1905-04-03

Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I rise to a question of privilege to call attention to a [DOT]misrepresentation of my remarks of last Thursday evening, which appeared in the * Globe ' newspaper on the 31st of March. I spoke at such a late hour that I can readily understand that some mistakes might have crept in, and I am quite sure the representatives of that paper will be very glad to make the correction. In the ' Globe ' report I am credited with having said that I approved of the teaching of religious doctrine in the schools, although I regretted the opportunity was not always availed of. My actual remarks were ' that doctrine and dogma should be kept to the church and to the home.' The report went on to say :
Although many Catholics sent their children to the public schools, many desired to have separate schools.
I did not express any such opinion in the remarks I made.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 45) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonald.
Mr. HAGGART.: When that Bill was before the Railway Committee, there was an understanding that the Minister of Railways was to make a statement with reference to It.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is the intention of the government to introduce a Bill to secure to the Intercolonial Railway running rights over the Canada Atlantic. We thought it preferable- not to do it while amending this Bill, but to introduce legislation for that specific purpose.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Should not the two propositions be before the House at the same time ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think not. I said that the government would consider the matter, and had come to the conclusion to bring down a separate Act for the purpose of giving the Intercolonial Railway running rights over the Canada Atlantic. We thought it better to do it this way than by an amendment to this Bill.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I should think it would be very proper for the House to be made acquainted with the terms and conditions upon which those running rights are to be granted before we proceed with the discussion of this Bill and the Bill following. Of course, the right hon. gentleman has made a very informal and not a very full announcement. What we were led" to expect from the Minister of Railways was something of a different nature, something which would give the House pretty definite information as to what the exact proposals of the government are in that regard, and I would think that it would be only right and proper, under the circumstances, that we should have the information before this Bill goes out of committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: Before the third reading ?


Robert Laird Borden: No ; before this Bill and the following one go out of committee. That is the course which has been observed on other occasions under similar conditions.


Wilfrid Laurier: What more definite statement does my hon. friend want ?


Mr.  A. I.@: We would like exactly the terms and conditions and the arrangements, generally speaking.
Mr, W. F. MACLEAN. How are you to get on to' the Canada Atlantic from Montreal ? There are thirty miles from Montreal to the eastern terminal of the Canada Atlantic. How do you propose to connect them ? In the Railway Committee the Finance Minister promised that an explanation would be given in that committee. It was not forthcoming there, but we were promised it in this House.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: I would like to point out to my hon. friend from South York that he is hardly accurate when he says there was to have been a statement made by the Minister of Railways before the Railway Committee.


William Findlay Maclean: The Finance Minister promised one.


Mr. FIELDING.: I have no recollection of discussing the question at all.


William Findlay Maclean: According to my recollection, we had that assurance from the hon. minister.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not speak on it at all.


William Findlay Maclean: I asked the Minister of Finance for a statement, and he said that before the Ball went through the committee it would be given. Of course, I am very glad to accept his statement ; but I am under the impression that we had that promise in the Railway Committee and also in the House.


Mr. OSLER.: The Minister of Railways in the Railway Committee made the distinct promise that in this House he would make a statement.


Wilfrid Laurier: Under the cir cumstances, I will ask the committee to rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 99) to incorporate the Title Guarantee and Trust Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Mr. FOSTER.: Before you take up section 9, it seems to me that whoever is responsible for the Bill should give us a little information with regard to it on two points. Have we been in the habit of incorporating trust companies with these powers and how do these powers compare with those given trust companies which are incorporated by a provincial legislature, for instance, by the legislature of Ontario? In the province of Ontario, I know, legislation with regard to trust companies has been pretty stringent and somewhat exclusive ; in fact the late government adopted a policy of not incorporating for the present any larger number of trust companies than were there already. Their powers in Ontario are limited, and the restrictions put upon them are very considerable. Now I see you make a trust company here, then you add to that another function, that of guaranteeing titles in a very wide manner. I should like to have more information.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman who is in charge of the Bill (Mr. Campbell) is not present at the moment. The matter was considered by the committee, and they found that this Bill was in conformity with the charters already granted by this parliament. I have not had in mind so much the practice of the Ontario legislature, but as this is entirely within the lines of charters already outstanding granted by this parliament, I see no objection to it.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister mention the names of trust companies which have been incorporated by the Dominion and are now doing business in the Dominion, that have these powers ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Royal Trust Company is one I have in my mind, it is a very large company originating in Montreal, partly made up, I think, of gentlemen connected with the Bank of Montreal and other large institutions. They have, I am advised, all the powers that are given to this company.


George Eulas Foster: The Royal Trust Company is rather a peculiar one, made up, as the Finance Minister has said, in part of the gentlemen connected with the Bank of Montreal or being an adjunct to that bank, although I believe it has large trust powers, But the trouble is this, that if capital puts itself into trust companies under a provincial corporation, of the province of Ontario for instance, and then pays its license fee to work in other provinces, there ought to be some care taken that this parliament should not step in and give extraordinary powers to a trust company which in the work of competition and business, would Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
give it a large advantage over the trust companies which are incorporated by a province and which cannot get more than certain powers. Unless there is some very good reason that I do not see, it oyght not to be done.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no special desire to press this Bill. But I fail to see that we are obliged, in passing Dominion legislation, to be governed by what may be done in any of the provinces. We might learn something of course from provincial legislation, if we can ; but if we grant these privileges to one company why surely we must be prepared to grant them to other companies under equal conditions, and that is exactly what we are doing. Whether we are giving more or less powers than have been granted by a provincial legislature, is a question which I am not prepared to discuss. nor do I think it is very important to us.


George Eulas Foster: Well, what will be the distinction between titles and trust companies, for instance ?


William Stevens Fielding: I would call the bon. gentleman's attention to section 18 which reads :
The powers and authorities hereby granted to the company shall not have any force or effect in any province in any respect in which they are inconsistent with the laws of such province.
I do not know whether that covers entirely the point my hon. friend has in mind.


George Eulas Foster: Would that cover the point I raised, that is, would it act as a bar to their doing business in the province of Ontario? For instance, suppose it is true that there are no trust companies incorporated by the province of Ontario that have these powers joined to a trust company, before you incorporate this company, does that section have the effect of making it impossible in the province of Ontario for them to carry out their business, quoad the guarantee of titles and the like of that ? If that be the meaning, it meets the objection that I raised.


William Stevens Fielding: I would not like to say that it goes as far as that. That is quite a debatable point. But I would take that to mean that the general law of the province with regard to trusts, for example, would have to prevail ; this company only could do business subject to the general law.
Section 8 as amended, agreed to.
On section 9,-business of company ; guarantee of titles to property ; ' title insurance.'


George Eulas Foster: Would the promoter of the Bill explain that clause and the modus operandi ?


William Stevens Fielding: The promoter of the Bill is not present, I do not know if he has in-

structed any hon. gentleman to represent him. I do not want to press the Bill unduly.


George Eulas Foster: I am sorry to object, but it is getting too much of a habit to go on with a Bill in the absence of its promoter, and then to suppose that out of courtesy it is going through. These are important points that, may be all right, but we would like to discuss this Bill a little. I suggest that the Bill better not be gone on with until the promoter is here.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not concerned in the promotion of the Bill. If the hon. gentleman wishes it to stand over I have no objection. But I do not see any objection to that clause ; It is necessary in order to carry out the business of title Insurance. This section corresponds with section 2 of an Act of 1903. with respect to the Dominion Burglary Guarantee Company. There is nothing new in it : it is to enable them to do this class of business, if there is no objection to their doing that class of business ill Canada. It is done elsewhere to a considerable extent, and only to a small extent in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: In what way is this business carried on ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: This is purely the guaranteeing of land titles. These are powers that will never be exercised because nobody will consent to pay anything for this guarantee. It is quite worthless, but if the committee think well to pass this clause it is quite a proper and necessary clause. This is a clause governing companies which guarantee the validity of titles.


George Eulas Foster: For a money consideration?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, they issue a policy.


Mr. SPROULE.: The danger of it is that there is the* possibility of it being put in the power of certain parties to go out amongst the people and create a suspicion in regard to their titles, thus securing from these people the business of guaranteeing their titles. A great many people know very little about law or about the validity of titles, and it would be the easiest thing in the world to make these people believe that there was some danger and consequently some advantage to be gained by having the company guarantee their titles, the people paying a consideration for it.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a description of business that is known very well in the United States where it is carried on quite extensively. Any person desiring to purchase property-property, perhaps, of a very great value-will place the matter in the hands of one of these companies which has always on hand a staff of experts in regard to titles. They examine the title and then for a small consideration they guarantee out of the capital of the company that the
title is a valid one ana if afterwards any defect in the title arise it is made good under the terms of the policy which the company issues. It is really a description of insurance. It is the insuring of titles, iney examine the titles just as an insurance company examines an individual whose life it insures, and then they come to a conclusion as to what premium should be demanded for insuring the title. Then, they proceed to issue a policy by which the title of the intending purchaser is insured against all possible claims of all possible persons. 1 do not think that the provisions of such laws in the United States have ever been found to bring about any injustice or difficulty. I should be inclined to think that in a province where the system of land titles is good the company would have very little business. I am sure they would have very little business in any province where the Torrens system of titles exists, because after all this is simply a private Torrens system. Instead of being insured by the government as you are by the Torrens system, you are insured by a private company which undertakes that work for a consideration.


George Eulas Foster: This is simply combining the functions of an insurance society with those of a trust company. The question might be well considered as to whether that adds to the security. Certainly it does not with the trust company. The j guaranteeing of titles would be a bond of indebtedness upon the society or the company. Their capital would be liable to it. Trust funds and their investments have always been hedged around with the most scrupulous exactness and it has been considered that everything of a speculative or hazardous nature should be eliminated. Our provincial law prescribes the kinds of securities in which trust company funds can be invested, and they can only be invested in such securities as are not of a speculative or hazardous kind. You join with a trust company which has a very important and responsible duty to perform, and with the same capital that carries it is an insurance business which Is much more speculative, much more liable to loss and contingencies of risk. You subject the capital that ought to be very closely hedged as a guarantee and bond for trust funds to the more or less speculative calls of an insurance company. I can quite see that if the very greatest care is taken that none but good titles would be guaranteed and that consequently the loss will be small, you could use that sort of an argument for joining these businesses together. The provincial authorities have only gone to the length of permitting a trust and loan business to be carried on together, and unless good reasons can be shown for combining a guarantee and insurance business, I think it would be well

to consider the question before passing this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hou. gentleman (Mr. Foster) will read section 12 he will see that provision is made for keeping the tiust moneys absolutely separate and apart from the other line of business.


George Eulas Foster: But the capital of the company would be liable for it all.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, that is so. But there is every precaution that we can take by legislation, short of separating the two businesses, that the guarantee business and the business of a trust company shall be conducted on sound principles and that all the moneys received for the purposes of the trust company shall be invested separately and apart from the other branch of the business.


George Eulas Foster: Would it be in accordance with the policy of the Finance Department to give a trust business into the hands of an insurance company ? Would the hon. member incorporate an insurance company and add to the powers of that insurance company the powers of a trust company ?


William Stevens Fielding: there is a precedent for doing that to the extent to which it is done in this Bill. It has already been done to the extent to which this Bill proposes to unite two branches of business together and in the same way that this Bill proposes to do it.	'


George Eulas Foster: Has it ever been the policy of the department to add to the powers of an insurance company the powers which will enable it to become a trust company ? I think you absolutely prohibit that to-day. But here you are in this way really doing it. You say you are constituting a trust company but you are constituting an insurance company and you are adding to that insurance company the powers of a trust company. It seems to me that the two functions are not in accordance with each other and that they ought to be separated.


William Stevens Fielding: It is in accordance with a precedent already established. How far it is a wise precedent is a matter of debate. But we have thought that inasmuch as other companies have obtained these powers there would be no objection to this Bill.


George Eulas Foster: Only one other company.


William Stevens Fielding: Besides the Royal there is another one. There was a Bill passed in 1904 constituting a company called the Real Estate Guarantee and Investment Company. Therefore, we have a precedent for it. It is a question whether it is wise to permit these businesses to be united, but the House and the committee that investigated this matter have thought that in this instance Mr. FOSTER.
there is no objection to uniting these two businesses.


George Eulas Foster: I would not have as much objection to joining the real estate business with insurance in the way of insuring titles, because they are cognate subjects, but when you propose to join an insurance, trust and loan company, I think you are joining two matters which are a long way apart, and I can see where it is not wise because you add a risky business to a business where there ought not to be the least shadow of risk allowed.


William Stevens Fielding: It has never been the policy of the department to join a fire or life insurance company with a trust company. This particular branch of insurance is the only branch which has been associated with a trust company.


George Eulas Foster: I think it is a dangerous piece of business.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: The hon. minister says it has not been the custom in the other matter. Has it been the custom in this matter?


William Stevens Fielding: In several cases.
On section 10-company authorized to transact other business ; subsection (c), trustee.


George Eulas Foster: This section provides that the company may accept certain trusts. Some words have been added in committee. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, what those words are and how they come in ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The words added follow the phrase ' and perform the duties or of such offices or trusts.' and the words added are ' as fully as and completely as any person'so appointed could do.'


George Eulas Foster: ' So appointed.' By whom?


William Stevens Fielding: It gives them all the powers of an individual.


George Eulas Foster: An individual may b3 appointed to do anything. But the expression here is ' so appointed.' If it means ' appointed ' by a court or other judicial authority, I could understand it.


William Stevens Fielding: The section provides that the company may :
(c) acce-pt and execute all such trusts of every description as are entrusted to it or which are committed or transferred to it by any order, judgment or decree of any court, aud may execute the office of executor, administrator, trustee, accountant, arbitrator, adjuster, auditor, receiver, assignee, liquidator, sequestrator, guardian, curator, or committee of a lunatic, and perform the duties of such offices or trusts as fully and completely as any person so appointed could do.
It means that this corporation may do anything by virtue of an order of the court that an individual could do.

ilr. FOSTER. I do not see that. It says that the company may execute trusts committed to it by a decree of that court, and may execute ' these other offices.' This word ' and ' seems to indicate that these offices are outside of the judgment or decree of any court.


William Stevens Fielding: But which one of these functions might not properly be performed by a company as well as by an individual '( Take them in order :	Executor, administrator, trustee, and so on. It simply means that in each of these eases, what an individual might do this corporation may do. I do not think there is any danger in it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the criticism was exactly on that point. It struck me that the words ' so appointed ' were not very apt, that there should be some other expression as, 'appointed to such office' because ' so appointed ' should refer to some previous words concerning appointment, but there is no previous expression of that kind. The words ' appointed to such office ' would make the meaning clearer.


William Stevens Fielding: That does improve it, I believe. I move that the subsection be amended so as to read ' as fully and completely as any person appointed to such office could do.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: I would call the minister's attention to lines 43 to 46 of this section. It says : ' and in all cases where application is made to any court, judge or prothonotary for appointment to any such office or trust, such court, judge or prothonotary may appoint the company.' In some provinces, at least, prothonotaries have no such power ; I do not know if any such power might be here implied. On the other hand, there are officers who have such powers but are not here named, for instances, Masters in Chancery, or in my own province of Nova Scotia, Masters of the Supreme Court. I would suggest that we modify the section so as to read something like this : ' In all cases where such application is made to any eourt, judge, officer or person having authority to make appointment to such office or trust, such court, judge, officer or person may appoint '-and so on.


William Stevens Fielding: The drafting of the Bill was probably made with a view to the proceedings in the province from which it comes. But, as the Bill is general in its application, it should read so as to carry out that idea. I do not think the draftsman of the Bill will object to the suggestion. I move :
That in subsection ' c ' the words ' or prothonotary for ' he stricken out and the following words substituted ' officer or person having authority to make.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11,
George Eulas Foster: 
Mr. BRODEUR.: In our Civil Code there is a provision with regard to privileges and hypothecs.' but the word 'privileges' seems to have no meaning in the clause and should be stricken out.


George Eulas Foster: What is a hypothec?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A mortgage.


George Eulas Foster: Is it a first mortgage?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not necessarily.


George Eulas Foster: Do you think it wise to invest trust' funds in any but first mortgages; if it is only a lien it may be a very uncertain kind of security.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The law of our province provides that trust funds shall be invested only in first mortgages.


George Eulas Foster: If that is the case, then why do you not strike out the words ' privileges and hypothecs?'


William Stevens Fielding: I should think there would be no objection to that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edmund Boyd Osler: You say in this clause that the trustees shall see that the security is 'ample.' That word 'ample' is an extraordinary word to use there.


William Stevens Fielding: It is a word used in a previous Act.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps it would make it more binding on the trustees if they had to see that the security was ample. The rule in trust funds is that 50 per cent is the utmost that should be taken, but of course on some properties you might lend 60 per cent of the value and it would be safer than to lend 5u per cent on other mortgages.


William Stevens Fielding: The practice in previous charters has not been to specify any percentage, but to insert the word 'ample.' We might hear the objections to these different clauses and still leave the Bill in committee so that the promoters may be heard.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is very important that trust funds shall be invested only on first-class security, and I am much in accord with the idea suggested by the member for North Toronto. I think we should not connect the insurance business with the trust business. At all events, the provisions of such Bills as this should be made subject to

the law in each province with regard to the Investment of trust funds.


Mr.  A. I.@: When we come to section 18 I infend to move to insert these words which are found in some other charters:	-
The powers and authorities hereby granted to the company shall be exercised subject to the laws of any province in that behalf.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think there would be any objection to inserting these words.


Mr.   W.@: F, MACLEAN. I want to tell the Minister of Finance that he will soon have to give his attention to some kind of legislation regulating the trust funds of insurance companies, and especially life insurance companies. He will need to legislate with the view of getting a higher grade of securities for these funds and insisting on more frequent publication of the investments. We need a law that any insurance company making an investment of any special fund to the amount of, say $100,000, ought to make it public within a month after the transaction. It is a question in which a good deal of interest is at present being taken. Only to-day I was talking with a gentleman who is rather well posted on the subject and he said that that was one question which would have to be taken up at a very early date. I referred to it incidentally the other day and I am again bringing it up now for it is a matter which is well worthy the attention of the minister, namely the revision of the law in regard to trust funds of insurance companies and some method of raising the standard of these investments. There should be a reform also in the direction of the publication, at frequent dates, of any large investment made by any insurance company so that the policy-holders who are really the ones interested in these great trust funds, should know the way that money is invested.


William Stevens Fielding: While it is rather broadening the question, I may say that my difficulty so far has been in keeping the standard up to the point at which we now have it placed, because insurance companies have frequently made representations to me that our restrictions in regard to investments are so sc .'ere that they cannot keep their funds profitably invested under them, and in consequence they are not able to offer as good terms in some cases as are offered by other companies with wider liberty of investment. I have so far resisted the movement to make the standard any lower than it is at present. When we restrict the investing power it follows that they get a low rate of interest.


George Eulas Foster: Supposing that an insurance company from the United States is doing business in Canada. The United States Insurance Company has a certain Mr. BRODEUR.
limit of investment. Is that limit larger or more extensive than the limit which is accorded to a Canadian company ?


William Stevens Fielding: The investment powers of American companies are as a rule broader that the investing powers of Canadian companies and the British companies have also broader powers. The Canadian companies complain that they have to compete with American and British companies on which the restrictions are not so great so that these outside companies are able to earn higher rates of interest. However, the main interest after all is to see that the funds are safely and wisely invested, and I have had to differ with some companies in the last few years which desired to have the restrictions removed.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not think that the minister would say that the class of investments of the Canadian companies is equal to that of the British or American companies. ^


William Stevens Fielding: They have powers which we do not grant ; how they exercise that power is another question.


William Findlay Maclean: 
George Eulas Foster: I suppose that the first part of this subsection is all right.
In such securities as are specified by the terms of any trust,

A man puts his money into the hands of a trust company and he has a right to specifj' how it shall -be invested, and the. company should have the power to Invest it in such securities as he thinks fit. It then reads

or by the order, judgment or decree of a
court, judge or prothonotary.
I do not know why the prothonotary is included.


William Stevens Fielding: I am informed that in Quebec the word ''prothonotary' has a special meaning and that he has powers that he does not possess in any other province.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He is the clerk of the court, the same as the clerk of the court in the high Court of Justice. For example he exercises the power of appointing a tutor or guardian, instead of having the appointment made by a judge. I may say that this company is not likely to do much business as a tutor or guardian in Quebec because under our law no corporation is permitted to act as a tutor or guardian unless

it is specially authorized to do so by the legislature. I know it is done iu some cases, because a Bill was passed a few years ago in the interests of the Toronto General Trusts Corporation giving that corporation the power to be appointed tutor in the province of Quebec. The prothonotary has the power of making some appointments of that kind.


Edmund Boyd Osler: He would be no judge of securities, would he ?


Mr.   BRODETTR@: Generally when the prothonotary acts in that way he sends valuators to ascertain the value of the property.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That would come under the duties of the judge. This gives him power to order investments.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As a matter of fact it goes very far.


Robert Laird Borden: How would it do to strike out the word ' prothonotary' and say :
Other lawful authority in respect of any trust.	.
Because I think the words

Order, judgment or decree of a court.

should have application only to the
particular judgment in Quebec.


William Stevens Fielding: I think if you say that it should be left to the court or judge you leave it to a responsible party.


Robert Laird Borden: Very well, that suits me, except that I think vou should put in :
With respect to any trust,
What I mean is that you do not want to assume that a court or judge is to have a general power of fixing the class of securities or trusts generally. The judge may have power under the terms of a conveyance or under the terms of a will to designate certain securities !as thosei in which investments may be made. You do not want any more than that here. It would do to have it:
By the order, judgment or decree of a court or judge in respect of any trust.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That, as a question of fact, it should not be left to the discretion of the judge. The lawyer declares in what mortgage or in what security the money is to be invested, and I think we should not leave to the judge or privy court the authority to extend that to something else. I think it would be advisable then to strike out the last words, all the words after the word ' trust.' _


Mr. B. L. BORDEN.: Yes, I am inclined to agree.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Fielding moves :
To strike out all the words after ' trust ' in subsection ' d ' (now subsection ' c ') of section 11
Subsection as amended, agreed to.
On subsection 2 of section 11,
Nothing in this section shall prevent the company from holding securities of any other kind wrhich form or are part of any trust estate *which comes into its hands, and it may hold such securities subject to the trusts and legal obligations attached thereto, but in case of the realization of any portion thereof the proceeds shall be invested as herein directed unless the will, deed, order or instrument creating the trust has provided otherwise.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The only question about that,,is that if funds get into the hands of a trust company without a will or without a trust, for instance, in an estate having varied securities that clause enables the trust company to hold the securities for all time to come. I know that in the case of the Toronto General Trusts Company, at present, if they have securities of this'kind in their hands, they consider that they are bound by the law to convert them in a year or two into trust securities. But this gives them discretionary power to hold any securities that come into their hands for all time. They are not bound to apply the trust law to an estate of the kind I have referred to that comes into their hands.
On section 11,
The moneys and securities of any such, trust shall always be kept distinct from those of the company, and in separate accounts, and so marked for each particular trust as always to be distinguished from any other in the registers and other books of account to be kept by the company, so that at no time shall trust moneys form part or be mixed with the general assets of the company ; and the company shall, in the receipt of rents and in the overseeing and management of trusts and other property, keep distinct records and accounts of all operations connected therewuth ; provided that in the management of the money and property held by the company as trustee, or in any other official capacity, under the powers conferred by this Act, the company may, unless the authority making the appointment otherwise directs, invest the trust money in the manner provided by section 10 of this Act" in a general, trust fund of the company ; provided, however, that the total amount of money of any one trust invested in the said general trust fund shall not, at any time exceed three thousand dollars.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that the usual power ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is iu other charters. It means that only small fractions of trust moneys may be gathered together and put into one fund.


Robert Laird Borden: The only danger is that to that extent it prevents the property being ear-marked and followed in case of necessity.


William Stevens Fielding: It could only refer to small matters.


Mr.  A. I.@: Individually, but they might be large in the aggregate.


George Eulas Foster: Trust companies are popularly not supposed to take deposits, but they may take moneys and guarantee them. They may take them for investment on trust conditions. That becomes really a form of accepting deposits. If you make the limit $3,000, you may have a very large deposit business done under this head. That will be facilitated by the fact that the company will not have to keep the money separate, but they may go into the common fund. It practically makes it possibly to do pretty nearly an ovef the counter deposit business.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13, 14 and 15, agreed to.
On section 16,
The company may invest any moneys forming part of its own capital, or reserve or accumulated profit thereon, in any of the securities mentioned in section 11 of this Act, or, in the bonds or debentures of any incorporated building society or loan company, or on the security of real estate in Canada or of any interest in such real estate, or on the security of the debentures, bonds, stock and other securities of any chartered bank or company incorporated by or under the authority of the parliament of Canada, or of the legislature of any former, present or future province of Canada, as the directors deem expedient.
George Eulas Foster: That is a pretty broad clause.


William Stevens Fielding: It is the usual one.


George Eulas Foster: What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) mean by ' usual ' ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is the same as is found in other charters.	[DOT]


George Eulas Foster: Which one, for instance V


William Stevens Fielding: The Consolidated Trust, passed in 1903.


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid that is an exception,-rather than the rule. There are loan companies and loan companies, there are building societies and building societies ; and, as has been well exemplified within t'ue last few years, in some cases they are as unsatisfactory security as you can well put your money in. If you are going to allow the company's capital, which is the security offered to those doing business with the company, to be invested indiscriminately in the bonds or debentures of building societies and loan companies, without fixing any minimum of capitalization, length of time in business or payment of dividends, you open tlie door very wide indeed. Thomas, Richard or Henry can get up a litttle stock company called a building or loan company and, under this section, it could be paid for Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
by the capital of the trust company. This is an important section, and I would like the minister to look into it.


William Stevens Fielding: Insurance companies are allowed to invest in these securities and we regard insurance investments as those concerning which the greatest care should be taken.


George Eulas Foster: There is the difficulty. Without justifying the investments allowed to an insurance company, you use the law on that subject to justify the application of the same to the trust companies. But nothing should be more carefully guarded than trust companies investments. These concerns have the estates of widows and orphans, and they carry trusts for minors, and are always considered concerns whose securities should be very strictly guarded. The capital of the trust company is what it offers prospective patrons as a guarantee that the business confided to it will be properly secured. Buit if this capital may be invested in loan and building societies' stock, with all the ups and downs to which the securities of some of these concerns are liable, it seems to me you take away the security which that capital stock would otherwise give. You may say :	Let the
widow and the orphan examine the affairs of the company and learn how its capital is invested. But they will not do that-they liave not the means to do it. They take it practically on the faith of its capital and its business directorate.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: According to my recollection of the general law of some of the provinces one range of sucurities is allowed for the trust funds in the hands of the companies, but a wider range is allowed for the investment of its own capital.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that provided for in any statute of Canada ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think it is called the Trust Companies' Act in Ontario.


George Eulas Foster: The minister will see what I am driving at. It is not enough to provide that the trusts funds shall be securely invested. The capital stock of the trust company is supposed to be in itself a security to those doing business with the company ; and by allowing too wide a range of investment, you may make this security worthless. I do not know quite how the law is. I believe there are lawyers who hold that a trust company has the right to invest its own capital as it pleases ; hut I know there are lawyers who very strongly advise against that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the law provides, as I believe the general law does in Ontario and special statutes do in Quebec, that the capital of a trust company-not the trust moneys placed in its hands-may be invested in securities such as are mentioned

here that would not be a very serious objection. But I admit there is much strength in the argument made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and I am inclined to think that we should, as much as possible, protect the moneys put iuto the hands of trust companies.


George Eulas Foster: I will not speak dogmatically on the point, but I think that these powers of investment of capital are largely regulated by the corporate powers given to each company, and that the general law does not specify. But, certainly, the act of incorporation of no trust company that X know of gives it power to invest its funds in definitely stated securities of this kind.


William Stevens Fielding: I think, that, as our intention is to let the Bill remain in committee, this might be regarded as one of the suspended clauses, and, let the promoter, after reading 'Hansard,' give attention to the suggestion that my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has offered.


Charles Marcil: Section 16 stands.
On section 17,
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize, the company to issue any note payable to the bearer thereof, or any promissory note intended to be circulated as money or as the note of a bank, or to engage in the business of banking or insurance, except as provided in section 9 hereof.


George Eulas Foster: That strengthens very much the argument I made at first. The Bill, by this, expressly says that it is dangerous to join insurance business and trust business together. Somebody wants to get a certain power, and has pressed for it. That power is given in the Bill, but we feel that we must guard ourselves to some extent at least, and so we add this clause to say that insurance shall only be done as provided in section 9. But the dictum is there, as plainly as can be, that it is dangerous to do insurance and trust business together.
On section IS,	.
The powers and authority hereby granted to the company shall not have any force or effect' in any province in any respect in which they are inconsistent with the laws of such province.


William Stevens Fielding: I believe my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has an amendment to suggest. As I heard it it seemed to be reasonable.


Robert Laird Borden: I propose to amend that section by inserting after the word ' company ' the words ' shall be exercised in any province subject to the laws of such province in that behalf, and.'


George Eulas Foster: If you put charters of incorporation there as well as laws, then you would make the thing safe. I do not think it is a matter of laws, though, not being a lawyer, I speak with diffidence. But I do
not think this has the least check ou the powers that are given here which is a charter of incorporation. You are giving a charter of incorporation to this company to do business with larger powers than any trust company in the province. You are joining insurance and trust business together, which no corporate charter in the province of Ontario authorizes. You should put in 'which are inconsistent with the charter of incorporation of trust companies, or with the laws of such province.'


William Stevens Fielding: That practically implies that we are going to make our legislation subordinate to the legislation of a province, and I do not think we should do that. We must judge for ourselves as to the merits of this legislation. But I do not think we should say, having first given a company powers, that it shall not be allowed to exercise those powers unless there is a general law of the province to the contrary.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I would be in favour of subjecting this legislation to the rights of the provinces, because I do not think we have a right to pass any law here which would grant larger powers to any corporation than they enjoy under provincial Acts. I know well that in our Quebec code there is a provision denying the corporations the exercise of certain powers, and in this Bill it is provided that such corporation may exercise those powers, which is certainly contrary to the disposition of our law. I am inclined to think also that we would have no right to give a corporation certain civil rights which they cannot exercise under the laws of the provinces ; otherwise those powers that we give those corporations would be absolutely contrary to the law. The only power we can exercise is to form a corporation, but that corporation must exercise its civil rights under the laws i of the province, and I think this provision I is a very good one.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the amendment ] of the leader of the opposition meets the difficulty.
' Mr. OSLER. I agree with the Finance Minister. I do not think it wise that we should be guided here by the Companies Acts in any province. Is not that covered by the fact that, I think, every company of this sort has to take out a license before it can do business in another province ? Now if this company has to take out a license in the province of Quebec, the province of Quebec won't give it a license unless it restricts its powers to make them conform with the laws of Quebec. In Ontario the same way, they won't give you a license except to carry out business subject to their rules. It seems to me that covers the point.


George Eulas Foster: That might cover the point if they did that. But there are var-

366a
ious reasons why that does not always take place. But the general grofind I think is a lair ground. It undoubtedly is the right of a province to create trust companies, and it therefore has power to make legislation. In the province of Ontario you have five or six trust companies which have put their monev into that business, and they have been kept down to very rigid conditions, as any person knows who is acquainted with these matters in that province. Under those conditions and with those powers these companies have gone on and done business. Now people come to this parliament and ask for powers as a trust company and they ask for powers greater than are granted by the province, they ask for powers which . are to be amalgamated with it and used conjointly, which are not allowed at all by the province, and are not allowed because of prudential considerations. Although we think a lot of our dignity and our superior powers, we ought to be very careful in giving these companies rights which are greater than the rights enjoyed by the Companies under chanters and Acts of the prothat was passed last year with regard to that company; I know that the National Trust Company was incorporated in Quebec, and I think another company.


John Graham Haggart: I would ask the Finance Minister if there is any arrangement made, or if there has been any correspondence with the local governments, regarding an agreement as to how far we shall exercise powers which interfere with civil rights. I know that Sir Oliver Mowat entered into correspondence with the late government, and we came to some understanding on the subject, and I thought perhaps that understanding might have been continued since. A clear cut ulnlerstanding was come to as to what subjects the Dominion government should deal with.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not aware that anything of the kind has occurred recently. It may be that there is correspondence in the department such as the hon. gentleman refers to-that is a matter for the Minister of Justice, who is not present. But I will inquire before the matter comes up again.
vinces.
On section 21,


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend will see that the laws of the various provinces might not be uniform. If we were to undertake to adapt ourselves to the laws of each province. we might have difficulty. Let us see that we do not grant powers which in themselves are unreasonable. But I do not think we can afford to be guided by what takes place in the provinces. We must be responsible for our legislation. So far as civil rights are concerned, nothing we can do here can create any civil right, which is exclusively within "the jurisdiction of a province and we could not, if we tried to, legislate with regard to civil rights. For instance, to dispose of trust funds is the business of a province, and we do not intend to invade that, and could not if we tried.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say that trust corporations which exist in the province of Ontario are applying to the legislature of Quebec for charters to do business in that province. One of the most important com-, pauies in Toronto came last year to get an Act of incorporation from Quebec, and requested specifically the rights which were denied by the general law. My impression, from reading the law. would be that we might create a corporation here, but we cannot give to that corporation civil powers which are denied to corporations in the different provinces. It would be no use for us to create corporations giving more powers than are permitted by the provincial law. It would be perhaps just as well for them to go to the provincial legislatures to get their powers. I know that has been done in my own province, it was done by the Toronto General Trusts Corporation, and I myself prepared the Bill by which they got their powers in Quebec. I have here the statute
The Companies Clauses Act, except sections 7, 18 and 39 thereof, shall apply to the company.


George Eulas Foster: TVhat are these ?


William Stevens Fielding: Section 7 relates to the directors, who are already dealt with in the Bill. Section 18 is a clause which requires that a certain percentage of the capital shall be paid up within a year. We have dealt with that already in the Bill. The next section is in regard to the use of the word ' Limited ', which is not insisted upon in the case of these insurance companies. The Bill, in accordance with the suggestion which has been made, will remain in committee. I want to add a clause. This Bill is in part an insurance Bill and in part a trust company Bill. As far as it may be an insurance Bill, it comes under the 'provisions of the general Act. which provides that the company shall be organized and commence business within two years or the charter fails. But, as respects the trust company part of the Bill, there is no such provision. In order to make it clear that the same provision shall apply in either case, I propose to add the following clause :
The charter of the company shall be forfeited if the company does not go into actual operation within two years after the passing of this Act.
I propose this section so that it will not be held that one part of the company is alive and the other part dead.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
George Eulas Foster: I suppose there will be no objection to this Bill standing over for ten days or so ?


George Eulas Foster: 


William Stevens Fielding: I would not care to say in the absence of the promoter. He must be the judge of that.


George Eulas Foster: I intend to send some copies of this Bill away.


William Stevens Fielding: I will call the attention of the promoter to the discussion which has taken place, and ask him to consider the matter. I have no right to say how long he wishes it to stand.



RICHMOND AND DRUMMOND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 103) respecting the Richmond and Drummond Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Tobin.
On the question : Shall the Bill be reported ?
William Stevens Fielding: This is one of the Bills for extending the time of insurance companies for organizing. We had a discussion in the House the other day on this subject, and I think the tendency of the House, and I may say the tendency of the committee which investigates these matters, is to discourage these extensions. I think every hon. member who is interested in these Bills should understand that unless an insurance company, or the people promoting it, have capitalists in sight ready to organize the company, they ought not to approach the House for a charter, and if they afterwards find that they cannot raise the money and they come for an extension, they should understand that such an extension should only be granted when special cause is shown. If this is generally understood, perhaps there' will be a little more care in the promotion of these Bills. The committee agreed to pass this Bill, but I think I am voicing the general feeling of the committee when I say that there is a very strong disinclination to grant these extensions from year to year. The same policy, I think, should be followed in reference to banks.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-1THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 125) to Incorporate the Crown Casualty Company of Canada.-Mr. Gervais.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LANCASTER-by Mr. Sam. Hughes 

asked :
1.	Who is the present contractor for mail transportation between Killarney and Little Current, Ontario, during the winter months ?
2.	What sum is paid for the same per week or per trip ?
3.	When will the present contract expire ?
4.	How many different persons handle mail matter at the Killarney, Ontario, post office,
and what are their respective names ; and have they all been sworn in as such servants ?
5.	Who is the present postmaster at Killarney, Ontario, and what is his salary ?
6.	Has the postmaster at Killarney reported irregularities in the winter mail service between Killarney and Little Current ? If so, how many such irregularities during the last two years ?
7.	W'hat action, if any, has been taken by the government in regard to the said irregularities?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Postmaster General).: 1.	Messrs. C. Noble and J. Lamorandiere, sureties for Michael Bernard.
2.	$9 a week.
3.	Oc the opening of navigation, 1905.
4.	The regulations of the department provide that only the postmaster and his sworn assistants are allowed to handle mail matter. The department at Ottawa does not keep record of assistant postmasters at small places, but inquiry will be made as to whether unauthorized persons have been allowed to transact post office work.
5	(a) J. Lamorandifire ; (b) salary, $120 ; forward allowance, $35; rent, $10.
6	and 7. No report of irregularities from the postmaster at Killarney received at the department.


MAILS-ASHCROFT, CARIBOO.
Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	Who was the mail contractor for the Ashcroft, Cariboo service in 1902 ?
2.	When did the contract expire, and what was paid therefor ?
3.	To whom has the contract been awarded since that, for what periods, and at what rate ?
4.	Have tenders been publicly called for in any or all cases of renewal ?


Rt.   H@: Ashcroft and Barkerville mail service. In 1897 tenders were invited for the above service or rather group of services.
On the 7th May, 1897, the then superintendent of the mail contract branch submitted a memo, showing the amounts of all tenders received both for a service under one contract and for the several sections of the main and side routes. The following is a list of the tenderers for the service as proposed under one contract, namely : Stephen Tingley, for British Columbia Express Company, $26,250; John G. Collins, Ashcroft, $36,S00; John Hamilton, Calgary, $33,450; Stephen Tingley, Ashcroft, $30,000.
The tenders submitted were considered excessive and efforts were made to have the amounts reduced. These efforts were unsuccessful and steps were taken to secure offers from individuals and firms in eastern Canada, with the result that on the 28th of May, 1897, an agreement was entered into with Mr. Joseph Power, of Toronto, at the rate of $23,000 per annum, to date from the 1st July, 3S97.
i



On the same date as the agreement with Power was entered into it was transferred to Messrs. Joseph Kilgour and Charles Miller, of Toronto, and on the 2nd June a further agreement was drawn up and executed by Kilgour and Miller.
The contract stood in the name of Messrs. Kilgour and Miller until 30th September, 1899, when it was assumed by the British Columbia Express Company, of which Joseph Kilgour is president and Charles Miller, solicitor, under a new four year contract), by whom it has been carried on to the present time. This contract was renewed on the 1st October, 1903. Tenders have not been invited since 1897.
The present contract rate is $23,250, whilst the original contract was for $23,000, the difference in payment being on account of increased services being performed by the contractors since they entered into their contract.


COLLECTIONS IN POST OFFICES-ASSESSMENT SYSTEM.
[Stage Direction]
Mr CHISHOLM-by Mr. Sam Hughes-asked :
1.	Referring to a statement made on the 27th of February last, by Honourable C. S. Hyman, on behalf of the Postmaster General, that there had been collected by assessment from the postmasters, mail clerks, and those handling the mails for the Dominion, the sum of $63,349.16, and that the losses so far as ascertained were $19,909.51, leaving a balance of profit of $45,992.68, how much of this loss of $19,909.51 was caused by the postmasters alone ? and what is the amount of loss by said postmasters alone in each of the provinces of the Dominion?
2.	Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to continue this system of assessment ? If so, will they reduce the assessments to meet the requirements of the actual losses ?
3.	Is the same assessment made on a postmaster whose salary is $500 a year as on a postmaster whose salary is $1,500 a year ? If so, why ?
1U:. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Postmaster General):
1.	Statement of losses by provinces on account of postmasters made good out of post office guarantee fund :
Ontario	$ 315 69
Quebec	
343	19Nova Scotia	
113	25New Brunswick	
36	04Prince Edward Island....	15	44Manitoba	Northwest Territories....	264	33British Columbia	
2,686	44Yukon	
50	00
[Stage Direction]
2.	Yes. The department's policy is to conduct the system on safe lines, and will increase or reduce the rate of assessment as experience appears to demand.
3.	No. The amount of insurance is based upon the revenue of the office, not the
Wilfrid Laurier: salary of the postmaster, in accordance with the following scale :
' Every accounting postmaster, the revenue of whose office is under $2,000 a year, is required to give security to the extent of $800. Where the revenue exceeds $2,000 a year, but is less than $5,000, the insurance required is $1,200. Where it exceeds $5,000 but is less than $10,000 a year, the insurance required is $1,600. Where it exceeds $10,000 a year, but is less than $15,000, the insurance required is $2,000. Where it exceeds $15,000 but is less than $25,000, the insurance required is $2,500. Where the revenue exceeds $25,000, except in the cities of Montreal and Toronto, the insurance required is $3,000. In the case of the cities of Montreal and Toronto, the insurance required is $5,000. Each postmaster of a non-accounting post office is required to give $200 security, and if the estimated revenue of his office does not exceed $100 a year, it is optional with him to give bonds or to accept the assessment system.


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. 09) to esta-lish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. Borden thereto.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: Mr. Speaker. After hearing the very full discussion on this Bill by members on both sides of the House ; a discussion from a constitutional standpoint, the standpoint of public policy and from the standpoint of political exigencies by some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, it is not with the idea that I can add anything of a very original character that I propose for a short time to continue the debate. However, being a western man ; a resident of Manitoba for the past 22 years, quite naturally I take a great interest in anything pertaining to the welfare of our great western heritage, and my ideas are not so provincial that I desire to limit that interest to matters mainly connected with the province of my adoption. In looking over the history of our country I think there are few of us but must admit, in the light of past experience, that there are some things that we might very well improve upon, had we the drafting of our constitution anew. The great fathers of confederation who in their united wisdom consolidated into one mighty whole the numerous provinces of this splendid Dominion are deserving of every eulogium that can possibly be bestowed on them. They had many intricate and delicate questions to cope with, prejudices to overcome, rights and privileges to safeguard and protect, divers views to harmonize-and all honour

to them for the successful manner in which they accomplished their difficult task. But of what use is experience if you do not profit by it? And in the granting of a new constitution to these baby provinces in the westi we should be careful to avoid the pitfalls of the past, to improve where improvement is possible upon existing legislation and to start those new provinces unhampered in their career, by any obnoxious restrictions that can be a source of vexation, turmoil and strife amongst the mixed population inhabiting that part of the Dominion. Some of these people are our fellow Canadians from the older provinces ; some are our fellow British subjects from England, Scotland and Ireland, some come from the more advanced European races and many come from the republic to the south. All these classes of settlers at any rate come from countries where they have been in the enjoyment of the greatest amount of constitutional liberty and they will look for and expect the same liberty in their new homes. We are therefore legislating at the present time not merely for existing conditions but for the whole future of that country. We can afford, nay it is our duty, it is an imperative duty that we should deal not only justly, but generously in starting these new provinces housekeeping on their own account. There may have been reasons of a financial character that prevented this Dominion from dealing with some of the other provinces, upon their entering into confederation, with equal generosity, but because of that lack of liberty and generosity repeated demands have been made on the treasury of this country by those provinces and we should guard against anything of that kind in the initial dealings with these new provinces of the west. I am sure there is a desire on the part of the older settled provinces not only to accord the very best possible treatment of a financial character, but to grant the greatest amount of constitutional liberty and legislative freedom in our dealings with these new provinces. The financial arrangements should not be entered into in any niggardly spirit nor should they be carped at because they happen to be more generous than those accorded to the several provinces in which we each reside. Nor should this government deny or withhold from these provinces of the west the management of certain affairs, the control of certain features of their policy, simply because of a reluctance on the part of this government to part with what has undoubtedly been in the past and will be in the future great political party levers, features of administration which have been used for this purpose and can be so used in the future.
There are a few things that I as a Manitoban desire to speak about before entering on a discussion of the provisions of the 117$
Bill proper. One of these is incidental to this Bill and was dealt with by the Prime! Minister in his introductory remarks ; I refer to the reasons he assigned for refusing the reasonable request of the people of Manitoba through their legislators for an extension of the boundaries of that province. The Prime Minister stated that this request had been made not only upon his government, but upon other governments in the past. It was a request most reasonable in its character, a unanimous request joined in by both political parties, but a request which even at this most opportune moment when the delimitation of the western provinces is being made, he and his government could not entertain. And what are the x-easons he has given ? 'First because the government of Sir John A. Macdonald had a similar request made to them some 20 years ago, and If it could not be entertained on that occasion it could not be entertained to-day ; yet in the earlier portion of his remarks the Prime Minister admitted that the Canada of those days was not the Canada of to-day. That was very true and he might have said further that the Manitoba of those days was not the Manitoba of to-day. At that time Manitoba was supposed to extend as far east as the head of lake navigation. All of that portion of country east of Rat Portage to Port Arthur which was looked upon as disputed territory had been counted in as belonging to Manitoba, and that province was supposed to constitute an area of 154,000 square miles, but to-day we find that owing to the decision given in connection with the boundary award all that portion east of Rat Portage has been handed over to Ontario thus diminishing the area of Manitoba by more than one-half. So I say that the request of 1905 is a much more reasonable one and an entirely different one inasmuch as it is a request on behalf of a province that we know for a certainty contains only some 73,700 square miles, whereas the request of twenty years ago was on behalf of a province which we imagined contained 154,000 square miles. Personally I would have preferred to have seen Manitoba's western boundary extended still further west as far as the 105th Meridian of west longitude, having one province west of that line extending to the eastern boundary of the province of British Columbia. Thus we would have two good sized provinces whose areas would have been more in conformity with those of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. By doing this we would have done away with this duplication of governments and the increased cost as a consequence thereof. We have been told frequently in times gone by that Canada is already over-governed, because of this multiplication of provinces whose areas are too small. With such a division of territory as I suggest we would have avoid-

ed the great expense entailed by this duplication of provinces, and we would have had two splendid provinces that would have proved powerful factors in this great confederation. I realize that there is a considerable sentiment opposed to that view in the Northwest Territories. I cannot admit that their objection is a valid one ; I think it is largely sentimental. They look upon the word ' annexed ' with objection ; they do not desire to be merged. It is not a universal sentiment, but still a considerable portion of the people there object to merging their fortunes with those of the people of Manitoba, and we cannot entirely ignore sentiment when it is very strongly developed. But I feel sure that if they had decided voluntarily to join their fortunes with those of the people of Manitoba, within the next five or ten years, because of the great advantages they would have derived by reason of increased transportation facilities, by reason of reduced freight rates and other great advantages they would be perfectly satisfied with their position.
Whatever reason the government may have had for not desiring to extend the boundaries of Manitoba westward the question of the northern boundary is entirely different. By the provisions of this Bill the easterly boundary of Saskatchewan is the western boundary of Manitoba, extending from the northwest corner of Manitoba to the 60th parallel of north latitude, and that portion of the provisional district of Saskatchewan lying east of that boundary line is put where ? In the new province of Saskatchewan ? In the province of Manitoba? No, it is thrown into unorganized territory under the jurisdiction of this government. What objection was there to having that portion added to the province of Manitoba ? The right hon. gentleman said he could hot, contrary to the wishes of the people of the Territories, take any portion of their land away from them, west of Manitoba's boundary line, and that they had, through their legislators in their assembly, on more than one occasion, put themselves on record as being opposed to having any part of that territory taken away from them. But he has not the same reason for refusing to give Manitoba this district overlapping it on the north. On the contrary, the very same territorial assembly, composed of the very same gentlemen who passed this resolution objecting to any part of the territory west of Manitoba's boundary line being taken from them, passed resolutions in which they gave their consent to having that portion which overlaps Manitoba on the north added to that province. Still in the face of that resolution, the right hon. gentleman refuses to accede to the request of the government of Manitoba. I find, on looking at the Northwest Territories journal of the 14th of December, 1898, the following resolution was passed :


William James Roche: The order of the day being read for the second reading of resolution reported from the Committee of the Whole, which is as follows :
Whereas, it is expedient that the boundary lines between the Northwest Territories and the other provinces and territories should be finally determined at an early date.
And whereas, this legislature denies the right of the parliament of Canada to increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of the Northwest Territories, except as hereinafter mentioned, without its consent because it claims for the people it represents equal rights with the people of the provinces in this respect ;
And whereas, certain areas now comprised within the Northwest Territories more properly belong to other provinces or territories, and should therefore be separated from the Northwest Territories ;
Therefore he it resolved, that while consenting to such alteration of the limits of the Northwest Territories as will separate therefrom those areas lying north of the northern boundaries of the provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba respectively, this legislature is firmly of the opinion that the political unity of the Territories should not he disturbed.
So that, we have the very same gentlemen in that territorial assembly, passing that i resolution, giving their consent to having this district north of the Manitoba boundary line added to the province, yet the right hon. gentleman refused to accede to the request of the province of Manitoba, endorsed as it was by the Territorial Assembly. What reason did he give for not acceding to that reasonable request ? He said that in this House there are a number of representatives of the people who live in that sparsely settled portion of the country ; and if these people objected to being incorporated in the limits of Manitoba, parliament would not be justified in adding them to that province. But, let me ask the First Minister, did he obtain the consent of those people before he put them into the unorganized territories ? Did he obtain their consent before separating them from the rest of the district of Saskatchewan and putting them outside that district ? Most assuredly not. Why not then have incorporated them within the limits of Manitoba. There is no valid reason why that district should not he added to that province. What was the reply he gave when the request was made to hare the northern limit of Manitoba extended to the 60th parallel of north latitude ? Oh. he said, I must first consult the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and the province of Saskatchewan. Each of these provinces has an equal right for the extension of its territory to Hudson bay ; and some time in the future it is my intention to have a conference between the representatives of those provinces to see how the territory of Keewatin may be divided before we accede to the request of Manitoba. But what possible reason is there for consulting any of those provinces. The province of Ontario intervenes between Keewatin and the province of Quebec. What say could the

province of Quebec bave in connection with the division of Iveewatin ? Or even the province of Ontario, for that matter ? Why both of these have had large additions to their territories since Manitoba was made a province and Manitoba was not consulted? There is the less cause for consulting them, when we take into consideration the fact that the district of Iveewatin has been under the jurisdiction of Manitoba the past thirty years. The administration of justice in that district has all taken place under the jurisdiction of the lieutenant governor of Manitoba, and the province of Manitoba can be extended to the Hudson bay without encroaching on one foot of territory properly belonging to Ontario or Quebec. In my opinion therefore the refusal of the request of Manitoba was entirely unjust and will meet with the condemnation of every citizen of that province irrespective of party. This has not been a party question. Hon. gentlemen who occupy seats in this House from the province of Manitoba have brought it up in the Manitoba legislature. Hon. gentlemen on the opposite side have brought it up, and it has been treated as a non-party question. It is also being treated in that light by the press of both political parties. It has even received the endorsation of the mouthpiece of the Liberal party in the east, the Toronto ' Globe.' And in view of this general expression of approval, it seems to me that the province of Manitoba has been treated in a most cavalier and unjust manner.
I was somewhat surprised to find that the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) in that lengthy speech which he addressed to this House, representing as he does a Manitoba constituency, did not think this question of sufficient importance to even give it a passing notice. He was a member of the government no doubt, when this and similar requests were made in the past. He was. in Ottawa when the delegation from that province came here to press its claim. He was also in the city when the delegation from the board of trade of the city of Winnipeg came down and pressed the claim of that province. Still he has never uttered a protest against the action of this government in turning down the reasonable request of Manitoba for an extension of its territory.
Laying aside the question of the extension of Manitoba's boundaries, there are two features in this Bill which deserve special condemnation by the people of the province of Manitoba. I refer to the educational clauses ancl the land clauses. Why do I say they should meet with the condemnation of the province of Manitoba ? Because we, in that province, have had our bitter experience in connection with each of those questions. Up to the present Manitoba is the only province in confederation which has been denied the ownership if its public lands, and because of that fact,
our legislators have had to come down to the central government on numerous occasions, hat in hand, asking an addition to their public revenues in order to be able to cope with the requirements of that developing province. There would have been no need for these begging trips had that province been dealt with justly and fairly as were the other provinces, and we take a sufficient interest in the newly created provinces in the west to desire that they should not have a similar experience and that they should profit by our example. Therefore we urge on the government the claims of our sister provinces.
In my opinion also no financial consideration, which even at present may appear most liberal in its character-eulogized as liberal by hon. gentlemen opposite-will sufficiently compensate for the withholding from those new provinces of their public domain. Without their lands, those provinces will have not one single asset independent of this government, save the power of taxing themselves. To obtain a precedent for this treatment, the right hon. gentleman had to go to the American republic. How frequently have we not heard that right hon. gentleman in eloquent tones declaim against our borrowing examples from American politicians ! But, he did not go to the American republic when he desired to get a precedent in connection with the school policy. On the contrary he went out of his way to offer a gratuitous insult to the Americans who are flocking into our Northwest by thousands, when he compared their comparatively inferior moral stamina with ours and attributed it largely to their public school system and to the exclusion from that system of the teaching of certain religious dogma. He always goes, he tells us, for his great examples to the motherland, but in this instance he did not. Had he gone to the motherland for a precedent in the settlement of the land question, he would have had a precedent entirely contradictory to the policy he has followed. He would have found that imperial statesmen in days gone by took the same position as the one he takes now regarding me ownersip of those lands. He would have found that they urged that those lands should be held by the empire for the benefit of the people of the empire. But better counsels prevailed, and it was recognized that these lands could not be administered to the same advantage from Downing street as in Canada itself. What the imperial government has done for this Dominion the Dominion government should have done for the provinces and handed over to them their lands to administer in the interest of their own people. Justice, Sir, is far more essential-very often at any rate-than any mere financial consideration ; and I much mistake the character and temper of our western people if they do not condemn the government's policy in reference to these

lauds. The right hou. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) admits that he has adopted this policy simply as a matter of policy. But the only colour of reason he has assigned for it is that he fears lest, in the future, these new provinces may, through stress of financial stringency, due to incurring debts not wisely but too well, resort to increasing the price of these lands, or may possibly do away with the policy of free homesteads which, up to this time, has done so much to attract immigrants to our shores, and to place settlers on our western prairies. But, Sir, surely the people making their homes in the western part of the Dominion, and those whom they select to administer their affairs, would be at least as anxious to bring people to settle on these lands as would the government here at Ottawa ; and how much more careful are they likely to be of the character of these immigrants than this government has shown itself to be in the past. And, moreover, with how much greater advantage could these lands be administered by the local government through officials under their control than by a government at Ottawa two thousand or two thousand five hundred miles from the scene of operations. Evidently the Prime Minister and his colleagues have not confidence in the ability of the western people to legislate for themselves. When the question of granting autonomy to the Northwest was up for discussion in parliament two or three years ago the Prime Minister and his then colleague, the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), took the ground that the people of the Territories were already in possession of practically complete powers of self-government save the power to incur debt; and they doubted the wisdom of granting them this power lest it might be utilized for unwise and unnecessary purposes. Apparently, that feeling has never entirely been overcome by these gentlemen, even to this day ; otherwise they would have proposed the granting of a full measure of autonomy to the people of the Territories, including the power to manage their own lands and control their educational system. Two years ago, the Prime Minister expressed his dissent from the policy of granting autonomy for many years to come. But political exigencies forced him to abandon that position. In the midst of the last election campaign, it was suddenly brought to his memory-even in the turmoil and cares and worries of the occasion, he remembered-that he had left letters of the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories unanswered for months. So he sent a letter giving a pledge-no doubt urged to by his candidates in the west, who had rightly gauged public opinion-that immediately after the election he would take up the question of autonomy and introduce a measure during the first session of parliament. I venture to say that had the people of the Northwest been aware of the Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
character of the Autonomy Bill, and had they been informed of the restrictions to be placed upon their legislative liberty, the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would not to-day enjoy the support of such a large number of representatives from the west as he now has. And not only that, but he would not have been in the enjoyment of the support he receives from other provinces of the Dominion in this House. To-day we have a measure which, to use a common expression, g-nnts autonomy with a string to it, one that says in effect: Thus far shalt thou go and no farther. The Prime Minister in effect says : We can trust you with powers of self government, including the power to tax yourselves for all necessary local purposes, we can trust you with the power of administering justice in these provinces ; we can trust you with the working out of your transportation problem- provided, that is, you can do it dispoiled as you are of your chief asset, your public lands-we can trust you with the maintenance of law and order in these provinces ; we can trust you with these things, and feel that you will acquit yourself in a creditable manner ; but hands off the Dominion lands and the separate schools, though no person has threatened either one or the other, for these are preserves of the Dominion government upon which you must not trespass. He declares, in effect : We, the members of the Dominion government have not sufficient confidence in either your ability or your wisdom to control and manage your own lands in the interest of your own people ; through your youth and inexperience as legislators you might adopt some policy that would conflict with the policy of this central government to your detriment.
It is true that the other provinces of the Dominion, save the province of Manitoba, are in the enjoyment of their public domain; it is true that your legislators in the past have given every evidence of capacity and statesmanship ; it is true you have been governed wisely and well; it is true your country is peopled with a thrifty, intelligent, and industrious people ; nevertheless we cannot entrust to you this great patrimony lest you might dissipate it in a prodigal manner : Therefore, your liberties must be curtailed and your jurisdiction must be limited; likewise your assets. And so a proud and self-reliant people are made to feel the humiliation of a patronizing restraint exercised by those who are in no way their superiors. If this government-were fearful lest the new provinces might, at some time in the future do away with this policy of free homesteads that has been such a factor in bringing immigrants to our shores, then, rather than retain the lands in their own possession, why could they not have followed the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and have incorporated a provision in the law which would

Haldimand tour, for recollect that while he journeyed down to the constituency of Haldimand he journeyed back again minus that scalp which he as a western brave sallied forth to secure. He made a speech of a violent character against the schools we had in the province of Manitoba and also appealed to the sympathy of the people of Haldimand on the ground of provincial rights. I desire to read to the House a few of these gems from a speech delivered by that hon. gentleman in the county of Haldimand as reported in the ' Globe.'
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Eecess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William James Roche: Mr. Speaker. Before you left the chair at six o'clock, I was referring to the speech made by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) at the town of Caledonia in the constituency of Haldimand in the year 1895. I shall quote from the report in the ' Globe ' of April 15, of that year. I do not read these extracts from the speech of the ex-minister (Mr. Sifton) with the idea of lending my endorsation to them, but as one hon. member read extracts from the remarks of clergymen and public men in the United States to show thdy were not entirely satisfied -with the school system of that country, it may be well to hear what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) has to say about the separate schools as they existed in Manitoba. Some of these gentlemen in the United States, although their remarks apply to a condition of things said to exist over twenty years ago, were represented as having said that the public schools in that country were hot beds of immorality. As I have said, I do not lend my endorsation to the remarks which I shall quote from the hon. member (Mr. Sifton), because it so happens that in my constituency there was not a single separate school existing prior to the abolition of separate schools in Manitoba, and personally -I cannot speak from experience. We were told by a gentleman on the other side of the House, that the statement as to the clergy of the province of Quebec interfering in elections was a mere myth, a figment of the imagination. However, that may be, I shall quote from the present member for Brandon, the ex-Minister of the Interior and ex-attorney general of his province, as to what his opinion was. I may say that the hon. gentleman made this speech when he occupied the responsible position of attorney general of Manitoba, and as we know he has a great deal of experience in connection with educational affairs, because he told us so himself the other day. Some of these expressions are very harsh, but I must inflict them upon the House in order that hon. gentlemen opposite may form their own opinion on the merits of the separate school system as it existed in Manitoba, from Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
the words of one of their own friends. Mr. Sifton said :
Catholics made false returns of school population to get large grants from the government.
A pretty serious accusation that.
They conducted their schools in a manner that would be a disgrace to any civilized country. The priests and the Catholic clergy connected with their orders were their teachers.
I regret the hon. member for Labelle (Mf. Bourassa) is not present, because when he spoke he took great pride in the fact that the clergy were the teachers in so many of these schools in the province of Quebec, stating that a great deal of the good derived from the schools in that province, and the high standard of education there was due to clerical influence. Evidently the ex-minister (Mr. Sifton) had a different impression as to the character of the teaching done by clergymen of the Roman Catholic church in Manitoba, for be said :
Schools sometimes were kept open only two or three weeks, sometimes two days in the week, while these priests drew itheir money as teachers. This, he said, was a common thing.
In other words, according to the Minister of the Interior, these priests seemed more anxious to get the educational fund and to pocket it than they were to educate the children by keeping the schools open five days a -week. Mr. Sifton goes on to say :
The system followed was no system at all. As a result people who grew up in districts where separate schools existed were in a state of absolute ignorance and illiteracy.
Pretty hard language in reference to these schools that were so lauded by some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. Mr. Sifton continues :
It is a notorious fact that in Manitoba, in districts where the people are French and Roman Catholic and where this system of schools has been in existence for twenty years, that it is a rare thing to find a person who can read and write.
And still the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) spoke about the great proportion of the prizes being carried oft: at St. Boniface by pupils of separate schools of Roman Catholic Institutions, in competition with their Protestant brethren there. Evidently, the ex-minister does not look upon separate schools in as favourable a light when he says it is a rare thing to find a pei'son who can either read or write where these schools have been in existence for twenty years. Mr. Sifton further said :
He could show the audience a petition which came in from the reeve of a Roman Catholic municipality in which six councillors of the municipality made their signatures by putting crosses, and to which only one could sign his name. When it was proposed in the legislature to require by municipal law that the reeve and councillors should be compelled to read and

write* a gentleman who represented a constituency almost exclusively French and Roman Catholic stood up in the legislature and said that if the Bill became law, in his constituency persons could not be found who could qualify for the office of reeve or councillor.
A pretty sweeping assertion, that if a Bill compelling municipal councillors to be able to read and write were to pass the legislature there would not be sufficient men in his district who could qualify for office. Mr. Sifton continued :
Under this system public money went direct to the clergy of the Roman Catholic church. They did practically what they liked with it, conducted their schools or not as they saw fit, with the result that the people grew up in absolute illiteracy. Money was used for the purposes of the church and not for education. He lauded the Public School Act, and supported one system of schools where there should be no distinction between one man and another, when the law should know no man's religion but give each and every one the same privilege.
And still the hon. member (Mr. Sifton) stated the other day in this House, that he would give his approbation to this Bill though it was opposed to his conscientious convictions and his past record. Now he is going to inflict separate schools on the people of the new western provinces which will cause this division between the child of one man and the child of another, and will not give each and every one the same privilege. The report of Mr. Sifton's remarks continues :
He said that if the Roman Catholic people were left alone, if the priests of Quebec would leave them alone, inside of three or four years they would accept the public school system.
Does the ex-Minister of the Interior not think that the same might occur in the new provinces of the west, and that if these people are left alone they would be just as apt to accept the public school system there as In the province of Manitoba ? Apparently, the ex-minister thinks that not only the priests of Manitoba but the priests of Quebec interfere in educational matters outside their own provinces.
He accused the Conservative government, in passing the remedial order, of buying the votes of the province of Quebec.
What a very high estimate the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) had of the people of Quebec. There was a Conservative government doing what they thought they were obliged to do by the order of the highest court in the realm, and this hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) states, that the Conservative government in doing what it believed to be its duty were simply buying up the votes of the people of Quebec. Mr. Sifton further says :
The people of the Red River when they came into confederation never asked for separate schools ; never wanted them, and that the clause in the Bill sent to Ottawa demanding them was fraudulently put there by the clergy of the Roman Catholic church.
Evidently the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) has no great love for the clergy of the Roman Catholic church, nor has he that high opinion of the clerical school system that the hon. member for Labelle has. Dr. Montague was the candidate in Haldimand when this speech was made, and the report states :
Mr. Sifton asked why Dr. Montague took such an interest in this matter ? It is because the Roman Catholic clergy are a well organized body and because they have a political influence in Canada which Is not to he sneezed at.
Language more forcible than polite I admit, but still when hon. gentlemen opposite claim that the clergy of Quebec never had any influence, never tried to exercise that influence in political matters, the ex-Minister of the Interior states that they are a well-organized body and that they have a political influence in Canada that is not to he sneezed at. He goes on still further :
During the last hundred years you will find that wherever a constitutional Act was prepared of an organizing character, you will find that something is drawn which indicates the hand of the clergy is there. The language may be the language of the Canadian politician, hut in every case the voice is the voice of the church.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a measure of an organizing character, creating two new provinces out of these vast territories in western Canada. Is it to he believed that this is the sole exception that has taken place in 100 years in which the clergy's hand has not been seen ? I wonder if the Minister of the Interior were he to mentally recall those utterances of his in 1895 when he said that during the last 100 years there has not been a single instance where anything of an organizing character has taken place that the hand of the clergy has not been seen would claim, if he were to speak according to his honest convictions that the same thing is not occurring at the present day. He went on :
If the people of Canada approve of the Act of the government it means that the Roman Catholic church of the province of Quebec can practically get anything they like from the government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would commend these utterances to the right hon. gentleman who leads this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and if he can find in them that spirit of tolerance and Christian charity of which he spoke, if he can find in them that broadmindedness that soaring to the very pinnacle of statesmanship, that breadth of mind and desire to discuss questions of this character with the object of promoting peace and harmony of which he spoke, then I will attribute to him a great deal more perception than I possess, but I must confess that I believe he himself will he in need of that pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night to show him the way and give him the light. The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. COMMOXS
Siftou) is not the only gentleman who took strong ground against interference in provincial matters of this character and in favour of a national as against a separate school system. There is our friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who is reported in the Halifax ' Chronicle ' in Marcli 6, 1890, as speaking at Windsor in the following words


Samuel Hughes: Is that the present Minister of Finance ?


William James Roche: The present Minister of Finance, then premier of Nova Scotia.
In Manitoba they have prescribed exercises which contain nothing that ought to be objectionable to any body of Christians, and if there are, means can no doubt be found to remove the cause of complaint without Dominion interference. Why should we not believe that Manitoba will be reasonable in this matter ?
. The Manitobans are not African savages.
Why cannot we trust the people iu the new provinces of the west ? Neither are they African savages. They are dominated by the same spirit of fairness and justice as the people of Manitoba. He goes on :
I will venture the statement that the true interests of the Roman -Catholic citizens of Manitoba will be better advanced by the policy of conciliation than by the policy of coercion. This Remedial Bill that the government are trying to enforce upon an unwilling parliament, even if it should pass, cannot settle the question. It would be an attack on

On what ?
*

an attack on provincial rights	If
the Roman Catholics are ever to obtain a solution of this question which is worth having they must obtain it through the good will of the majority of -the people of the province to which they belong.
And if the hon. gentleman were to speak his conscientious sentiments he would state equally to-day that the people of the west, the Roman Catholic citizens of the new provinces in the west, will have a better chance to secure their rights and all their privileges through the good will of the majority of those who will people that part of the Dominion. But the hou. gentleman goes on further :
I ask the people of Hants county and the people of Nova Scotia to stand by the principle of free schools iu the case of Manitoba, just as they would stand by it in their own province. [DOT] . . . We in Nova Scotia know the value of a system of free public schools. We have shown in the past that while we may differ on many Questions we are practically a unit in support of that system	If the Dominion authorities should attempt to interfere with our school system, if they should attempt to impose on this province the system which they are trying to force on Manitoba, we would expect to have the sympathy of the friends of free schools elsewhere, and we would expect the people of the western provinces to give us their sympathy and support in such a condition. Let Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
us to-day give them our hearty support m the struggle until we find that they are not amenable to reason.
Then be goes on to give credit to Sir Charles Tupper for the Nova Scotia school law and he says :
What can we say of the position of that gentleman to-day, who instead of standing up as the champion of a free school system, and resisting those who attack it, scrambled into parliament-
In what manner ? Why here is another gentleman testifying to clerical influence which the hon. gentlemen opposite say is all a myth. According to the present Minister of Finance Sir Charles Tupper was scrambling into parliament


through the unfair influence of the Roman
Catholic pulpits of the county of Cape Breton, and is now devoting the evening of his life to the work of destroying the free school system of Manitoba and forcing upon that province a system which he would not dare to attempt to force upon the province of Nova Scotia.
And yet the hon. gentleman is to-day voting,-I think against his own conscience -to impose upon the people of the western provinces a system of schools that may turn out equally objectionable in those new provinces in the future.
In a letter addressed to the ' Casket ' on March the 14th, 1S96 the same hon. gentleman states :
Only as a last resort and when every other possible method of settlement has failed can there be any justification for federal interference in the educational affairs of any province in the Dominion.
Again in a letter to the same paper dated April 4th, 1896, he says :
The uproar is upon us ; already the biaze_of religious strife has been kindled and is being vigourously fanned every day by the efforts to coerce Manitoba.
And now they are doing the same thing themselves only they are sugar-coating that word ' coercion ' which was so bitter to their taste in 1896.
Again on March 6, speaking at Windsor he stated :
I believe that the people of Manitoba if left alone will settle this question for themselves. Why should we not believe this ? We know from our own experience in the maritime provinces that it has been found possible to maintain a free school system and to administer it so as to make it acceptable to the people of every class and creed. We hear no complaint of the Nova Scotia school law. The Manitoba school system is practically the same as the Nova Scotia.
And yet the hon. gentleman told us the other day that to-day if not by law by practice they ars practically in the enjoyment of separate schools in Halifax, and iu some parts of Nova Scotia, to a greater ex-

tent than under the school system of the Northwest Territories. These schools were secured through the good will of the majority and when the hon. gentleman was asked a pertinent question by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) why we should not expect the same result in the new provinces of the west he states : Possibly so, but when 41 per cent of the population have a suspicion that they may not get that fairness it is only right we should respond to their demands, in other words 59 per cent of the population have to be governed by the wishes of the other 41 per cent.
The ex-.Minister of the Interior is not in accord with the Prime Minister on his constitutional argument. He states that he largely agrees with the views of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) but still he is going to support the Bill. In fact he has stated that the whole question should be left to the provinces. On page 3256 of ' Hansard ' he is reported as follows :
But for my part I have no hesitation in saying what my own opinion would be. It would be that the province ought to be left entirely free to deal with its own educational affairs.
This was the opinion expressed by that hon. gentleman, but still he is not going to carry it into effect by voting against this Bill. He went further :
I am convinced it would be better for the Roman Catholic people of the Northwest Territories if the legislature were left absolutely free.
And again :
I do not think they would be able to convince me that it would not be better that the legislature of the Northwest Territories should be free.
If the hon. gentleman desires to be consistent and vote according to the convictions he thus expressed, would he not oppose this clause which is not going to leave the people of the Territories free to deal with this matter ? Why should he set up one policy to be carried into effect in his own province and a diametrically opposite one to be carried out in the new provinces ? If he had changed his opinion, if he had been converted, as the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has been with regard to the land clause, if he had conscientiously recanted his old time convictions, he might have an excuse, but he has not. What therefore is the reason he gives boldly and unblushingly in the presence of this free parliament why he is going to support the Bill. Did he take any high moral ground ? Well, this House can judge for itself. This is the ground he took :
I came to the conclusion that whatever anybody else might do. my course is perfectly clear. I should, when this question came up. be in a position to speak with the freedom with which a member of the government could not speak, and I should he called on to decide to what
extent and how far I would be prepared to compromise opinions which I had publicly expressed, and opinions which I still hold, in order not to destroy

What ?

And here are the words to which I have referred :

just the class of speech I have made myself the first session I came into this parliament.
If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) made that class of speech when he first came into this parliament, I am sorry to say that he has greatly deteriorated in his latter-day utterances. For, if any one has taken the

trouble to look up 'Hansard' during the last parliamentary term, or any one who has listened to the hon. gentleman when he has, time and again, made the most unwarranted personal attacks, especially upon the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), who is to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) the proverbial red rag to the bull, he cannot but feel that the hon. gentleman has fallen far below the high standard which he tells us he assumed when he came into this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He was throwing bouquets at himself.


William James Roche: And they were not petrified bouquets either. We have not to go further than the hon. gentleman's speech of last Friday to prove the accuracy of my statement that the hon. gentleman has fallen away from the high standard which he says at one time was his. We who had the privilege of listening to the hon. gentleman on Friday will realize the very severe and uncalled for, not to say unkind and utterly unwarranted, ^attack which he made upon the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories. He could scarcely say anything too bad of that hon. gentleman. He called ham a rank partisan, and said he was guilty of the grossest misrepresentation ever indulged in in the whole Dominion of Canada. This hyperbole-let us call it, though rather a mild term to express our feelings-gives one an idea of how the hon. gentleman has fallen away from the standard which, he says, was his early in his parliamentary career.
But the leader of the opposition also came in for criticism of a most unfair kind in connection with his speech of last Friday. Not only was the hon. gentleman unfair to the premier of the Territories, but he was most unfair in garbling the utterances of the leader of the opposition. The leader of the opposition had taken a certain stand on the land clause, he took the position that these lands should be handed over, to the new provinces, that they should be administered by the new provinces in the interest of the people residing there, and he took up the argument used by the leader of the government and some other hon. gentlemen on that side of the House, contending that they should not. hand these lands over, as it might interfere with the immigration policy of the Dominion government. Touching upon that question, the leader of the opposition spoke as follows:
Are they not the people chiefly Interested ? May we not rightly conclude that if these lands are handed over to them they will so deal with them as to best conserve their own interests by forwarding and assisting a vigorous policy of immigration ?
Now, the hon. member for West Assinl-boia (Mr. Scott) left out that portion of the sentence completely. He started in the middle of a sentence, and he finished before the end of the sentence, finished at a comma Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
and tried to create a wrong impression, entirely contrary to that which the hon. leader of the opposition intended to convey do the members of this House. This is where the member for West Assiniboia began the quotation:
May I not further suggest that even if there were any danger-and I do not think there is it would be the task of good statesmanship to have inserted, if necessary, a provision in this Bill with regard to free homesteads and the prices of these lands,

Now, there is a comma, that is where the member for West Assiniboia stopped, and be did not quote tbe following words which I will now read:

and obtain to it the consent of the people
of the Northwest Territories.
Had be quoted that last portion of tbe sentence it would have done away with the force of bis argument. He tried to make out that this expression on the part of the leader of the opposition was an infringement and a gross violation of provincial rights. But bad be included tbe latter expression, ' and obtain tbe consent of the people of the Northwest Territories,' of course it would have taken away entirely tbe ground for bis contention. And mark you. Mr. Speaker, this is the gentleman who is aspiring to tbe vacant portfolio of the Minister of the Interior. Tbe member for West Assiniboia has stated in this House and in public meetings that he was opposed to the autonomy before tbe Canadian Pacific Railway tax-exemption was finally settled ; and I am credibly informed that, either at Moosejaw or Medicine Hat. during the last campaign, he stated that he would vote against an Autonomy Bill unless, before that measure was produced, the question of tbe tax exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway was entirely settled, that it would be dangerous on the part of the Dominion to grant autonomy to tbe Territories before that question bad been finally adjudicated by the Privy Council. Now, has that question been finally passed upon? It is true that it has passed through the courts of Manitoba, it is true that there has been an appeal to the Supreme Court, and the decision of the Manitoba courts has been reversed; but it still has to run the gauntlet of the Privy Council, and we know bow frequently Supreme Court decisions are overthrown by the Privy Council. Still this question Is not settled, it is still open for decision, and tbe member for West Assiniboia is giving bis hearty endorsation and support to this Bill in face of tbe pledges lie made to bis electors on this question.
Now, I have here some quotations from tbe hon. gentleman's own paper, and I will read from tbe Regina 'Leader' of October 22. 1903. This paper is edited by the hon. gentleman himself. I find that the hon. gentleman writing from Ottawa, no doubt

with his own pen, sent the following communication to his paper:
He explained the effect of the Manitoba Supreme Court judgment given in March last upon the Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption cases, which left all Canadian Pacific Railway lands and property in the Northwest Territories liable to school taxation as long as the area was not a province-a right of taxation which would not exist to-day had a province or provinces been created. Until this judgment was confirmed or upset by the Privy Council, Mr. Scott failed to see how the Northwest could afford to accept autonomy.
Then again on November 12 in an edi torial of the Regina ' Leader ' I find the following extract:
If the cases were finally settled there would no longer be a reason for delay. Until the cases are finally determined, final settlement of the autonomy question will remain a matter of practical impossibility. But the people of the Northwest contend that the new provinces must not be handicapped w'ith any such tax exemption provisions. We contend that when erecting the province parliament must negotiate with the company for abrogation of the rights to exemption guaranteed to it by its contract. Now does any sane person think that parliament is in as good a position to enter into negotiations now with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the abrogation of the exemption rights, as parliament will occupy after the test cases are finally settled if the Manitoba Supreme Court's judgment be upheld by the Privy Council. '
The hon. gentleman was very stauncli in the month of November, 1903, in his opposition to autonomy being granted to the provinces at all until this Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption case was entirely out of the way and settled by a decision of the Privy Council. To-day he is supporting this Bill, and that question still remains unsettled. The hon. gentleman also took strong grounds in days gone by in favour of one province. He spoke strongly in favour of one province, he has written strongly in favour of one province, and to-day he is voting in favour of two provinces. For he states on page 3751:
I may be permitted to say that I was myself quite strongly in favour of the proposition that only one province should be created ; and even yet, looking at the question purely from the local and territorial point of view, I can see no reason why one government, one legislature, one set of machinery, should not have been sufficient for that territory.
Still he is voting for a Bill that provides for two provinces. He also took exception to the boundaries; he claimed that the present eastern boundary of the district of Alberta should have been the dividing line. That is not the dividing line under this Bill, but he is supporting the Bill with all the enthusiasm at his disposal. And. Mr. Speaker, while he is doing this he is calling the premier of the Territories, Mr. Haultain, a rabid partisan because he advocates the 118
very same things, and because he has been consistent enough to maintain his position. The hon. member for West Assiniboia also took strong ground in the past in favour of having the land retained by the provinces or handed over to the provinces; he took that ground in the year 1901, as quoted in 'Hansard' in the following words:
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 of local government, giving a proper grant for the government, also a per capita subsidy, and what may be shown to be due as a debt allowance, they will be put in possession of the public resources, lands, timber and minerals in the same way as the other provinces were put in possession of these resources.
Here was a strong expression of that hon. gentleman in favour of having all the lands handed over to the provinces. And what does he give as a reason for changing his opinion in this regard ? He says that owing to his youth and inexperience he gave voice to opinion which was looked at in 1905 as an inaccuracy, that, as a matter of fact these other provinces were not put in possession, but they merely retained possession of their own lands. Then, he says :
These other provinces are not put in possession, but left in possession of these resources. Very young members sometimes fall into inaccuracies.
The hon. gentleman evidently has not got over his youth or he would not play the part of a weathercock politician being wafted hither and thither by every speech that is made in this House. We want a strong man at the head of the Department of the Interior. We do not want a man who is changing his opinions every day. The hon. gentleman states that he has changed his opinion on this question and he gives as his reason that he was influenced by the speeches made by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and the hon. ex-Minister ' of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). Now, he has been speaking on public platforms in the past, he has been associated with his fellow westerners and he knew what their opinions were on this question. He has conversed with them in private and in public, but it only remains after these Bills are introduced and after he has listened to a couple of speeches in this House that were probably repeated to him in private on many occasions for the hon. gentleman to change his opinion. Under these auspices he gave utterance to the following statement in this parliament :
But I may say, that in 1901, when I made that statement, and even later, the principle found no general acceptance in this House or amongst any of the people east of the great lakes ; and my main purpose in uttering these words here was to try and impress upon the people of



eastern Canada the necessity of recognizing the right of possession or, at least, of a beneficial interest in the lands of the Northwest Territories by the people of these Territories.
In other words the hon. gentleman went forth as a missionary to instruct and to convert the people in the eastern provinces to his view-point as to this land question with the result that the hon. gentleman was converted himself. He is drawing rather a long bow when he says that these opinions found no general acceptance in this House because my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has giren voice to these same opinions for years past, iln his speeches in the west and in this House during all the years that this autonomy question has been discussed in parliament he has expressed his opinion in favour of handing these lands over to the provinces. If the hon. member for West Assiniboia has not stated, some other hon. gentlemen have stated that one reason why these lands should not be handed over to the new provinces is that they might be at the mercy of land speculators. Fancy under provincial management these lands being more likely to be exploited than if they were under the management of the ex-Minister of the Interior and his officials of recent years ! Under provincial management would there have been 250,000 acres of wheat lands handed over to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company at $1 an acre ?
When this matter was up in the House for debate that hon. gentleman was forced to admit that 150,000 of these 250,000 acres had been handed over practically illegally, because he did not know whether the conditions of settlement had been complied with or not. He admitted that there had been no inspection to see whether the settlers were on the land or not, and when he was pressed further he admitted that they had been handed over without his knowledge, without the knowledge of his deputy and without their consent and that when they found that out they gave orders that no 'more lands were to be handed over until an inspection had been made. After the horse was stolen they ordered the stable door to be locked. When pressed still further to state who had done this, what was his reply ?-an official of the government; and when pressed still further to state what was that official's name, the ex-Minister of the Interior stated that he did not know. Fancy the responsible head of the department, responsible for all the transactions taking place under his administration finding out that 150,000 acres of land had been illegally handed over to a company without complying with the conditions-having beside him his deputy who was an official of the government-and never taking the trouble to inquire that official's name 1 Well, we are very gullible sometimes on this side of the House, but we are scarcely so gullible Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
as to give credence to such a statement as that except in the parliamentary sense. I fancy that the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) who was at that time the Dominion Lands Commissioner might be able to explain who this official was who illegally handed over that 150,000 acres^ to this company. Tne hon. member for West Assiniboia, in his -paper, the Regina ' Leader ' of Thursday, May 29, 1902, after the election had taken place, used the following language in the form of a heading :
HAULTAIN ENDORSED By the overwhelming majority of the electorate and given a most emphatic mandate.
The people are in favour of one province-General administrative policy approved.
And so on.
Because the leader of the territorial government still maintains that there should be only one province and because he has seen fit to maintain his position in an open letter published in the country the hon. member for West Assiniboia says that he is a rank partisan. Speaking of the lands of the Northwest, the hon. member for West Assiniboia writes in the same issue of his paper :
The lesson of -the election is very simple. The administration of the Northwest Territories is approved, and the policy of the executive is endorsed. The command of the electorate is 1 as you were.' ... As to the policy of the executive it is at present virtually confined to one question, that of the provincial status. Premier Haultain is returned to carry out the plan he submitted to the Dominion government and to the people of the Northwest. The plan is nothing new. Premier Haultain has been trying to carry it out for years. He has educated the people into the understanding of it and belief in it. All he has to do is to continue along the road he has been travelling for some time past. That is the road along which his followers have faithfully accompanied him and it is the direction to which he is pointed by the elections that have just taken place.
That bon. gentleman was evidently au ardent admirer of the premier of the Territories no longer ago that May 29, 1902, and later. One reason why that vicious personal attack was made upon Mr. Haultain the other night by the hon. member for Wet Assiniboia was that that hon. gentleman has not even to this day got over the castigation that he received on several platforms in the west at the hands of the premier of the Northw'est Territories, and he desired in a measure to get even with that gentleman in parliament when that gentleman was not privileged to say a word to defend himself. In the same paper, of Mr. Haultain, whom he then lauded and whom lie now calls a rank partisan, he writes as follows :
The country, therefore is to be congratulated that once again the Haultain administration

will be returned to power. We do not suppose the history of any country can show as much good achieved with such inadequate means, and so few mistakes made in the face of great difficulties as have characterized the Northwest government ever since Mr. Haultain has held the helm. The premier once said that if persons wanted to know his policy they would find it in the ordinances. That is true : but it also manifests itself elsewhere. Mr. Haul-tain may well tell any one seeking his policy to look around. The schools that dot our prairies are the pride of our towns ; the public works that are everywhere visible for the use, convenience and profit of the settlers ; an up-to-date agricultural department ; and the vigilant watch over the Northwest at Ottawa, all speak of a policy which the people of this country ought to be proud of and to this policy has to be added the statesmanlike proposals by which Mr. Haultain has continually urged w'e should reach the provincial status. Eye has not seen nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of any other man to conceive the good things Mr. Haultain claims as our right in regard to the matter of becoming a province.
Mr. Scott was so strongly in favour of Mr. Haultain then, that he wrote and spoke strongly in Ms support. To-day, Mr. Haultain maintains exactly the position he took in this Bill of rights of his and for which he received the endorsation of the electors of the west, but Mr. Scott is no longer supporting him. Which do you consider the rank partisan ; the man who sticks to his old-time policy, or the man who, because of party feelings has sunk his personal convictions and his past record, and who to-day supports a Bill that gives two provinces instead of one ; that does not fix the boundaries as the people of the Territories wished them to be fixed ; that refuses the new provinces the ownership of their public domain, and that takes away from these new .provinces the control of education. As a usual thing, I do not read copious extracts, but I have on this occasion to borrow the habit from the member for West Assiniboia, because it is only right that the members of this House Should have their memory refreshed as to the views held by the hon. gentleman on these questions a short time ago, and which are diametrically opposed to the views which he says he holds to-day. Mr. Scott continues :
No man in Canada has so thorough a grasp of the problem under consideration as Mr. Haultain. Step by step he has brought the Northwest to its present position. Territorial history since 1888-and fourteen years is no short period as political life goes-is his history. For the pressing of the negotiations with and possibly against the federal authorities, we want our strongest and best equipped man. Without doubt Haultain is such a man. He has the facts and the arguments at his finger ends, the subject is now almost part of himself. The people of the west have reason to be proud of their present premier.
Mark you, this is the language of the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) but 118i
a short time ago, and yet the other day we heard him use strong language against Mr. Haultain, simply because Mr. Haultain has seen fit to be consistent.
The people of the Northwest have reason to be proud of their present premier. Under him they have had good and economical and careful government. Largely under his direction a body of laws admirably suitable to new and therefore difficult conditions, have been framed bit by bit and without any violent or disturbing changes. He is fit to stand side by side with any of Canada's public men and ask no odds, as those who heard him in the debate with Premier Roblin at Indian Head last December well know. He is without question the man for the job, which is no light one.
This again is Mr. Scott's language. The other day the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) told us that he based his present action very largely on the fact that when the Northwest Territories Act was put through the House in 1875, the Hon. George Brown took a certain position which he proposed to follow. For instance, the hon. member for West Assiniboia said :
And George Brown who did not support the legislation ; what did he say ?
The moment this Act passed and the Northwest became part of the union, they came under the Union Act, and under the provisions with regard to separate schools.
In the face of that language, if the late Mr. Brown were still alive and had a seat in this House and were confronting the legislation which we have before us, what would he do ? Support the protection to minority rights ? Certainly. That therefore should I do even If I might be as violent an opponent of separate schools as Mr. Brown was.
It will be noticed that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) speaks out for the rights of the minority. What rights ? The rights they secui'ed under the Act of 1875. But these are not the rights the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is contending for, because he says the rights given the minority under the Act of 1875 have been whittled away by the Territorial government so that with one breath he contradicts what he say with another. The hon. gentleman takes the position that George Brown was in favour of these rights that were to be maintained for all time once they were crystallized into law, and he says that he takes the same ground as George Brown, but as a matter of fact the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is only contending to-day for minority rights which he says are far less than were given to the minority under the Act of 1875. The hon. gentleman for West Assiniboia further says :
I believe-and the large majority of the people in the Northwest Territories that I have heard from since these proposals were brought down also believe-that provincial rights are being granted to them In the fullest sense in which they are enjoyed by any other province of Canada.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has fallen into another youthful inaccuracy. Can he

370S
point to any other province in the Dominion -save Ontario and Quebec and they only by reason of compact-can he point to any province in the Dominion that has not absolute control over its educational system. Tf he cannot point to any other such province, and I challenge him to do so, then what becomes of his contention that the new provinces are going to be placed in the same full enjoyment of provincial rights as any other province is* in the Dominion of Canada. The hon. gentleman was also inaccurate when he said that the draft Bill of Mr. Haultain contained provisions that would have perpetuated ecclesiastical schools. Well, the framer of that draft Bill does not agree with the hon. member for West Assiniboia. The framer of that draft Bill meant that the British North America Act should apply which gives sole control to the provinces over educational affairs. When the hon. member (Mr. Scott), in order to suit his own party purposes, desires to read into that draft Bill a meaning that the framers of the Bill never intended it should have, he is taking a stand which he cannot maintain for one moment. Of course he is privileged to read into the draft Bill any ignorant meaning he may desire, but his doing so will not change the true intent of those who framed that clause. That clause was drafted, as I understand, under the guidance and direction of the premier of the Territories, and of the present Chief Justice Sifton and his then deputy, the present Judge Harvey. These gentlemen decided that the clause should be drafted so that the provinces should have absolute control over their educational affairs, and Mr. Haultain so interprets the clause to-day, and indeed it is the only sane interpretation it will bear. I do not wish to discuss this from a legal point of view, although my lay opinion might be equally as good as that of the member for West Assiniboia ; I simply give you the opinion of the leader of the Territorial Executive on the matter, who says that this draft Bill was framed in accordance with the desire of the people of the Territories to control their own educational affairs, and that it was sent down to the Ottawa government with that object in view. And, Sir, if that draft Bill had the meaning which the member for West Assiniboia attaches to it, how is it that the right hon. the Prime Minister, astute as he is, and now is it that the lynx-eyed Postmaster General did not discover such a meaning ? They are both legal gentlemen learned in the law, and yet it remained for the layman from West Assi-niboia to read into the Territorial draft Bill a meaning that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Postmaster General failed to see. The member for West Assiniboia has stated that if he were one of the minority he would never consent to taking out of this Bill the guarantee of separate schools. In one breath the hon. gentleman states : We have practically no separate schools up Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
tnere, it is a national school system. They have the same text books, the same qualifications for their teachers, the same inspection, nothing different at all except a separate school-house. And still he says :
I say, looking at the history of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, that if I were a member of the minority I would not consent to have the guarantee cut out,

What guarantee ? For the rights of the legislation of 1875 which he stated George Brown contended would exist for all time to come once they were incorporated in the Act of 1875, or is it just the vestige that is left which according to his own language would disappear in a very short time if the guarantee were cut out.

because I believe the time would come, and
that not in the very far future, when the final vestige of the separate school would disappear.
He takes exactly the opposite ground from that taken by the hon. Minister of Finance because the Minister of Finance states that if this Bill becomes law the separate schools, the few there are, will disappear. That in effect is his argument and that is the impression made on this House. But the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) says that if this guarantee is cut out then the only vestige of separate schools which they have will disappear and that in the not distant future. The hon. gentleman has quoted very extensively from some comments made in the press in the Northwest Territories in order to prove to the members of this House that the people there are quite satisfied with the present Bill as it is presented to this House. There are other papers up there besides those from which the hon. gentleman quoted, and I shall inflict a few of these comments upon the House. For instance the Medicine Hat ' Times ' says :
The west has had a rude awakening. Until a few days ago everybody believed the Act creating two provinces here would not interfere with the school question, but Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government has added a clause to the Bill which, if not promptly withdrawn, will raise such a storm in the Territories that may take years to subside. The best the west will get out of it will not compensate for the fearful disturbance it will occasion. . . . New settlers coming in should he greeted by a united people having hut one object, namely, the development of the country, not hideous dissension over educational matters. Words are too weak to express the indignation and regret which must be felt by all true lovers of the western country.
Evidently the writer of this article knew who was precipitating this question into the political arena and did not blame it on this side of the House. He took issue with that view.
The Moosomin ' Spectator ' says :
Sir Wilfrid, we think, made a grave mistake when he argued for separate schools on the

ground of their greater efficiency from a moral standpoint, as any such defence is bound to rouse spirited controversy.
The large majority of the people in the Territories express satisfaction with the present school system and are content to have the system continued. But many, believing that the matter of education belongs wholly to the province object to the Dominion parliament's fastening any system, however satisfactory, on any province, as that means an interference with provincial rights. The objection is not therefore so much against the system as against the manner of imposing the system, at least if nothing more is intended than the adoption of the present school system.
The Alameda 1 dispatch ' says :
In the interest of the whole community it would be better to withdraw the Autonomy Bill rather than pass it with the present school clause, and thereby impose coercion on the two new provinces.
The Regina ' West ' is a paper published in the hon. gentleman's own town. 1 believe there are three papers in that town and that two of them are opposed to the government on the major portions of this Bill, at 'least so far as the school clauses are concerned. The one paper that is advocating the Bill in its entirety is the paper edited by the hon. gentleman himself (Mr. Scott). The Regina ' West ' says :
However, we may warn the government and the western members that no modification of the education clause or no compromise in its wording will be satisfactory to the people of the new provinces. The people want full and complete control over education and schools, and consequently the clauses now causing trouble should be struck out altogether. It is the right of the province, according to the British North America Act, to have control of educational matters, and nothing short of this full right should be given to the new provinces. If western members consent to and vote for anything less than this they are traitors to the new provinces and traitors to the cause of full provincial autonomy. Anything less than complete control over education and schools is not autonomy. .	.	. We want none of our
people enslaved, but everybody free even unto the whole people. Sir Wilfrid proposes to put every citizen of the new provinces into slavery by not giving full provincial rights. An agitation for full control of education by the new provinces is, as we take it, an agitation for the freedom of Catholic and Protestant alike. We 'are not discussing the merits of separate or public schools, but the just right of the provinces to deal with the question without federal influence.
The Moosomin ' World ' says :
In less than a week, the change that has come over public opinion regarding the Autonomy Bill is most marked and emphatic. This effect, of course, can be and is, no greater than the cause that has produced it. .	.	. For
this state of public sentiment the onus is on Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who no doubt depended on the honeyed sweetness of his smooth language to overcome any opposition to his cunningly conceived religious device.
His coercive scheme, however, cannot obtain, for while the great majority respect religious convictions, of whatever sect they may be, they do now demand the free exercise of legislative power to deal with the education of the youth of our country as the needs of the community require, and as the interests of those immediately concerned most desire.
The Qu'Appelle ' Progress ' says :
It is evident that the western members are willing to arrange a compromise whereby provincial rights will be sacrificed. The command of the west should be ' hands off, we can, and have a right to handle our own education,
The Yorkton ' Enterprise ' says :
If the new provinces are satisfied with the present separate school system, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's proposed coercive law is wholly unnecessary, and, on the other hand, if the system is not satisfactory, what right has a federal government to dictate to them ? In any case, and from every point of view, what Sir Wilfrid Laurier proposes is an unwarrantable withholding of provincial rights. Sir Wilfrid has been a successful leader, but it by no means follows that he will be a successful driver.
Now Mr. Speaker, I have quoted these somewhat lengthy extracts to combat the contention of the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) that the people are largely satisfied with the Autonomy Bill now engaging the attention of parliament. The hon. gentleman quoted from an interview with the Rev. Dr. Chown. in which it was stated that the doctor at a public meeting at Toronto had stated that he was present in Regina at the time word was received of the provisions of the Autonomy Bill and that there was not a word of discussion raised about the educational clauses. I shall read what Dr. Chown says in a letter to the editor of the ' Globe ' in to-night's paper :
To the editor of the ' Globe ' : I notice in the ' Globe's ' report of the address of Mr. Walter Scott, M.P., of Regina, made in the House of Commonc yesterday, a statement is attributed to me, to the effect that the people of the Northwest were satisfied with the Laurier government's solution of the school difficulty. He may have been misled by a newspaper report, but I certainly did not make such a statement, as I have no means of knowing the present facts.
The only public utterance I have made about the school question was at a meeting of the Provincial Rights Committee in Toronto, at which time, speaking to a motion made by Dr. Bruce, to petition the House of Commons, the Senate and the Governor General, praying that no further steps he taken until the people interested have an opportunity of expressing themselves upon the issue, I said that I had been in the Northwest for some time during the election contest, and I could hear testimony to the fact that the school question was not discussed at all, and that the vote of November last could not he taken as expressing any opinion upon the matter.
I quite agree with Mr. Scott, as reported in the ' Globe ' of Saturday, that the school question was ' not an issue at all in the last eleo-

tion,' but from that fact I argued that, inasmuch as it was kept in the background, the people interesed in such a matter should be heard before the parliament of Canada Anally pass upon the question. Mr. Scott argues that because the issue was not discussed the people must be satisfied with the provisions of a Bill of which they then had no knowledge.
From this conclusion I must dissent, and I may say that, in the interests of a common, enlightened and progressive citizenship, I regret exceedingly that any school system which will segregate different sections of the population during the early years of their education, and give a different colouring to their civic and national ideals, is about to be fastened upon the people yet to inhabit our magnificent heritable in the Northwest.
I believe a solution of sectarian difficulties should be and will yet be possible, in the form of a system of Christian morality upon which all varieties of opinion may agree, to be taught in all the schools of the country.


S. D. CHOWN.
[Stage Direction]
Toronto, April 1.
The hon. gentleman saw fit to refer to Mr. Bulyea. He wondered if Mr. Bulyea had been present with Mr. Haultain in his interviews with the leader of the opposition. Well, I know whereof I speak when I say that from the time the premier of the Territories came to Ottawa at the request of the leader of the government to discuss this question, until this Bill was Introduced into this House, he absolutely refused to discuss it with any one, either Liberal or Conservative, because, as he said, he did not think it would be proper to enter into a discussion with anybody upon this question while he was negotiating with the government. But when this Bill was brought before parliament and its provisions made public, he considered he was no longer under any restraint, and has since discussed it with both Liberals and Conservatives, and as freely, frankly and thoroughly with the one as with the other.
I do not wish to trespass at any further length on the patience of the House. I simply desired more particularly to criticise the three leading features, the' question of the boundary of Manitoba, the land question and the educational clauses. As to the first, I think I have convinced the House that the reasonable request of the province of Manitoba has been contemptuously treated. I see that the premier of Ontario, taking his cue from the right hon. gentleman's speech, has filed a claim for a certain portion of Keewatin, and also that the new Quebec premier has expressed his intention to make a similar requisition on behalf of that province. It is evident that the object of the right hon. gentleman is being accomplished, but in the meantime the people of Manitoba are in a state of unrest and excitement. As to the land policy, in my judgment the government have no reasonable ground, either from a constitutional point of view or from the point of view of public policy, in withholding those lands from the province. In my opinion also, the open let-Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
ter of the premier of the Northwest Territories, protesting against the manner in which the provisions of his draft Bill were disregarded, cavalierly treated and passed over, does not contain one expression which any reasonable man can attribute to partisanship, unless it be partisan to be consistent. But if abandoning the very things which Mr. Haultain had provided for in his draft Bill, and which had received the support of the territorial assembly, and even that of the hon. member for West Assini-boia ; if abandoning every claim put forward on behalf of the Territories, be consistency, then I am willing to give the palm to the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). As to the educational clauses, in my opinion they are an interference in matters of purely provincial concern. I believe them to be unconstitutional and impolitic. High legal authorities, such as Sir Louis Davies, judge of the Supreme Court, has declared that this parliament had not the right to interfere in the school policy of the Territories ; and should this question ever come up before him for adjudication, he would, if he desired to be consistent, feel bound to give an opinion in accord with the views he expressed in parliament. I have here the opinion he expressed. It has been quoted in this House before, but you cannot emphasize a good opinion too frequently. This is what Sir Louis Davies said in 1891, when the territorial charter was under consideration :
My opinion Is now. and has been for years, that when that time comes (the time to erect the Territories into provinces) you cannot withhold from the provinces so erected the right to determine for themselves the question of education in one way or the other. I would be the last to favour this parliament imposing upon the people there any system of education, either free or separate. I only claim that when a Bill is introduced to erect these Territories into provinces that Bill should contain a provision enabling the people of the different provinces so created to decide what system of education they will have.
Surely that opinion is not biased or coloured by Sir Louis Davies' political proclivities. Surely it was not given in order to advance the cause of the Conservative party. He takes the ground that parliament is not at liberty to interfere with the educational policy of those new provinces. The late Judge Mills, the former philosopher of the Liberal party, a man of high legal attainments, frequently quoted as a constitutional authority, both in this House and the Upper Chamber, and who was transferred to the Supreme Court before his death, also gave an opinion which is in accord with that of Sir Louis Davies. He said :
When the people of the Territories or any portion of the Territories are sufficiently numerous to constitute a province-when, in fact, they attain their majority in regard to local matters, and when they propose to set up for themselves-this parliament has no right to

exercise control over them. It can give good advice, but it has no right to give commands.
When the Territories have a sufficient population to entitle them to become a province, they must decide for themselves whether they will have separate schools or not.
I have my view as to what will be the best decision for them to arrive at, but I must nor impose on them my views as to how they should be governed after they have attained their majority.
I think I have quoted sufficient legal authority to show that the act of the government is unconstitutional, that the question of education should be left entirely to the provinces, that the provinces should be given their legislative freedom in this matter, and that the action of the government cannot be defended on grounds of public policy, but is an unwarranted interference with provincial jurisdiction, and is likely to be a source of trouble among the mixed population who will make in that country their homes in the future.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton and Victoria).: I mujst congratulate the hon. gentleman who has taken his seat on the free and exhaustive manner in which he has discussed this question, and I am afraid that, as a new member, with very little experience in this House, I shall be hardly able to follow the pace he has set for me in dealing with the subject under discussion. My hon. friend started out by finding fault with the land policy of this government. But that policy, Mr. Speaker, is not a new one. It is not a policy of to-day or yesterday, but one which was laid down by a gentleman who had about as able a mastery of public affairs in this country as any man who ever lived in it. I refer to the Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, the greatest leader of which the party to which my hon. friend belongs could ever boast. It was he who laid down the land policy we have since followed, and in criticising that policy my hon. friend is setting himself at issue with that great leader.
The right hon. Sir John Macdonald, in 1870, laid down the land policy of this country. In 1872 he went to the country and was sustained. In 1878 he was returned to power ; and he was sustained after that in the general elections of 1882, 1887 and 1S91. I should say that was a sufficient test of the policy of Sir John Macdonald so far as the land question is concerned, and that it is rather too late in the day now to declare that it is a policy that should not be followed in this country. A few days ago the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) laid down a doctrine, which, if it is a wise one in regard to the matter to which he referred, would be equally wise here. Speaking of the school question, he said that the people of this country had recognized the wisdom of the policy of the Liberal party in 1896, and again in 1900, and again in 1904, and, so far as he was concerned, he would not bother with the subject any longer, but would let well enough alone.
I say if that was a wise policy with respect to the school question it is equally wise with respect to the land policy of Sir John Macdonald which has been so often approved by the people of this country. I submit that not only did the country generally commend that policy, but the province of Manitoba, in which the policy was first put in operation, has, if I am correctly informed, always given a handsome majority to the Conservative party of which Sir John Macdonald was the head. When the land policy of Sir John Macdonald has been approved by the province of Manitoba for thirty-five years, I think it comes -I will not say with ill grace but- with little force from the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. J. Roche) to find fault with the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier), because he continues that policy.
Now, the hon, member for Marquette makes an onslaught on this government, and especially on the Prime Minister, because he does not change the boundaries of the province. I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) to be strongly in favour of provincial rights and as strongly against' anything that would interfere with those rights without the provinces being consulted. I happen to have in my hand the statute on this particular question showing that it is not open to any Prime Minister or government to deal with the question exactly as he may think proper. I gather from what the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. J. Roche) says that if there were a provision in this Bill extending the boundaries of Manitoba and making half a dozen other changes in the boundaries of Ontario, Quebec and other provinces, he would support it. But the hon. gentleman must not forget that we have no powers to deal indiscriminately with the dividing lines between provinces. There is an Act of the imperial parliament regulating matters of this kind ; and, before we do anything about changing our neighbours' land mark, we must consider that statute that we may comply with if. It reads as follows :
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
When the Prime Minister speaks of consulting Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and the other provinces whose territory is likely to be affected by any changes in boundaries made in that part of the country he is talking of doing what it is his bounden duty

to do and is showing himself the true guardian of provincial rights.


Robert Laird Borden: Do I understand my hon. friend (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) to be under the impression that, in order to incorporate into the province of Manitoba some portion of the territory which is now comprised in the Northwest Territories, it would be necessary to have the consent of the legislatures of Ontario or Quebec ?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said of Manitoba.


Robert Laird Borden: But not of Ontario or Quebec ?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Act says that, if they are likely to be affected by'it they must be consulted. Of course, we must leave something for the Prime Minister to judge for himself. If, in his judgment, Quebec and Ontario are likely to be affected, he is bound to consult those provinces. I think it is perfectly clear that it is not a matter that can be jumped at without full consideration. Though a man from Manitoba might say that this matter does not affect Quebec and Ontario, it is perfectly clear that the Prime Ministers of Ontario and . Quebec do not think so, for the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. J. Roche) tells us that they have filed claims with this government to be considered in the division of this territory. Therefore, this important statute clearly comes into operation here and its terms must be complied with.
Now, my hon. friend (Mr. W. J. Roche) has gone further, to deal with land policy. He finds fault with the government

 and, consequently with all Conservative governments that have existed in this country up to the present time-because they borrowed their land policy from the United States. I do not think it makes much difference whence we get a policy, so long as it is a good policy. If any rule of life that we follow is a good one, it is not wise for us to cast aside or neglect it because it happens to be in fuse in the United States.
I do not think that any hon. gentleman in this House will say that the land policy of the United fctates has not been a success so far as immigration is concerned, or so far as development is concerned so far as attracting the people is concerned and their success after they have gone to the United States. I think we would be only too glad if we could get as many people into our country and as good a class as they are getting through the land policy they have. Now, it has been pointed out that the provinces would do better in the handling of these lands- than the central government. Tnat may be so, but one thing is certain- that in the United States, if we can copv them, they have not followed that policy.'
The States have had nothing to do with the public domain except possibly in their


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: early history they were formed into states, exactly as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the other provinces when they came into the union. I think they held what lands they had then, except that some were passed over to the central government under certain arrangements ; but any lands they had acquired after the United States had been formed under one government, were held by the central government and one policy prevailed in respect to the whole of them. I submit that it is in the interests of this country to have one policy and one management of the public domain, one system in respect to immigration, and one price for the lands, in order to avoid as much as possible a conflict of management between half a dozen different governments.


Robert Laird Borden: With regard to the constitutional point with respect to which I took the liberty of interrupting my hon. friend a moment ago, I do not find in the statute these words to which he referred: [DOT] Likely to be affected thereby.' I did not contradict my hon. friend, because I thought he would be exact in his quotation. It says:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation of any province affected thereby.
Not ' likely to be affected thereby.'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That was close to it, but when we are dealing with the great west we do not pay attention to trifling things. The difference is certainly very slight, and it was hardly worth my hon. friend's while to bother with it. It is certainly clear that the intention of that statute was that any province to be affected by the change should be consulted, that there should be legislation upon the subject, and it is only by concurrent legislation on the part of each government that they can deal with it effectively. The question would not be settled if we were first to start out to deal with it effectively. The question would not be settled if we were first to start out to deal with it without the consent of the others, and without that consent being obtained according to the statute. Although I may not be correct according to the very letter of the law, I am certainly not so far wrong as to justify the member from Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) in saying that we are violating the constitution and doing a whole lot of wrong things because we did not deal with this question the right way. Now I think those two points as to whether it is the duty of the government to deal with this question as a public policy for the whole country, or whether it is better to

cut it up into sections, have been answered.
Now I will deal briefly with another point mentioned by the bon. gentleman with regard to the literature that was sent out broadcast and what it said about the character of the schools. If a pamphlet that has been sent out lately is such as the hon. gentleman has stated, and I have no doubt it is, I can only tell my hon. friend that it is very different from some literature of that character that was sent out in 1881 when the hon. gentleman's friends were leading the government of this country. The Department of Agriculture sent out a pamphlet making the following reference to the subject of education :
The school system was based upon that of Quebec, that is to say, that Catholics have an absolute control and complete direction of the education of their children, and that Protestants possess exactly the same rights.
That pamphlet was sent out in 1881 when Sir John A. Macdonald and his friends had control of the government, and when the Act of 1875 was fresh in their minds. They sent this pamphlet broadcast over Europe, wherever immigrants could be induced to come to this country and settle in our Northwest ; they were told that the same system of schools prevailed there that prevailed in Quebec and that people of the faith of our Ontario friends would find there exactly the kind of education that Is given in Ontario.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will proceed to deal with the constitutional question that is involved in this discussion though I will not presume that I can deal with it satisfactorily to everybody. I propose to deal with this subject under three different phases. First, I would ask what power have we in respect to this question ? What should we do with that power or how should we exercise it if we have any power in this matter ? Now the first thing I And in this constitution of ours states that the Dominion of Canada shall be united with a constitution similar to that and based upon the constitution of Great Britain and Ireland. We start out with that declaration in our constitution, it is not a hard and fast constitution that is unbending, that we cannot change one way or the other ; it is a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Those of us who know anything about the constitution of Great Britain know how elastic it is. how it is made to suit various conditions, how it can be capable of taking under its folds all conditons of men. When we remember that we are attracting into our Northwest the very classes of people that go to make up the British empire we will realize at ouce that we need just such a constitution as that of the United Kingdom to enable us to deal with all these people as successfully as Great Britain deals with them. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a constitution in our hands that is not a hard and fast instrument, we
have to deal with certain conditions in this country to-day and I think it would be well for us to keep constantly before our minds that our constitution is based upon the British constitution that is able to govern millions of people in the Indies, millions of people in the other parts of the world, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in South Africa. In adjusting that constitution to our own conditions will it be said that we cannot without a wrench and a violation of our institutions in this country and the foundations of the state, make that constitution that is equal in principle to the British constitution apply to the provinces of the west-? Now, very shortly after confederation steps were taken to bring in the Northwest Territories. In order to understand this question aright we should follow as nearly as possible the steps that were taken iu this connection. First we find the parliament of Canada presenting an address asking Her Gracious Majesty to admit Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories into the union. Let us see what they say :
That the 146th section of the British North America Act, 1867, provides for the admission of Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories, or either of them, into the union with Canada, upon the terms and conditions to be expressed in addresses from the House of parliament of this Dominion to your Majesty, and which shall be approved of by your Majesty in Council.
That we do therefore most humbly pray that your Majesty will be graciously pleased, by and with the advice of your Most Honourable Privy Council, to unite Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory with this Dominion, and to grant to the Parliament of Canada authority to legislate for their future welfare and good government and we most humbly beg to express to your Majesty that we are willing to assume the duties and obligations of government and legislation as regards these territories.
That in the event of your Majesty's government agreeing to transfer to Canada the jurisdiction and control over the said region, the government and parliament of Canada will be ready to provide that the legal rights of any corporation, company or individual within the same shall be respected, and placed under the protection of courts of competent jurisdiction.
Now, what I wish to point out is that iu the second part of this petition the parliament of Canada, not recognizing up to this time that they had the power to deal with this territory, pray that Her Majesty shall be graciously pleased to give them the power that is necessary to make laws for the government of the country.


Samuel Hughes: What is the date of that?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 1868. After this petition was presented to Her Majesty for power to deal with this land an Order in Council was passed on the 23rd day of June. 1870. It is headed as follows:

erica Act, so far as it deals with land, deals with it in section 109. section 109 gives the land to the provinces unconditionally. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) excellent lawyer as he is, before this question got to such a red heat as it is today, when the Bill was first introduced, suggested in this House, in connection with this land question, that it would be well to introduce an amendment by which, although the lands were given to the western provinces, they would not have absolute control of them ; he would have some stipulations and conditions placed upon the manner in which they would hold the land, and would not give them an entirely and absolutely free hand. If it is proper for the hon. leader of the opposition to suggest that there should be such an amendment, if it would be proper to say that we should put such a proviso in section 109 of the British North America Act, what is the objection ito making slight changes in other parts of the Act ? If we have no power to touch it at all, if we cannot touch it in reference to schools, we cannot touch it in reference to lands ; and if we can touch it in reference to lands, we can touch it in reference to schools.


Robert Laird Borden: Section 109 does not deal with the distribution of legislative power. Section 109 deals with the ownership of lands. It is only when the land is vested in the provinces that the question of legislative power arises, so they are two entirely distinct things.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is certainly an amendment of the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wish my hon. friend to misunderstand me. I said we could not alter the distribution of legislative power. That is the point I made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that the position of my hon. friend is that we cannot amend the British North America Act.


Robert Laird Borden: No. we cannot ; I do not take the position, however, that the ' terms and conditions ' must always be the same.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does my hon. friend admit that we can ?


Robert Laird Borden: As far as amending the Act is concerned, of course my hon. friend knows that section 146 of the British North America Act speaks of the terms and conditions on which provinces or territories may be brought in. That is one thing. But the distribution of legislative power is another and an entirely different thing.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If we have no power to amend the Act, then we cannot touch it ; and still it was quite competent, within the purview and terms of section 146 of which my hon. friend speaks, to Mr. D. D. McKENZIE.
make terms and conditions, because that section of the Act contemplates two purposes. It contemplates the admission of Alanitoba, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island and other provinces, which are entities, provincial entities, at the time and capable of contracting. They were capable of going into this compact, of preparing a scheme in the shape of an address which is confirmed by Order in Council. It is quite true that they can put into it and take out of it, and slice it and form it, as it suits them, but the moment it receives the sanction of the Sovereign by Order in Council, then that is an end to it. In this case, instead of a compact, we have an Act of parliament. But my hon. friend takes the position that you cannot make any change in that Act. that you must simply make the conditions which suited New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario, apply to the new provinces, because you have no sea room at all, you can do nothing. It is quite true that there was no limitation on the conditions which could be placed in the Order in Council, there was nothing to limit your sway in making the bargain ; but will my hon. friend or his supporters submit that we have the same scope to-day ? If they will admit that we have the same scope to-day, that we can put in the constitution which they are making for the new provinces every fine and every word that we could put in an Order in Council bringing in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland ; if we have those powers under the constitution, then we have ample powers to put all these conditions into the new constitution. Will my hon. friend tell me, or tell this House or the country, that the provisions of section 92 or section 93 of the British North America Act were binding on Prince Edward Island when it was coming in, or on British Columbia when it came in ? Nothing of the kind. They could make such provisions as they thought proper, and is it not right, when it is only this parliament that has the responsibility to:day-for there is no provision by which an address can come from the Territories, so that this is a one-sided negotiation, so to speak, and we take the full responsibility in this House for what this constitution will be-that we should be told that the constitution that would not stand in the way of the admission of New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, or any other province, into confederation, must prevent us from making such terms and stipulations as we think are proper and right in bringing in new provinces from the west. I do not think that, as the leader of the opposition himself would say, it is either law or logic or sound argument to say that we have not as free a hand in making a province under the terms of the Act as we would have under the conditions which we could place in an Order in Council and in an address from an existing provincial entity. I submit, Air.

Speaker, that I do not think my learned friend has any too well answered the point that we have equal rights in dealing with the conditions under the Act as we would have in making an Order in Council and stipulating how a particular province is to come in. I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that if we wished to ascertain what powers the fathers of confederation thought they possessed, under the conditions of the confederation, the best time for us to search for information on that point would be in 1870, when the conditions of the compact were fresh in their minds.
We hear a great deal about this section 93 giving exclusive power to the province. Would it not be well to look at this Act in the light cast upon it by some of the decisions of the Privy Council, and those are decisions which we .should not lightly cast aside even if they do run contrary to our own opinion. A great many contend that this section 93 gives the province unlimited powers to deal with matters of education. It seems to me that our hon. friends who read the Act in such a light simply stop at the end of the first two lines :
la and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education.
But there are four other sections which these hon. gentlemen do not read at all. There is also a decision of the Privy Council right in point upon that section ; and it seems to me that in order not to be misled any longer as to its full force, effect and meaning, it would be well to quote that decision. This is what the Privy Council said in dealing exactly with that i>roviso :
Before leaving this part of the case it may be well to notice the argument urged by the respondent that the construction which their lordships have put upon the second and third subsections of the section of the Manitoba Act is inconsistent with the powers conferred upon the legislatures of the provinces to exclusively make laws in respect to education. The argument is fallacious. The power conferred is not absolute but limited. It is exercisable only subject and according to the following provision. The subsections which follow, whatever be their true construction defining the conditions under which alone provincial legislatures may legislate with reference to education and indicate the limitations imposed on and the exceptions from their power to legislate exclusively, their right to legislate is not enjoyed properly speaking exclusively, for in the case specified in subsection 3 the parliament of Canada is authorized to legislate on the same subject. There is, therefore, no such inconsistency as is suggested.
That is the decision o-f the Privy Council. It shows that in the British North- America Act, from cover to cover, there is no such thing as giving to any province the exclusive powers to deal with education. I take the responsibility of saying that there is not to-day such a thing in this country as any province dealing exclusively with education. I heard the hon. member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) asking the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) the other day whether or not there was a province in the Dominion which had a free hand to deal with education. I say there is not. There are provinces in the Dominion to-day which are free to pass one Act. Nova Scotia to-day is perfectly free to pass an Act that will contain some terms in respect to the separate schools ; but once the Nova Scotia legislature passes such an Act it cannot change it. Or if it should, it would be subject to an appeal to the government of the Dominion for remedial legislation. Therefore it can wo" he said that there is no province in the dominion to-day which has this wonderful, absolute right to deal with the question of education as it sees fit.
There is another point to which I would direct attention, as showing the intention of this part of the Confederation Act. It would be well for us to try and understand, without any haste or passion or feeling in this matter, how these questions were understood from the beginning. Some day in February, 1867, these clauses 92 and 93 were under consideration in the House of Lords. Now, whatever feeling there may be in this House and country over the question, I think we will all admit that the House of Lords would approach it with a great deal of calmness and give it due consideration, and that not ope of the venerable gentlemen who occupy seats in that House would be in the slightest degree nervous about explaining what these clauses really meant. We find Lord Carnarvon dealing with this question calmly and judicially. As to clause 93, he said :
Lastly, in the 93rd clause which contains the exceptional provisions to which I refer, your lordship will observe some rather complicated arrangements in reference to education. I need hardly say that that great question gives rise to nearly as much earnestness and division of opinion on that as on this side of the Atlantic. This clause has been framed after long and anxious controversy in which all parties have been represented and on conditions to which all had given their consent. . . . The object of the clause is to secure to the religious minority in one province the same rights, privileges and protection which the religious minority in another province may enjoy. The Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada, the Protestant minority of Lower Canada and the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime provinces will thus stand on a footing of entire equality.
That is the explanation which Lord Carnarvon gave in 1867, and I submit to you that that was the way in which the late Sir John Macdonald and the framers of the Manitoba Act understood it in 1870.
I would ask you to note the strong resemblance between clause 93 in the British North America Act and the Manitoba Act.
In and for the province the said legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject to the following provisions.

I submit that the provisions are exactly the same except where an amendment is made to make them applicable to what existed in those days in Manitoba. The second section of the Act is :
On, from and after the said day on which the order of the Queen in Council shall take effect as aforesaid, the provisions of the British North America Act of 1867 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.
That is the same language which is to be found in the Act creating the province of Alberta, and there has been some talk as to what the effect of that Act might be on the educational question. I think there was some exception taken to the construction put upon the clause by my bon. friend from West Assiniboia, which we find in the Act which has been submitted as a constitution for the new provinces by the premier. Mr. Haultain.
Now, I have read to you, Mr. Speaker, the clause in the Manitoba Act. This is the corresponding clause that we And in*Mr. Haultain's Bill. The name of the province is blank, but X supply the name of Alberta:
On 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 Alberta in the same way and to the same extent as they apply to the several provinces of Canada and as if the province of Alberta had been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.
At this point I wish to look a little closely at the meaning of this language so far as education is concerned. Hon. members who are opposing the Bill and who profess to be particular friends of the Northwest, have nothing to say against this draft Act, so far as I can understand. They say there are terms in the proposed Act of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) which bring the separate schools into effect in the Northwest, and they declare they are not in favour of such a policy. At the same time, I do not think they have anything to say against this draft Act of Mr. Haultain's. If you examine this clause closely you will find what Mr. Haultain means is that whatever is in existence in the Territories today will be gathered together, the whole business shoved back to 1867 and then brought in as if this was a new province. Whatever law you have in force in the Ter-Mr. d. d. McKenzie.
ritories to-day must be dealt with as if it had been a law in force in 1867, the time of confederation. What is the law in force in the Territories? Is not the Act of 1875 as much in force to-day as it was when it was passed? It has not been repealed. The fact that ordinances have been based upon it which are inconsistent with it in some respects or which are not as strong in the direction It Intended as the Act itself, does not take away the validity of the Act. That Act created separate schools, and that is the Act which Mr. Haultain says is to be continued in force as if had been passed in 1867. That is the effect of what Mr. Haultain proposes, as I understand it. And while lion, gentlemen opposed to the government are unwilling to take separate schools from us, they are ready to swallow them bolus bolus when offered by Mr. Haultain. I am not finding fault with Mr. Haultain for putting this in the Act. I think he was doing the right thing in recognizing the conditions that existed at the time. But we must not claim credit for doing what we are not doing. Mr. Haultain and his friends claim credit for not recognizing the conditions in the west. They were going to wipe the whole thing off the slate, and so they claimed to be the friends of the Territories and say that we are the enemies of the Territories. But they cannot sustain that argument in the face of this draft Act. which has in it ever word, if not more, than we have in the legislation before the House.
I have pointed out the different conditions which are in this Manitoba Act. It contains section 2, exactly like the one which is going through to-day. Section 26 of it deals with the land question; and section 20 deals with the school question. So it is precisely the same as the Act now before us. I was pointing out-and I think it is necessary to point out-the ideas which prevail in connection with this constitution which was given to the Territories in 1875. It has been observed here by the hon. member for Marquette that nothing that Alex. Mackenzie and Edward Blake, and old men of that kind said should not receive very much attention. I do not regard Hon. Edward Blake's views on constitutional questions in that way. I think that Mr. Blake was a big man on constitutional questions in 1875; I think he has been a big man on constitutional questions every year since, and I believe he is a big man on constitutional questions to-day; and for that reason we ought to be very much pleased when we find in the books things that he said on questions of this kind, and we ought to be satisfied that what he has said on these questions Is sound and good. This is what he said when this Bill of 1875 was before the House, when this question of forming the constitution of the Northwest Territories was being dealt with. It will be seen that the words of Mr. Blake are not the words of a man who thought that we were creat-

ing a constitutional fabric which was to last for only a few days', something that was to be wiped off the slate when we chose to do so. He speaks of the constitution then being formed as the basis and the foundation for the laws under which thousands and millions of people will come into that country. He said:
To found primary institutions under which we hope to see hundreds of thousands; and the more sanguine among us think millions of men and families settled and flourishing, was one of the noblest undertakings that could be entered upon by any legislative body, and it was no small indication of the power and true position of this Dominion that parliament should be engaged to-day in that important task. He agreed with the hon. member for Kingston

That, I presume, was Sir John Macdonald.
* that the task was one that required time, consideration and deliberation and they must take care that no false steps were made in such a work. He did not agree with that right hon. gentleman that the government ought to repeat his errors. The right hon. gentleman had tried the institutions for the Northwest Territories which he now asked the House to frame and for the same reason as he had given to-day-that it would be better for the Dominion government to keep matters in their own hands and decide what was best for the future. He (Mr. Blake) believed that it was essential to our obtaining a large immigration to the Northwest that we should tell the people beforehand what those rights were to be In the country in which we invited them to settle. It was interesting to the people to know that at the very earliest moment there was a sufficient aggregate of population within a reasonable distance, that aggregation would have a voice in the self-government of the Territories, and he believed the Dominion government was wise (although the measure might he brought down very late this session and it might be found impossible to give it due consideration) in determining in advance of settlement what the character of the institutions of the country should be in which we invite people. He did not agree with the policy of asking people to settle in that western country, and tell them that a paternal government would look after them, and would give them such institutions as the government thought suitable. We had better let the people know their fate politically and otherwise before they settle there.
And be said further:
He regarded it as essential under the circumstances of the country and in view of the deliberation during the last few days that a general principle should be laid down in the Bill with respect to public instruction.
He did "believe that we ought not to introduce into that territory the heart-burnings and difficulties with which certain other portions of this Dominion and other countries had been afflicted. It seemed to him, having regard to the fact that, as far as we could expect at present, the general character of that population would be somewhat analogous to the population of Ontario, that there should be some provision in the constitution by which they should have conferred upon them the same
rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction as those possessed by the people of the province of Ontarfo. The principles of local self-government and the settling the question of public instruction seemed to him ought to be the cardinal principles of the measure.
In reply to him Mr. Mackenzie makes a short speech, showing what his views are, and setting forth the terms of that section 11 of the Northwest Territories Act, 1875, with which we are familiar. Now, Mr. Speaker, in exercising this power I think it is safe for us to follow the precedents that have been laid down. I should think that the ^different steps that have been taken by the imperial government in giving us control over this territory, enabling us to make a constitution, and giving us every other power that they could give us in order to form these new countries into provinces and to give them constitutions, that being the case, it seems to me there is no question but that we have the power. The next question is, how are we to exercise it. I was pointing out that I think it is wise to exercise that power along the same lines as it was exercised by 'Sir John A. Macdonald in 1870, by Mr. Mackenzie in 1S75, and by Mr. Haultain when he had the drafting of the Bill a few years ago, and as it is exercised to-day, by the premier of this country who guides us in the way in which we should exercise this power.
It is contended that we do not grant constitutional freedom. This is constitutional freedom as it is understood by the Supreme Court of the United States :
' Constitutional freedom ' certainly does not consist in exemption from governmental interference in the citizen's private affairs, in his being unmolested in his family, in being suffered to buy, sell and enjoy property, and generally to seek happiness in his own way. All these might be permitted by the most arbitrary ruler, even though he allowed his subjects no degree of political liberty. Mr. Justice Storey has well shown that constitutional freedom means something more than liberty permitted ; it consists in the civil and political rights which are absolutely guaranteed assured, and guarded; in one's liberties as a man and a citizen-his rights to vote, his rights to hold office, his right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, his equality with all others who are his fellow-citizens, all these, guarded and protected, and not held at the mercy and discretion of any one man or any popular majority. People vs. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 106. 108, 9 Am. Dec. 103.
Now the great difficulty seems to be why we must have separate schools. There are some people among us, and their ideas are deserving of every respect, who think that separate schools are not necessary and that we should not make provision for them. But a great many people in this country think they are necessary, and that being the case, we have to deal with circumstances as we find them. I heard a quotation from a paper to-night giving the language of some

reverend gentleman, I think belonging to my own church, saying that he hoped the day would arrive when one common ground of education could be reached, and when some form of religion could be taught in the schools upon winch all could agree. Well, Sir, if there was any hope of reaching that state of affairs, I would be very glad. But we have been nearly a hundred years in trying to agree upon that point, and we do not seem to be any nearer to it to-day than we were then. I find that in 1854 there was a separate school law in the province of Ontario ; I find that they repealed it and in 1863 they put it again on the statute-book, and they now have separate schools in the province of Ontario. Seeing that neither in Quebec nor in Ontario can the present system be changed, it seems to me there is not much hope of being able to do away entirely with the principle of separate schools. Now, this very point was considered bv the Privy Council, as will appear on page 485, volume 5, of Cartwright's Reports. They ask the question why it is that Catholics cannot agree to this common school education ? And they answer it in this wise :
It is owing to religious convictions which everybody must respect, and to the teaching of the church that Roman Catholics and members of the Church of England find themselves unable to partake of advantages which the law offers to all alike.
Dealing with the same subject the Privy Council, at page 187 of the same volume, says :
As a matter of fact the objections of Roman Catholics to schools such as alone receive state aid under the Act of 1890 (Manitoba Act), is conscientious and deeply rooted. If this had not been so, if there had been a system of public education acceptable to Protestant and Catholic alike, the elaborate enactments which have been the subject of so much controversy and consideration would have been unnecessary. It is notorious that there were acute differences of opinion between Catholics and Protestants on the education question prior to 1870. This is recognized and emphasized on almost every line of these enactments. There is no doubt either what the points of difference were, and it is in the light of these that the twenty-second section of the Manitoba Act of 1870, which was throughout a parliamentary compact, must be read.
Dealing with the same question further on their Lordships say that the argument urged by some people in favour of common schools is that they suit both alike. To this we cannot agree, as onr Roman Catholic friends cannot accept them as doing justice to their views in respect to religious education.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no strong reason, from a presonal standpoint, why 1^ should not be just as well satisfied with' separate schools or with public schools as any other gentleman in this House. But I have this to say, that the experience of Mr. d. d. McKenzie.
many years in close touch with the public schools of the province from which I come, has taught me that there is no use in trying to force upon any people a system of education with which they are not satisfied. Now my own position on the question is this :	I am in favour of the most absolute
and thorough government supervision and control of all schools receiving government grants or municipal aid. I am strongly in favour of the teaching of the principles of the Christian religion in schools. I am firmly convinced, after many years of active experience, that the teaching of religion cannot be successfully and harmoniously conducted in a mixed school attended by Roman Catholics and Protestant children together. I am a firm believer in the divine injunction :	' Train up a child in the way
he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.' I believe it is the duty of the state to see that as much as possible the cardinal principles of the Christian religion are thoroughly instilled into the youthful minds of the nation. I believe that this allimportant purpose can only be accomplished by Protestants of all classes agreeing upon a certain line of religious instruction in all Protestant schools.
I believe that the Roman Catholics of Canada are doing the right thing when they insist upon the teaching of their children in the religious principles of their churcU. Our Protestant friends say that there is no religious teaching in our national schools and it is as good for your children as it is for ours ; that is quite true and that view is worthy of some respect But, our Roman Catholic friends say: We know that what you say is true and we know that our children will not be in any way interfered with in the common schools. But that is not enough ; we want our children to receive religious instructions every day in the school and we want those instructions to be guided and inspired by the teachings of our church and we wait the instructions imparted by a person who understands and believes in them. 'This. as I understand it, is the position of our Catholic people in Canada and it is one, particularly from their standpoint, that commends itself to me, and one which I most cheerfully commend to the Protestants of Canada. As one who has been for the last twenty years in close touch with the public schools of the province of Nova Scotia, I take the responsibility of telling my Protestant countrymen that they cannot be too soon in following the example of their Roman Catholic brethren in insisting upon religious teaching in every school of the land.
That is the position which I take in respect to religion in the schools. X believe it is the proper thing to have it and if we must have separate schools in order to have religion in the schools let us have separate schools. If we can have them together, all

right, but if we cannot let us have them any way. What is the use of Protestants starving religion out of the schools and depriving their children of religious instruction for the sake of a few dollars ? Why should we hold out for a thing that Roman Catholics cannot and will not accept ? Is is not a proper thing for us as Protestants who have children to educate them in our own way'? There is nothing in so far as the different Protestant bodies are concerned that will prevent them from having their children educated together in the same classes, taught by the same teachers or from receiving religious instructions upon grounds common to all Protestant bodies.
I was talking about this amendment. A great deal of fault is found because we have this amendment. I submit that this amendment is not legislation of this House. It is legislation that was passed by the legislature of the Northwest Territories. They are just as fully represented in their local House as the province of Manitoba. According to their size and population they have just as many representatives in the local legislature of the Northwest Territories as any local parliament of Canada. They have a government, they have a premier, they have all the powers that a local legislature has except that they cannot borrow money and the longer that power is kept from them, I think, the better. This is an Act they have passed themselves. The Northwest Territories have passed this legislation and they appear to be perfectly satisfied with it and we have some evidence in its favour. We heard the speech the other evening by the hon. memeber for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), an opponent of this government. He put himself on record in connection with these schools, and what he says is this :
I intend to claim the privilege of briefly putting on record the views which I hold with regard to this question. After nearly twenty-two years residence in the Northwest Territories. I believe firmly that the public school system as at present administered is the one best suited to the needs of the country..
That is the view of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle about the legislation that we are dealing with. He says that he has had twenty-two years experience in the Northwest. that he has seen many changes and that this law which is now on the statute-book has given satisfaction to that country. Mr. Haultain himself says about this Act that he has had some experience of it as premier, and he says :
If I were dictator I would not change one line of it.
It is perfectly satisfactory to the premier, it is perfectly satisfactory to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and as far as we can find out it is perfectly satisfactory to every man who knows anything about education in the west. Now, if it is so satisfactory and if we are keeping it in the constitution 119
of the provinces, what is the matter with it ? Is it not the right thing to do? Is it not right that we should have permanent institutions and not be subject to every change of doctrine that may come about from one day to another ? It may be necessary for me, on account of some statements that were made about this Act. to deal to some extent with some of its provisions. I am sorry that in the part of the country that I come from some of the clergy have been a little bit carried away by the agitation that has been going on in connection with this Act. I find this letter in some newspaper published in- the part of the country I come from and when I read to this House certain provisions of the Education Act, I think it will be observed that there is no very great justification for this letter which was written by a reverend gentleman for whom the whole country, myself amongst others, has the greatest respect. I am only sorry that he did not take the trouble to learn for himself what the provisions of this Act are before he made such a pronouncement. He says :
But to be perfectly frank, what is asked in this Autonomy Bill is not separate denominational schools ; there is no mention of Russian or Jew or Anglican or Presbyterian, what is asked is the recognition and public maintenance of Roman Catholic, schools which the ratepayer is to support whatever his religious views may be. That is not equal educational privileges for all, this is not even the principle of separate schools, this is discrimination, it is the selection of one class of denominational schools for public support for all time and this without any reference to the public supervision of the teaching staff either in the matter of its appointment or its qualifications. Surely one is not to be called unjust and bigoted because he hesitates at fastening on posterity an unequal school system so pregnant with discord and strife as this is. sure to be. Rather it would seem does the injustice, lie in making any discrimination at all.
When we see what the provisions of this Act art:, I think it is a pity that this reverend gentlemen who has put a little time on this question, at all events, enough time to enable him to write this letter, did not give it a little more attention, before he came to the conclusion that this Act was such an awful thing as he seems to think it is.
In the province of Nova Scotia we have a public free school system, the law governing which has been on the statute-books since 1S64, but since then it has been several times amended. I have had something to do with the school legislation of Nora Scotia, and I know its provisions very well. I must say that so far as I know the Nova Scotia School Act, and comparing it with the Northwest Territories Education Act, I am inclined to believe that the latter is more full in its provisions, and, taking it all round, a better law. I would like our Nova Scotia friends to understand what
. REVISED EDITION

kind of an Education Act for the Territories we are giving our sanction to in tliis House, and I shall briefly contrast some of its provisions with those of the Nova Scotia School law. In Nova Scotia we have what is known as a superintendent of education who is an officer of the government holding office for life or good conduct, but in the Northwest Territories they have a commissioner of education, who is a member of the government, responsible to the people, and who must go back for re-election. The Commissioner of Education in the Northwest Territories has full control of everything pertaining to education ; he makes regulations as to the competency of the teachers for receiving a license ; he controls their conduct after they are licensed ; he supervises the manner in which they are engaged by the trustees ; he drafts a form of contract which they'must sign and they cannot teach school for one day without having complied with every regulation of the Act. Some hon. gentlemen have tried to make out that the separate school is absolutely apart from the public school, but I wish the message to be carried to our friends in Nova Scotia that this is an absolute mis-statement of the fact. The separate schools are national in every sense ; they have the same text books, the same, inspection and are under the same supervision as the common schools, i rom nine o'clock in the morning until half past three in the afternoon nothing can be taught in these schools except the ordinary prescribed lessons, but by arrangement between the trustees and the parents of the children in separate schools, there may be a half hour's religious instruction each day after half past three in the afternoon. I cannot see anything wrong about giving religious instruction in that manner; for my part I would like to see it the rule in every school in the country. Again, we are told by some hon. gentlemen, that once we pass this Act the school system in the Territories can never be changed, but section 52 of the School Act provides that if in ^iny section there is a so-called separate school and a common school and the people wish to change they can unite and have the one common school. Therefore, the people can follow any school system they please, so long as they do not take away from the Roman Catholic or the Protestant minority the rights they have acquired. If the trustees of a Catholic and Protestant school in one section are willing to have a common school without any religious teaching in it, there is nothing in the Act to prevent it. I was pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that the rights in the matter of education which the minority of the new Territories will have under this legislation, are not as extensive as the rights given to the Protestant minority in Quebec or to the Roman Catholic minority in Ontario. And. in the province of Nova Scotia, although Mr. D. D. MACKENZIE.
we have no separate schools by law, I can assure hon. gentlemen that the privileges which are allowed to separate schools and which are enjoyed by our Catholic friends in Nova Scotia are far and above anything which this law gives in the new provinces. If to-day, instead of forty years ago, we were framing a constitution for the admission of Nova Scotia into the confederation, I take the responsibility of saying that we could not form a compact without recognizing the claims of our Catholic friends in respect to this matter. Although there is no law dealing with it, I can assure the House that the Catholics of Nova Scotia are not suffering any grievance in respect to the educational laws of that province. If it is the right of the minority in Quebec to have a guarantee in the constitution, if it is the right of the minority in Ontario to have a similar guarantee, if it was the right of the minority in the Northwest Territories to have a guarantee in the Act of 1875, surely it is the right of that minority to have a like guarantee in the constitution to-day.
In 1867, when the province of Ontario came into confederation, the Catholics' of Ontario came to the fathers of confederation with this section of the law in their hands:
Every separate school shall be entitled to a share in the funds annually granted by the legislature of this province for the support of common schools and shall be entitled also to a share in all other public grants, investments and allotments for public common school purposes now made or hereafter to he made by the province or the municipal authorities according to the average number of pupils attending such schools.
That is the law with which the Catholics of Ontario came to the fathers of confederation and said : Our rights must be recognized under that Act. And their rights were recognized under that Act. To-day, when we are making a new -constitution, the Catholics-I suppose it is the Catholics who are asking for this now-come to us with a statute of this parliament and say : This is an Act which you put upon the statute-books by which our rights to separate schools were granted in 1875, thirty years ago ; this has been revised and reviewed twenty times since and it has always been looked upon as a proper thing to put In that law, and now we ask you to recognize it as fully and as completely as a similar right was recognized in 1S67. when the minorities of Quebec and of Ontario came to the fathers of confederation looking for the protection of their rights. I ask you. Mr. Speaker, if it would be fair or just to say to people who have lived for thirty years under a statute which we have given; (them affording ithem protection, an Act passed in 1875, to now remove the protection which they have enjoyed constitutionally for thirty years. Some one was asked

what right we have to suppose that the people of the Northwest will not grant the same privileges as we would grant in the east. While I am not saying that they would not, I will say that if I were a Catholic living in the Northwest what has happened in the past would, I think, be notice to me that I had not a great deal to expect in matters of this kind. 1 do not want to jar upon the feelings of any western man, or any other man, but I think that to be honest we' should place the facts just as we find them. In the seventies, or perhaps in the eighties, a school law was passed in Manitoba which, as far as I can learn, was perfectly satisfactory to the Catholics and was a -carrying out of the compact of 1870. Why it was so, I do not know ; but the fact is that it was later wiped off the statute-books, and there is no such thing in the statute-book of Manitoba to-day. It has been stated in this House to-day that a resolution has been twice passed in the legislature of the Northwest asking the government to tak^ away the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act in respect to separate schools. These provisions have not been taken away, but does anybody venture to tell me that if the legislature of the Northwest had the power -to take -these provisions away, it would not do so ? They have twice passed resolutions wiping off the slate. They had not the power to fully and effectively carry that out, but as far as the intention is concerned, it was -clearly -there. All doubt with respect to the legislature of the Territories is removed in that way, and doubt with respect to the legislature of Manitoba is removed by the fact that three times in succession efforts have been made to wipe off the statute-book anything which authorized separate schools ; and I, therefore, think the minority are justified in asking us, when granting a new constitution, to see th-at these rights which were reserved to them in 1875 will again be reserved to them under the constitution of 1905.
I have spoken longer than I intended, but the points I wish to make are these, and I shall summarize them in concluding. In the first place, I wish to point out that I think that we have ample power under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, and the Orders in Council which were passed to give us control over the Northwest and over British Columbia in 1871, to grant a constitution to any new provinces that we might carve out of the new country. I think, Sir, that we are perfectly safe in taking it for granted that- when the parliament of Great Britain told us that we could give a province a constitution, that that means a constitution and it means nothing less. To give a province a constitution is to give it all the machinery necessary to carry its affairs on as a province ; and when, in the old days, we took in provinces by Order in Council, we took them in on such conditions as were stipulated 1191
and agreed upon, and perhaps one hundred changes would be made between the commencement of negotiations and the final admission of the province. If we were bound down to hard and fast rules, we could never get a province to enter the confederation, and the early legislators of Canada were not long in discovering that some discretionary power was needed, and Sir John A. Macdonald asked the parliament of England to give the Dominion parliament such power as would enable them to give the provinces entering confederation such constitution as from time to time they might find necessary. These constitutional powers were granted and exercised, and in the exercise of that discretion the parliament of Canada had full power to mould and shape the conditions of Canada and to give to these new provinces a constitution as much as possible on the lines of the old provinces, making such changes as were necessary to suit the circumstances in each case.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have this power, and -that we are exercising it in the right direction in recognizing the circumstances that to-day exist in that country. While we should give every privilege to the local legislature, we should carry out, in dealing with these new provinces, the principles that governed us in forming constitutions of the other provinces. It was recognized, as I said before, at -confederation ; it was recognized In 1870, when the people who had formed confederation had every term and every condition of that contract fresh in their minds, when they had just returned from the conferences in England, when they were fresh from the conferences at Quebec and elsewhere, and when they had the whole business moulded and shaped in their minds, then the very first time they had to put it into effect they recognized the principle for which I am contending, and which is found in the British North America Act of a few years before. As I said before, it is recognized in the Act of 1875, it is recognized in that admirable speech of Mr. B-lake, in that speech of Alexander Mackenzie, and in the concurrence with that idea of Sir John Macdonald and every member who spoke in the House of Commons in 1875. Finding these conditions and finding that it is our du-ty to follow them out, and finding that we have those powers, are we doing anything but what is right and fair when, in this slight way, we recognize that constitutional principle ? What are we doing ? We are simply adopting and making -the law of the Dominion a law which the premier of the country with which we are dealing has stated is first-class legislation, is legislation which was passed by the parliament over which he presides, and of which he has said that if he were a dictator to-morrow he would not change one line of it. We are putting an Act into force in this country which an hon. gentleman who sits in this House as an opponent of the gov-

eminent, would venture to say that after twenty-two years' experience in the west this school law which we find to-day upon the statute-books is best suited for the needs of that country.	That is the
law we are asked to pass.	I think the
position I take in supporting the government is perfectly clear. X believe we have the power to do what we are doing, that in recognizing the constitutional rights of the people in the Northwest we are acting wisely, and that we could not recognize those rights at all and do less than we are doing.


Mr. GEORGE H. PERLEY (Argenteuil).: This matter has been so thoroughly threshed out, Mr. Speaker, and the hour is now so late that I do not propose to keep the House very long. After listening to the many and varied arguments we have heard Since this debate began it seems to me quit4 evident that no one is absolutely certain whether or not this House has the power to pass this Bill in its present shape. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. McKenzie) claims that our constitution is as pliable and elastic as the British constitution, but I can hardly see how for a moment it can be maintained that a constitution, which is a written one, and hence bound within the four corners of the document, can be at all compared to one which has its only basis in practice and precedent. Our constitution is the British North America Act, and that Act I do not think we have the power to alter or change in any particular without the consent of the imperial parliament. After listening to the very able arguments which we have had pro and con concerning the question of jurisdiction from the many able lawyers who have taken part in this debate it seems to me that those who deny our power to legislate as we please regarding the new provinces have the best of the argument, and I shall be surprised if the question of our jurisdiction is not carried to the Privy Council in England before it is finally decided. Should this happen, as I am afraid it will, the effect in the meantime will be most unfortunate, for the new provinces will be kept in a condition of trouble and uncertainty until the matter is finally decided. In my opinion it would have been far better had a series of questions been submitted to the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, and thus have removed by the highest court in the empire any doubts that might arise as to our powers, and as the creation of these new provinces was a matter which has been anticipated by everybody for some years, it seems to me that it would have been only ordinary foresight and prudence on the part of this government to have found out in advance exactly what jurisdiction this parliament has regarding these matters and thus be in a position to act without any uncertainty or hesitation. That, to my mind, would be the< busl-Mr. D. D. MACKENZIE.
ness way of acting, and naturally that is the way which most commends itself to my approval. Even now I think it would be better for the government to adopt that course, and I would consequently urge them strongly to withdraw the Bill and postpone it until next session, by which time we could ascertain exactly what our position is and thus avoid the danger of putting in our statutes a very important law which may turn out to be in many respects outside our jurisdiction and consequently waste paper. In the meantime the government could take advantage of the delay by taking up with the Canadian PacificRailway the question of doing away with the exemption oj' that company from taxation, the continuance of which is provided for in section 23 of the Bill; and for my part I know of no reason why they could not arrive at some equitable arrangement which would be satisfactory to every one and fair to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and which would leave the new provinces absolutely untrammelled as regards taxation.
The chief discussion in this House and in the press throughout the country has been regarding clause 16 which deals with education. As I understand it, and as the hon. the Minister of Justice has explained it, this clause, as amended by the government, gives minorities in the Northwest the same rights they now enjoy. Neither more nor less. These rights are very simple and easy to understand. The important sections providing for these schools in the Northwest Ordinance are :
41. The minority of the ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish a separate school therein ; and in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they Impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
137.	No religious instruction except as hereinafter provided shall be permitted in the school of any district from the opening of such school until one-half hour previous to its closing in the afternoon, after which time any such instruction permitted or desired by the board may be given.
(2) It shall, however, be permissible for the board of any district to direct that the school be opened by the recitation of the Lord's Prayer.
138.	Any child shall have the privilege of leaving the school-room at the time at which religious instruction is commenced, as provided for in the next preceding section, or of remaining without taking part in any religious instruction that may be given if the parents or guardians so desire.
139.	No teacher, school trustee or inspector shall in any way attempt to deprive such child of any advantage that it might derive from the ordinary education given in such school, and any such action on the part of any school trustee, inspector or teacher shall be held to he a [DOT] disqualification for and voidance of the office held by him.

149. No person shall be engaged, appointed, employed or retained as teacher in any school unless he holds a valid certificate of qualification issued under the regulations of the department.
Iu other words, all schools must be conducted in the same way. All the teachers must be equally competent, all the text books and teaching must be the same in all the schools, and all the schools must be subject to government supervision. Religious instruction is, however, allowed for one-half hour of whatever kind the board of each school may decide. Now, Mr. Speaker, these rights for minorities have been in force, in much the same form, for many years, and thousands of people have settled in the Northwest relying on them. I understand they have been perfectly satisfactory to the people of the Northwest, and no doubt would be continued in the new provinces, were the matter left entirely to them. Personally, I believe it would be better to have all our children educated together, as they would learn to Jjnow each other better and perhaps make better citizens. But I have always lived tn a mixed community such as we have in Ottawa, and I consider that the rights and feelings of every class of people should be respected, and that it would be impossible to carry on our government on any other basis In a country of varied races and religions such as Canada possesses. I might add, Sir, that although the county I have the honour to represent is composed of every class, creed and nationality, I have not received a single letter or petition urging on me to take any particular course regarding this question, and I think I may, without laying myself open to a charge of undue conceit, consider this a cause of pardonable pride on my part as showing that the people of Argenteuil are willing to trust me in this matter. If we have any right to legislate at all on the subject, I am sure that none of my Protestant friends would object to our continuing in the Northwest the very moderate rights of education which the Roman Catholic minority now has there and has had for so many years.
By their speeches, hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to convince the people.that the Conservatives are against the separate school system as it at present exists in the ' Northwest. But, Sir, no member of the opposition has taken any such position.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition showed in a masterly argument, from a constitutional and legal point of view, that this parliament should not deal with the question, but nothing that he said could in any way he construed into an objection to separate schools. We have had from the hon. Minister of Justice and many
j other lawyers a different view on the- c-on-stitutional question from that taken by my [ hon. leader. According to some legal authorities. the power to legislate regarding education lies with us only, and according to others we are bound by the constitution to provide for a system of education. I myself believe in provincial rights, but in this case the question is not one of provincial rights, as there'are yet no province in the Northwest, but of the legal interpretation of the British North America Act. and on that point no one can tell which lawyer is right and what view the Privy Council may take.
While I think that the educational clause as now drafted is fair and equitable, I repeat that, in my opinion, it would he better not to go on with the Bill now but let the government find out first where we stand and wliat our powers really are before we attempt to legislate.
It seems to me that the government is very much to blame for the hasty and ill considered way in which this measure was brought before the House aud the country. The right hon. Prime Minister brought in this Bill on the 21st of February, and the greater part of his speech was an elaborate argument in favour of separate schools, and was of such a nature as to arouse a storm throughout the country on this question, and to make men of strong Protestant views believe there must be something very objectionable in the Bill. You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that none of us had seen the Bill when the right hon. Prime Minister presented it for its first reading, and still his speech produced in my mind the impression that he expected the measure to be strongly objected to by the Protestants of this country. That is exactly what happened. Petitions began to pour in at once, and a few days afterwards the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) resigned his office. After that, a whole month elapsed before the modified education clause was brought in by the government, and this agitation throughout the country kept on growing. I believe the storm of disapproval would never have arisen if the right hon. Prime Minister had consulted with his colleagues and his followers beforehand and had provided, in the first instance, simply for schools as they exist at present in the Northwest. I have no doubt that the people will place on the shoulders o'f the government, where it properly belongs, the blame for the unfortunate agitation on this question that has swept over the country.


Mr.  A. I.@: AVER ONE moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, April 4, 1905.