinces. In regard to every other detail the Bill was endorsed with unanimity. On the 21st of May, 1902, a general election was held throughout the Territories and the question of autonomy was the main issue in that election. The Bill was distributed throughout the whole country and an appeal was made to the people by the premier and by other gentlemen who were supporting him in that election in these words : ' These are the matters upon which your judgment is invited. The issue is plain ; it is for the people of the Territories to decide.'
The people of the Territories did decide by returning Mr. Haultain to power by an overwhelming majority. In spite of this fact a great many excuses were made by the Dominion government for delay in dealing with the question. Two more sessions of the legislative assembly were held and in each one of these sessions a resolution demanding that this question be taken up was passed unanimously, being voted for by both Liberals and Conservatives. There was no dissentient voice on either occasion, but still the matter was not taken up by the Dominion government. During the session of 1904, when it was again probable that the demand would be repeated, we suddenly received the well known letter from the Prime Minister in which he made his promise that if he was returned to power he would deal with the matter at the present session of parliament.
I have indulged in this history in order to show that the government of the Territories had a definite and full mandate from the people of that country as to the terms which they should ask to be granted to the Territories when they became (full-fledged provinces. The government of the Territories were invited, as you know, Sir, to a series of conferences by the right hon. the Prime Minister during the first few weeks of the present year. The premier of the Territories and a member of bis executive council attended the meeting. I wish to say here that as far as my information goes, there was no change in the conditions which Mr. Haultain demanded from the Prime Minister from those which he had been authorized to demand by the people and the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories. I believe that he departed from them in no single particular, and I think the protest that he addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister after the introduction
of the Bill is a proof of that fact. But. what did we find? We found that after this conference the Bill which was introduced differed in most essential points from the request of the Northwest Territories, that it was, in fact, in many respects absolutely contrary to the wishes of the people. In consequence of this difference a strong remonstrance was made by the premier of the Territories which was couched in dignified and determined terms. Because it was not signed by the other member of the executive council, it was stated by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that it was only Mr. Haultain's individual opinion. The 'hon. Minister of Finance said that if it was tlie case that we were doing something against the wishes of the people of the Northwest the government of the Northwest had entered no protest. I should like to ask what warrant had he for any such statement ? All we have heard is that Mr. Bul-yea expressed a different opinion to that of Mr. Haultain in an interview which he was supposed to have given to the ' Globe ' directly after the introduction of the Bill. I am told that Mr. Bul-yea denies having given that interview. At any rate, whether it was so or not, Mr. Buiyea is remaining iu the government of Mr. Haultain. It is inconceivable that if he disagrees with his colleagues on such an important matter as this, he should continue to remain a member of the government. I say, Mr. Speaker, that his actions count for far more in this particular than anything that he may have said in any supposed newspaper interview. It is juggling with woi-ds to assert that when the premier of a government protests it is only the protest of an individual. As a matter of fact, Mr. Buiyea had just the same mandate that Mr. Haultain had from the people of the Northwest Territories. That mandate was too clear for it to have been possible for him to have taken any position other than one in accordance with the views of his leader and the fact remains, that he is still a member of Mr. Haultain's government. I have also gone into this history to show that two Dominion general elections have been held since tills matter was placed before the Dominion government. The government refused to act or define their policy in any particular during the whole lifetime of one parliament. More than that, when another appeal to the people became imminent they refused to define their policy before the elections. Although they had had the draft propositions before them for three years they were not prepared to declare themselves in any respect. The hon ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) went into the Northwest Territories and when he was questioned in regard to this matter he refused to commit himself except on one point which I shall mention just now, but on all the main points in connection with the draft Bill he refused to commit himself. We- were

all told in tlie Northwest Territories-I heard it myself on many platforms-that the proper thing for us to do was to trust the Liberal party, that with their record in the past they would be sure to give us fair and liberal terms. We have been told quite recently and told triumphantly that the seven Liberal members of parliament who come from the Northwest Territories would support the Bill in Its present form. If so, then I think it must be due to a sudden change of opinion on the part of at least two of those members* The two hon. members who were in the last parliament. They have put themselves definitely on record in regard to this matter. I refer to the hon. member for Edmonton fMr. Oliver) and to the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). The hon. member for Edmonton, on the 13th of October, 1903, said this :
X said in this House last session, and I take the liberty of repeating it, that if the House will give the Northwest Territories the terms asked for in the draft Bill contained in these papers, I will certainly support it most strongly. We will support it. These are the terms we want.
That statement was placed on record. Then the hon. member for West Assiniboia a couple of years previously had placed himself on record as asking very similar terms to those which were subsequently comprised in the draft Bill which was submitted by the Northwest Territories. Therefore, I hold, Mr. Speaker, that if these two hon. gentlemen, at any rate, from the Northwest Territories, had any mandate from their constituents in that country, that mandate would certainly be in the terms in which they had placed themselves on record in their public utterances.
I regret that after having for years advocated the granting of provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territoriees, I am unable to welcome the measure which has just been introduced. It does not contain the 'fair aud just terms' for which the people of the Territories ask and it does not give 'complete and absolute autonomy' such as we were promised by the Prime Minister. It creates two new provinces of an inferior type and of a lower grade than the other provinces of the Dominion of Canada, and I contend that the people of the Territories are justified in their demand to be placed on the same level as is occupied by the other province especially as they have a population larger at the present moment than the populations of four of the seven existing provinces of the Dominion. Their disapproval of the Bill which has been introduced has been amply proved by the great number of protests which they have made and which have been placed before this House. I am sorry that there are two provinces instead of one. The assembly of the Northwest Territories was strongly in favour of having only one province for the whole of the Territories. They had voted on that question and Mr. LAKE.
had endorsed that position by a large majority. The whole country had given their opinion on it when they voted as they did at the general elections to which I have referred. The late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Siftou) committed himself on only one particular point and that was with reference to the matter of one or more provinces. Although I was not present at the time I am told on credible authority that both at Regina and Indian Head he stated that he was in favour of one province. The Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) has given the reasons why apparently the government considered it would he undesirable to make the whole of the territories into one province. He was afraid that the progress and the prosperity of one large province would become such that the influence of that province upon the rest of Canada would be too great. I regret also to see the name of Assiniboia disappear from the map. The most thickly settled portion of the eastern province, has borne that name for a long time past.' The magnificent wheat producing fields of that district have made the name famous in the great markets of the world. Assiniboia contains the largest portion of the population of the eastern provinces, and therefore I think when a choice of names was being made Assiniboia should have been retained. No matter what the opinion may be as to whether it was a good name to choose in the first instance, it was sanctioned by usage, and should have been preserved rather than the name Saskatchewan.	_
However, there are other and greater questions than these involved in the Bill and I shall leave these minor points and proceed to deal with two or three of the main points at issue, ns shortly as I possibly can. I shall take up for a few minutes the limitation of the powers of taxation which are being imposed on the people of the new provinces in these Bills- 1 refer of course to the question of the exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway from taxation. One would imagine from what one constantly hears in this country that the Canadian Pacific Railway had been built in order to open up the Northwest and that therefore the Northwest should pay for the Canadian Pacific Railway. But was that the case ? Let us turn back for a few moments to the Quebec resolutions. Section 69 reads as follows :
The communications with the Northwestern Territory, and the improvements required for the development of the trade of the great west with the sea-hoard, are regarded by this conference as subjects of the highest importance to the federated provinces, and shall he prosecuted at the earliest possible period that the state of the finances will permit.
That is to say this question of building a railway into the west was looked upon as a subject of the highest importance to

the federated provinces. It was to open up channels for the trade of the east. That was the first reason for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The later and perhaps the most cogent reason was that it was absolutely imperative, if faith was to be kept with British Columbia, that a railway should be built across the continent. A contract was made by the Dominion government with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the consideration on the part of Canada included a grant of money, a grant of land and exemption from taxation. The Northwest Territories are to-day paying their share of the interest on that money grant 1 so we will wipe that question away. However in addition to that which is imposed on them in common with the rest of Canada they are contributing a land grant not only for that portion of the line which was built in the Territories, but also for that portion which was built in British Columbia and for a part of the line which was built in Ontario and in Manitoba. Now, Sir, that is a great burden upon the country. The result of it is that millions of money which have been made in that country and which should be kept in the country to develop its resources are being sent out in payment for the lands. We have claimed compensation in the draft Bill for such lands as were alienated by the Dominion government for purely Dominion purposes. ' Our demand in that respect has apparently not received consideration and all I desire at this moment is simply to mention the fact and to enter my protest because it has not been
To turn to the third consideration for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The exemption from taxation is a very unjust burden and it falls entirely on the shoulders of the new provinces. It is an unjust burden which was incurred for the benefit of the whole of Canada, and the Dominion should relieve us from it. The Dominion parliament made the contract and incurred the obligation. There was no provincial legislature at the time ; if there had been oue in existence I do not suppose it would have been possible that such a contract would have been made. A very strong point was made in the argument which accompanied the draft Bill in this respect. It was urged in the strongest terms that this unjust burden should be removed from the shoulders of the new provinces. In the teeth of this protest we find that it is actually proposed in this Bill to rivet the burden on the new provinces as part of their constitution. I can see no possible reason for such action as that, and I enter against it my strongest protest. I hope that when this Bill comes to the committee stage the government will see fit to withdraw that particular clause. When this exemption was being discussed in parliament some two or three years ago,
and when the leader of the opposition made a proposal that certain steps should be taken which. would remove this burden from the Territories and place it where it properly belonged, the Prime Minister, at all events by implication, gave some sort of hope to the Territories, when he used this language :
All this shows how absolutely essential it is that the question should be referred to the courts ; that we should have an authoritative decision as to the meaning of the law before we can take any public action in the way of giving relief to the settlers of the Northwest Territories.
The right hon. gentleman evidently admits here that the settlers of the Northwest had a case in asking for relief. I recall that statement to his mind, and trust that he will give it serious consideration. We -have also a statement made by the member for West Assindboia (Mr. Scott) on the 20th of October, 1903, when he said :
Let me say that in face of the position of this Canadian Pacific Railway tax matter, in view of the millions of acres of land that are involved and the millions in value of railway property of the company that are involved, it appears to me that the people of the Northwest would be simply crazy at present to accept autonomy unless driven to it as a last resort.
*
Such being the case, I certainly approve of delay until all doubt about the Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption has been removed.
That was the opinion of the member for West Assindboia (Mr. Scott) not so very long tigo, iiiid yet ays are to-day told in triumphant tones that the seven Liberal members from the Northwest are behind the government in support of this Bill.
Let me deal for a moment witli the question of the public domain. The Bill proposes that the lands, mines and minerals and timbers are to be retained by the Dominion government and not placed under the jurisdiction of the new provinces. If gentlemen on the other side of the House have their will in respect to this Bill, that is what will occur. Well, Sir, we claim that we have just as much right as any other province in the Dominion of Canada to the full possession of our lands. I was very glad to see that the Prime Minister had dropped the old stock argument that Canada had purchased the Northwest Territories, and therefore that the federal authority could deal with these Territories just as it liked. There were very cogent reasons for the right hon. gentleman dropping that argument, but I was surprised to hear the Solicitor General revive it and in doing so he must have been oblivious to some circumstances which have occurred within the last few years. In reply to the Solicitor General's statement that the acquirement of the Northwest Territories had not been profitable to the Dom-

inion, I beg to tell him that the profits from that investment have already been sufficient, and more than sufficient to pay the entire claim of the Hudson Bay Company. Probably the reason which has caused gentlemen opposite to drop the old argument as to the purchase of the Territories, is the grant within recent years of 110,550 square miles of the same territory to the province of Quebec. More than that, the Prime Minister now is proposing to make free gifts of the same territory to Quebec, Ontario, the new province of Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, although hi the case of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it would not he a gift but simply a request that they should administer the territory. The old argument that this territory belongs to the whole Dominion must have been abandoned by the present government, or otherwise they would have no warrant for making these free gifts to the old provinces.
The Prime Minister has appealed to the precedent of Manitoba as a reason for withholding the public domain from the new provinces, but he deliberately disregarded that precedent In 1898 when he had a Bill passed through parliament giving to the province of Quebec a vast area, nearly one-half the size of one of the new provinces. If there is any doubt as to the statement I hare made, I would like to lay before the House a few extracts from an Order in Council of the Quebec government dated the 24th of April, 1898, upon which the legislation iwas subsequently framed. Attached to this Order in Council is a report from Mr. K. H. Taolu', assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands, who, after discussing the question as to the province of Quebec making a demand for that portion of the coast of Labador which is under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland, goes on to say :
The claiming of that territory would result iu serious diplomatic complications which the Dominion government certainly will not raise, hut it seems to me that a compromise might be arrived at which will prove acceptable to ail those interested. The claims under the old French regime, thus altered, would still include a vast extent of territory, which in extent and value would be a good equivalent to the territory claimed by Ontario. The claim might be framed in the following manner :
He then goes on to define in detail the boundary line as it was finally adopted in the Bill passed by this parliament, and he
says :	.
The definition of the limits means an increase in area of 116,550 square miles. In my opinion to go further, as far as the Hudson Strait would be too grasping.
Too grasping even for the province of Quebec in a matter of this sort ; so grasping indeed that the deal might not be put through parliament. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to protest in any way against this accession of territory to the province Mr. LAKE.
of Quebec. I think it was a perfectly correct policy ; I believe that the province of Quebec could administer that territory far more satisfactorily than it could possibly be administered from Ottawa. Some day there may be a great rush, of people into that country for all we know, and then I am quite certain that the provincial management will be more satisfactory to these people than could possibly be the management of the more distant central government at Ottawa. But, Sir, this incident forms a precendent set by the Prime Minister himself, which surely he ought to follow in this case of the new provinces. I am afraid, however, that what is sauce for the goose in this case is not considered sauce for the gander.
Now, i would like to ask whether there is any similarity whatever between tlie conditions which prevailed in Manitoba in the year 1870, when Manitoba became a province of this Dominion, and the conditions of the Territories in this year 1905. If there is no similarity whatever in conditions, there can be no precedent. At that time Manitoba was under the paternal government of the Hudson Bay Company. Iu the debates of 1870, you will find the opinion expressed that the people of Manitoba were scarcely fit for a provincial form of government. A doubt was expressed as to tlie ' fitness of a people just emerging from tlie conditions of serfdom'-that was one of the phrases used. They were also referred to as an ignorant people. They comprised in all some twelve thousand souls, and they were at that very time in the throes of rebellion. Is there any similarity whatever in the condition of Manitoba at that time and the present condition of the Northwest Territories, who have a responsible government, a constitution, limited certainly as to its powers, but oue which they have enjoyed for a great many years past; who have carried on a liberal and progressive government, a government which is, I think, second to none in any of the other provinces of the Dominion, and also with a population, as I have just stated, larger than that of the majority of the provinces of the Dominion.
Then, if any hou. gentleman will look through the debates of the House of Commons for many years succeeding the formation of the province of Manitoba, he will find that the opinion on both sides of the House was always iii favour of the principle that the public lands in the province should belong to the province. I have culled a number of opinions from the great men of that time-Mr. Mills, Sir John Macdonald, Sir Leonard Tilley, Mr. G. W. Ross, by all of whom to a greater or less extent that principle is recognized. The reason given in nearly every case for withholding" the lands from tlie province was that it would not pay the province to hold them- that the administration of the lands would

cost more than the province would ever be able to make out of them. That Is the reason which was given for a great many years. But a change came over the scene in 1885, or a little previous to that, when it was discovered that the lands had an exceptional value. The Prime Minister, in stating his main reason for withholding the public lands from the new provinces, quoted from an Order in Council of the year 1885 ; but he did not quote the main reasons which were given in that Order in Council by the Conservative administration of the day for withholding the public lands from the province of Manitoba. He only quoted a consideration which ' had much weight ' with the sub-committee after three or four of the main reasons had been stated, that consideration being that it would be advisable in the interests of immigration that the Dominion government should continue to hold the public lauds in its own hands. Now, to my mind that is a very unsound argument. The Immigration Department is for the whole of Canada-for all the provinces, and for no one more than another. It may happen, and it does happen, that the province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories are the most attractive field for immigrants to-day ; but tomorrow it may be Ontario or Quebec or British Columbia ; we do not know. As a matter of fact, we find that the Immi-.gration Department is working hard in the interest of the other provinces of the Dominion, just as hard, I imagine, as it is for the Northwest Territories. Here is an extract from the report of the Minister of the Interior with reference to the immigration into Ontario :
In order to relieve to some extent the situation in the province ol Ontario, where there has been such a great dearth of labour, the department took steps early in the year to direct its agents in the old land to divert as much as possible the farm labouring classes to that province. The result of this has been that some thousands of labourers who perhaps would have gone to western Canada were induced to remain over in Ontario, all of whom were immediately distributed by the Ontario bureau amongst farmers throughout the country. It has been found almost impracticable to divert much of the foreign population, even of the farm labouring classes, to eastern provinces, many of these people coming through to meet friends, and, moreover, nearly all of the farm labourers from the continent appear to be desirous of securing lands for themselves first.
That shows that the Immigration Department is working for the province of Ontario, and for the other provinces of Can-ad just as well as for the Northwest Territories ; and I do not think it can be said that any very great inconvenience is caused to that department by the fact that the lands of the province of Ontario are in the hands of the government of that province. Farm labourers and small tenant farmers 113
are certainly the very best class of immigrants, anil 1 have no objection to their being diverted to Ontario to get their first experience of Canada. But if the lands of the Northwest Territories are to be retained in the hands of the Dominion government, simply because it wants to apply its immigration policy to the best advantage, then it should not divert from those lands any immigration which is coming out. But I am sure that is a position that would be resented by every other province of Canada. Every immigrant who comes into this country is an asset to the whole Dominion.
I consider that the difficulties which have been raised are entirely visionary. If the new provinces were possesed of their own public lands, they would be the most interested of all in encouraging Immigration to come within their bounds. We should have three local governments all hard at work trying to bring in immigration, and all competing with each other for immigration. More than that, the local government, thoroughly understanding the local conditions, would be able to make matters so much more comfortable for the incoming settlers that they would produce a more contented class of settlers; and the old saying still holds good, that the contented settler is the best immigration agent, and the quotation which I have just made from the report of the Minister of the Interior goes to prove it. These people coming in are, a great many of them, coming to their friends, from whom they have heard of their great prosperity and who have encouraged them to come to the country. I contend that the moral if not the legal right of the new provinces to the ownership of their public lands has practically been conceded by tbe government. I do not think any doubt has been seriously raised upon this subject. This question, as well as the whole question of provincial powers, was very clearly stated by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) some four years ago. My hon. friend sent me a copy of his speech on that occasion. I concurred then with him in the position he took, and am very glad to put on record the second time some of the opinions which he expressed in that speecii. and which are very similar to those I hold myself. On the 25th March, 1901, he said :
I may say that what the people will expect and what I think they have a right to expect- and this is really the point to which I wish to call the attention of parliament-is that they will be dealt with on exactly the same basis as the originally confederated provinces dealt with themselves, and be put in exactly the same position as that occupied by the originally confederated provinces. If the proper principle is adhered to, if the principle of absolute equality is observed, if parliament places the new provinces upon an equitable basis, the local government will be given a proper grant for government, also the per capita grant, and be given anything that may be shown to be due as the debt allowance. And they will



be put in the possession of the public resources, lands, timber and minerals in the same way as the other provinces were put in possession of those resources. I believe that that portion of the confederation arrangement by which the original provinces retained control over their public resources was looked upon by the fathers of confederation as the keystone of the whole scheme.
The hon. member then went on to quote from speeches made by Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir A. T. Galt in connection with confederation, in which they explained the reasons for placing the public lands at the disposal of the different provinces. My hon. friend went on to say :
When Prince Edward Island was taken into confederation a grant was voted her for the very reason that she did not have any public land.
Further on he said :
The people of the Territories contend that the public lands of that territory are now simply held in trust by parliament until such time as provinces may be created in that area. They firmly believe that their contention is good. But even if a strict legal or moral right cannot be established by the people of the Territories to be given possession of their local resources, I appeal to this House whether it would not be unwise and impolitic to create provinces out there on any different basis from that on which other provinces stand. Entire equality is the only sure guarantee of the permanency of the confederation structure. Is it not a fair proposition that the citizens of the Northwest Territories should be looked upon in all respects as equal to the citizen of any other province of Canada. The subjects that come under the purview of the local government affect the people more closely than those dealt with by this parliament, and the best way to promote the progress of that country will be to give as much financial ability as possible to the local legislature to deal with their local affairs, so that education, public works and all local services may be dealt with efficiently and adequately. My opinion is that by no other means can parliament do as much at one stroke to promote progress and the true welfare, not of the Territories alone but of Canada as a whole, as by placing the main portion of western Canada in a strong, efficient, capable position as concerns its local government.
My bon. friend concluded as follows :
I trust that when the time comes, whether it comes next year, or the succeeding year, and I feel assured that it will come before the end of the term of this parliament, that parliament may deal with the question on broad principles and endeavour to place the citizens' of the Northwest Territories in a position entirely equal, in no way inferior to the position which is occupied by the citizens of any other province of Canada.
I have not heard that my hon. friend has since receded from the views he there expressed. He did not, at any rate, in the fall of 1903, and I think we are entitled to believe that those are his opinions still ; and Mr. HAKE.
if he has any mandate from the Northwest Territories, it can only he to give effect to the terms of his speech which he distributed throughout that country far and wide.
Let me now make a comparison between the value of the lands when Manitoba entered confederation and their value to-day. In 1883 Sir Charles Tupper read a statement to this House, which showed that the sales of land from 1872 to 1880 had been less than two million acres, and that the average price received was 31i cents per acre. Further on he declared that only 13 cents per acre out of this sum had been paid to date. Compare the value of the lands in these days with their value in the Territories to-day. We find that the Canadian Pacific Railway lands were selling in January at an average price of $4.10 per acre and the school lands at an average of nearly $10 per acre. We also have the statement of the First Minister that $3 an acre is a very moderate rate for land in that country. Therefore, I contend there is no comparison whatever between the conditions of Manitoba in 1870 and those of the Territories in 1901.
Coming to the question of the compensation offered to the new provinces for the loss of their public lands, I would like to ask the First Minister what is the basis of that calculation? Why have the government selected 25,000,000 acres out of the 175,000,000 which, roughly speaking, will be comprised in each of these new provinces, and why have they placed a value of only $1.50 per acre on these 25,000,000 acres ? Again why do they only pay 1 per cent interest at first on those lands, and how do they arrive at the gradual increase in the rate of interest as population increases in that country ? I can only suppose that they began to argue the question backwards. I would presume that their first thought was : How much money is the least we can give to the people of these provinces ? And having decided upon the figure, they began to hunt for some method of making it up. The whole arrangement seems to me an extraordinary one. I could not find a word to describe it until the Prime Minister supplied it the other day, when he used the word ' ramshackle.' That well characterizes the arrangements made in this Bill for compensation to the provinces for the loss of their public lands. It will be noticed that compensation is only offered for one-seventh of the whole area or one-fifth of the whole area still undisposed of according to a return brought down the other day. Who will say that 113,000,000 acres out of these 138,000,000 still undisposed of in each of these provinces are of no value whatever, that only 25,000,000 are of any value, and that the value of those shall be fixed at $1.50 per acre ? Further than that, no consideration whatever is given for the mines, minerals and timber which are being withheld from us. As to the fisheries, I do not
1IAKCH 30, 1905
know whether they are to be withheld from us or not.
With regard to the value of these lands, in the latest report of the Minister of the Interior, we have the statement of the sales of land made by the railway and other companies from 1893 to 1904. The sales amounted to 10,512,349 acres, and the amount of monev for which these lands were sold was $36,992,482, or about $3.50 per acre. That is to say, we find that as the actual result of the 10 or 11 years' sales of the great land companies, they obtain for a little over 10,000,000 acres a sum nearly equal to the whole compensation to be paid to the people of each of the new provinces for 138,000,000 acres. Then, again, we have the figures given by the government of school lands sales. As I have said, they average about $9.90 per acre. Also, the Prime Minister mentioned as ' a very moderate rate ' $3 per acre. He was afraid that if the land were handed over to the people of the Northwest Territories they might begin to sell them at something more than this very moderate rate of $3 per acre. When he was questioned whether the lands were generally open for sale at these figures, we discovered that they were only open to a few favoured individuals and that the general public were not able to buy lands even at $3 per acre. I will go a step further and take the figures given by the Minister of the Interior a couple of years ago in discussing the Grand Trunk Pacific project. He then made the calculation that that one line of railway alone was going to open up 50,000,000 acres of land, and that the 20,000,000 or 25,000,000 acres which the government would have for sale would have an accrued value of $3 per acre within ten years after the completion of the line. Or. take the ex-Minister of the Interior's (Mr. Sifton's) statement made last Friday, when he referred to the school lands trust fund as being valued at $50,000,000. That statement he made in the course of his speech on the educational clauses of this Bill. Now, these school lands consist of two sections out of every 36 sections in the township. That is, the school lands are about one-eighteenth part of the whole territory. About If sections of each township have been set aside for the Hudson Bay Company, so that the school lands amount to one-seventeenth part of the area available. And, if the seventeenth part of the whole area is estimated by the ex-Minister of the Interior at $50,000,000, it is a simple calculation to arrive at what he estimates as the value of the whole public domain in the Northwest-all you have to do is to multiply $50,000,000 by 17. But I am not suggesting that that is a fair valuation of these lands. The ex-Minister of the Interior, I presume, thinks it must be. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to find at this time what the value of these lands will be 1131
at some date in the future. But while it is a most difficult thing to arrive at any final conclusion on this question, I submit that the calculations I have quoted go to prove conclusively that the compensation that is offered for the loss of these lands is absolutely and utterly inadequate. The Prime Minister took the Manitoba lands as a precedent, as I have before mentioned. But, in the case of Manitoba, the swamp lands were handed back _to that province. The Prime Minister says there are no swamp lands in the new provinces. I would not like to make such a confident assertion as that myself. But, if there are none, I think the Northwest should have some lands given them in lieu of the swamp lands. How much better it would be to avoid all these difficulties which confront us in the calculation of their real value by handing the lands over to the new provinces just as their public lands have been placed in the possession of the other provinces of the Dominion. The people of the new provinces would then feel that, in this respect at any rate they had been fairly treated ; that in this respect, they had been granted full provincial rights. Or, I will make another proposition. If this parliament considers only 25,000,000 acres of land of that country to be of any value, I would invite them to select 25,000,000 acres in each province and pay us $1.50 per acre and hand over the remainder to the provincial authorities. The people of the Northwest will make some use of the land if you will give it to them.
As a matter of fact I hold that no monetary consideration is sufficient to compensate us for the loss of our land. It is impossible to have a satisfactory administration of these lands from a centre upwards of two thousand miles distant. Nearly everything has to be referred to Gttawa. It takes nearly a week to get an answer to a letter from one of the nearest points, Regina. The people on the spot understand the conditions far better than the officials of the department down here in Ottawa. The land will be much better administered by officers responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. The whole administration will be under the eyes of the peojffe who are most deeply interested in the lands. It is quite a different matter when the administration is placed in the hands of one man at Ottawa. He becomes, in a sense a dictator, and he is responsible to a body of men very few of whom have any intimate knowledge of the local conditions which prevail in the Northwest Territories. The representatives of the other provinces of the Dominion control and manage their own lands. And they are the people best qualified to control and manage those lands. But I contend that they are not so well qualified to control and manage the lands of the Northwest as are the people of the Northwest themselves. I was very much amused by one feature of the speech made

the other (lay by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). He tried to show what a kind and statesmanlike thing it would be to relieve the people of the Northwest of the burden of managing these lands. That seemed to be the general trend of his remarks. He suggested that the members of the provincial legislatures might be pressed to use the lands improperly. If he finds that difficulty in the province of Quebec he has the remedy of inducing his province to hand over all their lands to the administration of the Dominion. But, we have never found any difficulty of that kind whatever in the Northwest Territories in the matters with which we have had to deal up to the present day, and I believe we shall find no difficulty in that connection in the future. At any rate, who is the more likely to have improper pressure put upon them to administer these lands wrongly ? Is it the members of the legislatures of the new provinces who are directly under the eye of the people most intimately concerned, or is it not likely to be the Minister of the Interior who is acting by himself down here at Ottawa ?
After all, these questions, important as they are to the people of the Northwest Territories, are overshadowed by the educational clauses in this Bill. These clauses have been introduced, I assert once again in spite of what the hon. member for Ottawa said, iu such a form as to invite opposition ; and the disparaging references made constantly to the people of the Northwest by member after member on the other side of the House have not been such as to soothe the feelings of the people under these difficult circumstances. I would like to say, in reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Ottawa that he had been told that no school question existed in the Northwest Territories up to the present time, that that is practically the case. The school question has been raised in this parliament and raised on the other side of the House. But, I consider that the same hon. gentleman misrepresents the position of this party when he suggests that our attitude is to favour the repeal of the present system of education which obtains in the Northwest Territories. The position of this party is that this is a local and provincial question which should be dealt with entirely by the provinces, that this is a matter in reference to which this parliament has no right or power to place restrictions or limitations on the provinces. We contend for provincial rights in this matter. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) accuses us of misusing what he refers to as that sacred term. M ith one breath he denounces us for appealing for provincial rights and then with the next breath he approves of the federal authorities retaining possession of the public lands of the Northwest Territories which we Mr. LAKE.
believe it will be an infringement of provincial rights for the Dominion to retain in their possession. He went on to treat the people of the Northwest Territories as if they were children and as if they had no rights. I do not propose to follow him into the religious discussion which he raised. This evening we again had a violent racial and religious appeal from the hon. member lor Ottawa. As I said before I have made up my mind that I at any rate will not follow the bad example which has been set us by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. I respect the religious convictions of others and I think they should show the same respect for my religious convictions. I feel they have not done it. Nor, Sir, is it a question of the value of separate schools as an abstract proposition. We are not discussing thatjiuestion at all. It is a question of equal rights to the new provinces with those which have been given to other provinces in the Dominion to deal with matters of education. It has been suggested that this question has been raised on this side of the House as a party question, that this side of the House is responsible for the agitation that is going on in the Northwest Territories at the present moment. Now, Sir, it just happened that yesterday afternoon, after- the close of the sitting of this House, I received a letter from the largest town in my constituency which I propose, with your permission, to read :
Indian Head, Assa., March 22, 1905.
R. S. Lake, Esq.,
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-At the annual meeting of Indian Head Liberal Association held here to-day, I was instructed to send you a copy of the following resolution which was duly carried, viz.:
We, the members of Indian Head Liberal Association, desire to enter a protest against^the educational clauses in the Autonomy Bill, 'believing that such is an interference with provincial rights. The clause as amended in the compromise Bill now before parliament, does not, In our opinion, contain any modification of what we believe to be an infringement of our rights as a province, and for this reason we as emphatically protest against the Bill as remodelled.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) J. M. THOMPSON,
Secretary Indian Head Liberal Association.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Ottawa, if he were present, if he considers that my hon. friend from Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) had anything to do with that resolution. I presume that these are the gentlemen to whom he referred as renegades, or are these the gentlemen of whom the hon. Minister of Justice spoke when he said that the right hon. Prime Minister had not lost the respect of any persons for whose respect he cared ?
I differ entirely from the cheerful declarations of the hon. Minister of Finance when he stated his ' firm conviction that most

people In the country will not bother themselves very much about this constitutional question ' and that there are other questions greater than the constitutional question involved in this matter. The rights and liberties of the British people have been too closely connected with the constitution to have it treated thus lightly. I also wish to offer my protest against the suggestions which have been constantly made that the people of the Northwest Territories will be less generous than the people of Nova Scotia in dealing with this question. That suggestion has been made more than once on the other side of the House. What my views are in respeet tp the separate school question as an abstract proposition, has in my opinion, really nothing whatever to do with this discussion. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have discussed this question on its merits as have lion, gentlemen, I must admit, on this side of the House. Although I do not intend to follow their example I intend to claim the privilege of briefly putting on record the views which I hold with regard to this question. After nearly 22 years residence in the Northwest Territories, I believe firmly that the public school system as at present administered is the one best suited to the needs of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. LAKE.: The fact that separate schools have been so little taken advantage of shows that except in certain centres and thickly-populated districts there is no demand for them. Taking an average settlement in that country, the separate school system is nearly impracticable and places a heavy burden on the people in the increased taxation incidental to minority schools.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Richard Stuart Lake: In certain instances it would actually prevent the formation of schools at all. I do not wish to be understood as favouring the exclusion of religious teaching from the education of the young. No education, in my mind, can be satisfactory which does not include the ethics of religion, but I say that doctrine and dogma should be kept to the church and to the home.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Richard Stuart Lake: And I am opposed to a purely sectarian education. That is my own personal opinion, and I believe that l am as well entitled to hold that opinion and state it in the House as any other gentleman. In the public school system of the Northwest Territories provision is made to allow of religious teaching, as has been frequently stated in this House. But the impression which has been conveyed by many of the speeches that this religious teaching is the regular rule, is an erroneous one. It is not, as a matter of fact, the general 1 rule. In fact, I do not know personally of
one particular instance in which religious teaching is given during that last half hour, But it is open, under the ordinances, to any and every denomination to teach religious doctrine in the same school during the last half hour in the afternoon if they desire to do so and can obtain the consent of the parents and the trustees. If they do not do so it is the fault of the people themselves ; it means that they do not wish it, and I take the ground that they should not be forced to have it. The separate school system in its practical working out means a hardship in the case of any Roman Catholic who prefers a public school education in the Northwest Territories, and I would say again that there are many Roman Catholics in that country who do prefer a public school education.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is it not a fact that in the school districts where the Catholics are in the majority they have not the choice, but are obliged to go to the public schools, because they cannot form separate schools ? Under the ordinance, in every school district where the Catholics are in a majority they cannot form a separate school, but have to go to the public school t


Richard Stuart Lake: That is quite true. But they would control the teachers and, of course, they could have religious instruction for the last half hour of the afternoon. That is quite the case, and the hon. gentleman has stated what is really a very good case in favour of our national school system as it exists. I do not think you need go further than Ottawa to find gentlemen of that faith who believe in the public school system of education as contrasted with the separate school system.
I would like to know what the educational clauses, as at present embodied in the Bill, really mean. In a House where there are so many lawyers we laymen might have expected to get a clear answer to this question : What do these clauses really embody: what do they really mean ? But we find that legal opinions differ in regard to this as widely ns the poles, and I am inclined, after hearing a good many of the speeches pro and con, to believe that they mean just about the same thing as the original clauses.
Now, let us trace this question up ; let us consider the way in whieh the original clauses were arrived at, and the way in which these substituted clauses were arrived at. A sub-committee of the Privy Council was appointed to deal with this question ; it was composed of four gentlemen of the legal profession, all men of repute-the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State and the Postmaster General ; the three first of these were gentlemen who belonged to the Roman Catholic faith and were gentlemen who are avowedly in favour of separate schools. They took the unusual course of issuing a pamphlet and distributing amongst the members of this

House what purported to be a brief history, from official sources, of the legislation with respect to separate schools since 1863. At the end of that pamphlet they went beyond the bounds of history, and made a distinct appeal on the subject. They said that ' it would be a breach of faith and a violation	of	the	British	North	America Act to disturb now rights and privileges	granted	thirty	years	ago '-aviolation	of	the	British	North	America Act; and I would like, by the way, to ask who it is that now proposes to violate the British North America Act ? But the pamphlet did not rest at this. The rights and privileges granted thirty years ago were defined in another part of this pamphlet	as	' the	same system	as prevailed in Ontario and Quebec.' After issuing this pamphlet, in which this strong appeal is made for separate schools, they proceeded to draw up a set of clauses. To provide for what ? According to the Prime Minister in his speech on the introduction of the Bill, it was to enable the minority to establish their own schools and to share in the public moneys as the law is to-day. A similar statement was made a few days later by the Minister of Justice, that they drew up these clauses to give effect to the provisions of the Act of 1875 and the conditions that are now in force in the Northwest Territories. Now, we are told by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Customs, the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and many others that the ordinances now in force in the Northwest Territories, for all practical purposes, simply provide for a national school system, and not for a separate school system in its recognized sense-that is, in the sense in which it prevails in Ontario and Quebec.
So we have this position, that, after issuing a pamphlet in favour of separate schools, they drew up a clause which did not provide for separate schools as they understood them, but simply provided for what was in practice a national school system. These four legal gentlemen drew up this clause which the Minister of Justice said was drawn up designedly to be ' so clear and simple that any man might understand it;' those were his very words. But a revelation came a few days later. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) returns and tells us that those clear and simple words have a deeper meaning, that they actually do provide for the same system as prevails in Ontario and Quebec, and in addition give, for the support of separate schools, a share of a $50,000,000 endowment which had been specially held in trust for public schools.
And these four legal gentlemen apparently never saw what they were embodying in this clause ! They believed all the time they were simply perpetuating the law as it exists at present. For the last three or four weeks there have been anxious ne-Mr. LAKE.
gotiations on the other side of the House, and they have finally agreed to lay the -blame on the poor draughtsman. These four gentlemen then took back the clauses they had drafted originally, and provided a substitute which in the opinion of the member for Brandon really does provide for the schools now in existence and nothing more. The Prime Minister in introducing the amended clauses explained that the objections to the original clauses were that they were ' too broad and too vague, and if adopted would create confusion instead of certainty.' Remember these were the very clauses which we were told were to be so clear and simple that any man could understand them. The Prime Minister told us that the amended clauses simply embody the law of the country which has been in force for thirteen or fourteen years ; but I would remind the House that the right hon. gentleman said the same thing in reference to the original clauses. The Minister of Finance says that the present clauses continue for ever the school system which now exists, and the Minister of Customs explained how simple it all was, and he told us which of the different clauses of the territorial ordinances were affected by this Bill. If the Minister of Customs were a lawyer he would have been a little more careful, but having had experience of the difficulties of four of the leading legal gentlemen of the cabinet, some of us began to think a layman's opinion might throw some light upon the question. However that may be, the member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) showed us pretty conclusively the other day that there is more behind this matter than we have been led to believe, and that the separate school clause of 1875 is re-enacted in its entirety by the present legislation, and that for all practical purposes the substituted clauses are just the same as the original. Is it any wonder that parliament and the country are extremely suspicious as to what there is underlying all this, and that we want to know distinctly and definitely what this proposal really does mean ? We find the very peculiar circumstance that the most violent advocates of separate schools as well as the most violent opponents of separate schools on the other side of the House, are, one and all of them urging us to accept these educational clauses. We are told by one set of these gentlemen that they strongly approved of these clauses because they would tend to disminish the number of separate schools and I suppose, finally do away with them altogether. By another set we are urged in impassioned language to vote for the clauses and give the Roman Catholic minority their rights ; we are told that there is a religious principle at stake and that no country can be great and can endure without separate schoole. Why all this flood of eloqu-

ence if the Bill does not provide for separate schools as the people of Quebec understand them ? Why is it necessary to change the British North America Act to curtail the liberties of a free people, if we are only contending for a shadow ? It seems to me to be an extraordinarily foolish thing to invade provincial rights and to create so much ill-feeling if it is only for a shadow. Mr. Speaper, it is not yet too late for the government to retrace its steps. I trust that the Prime Minister and his government will withdraw these objectionable educational clauses and leave this matter in the hands of the people of the Northwest. I can assure the right hon. gentleman that he will make no mistake in trusting to the generosity of the people of the new provinces. The gentlemen on the Treasury benches and their supporters have been mistaken in their estimate of the character of the people of the Territories. I can tell them that the people of the Northwest are a just and broadminded people ; I can tell them that the free air of the prairies has inspired the people with as great or a greater love for freedom than possibly exists down here. The people of the Territories will not be driven, and will not be coerced. It is foolish to try to coerce them ; trust them and they will show a gentle and a generous spirit in those matters.
It is a most extraordinary thing that the member for Brandon should have been ignorant of the proposed action of the government in regard to the educational clauses of the Bill. No man has occupied a more prominent position than he on the question of separate schools. It is incredible that he did not have this matter under his close attention and consideration or that he did not take steps to keep the Prime Minister well informed as to his views. However, he appears not only to have been kept in ignorance of the whole thing, but to have kept himself in blissful ignorance too. The reference of the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) to the bolting of the government supporters on this question and his comparison of it to the bolting of a flock of sheep reminds me of the experience of an old friend of mine who was taking his flock to a new ground where the pasturage was exceptionally good. The shepherd found he had to take his sheep through a narrow and difficult passage right in the centre of which was a large boulder. The sheep took alarm at the boulder and began to bolt in every direction. The shepherd had however a very sagacious old bell-wether in his flock and a brilliant idea struck him. He gave the bell-whether a kick behind and sent him off with the rest. When the sheep got well away he rolled the stone over so that it did not look the same as before. The plan answered to perfection, he soon got the flock together again and they safely
negotiated this difficult place led by the old bell-wether. iBut, Mr. Speaker, it was just the same old boulder which he had simply rolled over and changed in appearance.
It was argued th other day by the member lor Brandon that it would be a breach of faith with the people who come into this country expecting a separate school system if this remedial legislation were not passed in advance, so to speak ; and if a law were not put on the statute-book to retain a separate school system in this country for ail time to come. The Minister of the Interior is responsible for the immigration pamphlets which are issued by his department. I have here one of those pamphlets, and I am told there are others, in which the system of education which exists in the Northwest Territories is set forth as entirely different from what he stated it to be. Further than that, I believe he has induced to come into this country a very large number of settlers from the United States, in the belief that they were coming into a country where a public school system existed. These are the words of one of these pamplets :	* The
schools are non-sectarian and are national in character.' How about the rights of those people whom the Minister of the Interior has induced to come into this country upon such a definite promise as that ?
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I'have already occupied the time of the House at far too great a length. I appeal to this House to endorse the amendment which has been moved by the leader-of the opposition, and to subscribe to the principle stated therein, which is the very principle upon which confederation was accomplished. That resolution sets forth that ' subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, the legislatures of the new provinces are entitled to and should enjoy full powers of provincial self-government, including the power to exclusively make laws in relation to education.' If this principle is not embodied in the legislation now before the House, and if the rights of the new provinces are restricted and limited, then I wish to say, so far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as the Northwest is concerned, that the question is not settled finally. We shall take such further action, constitutional action, as we see tit ; and I am mistaken in the spirit of the men of the Northwest if they do not finally secure their full rights in this matter. The Prime Minister in his speech has appealed to precedent in regard to education and in regard to public lands. In each case the precedent which he has selected has been the exception to the general rule. He proposes to use these precedents to curtail the rights of the people of the new provinces. In British history, Mr. Speaker, it was not for such a purpose that precedent was ever quoted. Let me remind the right hon. gentleman of some lines of Tennyson,

which give the true meaning of precedent, and let me ask him to apply them to this great and progressive Canada, with its future to a great extent what he now chooses to make it :
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where freedom broadens slowly down Prom precedent to precedent.
Canada cannot achieve the great destiny before her unless all her provinces are on an equality, unless all her people have equal rights and equal privileges. Do we appeal in vain to the former champions of provincial rights?
Mr. WALTER SCOTT moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.25 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Fkiday, March 31, 1905.