1905-05-03

Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government or of the Department of Militia to abolish or to reduce the staffs of officers in the militia (cadres de milice) established by His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the 23rd February, 1904 ?
2.	If so, why and when will that change be effected ?
3.	What will be done with the officers and non-commissioned officers appointed to complete the staffs that were established on the 23rd February, 1904 ?
4.	Is it the intention of the government or of the Department of Militia to create a reserve for each militia corps ?
5.	If so, what regulations will govern such reserve ?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	It is not the intention to reduce the cadres of officers of the militia, but it is the intention to separate into two lists officers and non-commissioned officers actively employed and those whom it is proposed should, in the event of field operations, be detailed for work at the base or in raising reserve units.
Hon, Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General). This is a question concerning the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that department has sent me the following answer :
1.	Strictly speaking, no ; as the present contract does not expire until December next, although an understanding has been arrived at for a continuation of the service on condition that during next season a new and larger boat is to be placed on the route.
2. Answered by No. 1.
3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.



DEATH OF HON. JAMES SUTHERLAND, M.P.

Rt.   H@: I have to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that I have just received a telegram informing me of the death of Mr. Sutherland, Minister of Public Works. I have to say to the House that personally in losing Mr. Sutherland I lose one of the truest friends I ever toad, and I know that the House loses one of its most valued members. I will meet, I am sure, the feelings of the House if I endeavour to say that the House should express its sympathy in its bereavement in some suitable manner, and I do not know that that can be done in any other way than by the House adjourning to attend his funeral. Therefore, I will move that when this House adjourns to-morrow it stands adjourned until Monday next, so as to permit members to attend the funeral of Mr. Sutherland.


Mr. WILMOT.: 



MAT 3, 1905 531S

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I rise, Mr. Speaker, ror the purpose of supporting the motion which my right hen. friend the Prime Minister has made. The emotion which the right hon. gentleman has displayed has indicated to the House more eloquently than even his eloquent words could have done the very great loss which he feels he has sustained on this occasion. Let me say on behalf of this side of the House that all of us join most sincerely in the deep sympathy which I know every gentleman on the other side feels for the family of Mr. Sutherland in their bereavement, and especially for the Prime Minister of this country, whose true and valued friend Mr. Sutherland has been so many years. I had the privilege of knowing that gentleman when I first came into parliament in 1896. He was then an old member of parliament and I a young and inexperienced member. I always met at his hands the greatest kindness and cordiality. Afterwards, in my later acquaintance with PuW'd life, I met him on many trying and difficult occasions, particularly the occasion when he and I were members of a committee two years ago, to which was entrusted the duty of making a redistribution of the seats in the province of Ontario. And although there was a certain feeling at that time which might have led to some display of temper on the one hand or the other, I can say, with grateful recollection, that Mr. Sutherland and I, at the conclusion of a very difficult and trying investigation, parted just as good friends as we were when that began. I repeat that on this side we extend our most cordial and heartfelt sympathy to the bereaved family of our late friend and to hon. gentlemen opposite, who, by his death, have sustained so great a loss. We on this side realize fully the loss which the House and the country have sustained. In. the death of Mr. Sutherland Canada has lost a public man. not only of great experience, but. as I have alwavs believed, of very great executive ability indeed. I feel that I have the hearty sympathy and support of every gentleman on this side of the House in the words I have uttered and in my support of the motion of the right hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Speaker, much has been said and much more written since this Bill was first introduced which, in the interest of peace and harmony, aye, which, in the interest of truth and justice, might better have been left unsaid and unwritten. I hasten to add that, having followed closely the debate in this House and heard or read all the speeches, I must admit at once that, due allowance being made for the heat and exagerated language which appear to be inseparable from our political debates, with perhaps two or three exceptions, no speech has been made here which could offend the ears of even the most sensitive among us. I must of necessity, Mr. Speaker, take up at some length the attention of the House to discuss those things which, in my judgment, are material and important. I will therefore not waste any of your time or of mine in answering the idle vapourings of those who, for reasons which I have never been able to understand, invariably seize with avidity on every opportunity that offers to sow the seed and fan the flame of racial and religious discord in this country. Faithful to the best traditions of their party, some of the Conservative newspapers have been fair and just in their criticism of this Bill. Others, unmindful of their obligations to the public, and substituting personal abuse for argument, deliberately misrepresenting the purposes and object of this legislation. have not hesitated to appeal to the lowest and the vilest passions of our depraved human nature.
I shall not attempt to follow them in the path on which they have chosen to enter. Those of them who are worthy of consideration I will leave to the punishment which must inevitably come in the hours of calm reflection and sober second thought.
I will only say that the record of the Catholic Church and of its clergy is writ large on every page of the history of the world, and of the history of this country in particular, and so long as the spirit of loyalty to our institutions, and so long as the spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion ot duty are held in esteem among us, so long will the names of Catholic priests and prelates hold foremost places on the honour roll of Canada. It is not neces-I sary to go over the ground already covered by my eloquent friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). but let me mention the names of Jogues, Lallemant and Brebeuf, French Canadian Catholic martyrs who, in the early days of cur history gave to the world examples of the noblest courage that ever steeled the heart of man, that of giving testimony unto death for the convictions of the soul.
As I listened a few days ago to the admirable speech of my friend for East Middlesex (Mr. Elson). when he told us that he was a native-born Canadian, that there was no portion of the earth in which he felt so much interest as in that which is bounded by the outer boundaries of Canada, that there were no people who lived and moved and had their being upon the face of the globe in

(a)	Promote the prosperity of the Canadian peoipie and conduce to the advantage of the whoile empire if the Dominion of Canada were extended westward to the shores of the Pacific ocean.
And next.
(b)	That the welfare of a sparse and widely scattered population of British subjects of European origin already inhabiting these remote and unorganized territories would be materially enhanced by the formation therein of political institutions bearing analogy as far as circumstances will admit to those which exist in the several provinces of the Dominion.
I attach much importance to that paragraph, contained in an address presented by the House of Commons of Canada under the terms of section 146 of the British North America Act, 1867, asking that these Territories should form part of our Dominion, and draw special attention to the fact that the imperial authorities are therein asked to cause these Territories to be joined to the Dominion, the Dominion undertaking on its side to give to them political institutions ' bearing analogy as far as circumstances will admit to those which exist in the several provinces of the Dominion.'
Then further on in the same address I find this paragraph :
And that we do most humbly pray that Your Majesty will he 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.
As will bd seen by these addresses, the imperial authorities were moved to unite Rupert's Land and the northwestern territory by Order in Council to the Dominion of Canada.

These addresses were received in England by an intimation of Her Majesty's willingness to comply with their prayers and that intimation was coupled with a statement to this effect:
That the law officers of the Crown advise that the requisite power of government and legislation could not be transferred to Canada without an Act of parliament, on account of the existing charter of the Hudson bar. ,
The result was that the Rupert's Land Act, 1868, was passed to enable Her Majesty to do with respect to Rupert's Land what was in contemplation by virtue of the provisions of section 146 of the British North America Act, and I would like to point out here immediately that Manitoba did not come into confederation, as has been generally supposed by virtue of the provisions of section 146, but that it came in by virtue of the provisions of the Imperial Rupert's Land Act, 1868. There are two sections of that Act of 1868 which are deserving of consideration. The first is section 2 which provides that:
For the purposes of this Act the term ' Rupert's Land ' shall include the whole of the land and territory held or claimed to be held by the said governor and company.
That is to say, the governor and company of Hudson bay. It was intended that Rupert's Land ishould be held to include only what the company was supposed to be entitled to under and by virtue of the extraordinary charter to which I referred a moment ago, but Rupert's Land is defined here as meaning all that land which they held or pretended to hold ; hence the necessity for my referring, as I did a moment ago, to the license of 1821. Section 5 of the same Act (Rupert's Land Act, 1868) says that:
It shall be competent to Her Majesty, by any such Order or Orders in Council as aforesaid, on address from the Houses of the parliament of Canada, to declare that Rupert's Land shall, from a date to be therein mentioned, be admitted into- and become part of the Dominion of Canada ; and thereupon it shall be lawful for the parliament of Canada, from the date aforesaid, to make, ordain, and establish within the land and territory so admitted as aforesaid, all such laws,'institutions and ordinances.
Etc., as it may deem desirable.
The result was that in 1868. Sir George Cartier and Hon. Mr. McDougall were sent to England to carry on the negotiations which had been opened by the Colonial Secretary with the Hudson Bay Company for the acquisition of the territory to which I have just referred ; and in 1869, on the 21st May, new resolutions were passed by this House with respect to Rupert's Land and a new address was presented, so that you must in dealing with Rupert's Land and Manitoba look at the terms of the address of May 1869 and not at those of the first address. The Hud-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
son Bay Company having proposed to surrender their country to the Dominion of Canada this proposal was submitted to His Excellency the Governor General in Council on July 5th, 1869. and met with his approval. The result was that on November 19, 1869, a deed of surrender was signed, and on June 22, 1870, almost two years after the first address had been presented, the Rupert's Land Order in Council was passed. I wish to draw attention to the terms of that Order in Council which contains among others this provision :
It is hereby ordered and declared by Her Majesty, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, in pursuance and exercise of tlje powers vested in Her Majesty by the said Acts of parliament, that from and after the 15th day of July, 1870, the said Northwestern Territories shall be admitted Into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions set forth in the first hereinbefore cited address, and that -the parliament of Canada shall from the day aforesaid have full power and authority to legislate for the future welfare and good government of the said territory.
That provision of the Order in Council disposes of the Northwestern Territories and then it is further ordered :
And it is further ordered that without prejudice to any obligations arising from the aforesaid approved report, Rupert's Laud shall from and after the isaid date be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the following terms and conditions.
It is not material for my argument to refer to these terms and conditions, but it will be seen-and for the accuracy of debate it is important that we should understand ail that occurred up to the time these Territories and Rupert's Land came in- that Rupert's Land was dealt with under the terms of the second address of May, 1869, and that the Northwestern Territories were brought in under the terms of the first address of December, 1869.
In anticipation of the passage of this Order in Council of June, 1870, 32-33 Victoria, chapter 3 was passed in 1869 ; that is the Act which makes provision for the administration and government of Rupert's Land and the Northwest, and in 1870 on the 12th of May. 33 Victoria, chapter 3 was assented to, and that is the Manitoba Act. Doubts having been expressed as to whether or not certain provisions of that Act were within the sphere of the authority of the parliament of Canada it was decided to submit the Act for approval to the imperial authorities, and I desire to examine some of the provisions of that Act and also to see what were the doubts expressed at that time. Let me, in the first place, draw special attention to sections 2, 22 and 30 of the Manitoba Act.
Section 2 applies the provisions of the British North America Act to Manitoba, except so far as these provisions may be varied by that Act. Section 22 is what is

called the educational clause and contains provisions in some respects wider in their scope than section 93 of the British North-America Act. Section 30 has reference to the ungranted land which remained vested in the Crown. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have drawn the attention of this House especially to these three sections of the Manitoba Act, and I have drawn the attention of this House to those three sections because these section contain almost in terms those provisions of the Act now under consideration, which are especially attacked, and in connection with which the doubt has been expressed as to our power to constitutionally deal with this Bill. Let us look at the origin and history of these sections. Bear first in mind, that the Manitoba Act which contains the provisions I have just mentioned was drafted by Sir John Macdonald the father of confederation, then Attorney General of Canada, and it was introduced by him into this House and subsequently passed through the Senate at a time when the men who were most familiar with the scope of the provisions of the British North America Act, when the men who had discussed that Act section by section, line by line, word by word, were all either in this House or in the Senate. I have searched the debates of that day in vain for one word said in criticism of any of these three sections. There is not one word to suggest even that this parliament was not competent to pass such legislation. To set that question at rest, because it is of some importance, I have made an analysis of the debates which will be found in | Hansard ' of 1870, pages 1287 and following. If those who are interested in this question consult ' Hansard ' they will find that Sir John Macdonald introduced the Act, and he said among other things :
The proposition of the government is that the people of .the province shall be represented in the senate by two members until the province shall have a population at the decennial census of 50,000, &c.
Then Mr. Mackenzie spoke at page 1296, and he was followed by Cartier; then Mr. Macdougail intervened, then Mr. Ferguson, then the Hon. Joseph Howe, then again Sir John Macdonald, then Mr. Wood, then Mr. Harrison, then Mr. Mill's, then again Mr. Macdougail and then again Sir John Macdonald ; and it will be found that not one of these gentlemen ever referred to the question as to whether or not it was competent for this parliament to pass these sections. There was not a single voice in this House raised in protest against the action of the government at that time with respect to the Manitoba schools. I know it is said, that we cannot derive any advantage from an examination of the Manitoba Act because that Act was not in reality passed by this parliament. It ' is
said that, while it is admittedly true that such legislation was put through this House because of a doubt that had arisent it was found necessary to refer the Act to the imperial parliament, and it is said that consequently we have to examine it absolutely in the same way as if it had been an Imperial Act. Let us see what occurred in that connection. After the Act was passed here it was thought necessary to refer it, I admit. When it was referred, was any doubt suggested with respect to the right of this parliament to pass the three clauses in question? Those who are interested in this aspect of the case can see Sir John Macdonald's report

he was then Minister of Justice-printed at page 9 of Hodgins' collections. It will be there found that Sir John Macdonald said :
A question was raised as to the power of parliament to pass the Act and especially those of its provisions which give the right to the province to have representation in the Senate and House of Commons of the Dominion.
That was the only point with respect to which any question was raised as to the validity of the legislation. But, Sir John Macdonald goes on further and he says :
Under these circumstances, as a question as to the constitutionality of the Act of the Canadian parliament has been raised, and as a doubt may cause grave disquiet in the Territories which have been or may hereafter be added to the Dominion, and in order also to prevent the necessity of repeated applications to the Imperial parliament for legislation respecting the Dominion, the undersigned has the honour to recommend that the Earl of Kimberley be moved to submit .to the imperial parliament at its next session: first, confirming the Acts of the Canadian parliament, 33 Vic., chap. 3, the Manitoba Act, as if it had been an imperial statute and legalizing whatever may have been done under it according to its true intent. Second-
To this clause of the report I wish specially to draw the attention of the House :
Second, empowering the Dominion parliament from time to time to establish other provinces in the Northwestern Territories with such local government, legislature and constitution as the Dominion parliament may think proper, provided that no such local government or legislature shall have greater powers than those conferred on the local government and legislatures by the British North America Act, 1867; and also empowering it to grant such provinces representation in the parliament of the Dominion, the Act so constituting such provinces to have the same effect as if passed by the imperial parliament at the time of the union.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has b*een said that no argument can be drawn from the Manitoba Act because the Manitoba Act was passed subject to a doubt which was expressed with respect to its validity, and that it was necessary to get a confirming Act from the imperial parliament. Let us see how far the doubts then expressed

532a
Trere well founded. When this Act -went to the imperial authorities it was necessary to introduce legislation ; it was necessary to introduce the Act of 1871, known as tihe doubt removing Act. And. when this Act of 1871-the British North America Amendment Act-was introduced it was necessary to explain its provisions', and it was necessary especially to explain why the imperial parliament was interfering. Bari Kimberley made that explanation on the second reading or the Bill-I quote from imperial ' Hansard of 1871, page 1171. He explained that the Act he was introducing :
Was intended to remove doubts which had been cast upon the validity of certain Acts of the Canadian parliament. The Act of the Confederation of the North American provinces gives power to the parliament of Canada to establish provinces and territories admitted or thereafter to be admitted into the Dominion of Canada, but an Order in Council was necessary.
Here is the point I want to make. The law officers of the Crown in England were naturally consulted about the Act, and what did they say ? The law officers of the Crown were of the opinion :
That these Acts '(the Manitoba Acts) were valid but doubts having been expressed the Canadian parliament has addressed the Crown for an Act of the imperial parliament confirming their validity.
There is the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in 1871. expressed at a time when the ink was scarcely dry on the Act of 1867. which had been passed by the same parliament. And who were these law officers ' They were Sir Robert Collier and Sir John Coleridge ; these were the men who in 1871 expressed the opinion that the parliament of Canada, even without the Act of 1871, had the power to pass sections 2 22 and 30 of the Manitoba Act. I think that I am fortified by that opinion and may fairly claim the right to set it up against some of the opinions that have been quoted against me in this House, and more especially by the editors of some newspapers who apparently profess to be so well versed in constitutional law.
Let me draw your attention to the tact that when section 22 of this Manitoba Act was enacted for the special protection of the minority in Manitoba, there was no word of criticism in this House or in the great newspapers of those days- then the ' Globe ' was edited by George Brown, no word raised against the action of the government which at that time was seeking to give to the minority of Manitoba the very guarantee with respect to education which we ' are now trying to give to the minority of the Northwest Territories. Surely it will not be argued that there was no word of protest raised at that time because it was then thought that Manitoba was to be a French preserve.


Charles Fitzpatrick: How are we to explain the difference between the spirit shown in those days and the spirit shown in these ? Was there any question then among the great men of Canada, the men who had made confederation, of manacles, of shackles, of invasion of provincial rights? Father Richot had been consulted; Archbishop Tache had been summoned from Rome. Was there at that time any denunciation or any suggestion of improper interference by the Roman Catholic hierarchy ? Why the contrast between those days and these ? Surely it will not be suggested, in this country of broad and tolerant men, in this age of enlightenment, in this twentieth century* when we hear on all sides advanced the doctrine of the universal brotherhood of man, that there are things which -Sir John Macdonald might do m in'd and which are not permitted to Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1905.	_	, .	.
Now, without the Act of 1871 what position would we be in to-day ? Under the Order in Council of 1870 we were authorized to legislate for the future welfare and the good government of the territory. Could we to-day have given to that territory provincial status ? I say that it is not only doubtful, but it is almost certain that we could not. \Ve have 110 authority to deal with the Northwest, Territories as we dealt with Manitoba under the Act of 1868.	That
Act was limited exclusively in its application to Rupert's Land. Could the King to-day, pass an Order in Council under the provisions of section 146 ? Undoubtedly not. A delegated power once exercised is exhausted; every lawyer knows that; and the right to legislate by Order in Council under the provisions of section 146 was a right delegated by the imperial parliament to Her Majesty, and once exercised that power was exhausted. Could we do it under the Order in Council of 1870 ? Undoubtedly not, because there is another principle of law which is equally certain with the one to which 1 have just referred: delegatus delegare non potest. Therefore, it is necesary for us to find authority for our action "in the present instance within the four corners of the Act of 1871. That Act in section 4 provides :
The parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the administration, peace, order and good government of any territory not for the time being included m any province.
It is under that section that we have legislated since 1871 for the Northwest Territories. These words, ' peace, order and good government,' have received a judicial construction by the highest court in this laud. They were construed against myself by the Privy Council in a case from which I will read an extract-the Reil case, which is reported in Appeal Cases, volume 10. page 078. Their Lordships of the Privy Council say:

The first point is that the Act itself under the petitioner was tried wTas ultra vires the Dominion parliament to enact. That parliament derived its authority for the passing of that statute from the imperial statutes, 34 and 3o Vic., e. 28, which enacted that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the administration, peace, order and good government of any territory not for the time being included in any province. It is not denied that the place in question was one in respect of which the parliament of Canada was authorized to make such provision, but it appears to be suggested.that any provision differing from the provisions which in this country have been made for administration, peace, order and good government cannot, as a matter of law, be provision for peace order, and good government in the Territories to which the statute relates, and further, that if a court of law should come to the conclusion that a particular enactment was not calculated as a matter of fact and policy to secure peace, order, and good government, that they would be entitled to regard any statute directed to those objects, but which a court should think likely to fail of that effect, as ultra vires and beyond the competency of the Dominion parliament to enact.
Their lordships are of opinion that there is not the least colour for such a contention. The words of the statute are apt to authorize the utmost discretion of enactments for the attainment of the objects pointed to. They are words under which the widest departure from criminal procedure as it is known and practised in this country have been authorized in Her 'Majesty's Indian empire. Forms of procedure unknown to the English common law-have there been established and acted upon, and to throw the least doubt upon the validity of powers conveyed by those words would be of widely mischievous consequence.
Now, sir, we are not legislating at the present time under the provisions of section i of the Act of 1871. We are legislating under the provisions of section 2 of the same Act, where we find exactly the same words as are used in section 4. Section 2 reads :
The parliament of Canada may, from time to time, establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of'the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province and for its representation in the said parliament.
These words, in the opinion of the law lords, absolutely authorize * the utmost discretion of enactment to quote the expression used by Lord Halsbury, the present Lord Chancellor. Let us look again at section 2 of the Act of 1871.


Mr. HAGGART.: He is begging the question.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think that the law officers of the Crown in England begged the question in 1871-Sir Robert Collier and Sir John Coleridge. Let me say here that the construction of a statute is 169
no great secret. A statute is intended purely and simply to give effect to the intention of the legislature which enacts it; and as a rule the legislature uses ordinary plain English words in grammatical forni, and the words in a statute are to be construed in the same sense as they would be in ordinary conversation. That is the intent of the law. Let us read the section again and see what mystery there is in it:
The parliament of Canada may, from time to time establish new provinces . . . and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province.
Can words he clearer ? What is there ambiguous about these words ? I hold that section 2 expressly gives power to the parliament of Canada to establish new provinces in any of the Territories forming part of the Dominion, but not included in any province thereof, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of any such province, and its representation in parliament. Bear in mind that this Act was passed at the request of the Canadian government, and remember what I read a moment ago from the report of the late Sir John Macdonald, in which he asked that the Act be passed and said that it was the desire of the Canadian parliament to be empowered from time to time to establish other provinces in the Northwest Territories, with such local government, legislatures and constitutions as it might deem fit to give them. That was the request made by the Canadian parliament, and section 2 is one of the provisions of the law which was passed in answer to that request.
It seems to me that there is another argument to be drawn from this. The Act of 1871 not only contains the provision which I have just read-and bear in mind the circumstances under which it was passed-but it also contains a provision to confirm the Manitoba Act, that is to say to confirm an Act which contains these clauses of which I spoke a moment ago, among which are the educational clause and the clause with respect to the ownership of public lands. The imperial authorities, having had notice from the Canadian parliament that it construed its powers to mean that it had the right to deal with these two questions in the way in which it had dealt with them, confirm what the Canadian parliament did and give it power to g'o on legislating on similar lines in the future. It seems to me impossible to find a case in which the intention of the imperial parliament to give this parliament the power to do in a case like the present which is in all fours with the Manitoba case what was done by the Manitoba Act could be more dearly expressed.
This Act, the British North America Act of 1871, marks a long step in advance of the powers which the Dominion parliament



at that time enjoyed. The Act of 1867 provided only for the establishment of four provinces and their union into one under the name of the Dominion, and for the extension of the Dominion by admission into it of other parts of British North America. But by the Act of 1871 new powers are either granted or confirmed to the Dominion parliament: First, to administer the Northwest Territories as such without giving them the rights or the status of provinces ; second from time to time to establish new provinces and at the time of such establishment to make provision for the constitution and administration of such provinces. -Now, observe that the words of section 146 of the British North America Act of 1867 ' Subject to the provisions of this Act ' do not appear in section 2 of the Act of 1871. The words ' may make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province ' are not restricted or qualified by any thing in this section contained, and are as broad and comprehensive as words can be for the purpose of enabling this parliament to frame a 'constitution for any province it may deem expedient to establish. I am not unmindful that in the last paragraph of the Act of 1886 it Is said :
This Act and the British North America Act, 1S67, and the British North America Act, 1871, shall be construed together, and may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886.
Does that mean that you are to give effect to clauses in any one of the Acts, that are obsolete ? Or does it mean more than this ? That you are to read all the Acts together, so as to give each section in each Act its full effect in order that it may have its complete operation ? These words in section 146 ' subject to the provisions of this Act ' have their meaning and their place in that section. What occurred with respect to that section ? The imperial parliament passed the British North America Act of 1867, not merely, as an Act is passed under ordinary circumstances, to give effect to the intention of the legislature, but to give effect likewise to a solemn compact entered into between three distinct and separate political entities ; and when that Act was passed, provision was made that by exceptional legislation-that is to say by Order in Council-Her Majesty was empowered to bring other provinces into confederation and to allow other provinces to be carved out of the Territories. Therefore it was of prime importance that in that provision authorizing Her Majesty to exercise these exceptional powers, under these exceptional circumstances, a restriction should be put upon the exercise of those powers, and that Her Majesty should be told: You can bring in new provinces, you can carve out new provinces in these Territories, but you shall do it subject to the Act we have


Charles Fitzpatrick: passed. There are reasons for these words in these circumstances ; but when the imperial parliament in 1871 delegates these powers to the Dominion parliament, to be exercised by that parliament absolutely and for all time, just as they would be by the imperial parliament, we are acting, not under the provisions of an Order in Council-but under the authority of an imperial Act.
I am not quite sure that there are many members In this House who have observed a subsection of section 2 of the Act of 1886, upon which I do not care to lay much stress, but upon which, if I had a weak case, if I had a case which was not superabundantly proved otherwise, 1 might lay considerable stress. Section 2 of the Act of 1886 contained this extraordinary provision :
It is hereby declared that any Act passed by the parliament of Canada, whether before or after the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this Act

The purpose was the representation of the province in the parliament of Canada.
____or for the purpose mentioned in the British
North America Act, 1871, has effect notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act of 1867.
That is to say, the imperial authorities in 1886 declared, in anticipation, that any Act passed under the authority of the Act of 1871 shall be valid and effective. What could be the object of such legislation ? I do not require to rely upon it ; but it seems to me, as I said a moment ago, that if I wanted to indulge in a little hair-splitting, I would find here all the comfort I require.
Chapter 16 of the statutes of 18 <1, and chapter 5 of the statutes of 1872, were passed to provide for the government of the Northwest Territories. And finally, in 1875, an Act was passed which may be very correctly described in my opinion, as the constitutional Act of the Northwest Territories. That Act was amended on several occasions and consolidated in 1880 and again consolidated in 1886. In 188S and in 1804 other Acts were passed which gave to the Territories practically local self-government and what is their position to-day ? In order that there may be no doubt about that I will read an extract from the letter written by Mr. Haultain to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and published in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of March 13th last:
The new territories have for a number of years been under one government and legislature performing most of the duties and exercising many of the very important powers oi provincial governments and legislatures. There has never been any suggestion that the territorial machinery was in any way inadequate for the purposes for which it was created.
In a word, It is admitted on all hands that at present time the Territories have already * been granted nearly all the legislative

powers that can be given under any other constitution-where they at present fall short may be briefly stated as follows :
1.	Limitation of the power to amend the constitution to a power to deal with elections simply.
2.	The withholding from the Territories the power to borrow money.
3.	The retention of the power to deal with the public domain.
4.	For the absence of authority to establish such public institutions as hospitals, asylums, &c.
5.	No power being given to take, cognizance in any way whatever of public undertakings other than such as may be carried on by joint stock company.
6.	The assumption by the Dominion of the
duty of administering criminal justice in the Territories.	.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are called upon to add the little that is necessary in order to give full autonomy to these Territories. The first question to be considered is : Has parliament the power to legislate for these new provinces in the manner proposed ? And the second question is :	Are the provisions for the establishment of these new provinces fair and reasonable in view of the conditions now existing in those Territories ? I will not repeat what I have just said about the Act of 1871. But it has been suggested that the provisions of the British North America Act apply automatically to the new provinces. What that means, i must confess, I am somewhat at a loss to understand. 1 think I heard it suggested by some that our authority in this parliament is limited to the making of a declaration that the territory affected is a province, and then the provisions of the British North America Act would be applicable. Is that what is meant by saying that these provisions apply automatically ? This might be possible with respect to those provisions that apply to all the provinces. But what of the others ? There are provisions that apply to Quebec, there are provisions that apply to Ontario, there are provisions that apply to Ontario and Quebec, there are provisions that apply to New Brunswick, there are provisions that apply to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia ; and there are some provisions that apply to all the provinces. Which of these would apply here ?
Let me here again lawyer-like appeal to precedent. Those who drafted the British North America Act and who may be supposed to have best understood its provisions, were called upon, very shortly after they had drafted the British North America Act to draft the Manitoba Act. How did they proceed ? Section 2 of the Manitoba Act is practically section 2 of this Bill. That is to say, in the Manitoba Act you find a section declaring provisions of the British North America Act applicable to Manl-1091
toba. If these provisions apply automatically where is the necessity for thisi section? The same thing applies to Prince Edward Island and to British Columbia. When British Columbia came into confederation, in 1871, those who are curious enough to look into the details of this matter will find, in the Order in Council provision is made which is practically in terms identical with the section of this Bill. And the same thing applies to Prince Edward Island. In all these cases the terms of the British North America Act were applied to the new provinces, except so far as they may be varied or amended by the statute or the Order in Council.
Then it has been argued that the provisions of the British North America Act may be made applicable, but we have not the power to alter or vary the terms of the British North America Act. Here again I appeal to precedent. If we have no power to vary the British North America Act why did they insert in the Manitoba Act, in the Prince Edward Island Order in Council, and the British Columbia Order in Council, a provision that the sections of the British North America Act would be applicable to these provinces except in so far as they may be varied or altered by the Act or by the Order in Council ? If we are in error, it seems to me, we have ample precedent for our error. On that branch of my argument, the conclusion I come to is, that we have the power to give to these provinces such a constitution or administration as this parliament deems it expedient to give. But the most that can be said in favour of those who take the contrary view-and it has not been said so far as I am aware-is that inasmuch as the British North America Act, 1871, provides that the parliament of Canada may from time to time establish ' prdvinces,' the word ' provinces ' as so used must be interpreted having regard to the meaning of that word in the British North America Act, 1867, and therefore the province so established must be an institution corresponding generally with the provinces whose constitution is fixed in the British North America Act. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that that is so, it can only require that the new provinces shall be constituted, as to correspond in powers with the other provinces so far as, with regard to any subject or class of subjects the powers of all the provinces are the same. I might labour the point indefinitely and not get much further on In addition to the quotations from Sir John Thompson made by the leader of the opposition, I would refer to a further statement by that gentleman which will be found m ' Hansard ' of July 16th, 1894, page 6130. It will there be found that Sir John Thompson, one of the greatest constitutional lawyers among the many eminent men who have filled the position that I now occupy, held clearly and distinctly that the constitution

of the provinces which are now being created is to be settled by this parliament exclusively. That there may be no doubt on that" subject, perhaps I had better read an extract from the 'Debates.' Sir John Thompson said, in answer to Mr. McCarthy:
The hon. gentleman's argument, of course, was that if this system

That is to say the school system of the Territories.


Mr. SPROULE.: X think an explanation is due to the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I am not permitted to make an explanation, if the hon. gentleman will not, out of courtesy, permit me to make an explanation, I will sit down.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I think I have provoked an explanation.

were allowed to stand until provinces are
created, we should, by force of the British North America Act be unable to withdraw that system, and that it would be riveted on the provinces. As has been shown by the hon. member for Bothwell, the provisions of the British North America Act relate only to the provinces which were entering into the union at that time, and to the provinces which were named in the last section of the Act as entitled to be admitted into the union, and have no relation whatever to the provinces which are to be created out of the territorial district of the
country. That is Clearly seen when we come to the' British statute of 1871, which, for the first time, conferred the power on this parliament to create provinces out of our territories, and, as the hon. Minister of the Interior has said, enables this parliament to decide what the constitution of those provinces shall be. We claim, therefore, that the constitutional system which was .established with regard to schools and with regard to language in 1*76, ought to be maintained for the same reasons as those which dictated its creation, and that this condition of affairs should last, at least, while the affairs of the territories are under the control of this parliament. What the constitution of the future provinces shall be, in view of the pledges which have been referred to, or in view of any other set of circumstances, will be for parliament to decide when it decides to create those provinces.
Now it seems to me that some consideration should be given to this opinion expressed by so eminent a man, absolutely in line with the opinion on which the government are now acting. Now, as against the views I have expressed, the opinion of another very eminent man has been quoted, that of Mr. Christopher Robinson. I make bold to say that there is no man in this country who occupies a higher position, not only as a lawyer but as a man. than Mr. Christopher Robinson. The worthy son of a distinguished sire, he embodies in his person all the best traditions of the noble profession to which so many of us belong. I have given evidence of my respect for Mr. Christopher Robinson, on many occasions, the most important being when I recommended him as chief counsel for Canada in the Alaska boundary case. Now what does Mr. Christopher Robinson say-rather, not what does he say, but what is he reported to have said?-because we have not yet got what he said, we have not been favoured even with the questions that were submitted to him.


Charles Fitzpatrick: ill-. SPROULE. I said that a word of explanation was due to the Minister of Justice. He requested me to hand to the House the questions that were submitted to Mr. Christopher Robinson, and I told lnm I would endeavour to get them and supply them to him. When I wrote for them the answer which I received from Mr. Mac-pherson, the gentleman through whom I was acting, was to this effect, that the questions had not been considered as they were presented, but rather as having regard to the purport of the Bill. I should have handed that answer to the Minister of Justice, but I did not do so because I thought it would not meet the intention that he had in asking for the question.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is absolutely no harm done, I have absolutely no complaint to make against the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule). Now let us see what Mr. Christopher Robinson said. we have the positive opinion of Sir John Thompson, now let us see what Mr, Christopher Robinson said, as I And it m ' Hansard
The right of the Dominion .parliament to impose restrictions upon the provinces about to be formed, in dealing with the subject of education and separate schools, is, I think, not beyond question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I be permitted to sav oue word here? The Minister of Justice used the expression ' What Sir Christopher Robinson is reported to have said. I here hand to the hon. gentleman the paper which Mr. Christopher Robinson signed with his own hand.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Mr. Christopher Robinson said:
The right of the Dominion to impose restrictions upon the provinces about to he formed, m dealing with the subject of education and separate schools, is, I think, not beyond question. This would require more consideration tnan 1 have been able yet to give it, and must ultimately be settled by judicial decision. I am asked however, whether parliament is constitutionally bound to impose any such restriction or whether it exists otherwise, and I am of opinion in the negative. It must be borne in mind that I am concerned only with -the question of legal obligation. What the parliament ought to do or should do in the exercise of any power which they may possess, is not within the province of counsel.

I do not really think it is worth while for certain newspapers in this country to quote the opinion of Mr. Christopher Robinson, and say that his opinion is that, on this important constitutional question, there can be no doubt the government is wrong. I am not aware that this government considers that it is bound constitutionally to impose any restrictions ; but I am aware that this government believes that in equity and in good conscience it ought to enact section 16 of the Bill.
Now for the present I will follow the example of the leader of the opposition, and deal exclusively with two features of this Bill ; first, the question of the land, and second, the educational provisions. Let me draw the attention of the House to this fact that the leader of the opposition, careful lawyer as he undoubtedly is-in his presence I will not say more-does not go beyond this :
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 those lands, and obtain to it the consent of the people of the Northwest Territories?
That is to say, we are to give them all the lands with a string tied to them. That is so far as my hon. friend would care to go.


Robert Laird Borden: No, the hon. gentleman is hardly doing me justice. I said in the first instance that it would be a proper policy to hand the lands over to the control and administration of the provinces; then I said if the government declined to do that on account of a reason that has been suggested by the Prime Minister, I thought at least that might have been done which the Minister of Justice has just quoted.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I stated my hon. friend's opinion so far as I could gather it. I do not wish to misrepresent him, because I have had my own experience in reading my own speeches. I understood him to say that we had power to retain some control over these lands while granting them to the legislatures of the provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: In order to make myself perfectly clear, I would like to say a Word-I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, for I know how difficult it is to make a consecutive legal argument with constant interruptions, those who have practised in courts have had some experience of that. What I meant to say is simply this, that I thought the lands ought to he handed over, but if we are to concede the principle that the government do not intend to hand them over, then in that case the best thing to do was that which I suggested. I did not intend at the time to deal with the question of legislative power.
I may say besides to the Minister of Justice that I think the question of the lands stands so far as legislative power is concerned on a somewhat different basis from that of the educational clauses.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In dealing with the lands I refer to section 109 of the British North America Act which is made applicable exclusively to the original provinces by name, and applicable to each of the provinces in which the lands were vested at the time of confederation. At the time of confederation the lands referred to in section 109 were the property of the provinces that were coming into confederation. In the present instance the lands are vested in the Sovereign In the" right of the Dominion and we would require a divesting Act to part with them. If this Act were simply silent the public domain would remain in the Crown, where it now is. Here again we have the authority of precedent. In the Manitoba case the same principle was applied and as has been explained by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and other speakers, that principle was never departed from, notwithstanding the repeated and urgent requests of Manitoba. I shall not weary the House with a repetition of the answers given by former governments to the requests of Manitoba for the control of their lands. Incidentally I may say, however, that this question was under consideration in the Swamp Lands Case in the Privy Council in 1904. Honourable members will remember that under a Dominion statute it is provided that all Crown lands in Manitoba which are shown to the satisfaction of the Dominion government to be swamp lands shall be transferred to the province and inure wholly to its benefit and use. The government of Manitoba claimed that they were entitled from the date of the statute to the profits on each parcel of lauds which had eventually and after a process of selection been transferred. The Privy Council held that the lands did not inure to the benefit and the use of Manitoba until they were transferred.
The fruits or produce now in dispute arose while the administration of the lands was with Canada, and have been duly applied to Canadian uses.
That is to say, while Canada was administering the public domain in Manitoba and the Territories in such a way that the profits arising therefrom inured to the benefit of the Dominion. Something might be said in favour of the principle that these lands should be administered in such a way that the profits arising therefrom would inure to the province or territory in which the lands are situated, but in the Privy Council the question arose incidentally and there it was not even suggested that the Dominion


Robert Laird Borden: You look pretty guilty.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I look pretty guilty but I do not look nearly so guilty as I feel. I drew it with my own hand, clause by clause, line by line, word for word. It is one of the two clauses of the whole Act for which I am personally responsible. Tlie other is the clause that has reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. I will not now say any thing, as I fear I have detained the House long enough, on the amended clause. That I shall be prepared to deal with and to justify when it is moved in Committee.
Now, if I have succeeded in establishing my first point, namely, that this parliament has the power to insert in this Bill the provisions contained in section 10 with respect Mr. FITZPATRICK.
to education, the next question to be considered will be, are these provisions under all the circumstances fair and reasonable, and in view of the pledges given and of the legislation passed by this parliament is there a moral obligation to enact this clause ? My principle, if I have a principle in politics, is to hold sacred my covenants. There is to use the words of the Privy Council in the second Manitoba case, a 'parliamentary compact ' made with the people of the Northwest and I went, so far as it is possible to do it, to hold sacred my covenants and to see that compact observed. We are told that tlie provinces were not consulted about this Bill and especially about this provision of the Bill. Let me say that as far back as 1900 the territorial government drew a Bill and submitted it for the consideration of the government, to which they expected parliamentary sanction would be given. I have here in my possession a Bill drawn in 1902 which they submitted to the government and In which I presume they caused to be inserted all the provisions which they desired to have in their new constitution. What is there in that Bill?


Robert Laird Borden: That is the Haultain Bill?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Tlie Haultain Bill, yes, the Bill of 1902. This Bill will be found in a return which was brought down last year or the year before and annexed to it there is a memorandum explaining each one of the provisions. What does that Bill say in section 2? And bear in mind that section 2 of that Bill is almost in terms section 2 of the Bill now under consideration of this House. Section 2 of the Bill presented to us by the people of the Northwest Territories contains this provision :
That on and after the 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 especially 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.
Rather suggestive that they think we have the right to vary the terms of the British North America Act.
Shall be applicable to the province of__ in
the same way and to the same extent as they apply to the other provinces of Canada, and as if the province of___had been one of the provinces originally intended by the said Act.
What does that mean ? The provisions of the British North America Act; do they include section 93, the educational clause, or if it was not their intention that that section should be made applicable to them why did they not except it ? Now we have more than that. Mr. Haultain in the letter I have mentioned says :
With regard to the question of education generally you are now aware that the position taken by us was that the province should be left to deal with the subject exclusively, subject to the provisions of the British North America Act, thus putting them on the same footing in this respect as all the provinces of the Dominion except Ontario and Quebec.
To properly appreciate wliat this means, let us see what is the position of the other provinces of the Dominion with respect to education, and X will make bold at once to make this statement: that there is not today in the whole Dominion of Canada a single province which has the power to legislate exclusively with respect to education- not one province In the Dominion of Canada. The distribution of legislative power by the British North America Act, as between the provinces of the Dominion, is made in sections 91, 92 and 93 of that Act. Section 91 enumerates the power of the parliament of Canada, and enumerates the matters coming within the classes of subjects over which the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends. Section 92 enumerates the classes of subjects in respect to which the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws ; and section 93 deals especially with legislation respecting education, and provides ; what ? :
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education-
Does it stop there ? No, it goes on to say-:
-subject and according to the following provisions.
Can there be any doubt now as to whether or not the provinces have the right to deal exclusively with education. If it was intended that the province should have exclusive legislative jurisdiction with respect to education, why not have included that subject among the classes of subjects enumerated in section 92, and assigned exclusively to the provinces ; or, why not have eliminated all reference to the subject of education, which, in that case might have been included under the heading ' property and civil rights in the province ' under section 92 ; again under ' matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.' Either of these two enumerations would include education. The answer is, that parliament, intended to deal witii this difficult question so as to make exceptional provisions differing according to each province ; and my argument is that by section 93 of the British North America Act, 1807, the power of each province to make laws in respect to education is expressly limited : First, the right to denominational schools which any class of persons has by law in each province at the union must be preserved. That is quite clear. Second : where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law at the union, or is thereafter established an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council
from any act or decision of any provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the minority. And "third :	The powers,
privileges and duties conferred in Upper Canada upon separate schools and school trustees of the Roman Catholics, are extended to the dissentient schools of Protestants and Roman Catholics in Quebec.
These limitations not only provide expressly exceptional provisions for different provinces, but also in effect, so far as there were denominational schools at the union, established as many different systems as there are provinces. By the Manitoba Act there are different provisions, and the limitations so far as denominational schools are concerned is expressed in even broader terms than in section 93 of the British North Am- ' erica Act. Nobody doubts that Ontario, that Quebec, that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are provinces, notwithstanding this diversity in matters of education. It has never been suggested that Manitoba is not a province, although further exceptions as to education have been introduced in her case. It cannot reasonably be argued that in creating a new province the Dominion is bound to make its powers with regard to education corresponding to those of any particular one of the older provinces. And, if we are obliged to make them correspond to any particular one of the older provinces, to which shall we make them correspond '! All the provinces are treated alike, mark you, Mr. Speaker, with the single exception of Quebec, with respect to which province there is an express limitation placed upon its powers in the interest of the Protestant minority.
It is a complete error to imagine that the right to separate schools in Ontario is created by the British North America Act; that right is merely preserved by that Act, and there is no exceptional provision for Ontario. The conditions applicable to Ontario are those applicable to New Brunswick, to Nova Scotia, to Prince Edward Island and to British Columbia ; the difference being that at the time of confederation the Catholics of Ontario had rights and privileges with respect to their schools by law in the province, and they did not have these rights in some of the other provinces. Again I repeat: there is not in the whole Dominion of Canada to-day a single province that enjoys an exclusive right to legislate with respect to education. Then, why in the name of provincial rights can we justly be called upon to give to these new provinces a power which no other province possesses ? Let me quote on this point the opinion of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the second Manitoba School Case. Here is what their Lordships say, page 279 of the Manitoba School Case, 1894, edited by the Canadian government:
Before leaving this part of the case say their Lordships, it may be well to notice the argument urged by the respondent: that the eon-

struction which their Lordships haye put upon the second and third subsections of section 22 of the Manitoba Act is inconsistent with the power conferred upon the legislature of the province to exclusively make laws in relation to education.
The argument is fallacious, sav their Lordships, the power conferred is not absolute but limited, it is exercisable only subject and according to the following provisions.
Further on at the foot of the same page, dealing with the same subject, their Lordships say :
It must be remembered that the provincial legislature is not in all respeots supreme within the province. Its legislative power is strictly limited. It can deal only with matters declared to be within its cognizance by the British North America Act as varied by the Manitoba Act.
Their Lordships do not seem to take fright at the suggestion that the British North America Act should be varied.
In all other cases legislative authority rests with the Dominion parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, here is what their Lordships go on to say :
In relation to the subjects specified in section 92 of the British North America Act, and not falling within those set forth in section 91, the exclusive power of the provincial legislature may he said to be absolute.
That is to say, when they exercise the powers conferred by section 92. But their Lordships continue to say :
But this is not so as regards education which is separately dealt with and has its own code both in the British North America Act and in the Manitoba Act.
There we have it, on the authority of the Privy Council, that there is no power under the British North America Act vested in any province to deal exclusively with matters of education. I am quite aware that the terms of section 22 of the Manitoba Act differ somewhat from the terms of section 93 of the British North America Act, and the differences are pointed out in the report of the same case, at page 270 ; but the principle is the same. As was stated by their Lordships of the Privy Council, the argument that power is conferred on the legislature of any province to exclusively make laws in relation to education is a fallacious one. The power conferred is not absolute, but limited. It is exercisable only-to use the words of section 93-' subject to the following provisions.' I repeat that it is neither absolute nor exclusive.
In this view of the law, let us examine section 16. Dealing with the Territories as the other provinces had been dealt with my intention was to declare section 93 applicable, and I beg those who do me the honour of listening to me to take note that a special provision would not have been necessary, that section 2 of the Bill would have been sufficient were it not that a diffi-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
culty might have arisen from the use of the word ' province ' in section 93, and because of a doubt which was suggested as to the meaning of the words ' at the union.' Section 93. which would be applicable under section 2 of our Bill, reads :
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions :
1.	Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.
My difficulty was with respect to the words 1 province ' and ' at the union.' My view was that it was possible that these might be construed as applicable exclusively to a province, and could not be made applicable to these Territories as brought in. and my firm determination was that there should be nothing left to uncertainty, so far as my responsibility went. My object was Lo make section 93 applicable, and my object was also to avoid a repetition of the Manitoba difficulty. I wanted to perpetuate the existing conditions, with which everybody in the Territories professes to be satisfied. Now, if you take section 16 and read it in the light of that declaration, how would the law' be with respect to these Territories? It would read as follows :
. In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the territory at the time of the passage of this Act.
I would have made section 93 applicable to the Territories as if they were provinces, and as if they were provinces at the time this Act comes into effect, that Is to say, on the 1st of July next.


John Graham Haggart: Would that cover rules and regulations made under the ordinances ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend is more familiar with that question than I am. because he had to consider them in 1S94 under Sir John Thompson. I shall unfortunately be obliged to discuss that later on when I come to the amendment. My intention was to continue the conditions existing at the present time. I had in mind the letter written by Sir John Macdonald to a member of the Manitoba legislature, which was quoted here a few days ago by my hon. friend from Cornwall (Mr. Pringle), and which is printed in the opening pages of the Manitoba School Case by Kribbs, in which Sir John declares that it was the intention of the government in 1870 to give to the minority in Manitoba the right to separate schools-to give them full and ample protection with respect to their

schools. I knew that was the intention at that time, and I also knew that the Act, drafted under these circumstances, was submitted for consideration to their Lordships of the Privy Council ; and they felt it to be their duty to declare that the man who drew that Act, the draughtsman of that day, had failed to carry out the intention of the legislature. I made up my mind that the draughtsman of to-day, so far as his limited light allowed him to go, would make no such mistake. Their Lordships, in the Manitoba school case, said :
It was not doubted that the object of the 1st subsection of section 22 -was to afford protection to denominational schools, or that it was proper to have regard to the intent of the legislature and the surrrounding circumstances in interpreting the enactment. But the question which had to be determined was the true construction of the language used. The function of a tribunal is limited to construing the words employed ; it is not justified in forcing into them a meaning which they cannot reasonably bear. Its duty is to interpret, not to enact. It is true that the construction put by this board upon the 1st subsection reduced within very narrow limits the protection afforded by that subsection in respect of denominational schools. It may be that those who were acting on behalf of the Roman Catholic community in Manitoba, and those who either framed or assented to the wording of that enactment were under the impression that its scope was wider, and that it afforded protection greater than their Lordships held to be the case. But such considerations cannot properly influence the judgment of those who have judicially to interpret a statute. The question is, not what may be supposed to have been intended, but what has been said.
I meant to say what I intended. Perhaps incidentally it may interest the House to know that at the time the Manitoba School Act was passed, and at the time these difficulties arose in Manitoba, the imperial authorities thought proper when they were called upon to give military assistance to the Dominion of Canada to fix the terms upon which they would give the assistance asked for. The imperial authorities of that day. to their credit be it said, faithful to the traditions of the imperial parliament, the mother of parliaments, the parliament of that people who have always held sacred their covenants, acting through their representative, Lord Granville, sent to the Governor General of Canada a cablegram on the 5th of March, 1870, which reads as follows :
The proposed military assistance will be given if reasonable terms are given to the Roman Catholic settlers, and if Canadian government enable Her Majesty's government to proclaim transfer simultaneous with movement of troops.
They were prepared to give the assistance asked for at that time by the Canadian government on condition that reasonable terms should he given to the Roman Catholic minority. The assistance was accepted in
the terms stated, and to give effect to these terms 'the Manitoba Act was passed, and we all know, the result. This is a sad chapter in the history of Canada.
Dealing now with section 16, I would like to say that the second paragraph in that section was added-although in my judgment absolutey unnecessary-because it was thought advisable to re-enact the provisions of section 11 of the Act of 1875. This was for the purpose of making it quite clear that this parliament was merely carrying out a solemn promise already made. That very paragraph was intended to give legislative sanction to the conditions now existing with respect to grants in aid of education. At the present time these grants are dependent upon an annual vote of the legislature, and it was not clear to me that the annual grant made by the legislature gave to those who benefit by it a right or privilege within the meaning of section 93. And I thought that if separate schools are to exist, they should be made effective for the purposes for which they were intended and should be placed, to use the words of Mr. Balfour, in a position in which they can effectively play their necessary and inevitable part in the scheme of national education. I have given you uow, Mr. Speaker, the whole secret of section 16. Where now are the shackles, the manacles, the invasion of provincial rights ? What are we doing ? I say that in the future it would be a serious reflection upon the people of the Dominion if the solemn promises made in 1875, repeated in 1880, and oft repeated since were not carried out.
It is unnecessary for me to go over what occurred in 1875. That will be found In the debates of the Senate and the House of Commons when the Bill was introduced. All that has been gone over repeatedly, but let me draw attention to a fact not yet mentioned, namely, that a year later, in 1876, the Keewatin Bill was introduced by Mr. Mackenzie, and from the Bill clause 11 of the Act of 1875 was omitted. On being asked for an explanation, Mr. Mackenzie spoke as follows :
The Bill is only temporary in its character. Section 11 refers only to the Act of last session. The laws established by this Bill are those in force at the present moment in the Northwest Territory-neither more nor less. The Act of last session proposed the creation of a municipal system and conferred practically all the powers of self-government as a province. It is only when such powers are exercised that the clause in question comes into operation.
After some discussion, Mr. Blake said :
The Act of last session has not yet been put in force. At present all the Territories of the Northwest are governed from Manitoba. The Act of last session proposed, and I think rightly proposed, a system which gave rudimentary representative institutions coincidently with its going into effect. The Bill of this session takes off a very small portion of the enormous territories of the Northwest for the

particular purpose which my hon. friend the premier clearly explained. ... If this territory is annexed to Manitoba the laws of that province relating to schools will apply to it. If reannexed to the Northwest Territories, clause 11 of the Act of last session will apply.
Mr. Mousseau said this clause seemed to empower the government of the new province to repeal clause 11 of the Act of last session securing separate schools to the Northwest Territory. He wished to know if this was the case.
Hon. Mr. Blake said that the 11th clause of the Northwest Territory Act was not yet in force, and would not apply to any of these Territories until the Act was proclaimed. It was a clause which could only come into force practically in connection with a system of taxation, no provision for which was made in this portion of the Territories so long as it remained under this form of government. The future of these Territories would be either one of two things-they would be annexed to Manitoba or they would be detached from Keewatin and reannexed to the Northwest. In either case the rights of the minority would be protected. There was no intention on the part of the government to depart from the general principle of the 11th clause. If the Territories were attached to Manitoba they would be subject to the laws of that province; if to the Northwest they would come under the 11th clause of the Act of last session.


Sir JOHN MACDONALD.: If I understand it, by simply proclaiming the Act of 1875 this 11th clause will come into force.


Hon.   M@: Certainly.
In 1875 there tvas, my hon. friends will remember, the discussion of which I have just spoken on this clause 11. There was again a dscussion in 1S76 on the Keewatin Act, and it seems to me a sad commentary on our boasted progress in the direction of nation building to find that the clause introduced in 1875, which received the practical approval of both political parties and of the press of both parties in the country cannot be re-enacted to-day. We do not seem to have gone very far on the road towards nation building, when we cannot do to-day, what we could do in 1875. I do not know that it is necessary for me to remind the House of that extract from the ' Mail ' of April, 1875, which was quoted by my hon. friend from Richelieu (Mr. Bruneau), in which the ' Mail,' in discussing the position taken by Mr. Brown, said :	.
We fear that Mr. Brown is no better lawyer than his friend Mr. Mackenzie. We do not doubt that Senator Miller took the correct view when he said that the clause referred to- namely, clause 11-by Mr. Brown applied only to the provinces which were in the union at the time the Act was passed.
And here are the important words :
Every one may see how fortunate a thing it *would have been if the school question had been put on a stable basis in New Brunswick, and if by the Northwest Act the government should have prevented future burnings on educational matters in the great new country Mr. FITZPATRICK.
which belongs to us in the far west, they will have done a good work indeed. We cordially endorse their action in this matter.
That appears to have been the policy of the Conservative party, in those days, and certainly it was a policy worthy of the best traditions of that party. I have not said anything of the character of the schools in' the Northwest nor of my personal preference with respect to a system of education. My duty was simply to give effect to a system which was introduced in 1875 in the Territories and which has been established and improved by the free will of the people of those Territories. [DOT] It has been suggested that the Territories wish to rid themselves of this incubus of separate schools, and we have been referred to a resolution that was passed by the Territorial Assembly in October 1889, asking that a humble address be presented, praying that an Act be passed to repeal subsection 1 of section 14. True such a resolution was passed in 1889, but let me draw attention to a resolution which was passed in 1890, the following year. In that year the following resolution was passed ;
Moved by Mr. Richardson, seconded by Mr. Brett, that whereas on the 29th October, 1889, this House passed the following resolution, viz: Resolved, that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, the Senate and the House of Commons praying that an Act be passed amending the Northwest Territory Act by repealing subsection 1 of section 14 after the word 'education' in the second line.
And whereas such address was duly presented by w'ay of memorial passed on the 6th November, 1889,
And whereas no action has been taken on the subject by the parliament of Canada;
Therefore, be it resolved that this House reaffirm the vote as taken on the said 29th October, 1889, and respectfully request that the said memorial as above mentioned shall receive careful consideration by the parliament of Canada at its next session and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Secretary of State.
With time and consideration came wisdom. That resolution was put to the House and how did it result ? Six voted in favour of it, and 15 against it. And there _ this agitation with respect to the repeal of the provisions of the Act having reference to separate schools ended, and we have heard nothing of it since. And of course, the present Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Haultain, voted against the resolution and in favour of maintaining the present condition. But that is not all ; we have something even more recent. We have heard quite recently about the extension of the Manitoba boundaries and the desirability of extending those boundaries has been "dwelt upon. And in that connection we have heard references more forcible than polite to a gentleman who is supposed to have been in some way connected with

that matter, notwithstanding his formal denial. But what has that to do with the school question of the Northwest ? I shall be asked. Let me draw attention to the fact that as recently as 1901 a joint debate took place at Indian Head, in eastern As-siniboia, between Mr. Roblin and Mr. Haul-tain upon this very question of the extension of the Manitoba boundary. Mr. Roblin put forth the reason why the people of that little place should declare themselves to be in favour of the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, at the expense of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Haultain, on the other hand, arguing against the proposition and seeking to convince the people that it was to their interest to remain in the North-west Territories and that the boundaries of Manitoba should not extend westward. And what, Sir, were the reasons given by Mr. Haultain to induce them to resist the blandishments of Mr. Roblin and to oppose the extension of the Manitoba boundary ? The joint debate is reported in the Regina ' Leader ' of January 20, 1902, and Mr. Haultain's argument is summed up in these words : ' Good roads. Railways. Schools. Water.' Referring to the school question, he says :
With the school system you are fairly well contented, so I need not dwell upon the subject.
I said a moment ago that I expressed no opinion as to the relative merits of public and separate schools. Not because I entertain any doubt myself as to the proper system of education, or as to the necessity for religious teaching in our schools ; not because I do not believe in the voluntary school, for, undoubtedly I do believe in that school, because I think that school is the only school consistent with absolute freedom of conscience for which I have always stood. As for the common school, bringing all the children together, so that there may be uniformity, I have very little to say. My view has been that the individual ought to be developed. I do not want uniformity any more than I want monoton}'-both stand practically in the same light, so far as I am concerned. I believe in the development of the individual as I believe in the doctrine of self-help. Perhaps, later on, I may have occasion to say a few words more about that doctrine. I argue that what was said and done in 1875, what was said and done in 1876, and in 1880, and 1885, and 1894, puts upon this parliament the imperative obligation to give effect to the promises and pledges then made. In 1875, Hon. George Brown, when section 11 of the Act of the Northwest Territories of that year was up for consideration said :
Tlie moment this Act passed and the Northwest became a part of the union, they came under the Union Act, and under the provisions with regard to separate schools.
It is true that Hon. George Brown was not a lawyer, but he had taken a prominent and important part, a part, perhaps, second to that of no one else in the confederation debates, and he must be presumed to have understood the meaning of the British North America Act. He said that if the Act of 1875, which contained section 11 guaranteeing separate schools to the minority' in the Territories, were allowed to continue until the Territories came into the union, then those schools became part of their constitution. Not only was that the view held by Hon. George Brown, but Mr. Dalton McCarthy, in 1894, speaking of the clause relating to separate schools, which he wished to have repealed, said :
Now, we insist by the clause of the Act of 1875, which has been included in the various consolidations of the legislative powers of the Northwest Territories which have been made from time to time, that they shall have separate schools, and if we continue insisting that that system, shall prevail up to the time we create provinces in the Northwest, then the application of this clause of the first subsection of section 93 of the British North America Act, to which I have referred, rivets for all time upon the new provinces the system of separate >
schools.
Therefore we have the opinion of Hon. George Brown, confirmed by that of Mr. Dalton McCarthy, that if the system of separate schools exists in the Territories at the time when they came into the union as provinces, that system becomes part of their constitution and we cannot interfere with it. [DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: Did not he withdraw that later on ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Possibly. But it seems to me that I have gone several times through ali the debates on that subject and do not recall reading any withdrawal on his part. It may have escaped my attention-


Mr. FIELDING.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) mean in the same debate ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, a little later oil. Speaking purely from recollection, in answer to Sir John Thompson, he did withdraw it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I saw that part. It is not a withdraw al-at least, that would not be the construction I would put upon it. Some days ago, the work of Mr. Clement on the constitution was quoted by the leader of the opposition against the position of the government. Mr. Clement, of his own motion, without being solicited wrote to me on March 10th. in a letter in which he inclosed a typewritten document headed ' The Legal position of a new province as to education,' in which he deals with this question. He says in part:

1.	The federal parliament cannot create a new province with an area of legislative power greater or less than that assigned to the original provinces by the British North America Act.
2.	It follows that section 93 of the British North America Act-the clause defining the legislative jurisdiction of the provincial assembly over education-must, proprio vigore and without possibility of amendment by federal legislation be operative in any new province immediately upon its creation as a province.
3.	Therefore, if there should be at the time when a new province is established which is, in my opinion, the meaning of the words 'at the union' in section 93, any right or privilege in respect to denominational schools existing by law there, such right or privilege shall be protected by section 93.
Now, Mr. Clement, without hesitation, declares in the same sense that Mr. Dalton McCarthy did, namely, that if there are separate schools in existence in the Northwest Territories at the time these Territories come into the union-that is to-day these separate schools are entitled to the constitutional protection afforded by section 93. There is the opinion of Mr. Clement. who was quoted against me the other day by the leader of the opposition.
May I now deal for a moment with the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition? I have attempted to make the position of the government absolutely clear, would it not now be proper for us to know exactly what the position of the leader of the opposition is? Is it the intention of the leader of the opposition to ignore existing conditions, and public engagements resulting from the legislation of the past in this House, and the speeches made in explanation and support of them ? Is it his intention to say to the Roman Catholic minority of the Northwest Territories that they should not have that protection that other minorities in all the provinces of the Dominion now have ? I have read the amendment naturally with care, and I must confess that I have been at a loss to understand exactly his position on that point.
Now I w-iil deal with one or two of the minor criticisms that have been offered against this legislation. It has been made a matter of reproach to the government that we did not declare our policy on this school question before the last election. Our policy, the policy of the Liberal party, was absolutely clear, it was not necessary for us to make any declaration ; our policy was to follow the law in the letter and in the spirit ; our policy was to give effect to the legislation introduced in 1875 by the great leader of the Liberal party, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie and supported by Edward Blake, to give effect to that policy by our legislation. What about the _ opposition? Did they declare their policy ' on this question when they went up and down the country discussing the question Mr. FITZPATRICK.
of autonomy for the Northwest Territories ? Did they declare what their policy was with respect to separate schools? I have yet to learn that they did. But I think it would have been somewhat embarrassing to them to do it. in view of the spectacle we have had in this House during the last few weeks. They would have had one policy for Ontario and another policy for Quebec ; and as to the policy in the other provinces, I leave it to the imagination of each one to conceive what it might have been.
Now another criticism that has been made is that Mr. Sifton was not consulted about this Bill. Mr. Speaker, I have little to add to what I have already said incidentally on that subject. I can say now that Mr. Sifton handed to me personally a draft Bill as prepared by those who represented the Northwest Territories, and that on that Bill were notes written in his own handwriting with respect to this question of schools, which I understood is the only question that we differed about. I have the notes here, which I will read :
Make memo of present provisions in law relating to the Northwest Territories as to public schools and provisions in other constitutional Acts.
Beyond that, I never had a conference with Mr. Sifton, beyond that, he is in no respect responsible for section 1G of this Bill. Now 1 have endeavoured at all times to shut my eyes and to close my ears to the idle chatter which we hear in the streets ; I have endeavoured at all times to ignore the professional maligner who goes about for the purpose of endeavouring to create disturbances between friends. So far as I am concerned-I speak out openly, I have nothing to hide, nothing to be afraid of, either here or outside-I say that the honest differences that have existed, if any have existed, between Mr. Sifton and myself with respect to this Bill, are differences which any two self-willed and perhaps rather strong-minded men might have. But they have never extended beyond that, and any man who says they have, any man who, either in this House or out of it, says anything to the contrary, says what he knows to be untrue.
Now there is another point to which I wish to refer. A criticism has been offered as to the composition of the subcommittee that was appointed by the government to confer with the representatives of the Northwest Territories with respect to the provisions of this Bill. I would like to say that it is somewhat embarrassing to answer the charge that a man should not be Minister of Justice, or form part of that committee because he happens to be a Roman Catholic. The Prime Minister was a member of that committee. Was it improper that the Prime Minister should be a member of this important subcommittee?

Is it proper that the Secretary of State, the official channel of communication between this government and the government of the Northwest Territories, should be a member of that committee? Is it any crime in him that he should be a Roman Catholic? Was it proper that the Minister of Justice should be a member of that committee? I am technically responsible for the drafting of this Bill. Was it not right that I should have an opportunity to consider the representations of those who were the delegates of the people of the Northwest Territories, in order that I might know how to draft the Bill ? I won't say that it is not my fault that I am a Roman Catholic, because it is. That sort of criticism, it seems to me, may well be described as the small change of parish politics.
Now a reference has been made to an opinion expressed by me long ago about the elementary schools in Quebec, t did criticise the elementary schools in Quebec, because I thought they were bad. I told the people who were interested, and upon whose votes I depended for my election, that I thought their schools were bad and they (ought to improve them. They have set about improving them. But let me draw the attention of the House to this fact, that the elementary schools I criticised are not the clerical schools of the province of Quebec, they are the schools that are under control of school trustees, which trustees are elected by ratepayers-those are the schools that I criticised. The clerical schools of the province of Quebec are the colleges of that province where the Catholic members from that province were in large part educated ; and without saying anything in favour of the system of education In the province of Quebec-you have heard some of our French colleagues from that province speak in this House, and may I not say of the school system that produces the men who represent that province, and the men w'ho made these speeches : Justifl-cata est Saipientia e filiis suis.
Now-, Mr. Speaker, after having apologized for trespassing so far on the attention of this House, I wrant to say a word in praise of the calm and dignified attitude in the present circumstance of the people of the province of Quebec, that much maligned province which was said to be so deficient and backward in the cause of education. Take the facilities for higher education offered by Laval University, and you shall find that the blessings of a liberal education are brought within the reach of a poorer class of people in the province of Quebec than is probably the case in any other country in the world. There are no great endowments to make fees a matter of slight consequence, but the spirit of self-sacrifice is abiding tradition within its walls, and its doors are open to all-comers because its professors are content to work for a mere pittance.
On the other hand, nowhere has private wealth recognized its public duties with greater generosity than in that province. It is not necessary to recall in the presence of the members of the Canadian House of Commons the names of the men whose benefactions have endowed McGill University with the revenues of a principality.
We must all admit to-day that the hammer stroke that drove home the last rivet in the last rail in the line wffiich now unites the west and the east with a band of iron did something more than complete one of the greatest engineering feats of the kind. It put an end to the old era in which Canada was a mere geographical expression for a number of sundered and mutinous and sometimes squabbling provinces, and it gave to the conscious nation what it shall ever show' in the face of trial-a backbone of steel. This scheme originated in the province of Quebec and was carried to a successful completion by men from that province. I shall not attempt to forecast the future, or to say what fate Heaven holds in store for the people of the Northwest Territories-a people so blessed in the past, and so greatly expectant of the morrow, and so truly the heirs of the best that the old w-orld had to give. The earth and the riches thereof is stretched out before them, inviting them to the work of developing to the utmost the resources of their great inheritance, and the task may well occupy the noblest energies of their children and of their children's children.
But if they look back to the small beginnings of Canadian history they shall see that fidelity and constancy have been the conspicuous qualities in the characters of both the great stocks from which the Canadian people are mainly derived.
It may, therefore, be inferred without rashness that they are not likely to run after strange fads, but rather to stand in the ancient ways, true to the principles of justice and fair-play, and not likely to be driven by stripes or attracted by even the most brilliant stars as I have heard it sometimes suggested ; but instead thereof, a free and contented people, to work out their destinies in these young provinces under the benign influence of the generous, equitable principles of the Canadian constitution.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton).: Mr. Speaker, in the remarks I am about to make I hope I shall be able to avoid everything which may have the appearance of what some hon. gentlemen opposite call intolerance. I may say that I have never yet heard one remark from a member on this side of the House that deserved such an' epithet. I am glad to be able to say that
535;

not very many lion, gentlemen opposite have taken that line in this debate, but there are some gentlemen who have seemed unable to make allowance for honest difference of opinion, or to understand that gentlemen on this side of the House may advocate national schools without inflammatory intention and without being firebrands. It has been some relief to us, that of those who have made such charges the majority are not from the province of Quebec as perhaps we might naturally have expected to find them- If we had heard some such remarks from hon. gentlemen from that province we might perhaps have made some excuse for them treating the matter somewhat hotly from their point of view. But these remarks have been rather from the members from other provinces, and I have noticed that they have come from some gentlemen on the other side of the House from whose records in the past few years we might have expected that they would have been inclined to be silent on such a subject. When I listened to some of these gentlemen casting such epithets across the floor and charging lion, gentlemen on this side with being firebrands, I was reminded of the old Jacobite toast:
' Down with the Pretender ; God save the King ;
But which is Pretender and which is King ?
God save us all, that's a different thing.'
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the question of religious education. If I did so I should be disposed to deal with it not as a question of creed or race. I do not see why it should be a question of creed. The feeling in favour of religious education in the schools is not confined to any one church. In the Church of England, especially in the old land, there is a very strong feeling in favour of religious education ; I venture to say there is quite as earnest and strong a feeling on that subject among the clergy of the Church of England as there is on the part of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. There is surely a great deal to he said in favour of it.' Is there anybody who will deny that even in this prosperous land and in perhaps every province of it. there are thousands upon thousands of parents utterly incompetent and unfit to give to their children teaching in the most rudimentary elements of Christianity ? There are many parents who are utterly indifferent to religion, and there are others whose unfortunate circumstances prevent them doing what otherwise they might be willing to do. Well, Sir. sometimes we hear as regards the children of these parents, the rather light remark : Why not send them to the Sunday schools. But the classes of people to whom I allude are just those who will not send their children to the Sunday schools so careless and indifferent are tb"- Those children then cannot Mr. BARKER.
receive any religious education there, and is it to be wondered at that zealous men who believe it is their calling and duty to find the children where best they can to impart religious instruction to them, are glad to seek them in the only schools where such children can be compelled to attend. Under these circumstances itt is neither just nor fair to scoff and sneer at those who feel so strongly upon this subject. But, at the same time there is a great deal to be said on the opposite side of the question and whether we are in favour of national schools or in favour of religious teaching in the schools, we surely ought be able to discuss our difference fairly and to avoid charging each other with intolerance or bigotry because we take one side or the other.
In my opinion the question of religious education or separate schools is not at all for this parliament: the question lies, in my judgment, solely with the people of the provinces who are immediately concerned. Moreover. I agree fully with the hon. member for South Toronto, when he said that it is in the true and lasting interests of the minority that the matter should be left to the people of the new provinces. I believe that separate schools should exist by force of law only when that law emanates from the people among whom it is to be enforced. If the people themselves grant the right, iet it be so and let the privilege be maintained. But if this parliament should impose such schools on the provinces, it is in human nature to resist and obstruct, and you will find that that which a free man will give of his own accord he will never grant under compulsion. I might quote on this subject the great writer, M'a-cauley, who has said :
There are two ways to govern a people; one by public opinion, the other by the sword.
The right hon. the Prime Minister appears to distrust the people of the west and he is forging a sword with which to coerce them. He has in this Bill, most carefully prepared, and to a great extent carefully concealed, a sword that will be more dangerous to the freedom of the people of the new provinces than ever the coercion Bill was to the people of Manitoba.
I commend to the right hon. gentleman the language of his Finance Minister, showing what Catholics enjoy in Nova Scotia where there is no separate school law. The Minister of Finance told us in most glowing terms how happy were the circumstances in Nova Scotia, where Catholics and Protestants live in harmony, and without compulsion of law but exercising goodwill and freedom among themselves, have a system of separate schools far better-according to his description-than any we know of in any province in this Dominion where separate school laws exist. I would also commend to the Prime Minister

the language used by his Minister of Inland Revenue, when that gentleman in speaking of the wisdom of trusting to the generosity and fair-play of the people, he applied that in answer to a supposed argument that this law could not be enforced and he said : You may trust to the generosity, and it is wise to trust to the generosity and fair-play of the people. Well, if that be so, why not trust the people of the west. Does the Minister of Inland Revenue suppose that he is going to approach this people with any hope of success when he only half trusts them ?
Is he likely to get a people to treat him with generosity when he goes to them with a clenched fist and in effect says to them, I ask you to do this, but if you do not do it, I will make you do it? That is the sort of trust the hon. gentleman seems to wish to indulge in.
As I have said, I propose to confine my remarks to the educational feature of the Bill, and I think it is well to consider at the very outset what is the real basis of the constitution as regards education. The subject of education is wholly dealt with in section 93, and its subsections, of the British North America Act of 1867. In my opinion that section was intended to be a final and conclusive settlement of all controversies on the subject of education in this Dominion. It was intended to put an end once and for ever, if possible, to such wranglings and bickerings as had been so hurtful to the old Canadas and their peoples. The methods laid down to accomplish this may not have been in every respect and to the minds of some men the very acme of wisdom and statesmanship ; but they certainly were the result of the earnest and loyal efforts of the best minds of that day, and they are the law, and as such should cheerfully and in all loyalty be respected even though there are here and there some men who may see what they would like to have otherwise. I do not wish to be understood, Mr. Speaker, as in the remotest degree questioning the wisdom of that Act of 1867, in any particular, nor as finding fault with any clause or word in section 93. That clause dealt with a difficult subject in, as I believe, a most comprehensive manner, and it would be most presumptious in me or I think in any man of the present day to say that he could have suggested any better method of accomplishing what was accomplished by that section. The men of that day were old and practical statesmen, full of experience, alive to every danger, to every difficulty, and to every obstacle in the path of the aspirations of a people who, whatever their differences of race or creed, had in clear view a great Canadian nationality, one, undivided and inseparable. They endeavoured to lay down a basis, a guiding principle, as to education generally, and ns regards separate schools in the various
provinces. They endeavoured to do this, in my opinion, not only for the four original provinces of the confederation, but for other provinces which should come in, and for new provinces which might be created out of Territories taken into the union. In my opinion, provision was made, and wisely made, for every province, no matter when or how it should become a province. Once it became a province, however, the law as laid down in section 93 and its subsections at once applied. We find running through section 93 and its subsections one clear (principle, that education is a subject for provincial legislation-that in no way whatever is education under any circumstances a subject for Dominion legislation except by way of appeal under the remedial clause. That is the principle throughout the whole clause and the subclauses. Read the main clause, and read every subclause, and yon will see nothing but that from beginning to end. The provincial power in reference to education, it is true, contains certain restrictions and conditions, but these conditions always relate to provincial status ; they relate to no other status whatever ; and it is quite clear that if any one or more subclauses do not apply to a particular province, that does not confer any jurisdiction upon the Dominion parliament. The only effect is that the province can exercise power without being hampered by such subclauses. I therefore contend as a necessary result that parliament can neithea legislate as to education, except in case of appeal, nor can it add to or detract from or vary in any way the conditions on which provinces have authority to legislate. We have questions bandied back and forth across the House as to what some particular gentleman of the legal profession thinks about the application of a certain clause. But why ask such questions ? The answer may be right or it may be wrong. We can neither make it right nor make it wrong. If a subclause does apply in a particular case, we cannot prevent it applying. If a clause of its own strength does not apply, we cannot by any Act of this parliament make it apply. We have no authority to interpret. Therefore why should we do more than apply the law as it is? Apply the British North America Act, and you thus apply section 93 subject to its subclauses ; and that wbuld mean that wherever one or more subclauses did effect a particular province, it took its powers of legislation subject to such subclauses alone. The rule established was that a province should have full power, subject only to this, that what in the exercise of its own representative functions it once gave, that it could not take away. As to Territories, I may point out that while the British North America Act. 1807. deals with both provinces and Territories, section 93 and its sub-

clauses are strictly confined to provinces, gard to education, should not afterwards Now. I ask, was this accidental ? I say no. be deprived of them.
That Act was contested and scrutinized in every line. If I recollect aright the British North America Bill was printed five times, and on every occasion it was thoroughly scrutinized and contested. There were men on both sides of the question. Quebec was strongly represented by men who had the interest of separate schools at heart. I think it is not too much to say that those gentlemen would have given a very careful attention to everything that might possibly affect the rights of their friends in the Territories ; and yet, with all that care and oversight, there is not one word put in section 93 or its subsections relating h>
Territories ; and why ? For the very reason, the principle, that runs through the whole of section 93 an<I its subclauses ; because a territory has no representative ; it has no power ; it could not bind itself. A province could pass law's and could repeal or alter the laws, but they wanted to lay down the rule that a province having once given privileges in the nature of separate schools or religious education, should be debarred from ever withdrawing them, or, w'here they had the power of repeal, as in some cases they had, and to repeal, or amendment, the privileges so granted should be affected, or if by any act of authority, they should be affected, then in such cases the Dominion should have the power to grant remedial laws. But no such application of the principle is made to a territory or to anything that occurs during the territorial period. There is no pretense from first to last that anything done on behalf of a territory by the Dominion shall bind it when it becomes a province. There is an absolute exclusion of everything relating to the territorial period from section 93 and its subclauses. But it is quite clear to my mind that the moment any province is either united, [DOT] or established, at once the law as to education comes into operation ; and as to that province section 93 and its subclauses apply, though it may be that under the conditions only one of the subclauses may apply to the particular province, and that only on the happening of future events.
I think it may be useful, even after all the discussion we have had, if I should refer to the circumstances in which the several provinces stood at the time of confederation, and how this clause 93 and its subclauses affected them. The four original provinces in confederation were the two Canadas, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Ontario and Quebec (the 1wo Canadas) W'ere in a different position from any other. Both those provinces had, in the exercise of their legislative functions. by-laws of their own legislature established separate schools. It wTas therefore considered right and just that those who had acquired, by the free will of the people of those provinces, certain privileges with resection 93, the main clause, which confers the power on all provinces, is in these words:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions.
Then, comes the first subsection, which is the strongest and most effective of ah the subsections, for a statute passed contrary to it is null and void.
(1) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.
Clearly, that section applied to both Ontario and Quebec because such rights or privileges existed in those two provinces at the union, and it has such effect that if any attempt were made by either Ontario or Quebec to repeal or impair those rights or privileges that attempt would he ultra vires and the law would be null and void. That is the special feature of that subsection, and that is an important thing to bear in mind when we come to consider what my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is proposing with regard to these new provinces, because it is that section, ailtered for the occasion, which he uses and applies to them.
The second subsection of section 93 I need not read, because it applies in its very terms to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec alone.
The third subsection is as follows :
(3) Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law at the union or is thereafter established by the legislature of the province, an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or decision of any provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education.
That clause also applied to Ontario and Quebec, and was intended to protect the minority in those provinces against any attempt to impair by any act or decision of authority, the privileges they had been granted.
The fourth subsection is simply a remedial clause, which enables this parliament, in the case of an appeal under isubsection 3 to do justice in the premises.
So you see that, as regards Ontario and Quebec, section 93 of the British North America Act of 1867 and all its subsections apply, but the other two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were in a different position. Neither of those had denominational schools at the time it entered confederation. Therefore, subsection 1 could not tpossible apply and never can apply to either of them. They have not established separate schools to this day, so that subclauses 3 and 4, in fact none of the subclauses have come into operation with regard to them ; but one part of subsection 3


Samuel Barker: will come into operation the moment either of those provinces hereafter grant separate schools and afterwards, bv any means, attempt to interfere with the privileges so given. Thus yon find the full protection of cill the subclauses afforded those two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. And the protection of 3 and 4 is given to the other two provinces.
But the Act contemplated that three other provinces should be brought in, and these would be in a different position from New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. These three provinces were British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. I need not deal with Newfoundland, as it has never come in yet, but Prince Edward Island and British Columbia were in this position. They were not, like New Brunswick and Nova Scotia coming at once into confederation. It might be that before they did come in they would pass separate school laws ; and, in that case, they would be in the position of Ontario and Quebec, and come into the union with school laws already in existence. Then in my judgment, the whole of the four clauses would apply to them just as they apply to Ontario and Quebec. But they might come in and afterwards pass such laws, and then the subsections 3 and 4 would apply. So that, as to all these provinces the greatest care was provided for every possible interest and for every variety of condition as to the province, consistent with this principle, that no province was bound to anything with regard to education, there was no limitation of the general power under section 93, which was not the result of its own free action.
In addition, it was contemplated that we should take in the Northwest Territories, but there is not a word in this section about the Territories. However, in my opinion, whenever a territory in the Dominion is erected into a province, the provisions of the British North America Act with regard to education, as affecting a province, will immediately apply according to the circumstances. Thus if we establish Alberta as a province in July next, subsection (1) cannot apply, because the terms of that subsection are not applicable to the case, and we have no authority to change the British North America Act to make it fit any special ease. The territory was taken into the union in 1870. We are establishing it as a province in 1905. The words of subsection (1) do not provide for such a case, and however reasonable it might be, we cannot make them applicable. But if after attaining its provincial status, Alberta should pass laws creating separate school privileges, it will be bound by the general rule, and having thus of its own will granted the privilege, anything it may do thereafter to affect it will subject the province to the remedial operations of subclauses 3 and 4. There is nothing in the whole Act from beginning to 170
end to show that there was any intention or thought in the mind of any person that anything that might be done in the Territories, under the authority or dictation of this Dominion, should bind or affect them as regards section 93 after they became a province. !>o it seems to me that throughout that statute the most careful provision was made for every privilege conceded by a province through its own legislature. As to such privileges, and those only the minority was protected.
A good many hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to argue that the territory is in some way bound by what has taken place in the last 30 years, that rights granted by this Dominion should be regarded as if granted by the Territories in the free exercise of representative institutions and that when a province conies into being it should be restricted and bound by what this Dominion has done. Well, Mr. Speaker, I look upon it in this way.
These Territories are in the union ; they have been in the union since 1870. From the moment they entered the union they were entitled to the rights and privileges of the British North America Act, but they had no power to exercise those rights until they attained the provincial status. The moment they attained that status they would be able to act and to bind themselves ; but until then they were not bound by anything that might take place. It seems to me that the Territories were very much in the same position as a young man who is entitled to an estate with the right to enter into possession when he is twenty-one years of age-(he is always possessed of his property, it is his and he is entitled to it, but he cannot exercise his rights with regard to it until he has attained manhood, he cannot even detract from his own rights, cannot encumber his property, but the moment he comes of age he attains all power to do with his property as he chooses. So it is with a territory. The territory until it arrives at maturity, cannot speak for itself or act for itself, and it is contrary to the very principle of the Act we are dealing with to hold it down to what has been done without its own consent. Now', hon. gentlemen opposite wish to treat these Territories as bound by subsection 1, that is to treat them as a province now entering the union, on the 1st of July, 1905, with laws as to education in force. Well, if subsection 1 applies, why not say so ? Why not apply it and let us see how far they are bound by it ? But could there be any stronger evidence of the fact that it is not applicable than the care the Minister of Justice has taken to alter the section to fit it to the facts ? If the hon. gentleman thought that the subsection 1 really did apply, he would only have to say : ' Subsection 1 applies to the province.' This is a very small subsection, though a very powerful one. It has only thirty-one words. The hon. gentle-

legislature, there would be no means of creating or electing a legislature. Tlie representation of the province in this parliament had to be settled. All these are constitutional details relating peculiarly to the particular province, and in no way affecting the relations of the provinces to the Dominion. Such provisions were necessary to constitute a province, but does it follow because you must make such provisions to enable a province to set up housekeeping, to get to work, that 'that necessarily involves a power to upset the whole basis and foundation of confederation as to relations between the provinces and the Dominion ? Surely not. and the Minister of Justice surely knows that not only do we give them merely such a constitution as I have described, but that at the very first meeting of the new legislature they can themselves amend what we so give, and if they please can make a new constitution. This is not a matter of opinion, it is settled by statute. Let me read section 92 of the British North America Act, 1807.	.
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say :
1. The amendment from, time to time, notwithstanding anything in this Act, of the constitution of the province, except as regards the office of Lieutenant Governor.
That shows clearly what in the Act of 1871 is meant by provision for the constitution of a province. It means simply authority to so constitute the province that it may elect a legislature and have a working and administrative organization. There is no foundation for the extravagant notion that this parliament, for the purpose of establishing one or two provinces out of the Northwest territory, was given power to overturn the whole scheme of confederation as regards legislative powers. You might as well say that under section 92, subsection 1, the province could upset the distribution of legislative power under the British North America 'Act as to say that this parliament can do so undei the Act of 1871.
The Minister of Justice went on to read the next part of clause 2 of the Act of' 1871 :
-and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province.
The hon. gentleman actually read this as if this parliament were to make such laws for the peace, order and good government. I have quoted the whole section, and it means only that we are to make provision for a constitution and to make provision for the passing of laws by the new legislature. I think the hon. gentleman knew that as well as I do.
By the fourth section of the Act of 1871, provision is made for the temporary government of the Territories by this parliament. That is a distinct clause and gives this parliament authority to make laws


Samuel Barker: during the territorial period and until a province is established. In this case the territorial period has been 35 years ; and of course it was essential to provide for administration for the time being.
Section 4 reads :
4. The parliament of Canada may,.from time to time, make provision for the administration, peace, order and good government of any territory not for the time being included in any province.	" -
What does that mean? Is it not perfectly clear that this is a temporary provision to enable this parliament to make laws for the territory until such time as the province to be created shall have power to make laws for itself. What more ?
Not for the time being included in any province.
The moment the Territories or any portion of the Territories is established as a province, our temporary authority ceases. \ye could only bind them for and during that interim period, a period in which they have been governed very much as a Crown colony is governed.
We sitting here, by the voice of parliament, and frequently only by the voice of tlie cabinet, told them what the laws was to be and thev had to obey during the territorial period. To say that a people so governed, having no voice in the laws that apply to them, should be bound tor all time bv what we commanded them to do, seems to me to be absolutely absurd.
There is a further matter in connection with the Act of 1871. that I call attention to. Wlii'ii that Act was passed enabling us to establish provinces in the territory, that territory was already part of the Dominion, and was entitled to all rights and privileges as provided in the British North America Act. Surely it cannot be contended that as to a Territory so entitled, this parliament, in the absence of most explicit words in that Act of 1871 can pretend to any authority to take away any right or impose any obligation. In every way you look at it the intendment of that second section was to enable us to simply organize new provinces, so that they might pass laws, and administer their affairs. In support of my contention that it was never contemplated that we should be given power to subvert the constitution, I quote from the Hon. Mr. Blake, who speaking in 1869 said :
It is perfectly clear on great and obvious principles that the basis of union settled by the British North America Act is not capable of alteration by this parliament.
What language could be stronger than that ? There you have the declaration of as eminent a lawyer as ever sat in this House, that the whole scope of the British North America Act indicated that parliament should have no power to alter its terms ; and yet under an authority to constitute provinces in the Territories we are to

suppose that all that was changed and that we obtained power to subvert that which Mr. Blake said was not capable of alteration.
The first step as regards education in the Territories was the Dominion Act of 1875, section 11. and it was followed by Territorial ordinances passed in obedience to that Act. Neither the Act of 1875, nor any of the early ordinances-at all events those that it is claimed the minority rely upon-neither the Act nor the ordinances were the result of the will of the people of the Territories. From first to last the people of the Territories had nothing to do with it ; they were never consulted. The Act of 1875, was passed by this parliament, and the ordinances were passed by the Lieutenant Governor and two or three gentlemen who formed his executive, all appointees of this government. These gentlemen passed ordinances that, it is contended by some, must apply for all time not only to the Territories. but also to the provinces when created. The Hon. Mr. Dewdney. sitting up there in 1SS4, with a couple of gentlemen, his executive, wrote out 177 clauses of ordinances in obedience to the dictates of the Ottawa government, and forsooth, the people of these Territories are never to be able to improve or alter their school system. I have read section 4 of the Act' of 1871, which enabled us to pass the Act of 1875. The Act of 1875, did not give permission even to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to pass laws as to education ; it said : not you ' may ' create separate schools, but you 'shall' create separate schools. That was the beginning of it, and because the Dominion appointed officers up there-who probably would have been dismissed if they did not obey-because they passed these ordinances we are now told that the people of the Territories passed them. And to-day. when constituting two provinces it appears we must work such ordinances into their laws, and discreetly alter subclauses of the British North America Act of 1807 so that provincial Acts may be disallowed if they prejudice any privilege in ordinances 29 and 30.
Let me read clause 8 of the Act of 1875 to show the kind of government that was exercised over this territory supposed to be controlled by the free will of a free people. Clause 8 says :
The Governor General in Council may, by proclamation from time to time, direct that any Act of the parliament of Canada or any part or parts thereof, or any one or more of the sections of any one or more of such Acts, shall be enforced in the Northwest Territories generally or in any part or parts thereof to be mentioned in the proclamation.
That was the same Act of 1875, which dictated the school laws to the Territories, and is it to be supposed that a people governed under such provisions as that were a free people exercising their will upon education
or anything else ? Surely such a contention is absurd. There is a word or two from Mr. Sifton that I can quote on that subject. On the 24th of March last the hon. gentleman in announcing his conversion to the amendments used these words :
From my standpoint I say, inasmuch as the Northwest Territories are not a free community, inasmuch as the ordinances passed are ordinances passed under a limited power, therefore when they come into the family of provinces we ought not to apply to them the principle of observing the status quo, because the status quo was not brought about by their own unlimited powers.
With regard to the ex-Minister of the Interior, it will not be forgotten that he resigned his portfolio rather than accept the original Bill. As member for Brandon, three weeks later, he accepted it on the assurance that clause 10 would be struck out and the proposed amendment substituted. Now, I understand his explanation to be that under clause 11 of the Act of 1875-clause 10 of the Bill is in substance the same-Orders in Council were passed giving sectional control of separate schools, Catholics controlling one set and Protestants the other; that these ordinances were amended by later ones, which did away with sectional control ; that on one occasion Sir John Thompson, as Minister of Justice, had declared a certain later ordinance ultra vires ; and that he, the member for Brandon feared, be would not say actually that it would be so, but apparently he feared that if the amending ordinances were ultra vires, the original ordinances would stand good, and so we would have the . old clause of 1875 and the old ordinances giving Catholics control of Catholic schools, thus establishing for all time what he believed, according to his .experience in Manitoba, to be a bad system. That I understood to he his argument, an argument based on the ordinances, because there is not a word in the Act of 1875 giving more than a right for Catholics to have a school separate from Protestants, and vice versa. I have just read what he said on that point. Now, I propose to show, first, that by the Act of 1S75 no right to religious teaching In the sdhools was given ; second that if clause 16 remain in the Bill, that in itself would have conferred no sueli right-that it went on further than the clause of 1875 ; third, that ordinances 29 and 30 are to-day in force, and contain all land more than clause 16; fourth, that under the original Bill ordinances 29 and 30, even as they are, could have been amended by the legislature of the new province. Section 15 of the Bill provided that every ordinance should remain in force until altered by the legislature of the new province ; therefore if the Bill had been left as it was first drawn by the Minister of Justice ordinances 29 and 30 would have been subject to repeal or amendment by tbe new legislature ; fifth,

that under the amended clause In the Bill every right or privilege enjoyed by Protestants'or Roman Catholics by virtue of ordinances 29 and 30 becomes a fixture, and cannot be taken away as any Act for that purpose would by virtue of the subsection be ultra vires. For example, the provisions of the ordinances as to representation on the board are a right and privilege and no Act can be passed to the prejudice of the privilege. The amendments for which the hon. member for Brandon claims such credit really stiffen the Bill.	The
hon. Minister of Justice said in the House some time ago, correctly enough, that the Bill as he had drawn it stated the law just as it stood then. There is no question, I think, that he was right. But the hon. member for Brandon, the then colleague of the hon. Minister of Justice-a not very beloved colleague I should say, judging by the sneer cast by him at that hon. gentleman-thought otherwise and said that if the Minister of Justice was not the draughtsman of the Bill, he had given very queer instructions to the draughtsman.
Now. what would have happened if the Bill of the Minister of Justice as it stood had passed ? Section 16 would have remained the law. It does not say a word about religious education. It simply says that there shall be separate schools. Ordinances 29 and 30 were repealable. Now ordinances 29 and 30 will not be repealable as regards any minority privileges, which stand for all time ; and they contain all that section 16 contained and more. And so the hon. member for Brandon, by his interference-'I will not say meddling-has enabled the Minister of Justice to stiffen the Bill that he first brought in.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the Minister of Justice admit that ?


Samuel Barker: He does not deny it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would dearly love to believe it.


Samuel Barker: Let us see what the Act of 1875 did provide, that is, the old section 11, sometimes called section 14 of the statute of 1880, and section 16 of the new Bill. It provided that:
When and so soon as any system of taxation shall be adopted in any district or portion of the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of the council or assembly, as the ease may be, shall pass all necesssary ordinances In respect to education, but it shall therein be always provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Northwest Territory or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they may think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor ; and, further, that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and that in such latter case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall Mr. BARKER.
be liable only to assessments of such rates as they may impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
AH that is provided there is that Protestants could send their children to a school apart from Catholics, and that Catholics could send their children to a school apart from the Protestants. There is not a word about religious education from beginning to end. There is not a word about the ordinances providing for religious education. It was quite free to the officials at Regina to have passed any ordinances that they liked, so long only as they gave the Roman Catholic minority a right to have a school to themselves and gave the Protestant minority a like right. There is not a word from beginning to end as to the control or the regulation of either class of schools ; not a word as to teaching of any kind, religious or other. Ail that was left perfectly open. The ordinances passed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, might have provided at once, on the very first occasion a system exactly like that in Ontario ; and what is that system ? Why, the Board of Education in Ontario to-day, and for years hack, lias had less privileges than are given by ordinances 29 and 30. In Ontario there is a Minister of Education, and a Board of Education. There are twelve appointed members, six by the government and six, I think, by Toronto University ; but there is not a word to the effect that any member of the board must be a Protestant or a Catholic. They need not appoint one Protestant or one Catholic ; they might appoint all Jews ; and the ordinances of 1884 of the Lieutenant Governor of the Territories might have been in the like terms.
Well, they did not do that. What did they do ? But before I read the ordinance, 1 might refer to one matter which seems to have given a good deal of trouble to hon. gentlemen opposite. A number of them think that because in the early days certain privileges were given to Roman Catholics and Protestants those could never be taken away. They argue that when the Lieutenant Governor in Council, passed an ordinance, whereby Catholics had a certain number on the board and isectional control over their separate schools, and the Protestants a like position as to the Protestant schools, it was not within the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make any other arrangement. I doubt if any lawyer would hold an ordinance passed iu 1884 by two or three gentlemen who had just entered the territory and knew very little about it, and who were legislating at? the moment for a few hundred people, must continue for all time and apply perhaps for centuries to come to many hundreds of thousands who might afterwards enter that country. But we are not left to any legal opinion on that point. We all know that in the legislation of this parliament, we are guided by the Interpretation Act which de-

this parliament to provide for use against Alberta and Saskatchewan, the sword that he had used his power to prevent being drawn, in Manitoba ; not because -there had been no school privileges in Manitoba in 1870, that was not the question in 1S96 ; the_ question in 1896 was solely that Manitoba having granted a privilege and taken it away, it was the duty of parliament to intervene. Well, Sir, the Conservative party	of that
day, not because they were partial or friendly to separate schools, but in the exercise of their duty, took their lives in their hands, and attempted to do justice in accordance with the terms of the constitution, but were prevented by the right hon. gentleman and his party.
That, Sir, is the position in which they stood, not as one would infer from the quotation I have just read. I said the right hon. gentleman stood in the path and prevented justice being done to the Catholic minority at that time. I desire to quote in support of what I have said the language of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton) on the 24th of March. Speaking of the attempt of -the Conservative government to do justice to the minority and to carry out the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England he said :
They failed in that attempt, and why did they fail ? They failed because the right hon. gentleman who leads this government stood in their way. That is the reason why they failed.
Those are not my words ; those are the words of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). The Conservative government were prevented from doing justice to the Roman Catholic minority by the leader of the present government. Well, the right hon. gentleman knows the bitterness and strife and trouble that then arose, he knows the part he took on that occasion ; he knows how he addressed meetings and led his party in the sacred name of provincial rights. He knows how he cried ' no coercion,' 'hands off Manitoba.' He and those behind him who are so anxious to do justice now ; even the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur), who talks of the Bill of Rights, and of justice ; they refused in 1896 to have justice done, and why? These gentlemen, In 1896, were ambitious. They had long been in opposition, they saw an opportunity to get place and power ; on the one hand were their ambitions, on the other Catholic rights ; and which went to the wall ? In- the one scale were the ambition and political prospects of the right hon. gentleman ; in the other scale were the rights of his people ; and which weighed the heavier ? The scale with the rights of his people tipped the beam, and the right hon. gentleman has sat ever since as leader of the government of Canada. That is the story of 1896, and if the right hon. gentleman has any other explanation of it he has never yet given it to my knowledge. If the right hon. gentleman in 1896 could cry out Mr. BARKER.
against coercion, is he now going to coerce Alberta, will he lay violent hands on Saskatchewan, and will be trample provincial rights beneath his heel ? Which position is he going to take ? Does he suppose that if he stood on the rock in 1896 he can stand on the rock now and enforce clause 4 which he is Introducing in this Act ? Would any man, with his record, have the audacity to do that, and are we to suppose that hon. gentlemen behind him will follow him if he attempts it ? What is to be the result of it all ? We will have in the new provinces an Act which is unenforclble ; we will have the old question over again, the appeal for remedial laws and the old heartburning, strife and trouble, all because the right hon. gentleman does not choose to apply, just as it is, the law of the land, the British North America Act. If the British North America Act, section 93 and its subclauses or any of the subclauses apply to Alberta and to Saskatchewan, let them be applied, and let the people abide by them. They entered this Dominion in 1870 subject to the provisions of that Act, give them their Act and they can find no fault, but do not substitute another Act for it and tell them you are giving them what is just as good. That is not for us to judge ; it is not for us to tell them whether the conditions are as good or better. Our duty is to simply apply the law. They are entitled to the law, it is their birthright, and we have no right to refuse to give it, or to give them anything instead. And as to the Roman Catholic minority, I say they have appealed to the right hon. gentleman for bread and he is giving them what he knows to be a stone. They can never derive any -benefit from this legislation, and the only result to this Dominion will be the old strife and quarrelling and bad blood of 1896 between neighbours and friends. For these reasons. I think, Sir, I am justified in opposing the measure of the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. A. A. STOCKTON (St. John City and County).: Mr. Speaker, I regret that physically I am not in that condition to discuss this question which I would like to be in, but I felt, Sir, that I could not give a silent vote upon this all-important question. The pi'oposition brought before the House by the First Minister is too great, too comprehensive, too far-reaching, for me to give a silent vote in this House upon it. I have no apology to make for the vote that I am about to give when I vote for me amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition. I have no apology to make for the observations I intend to offer or for the reasons that impel me to vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition except that I hope that I may give utterance to no sentiment, that no expression may drop from my lips, that can wound the feelings of the most sensitive. I agree with the Minister of Justice and those who have preceded me, that this discussion has

proceeded ordinarily with perfect good humour, and in perfect decorum. There have been some exceptions and I shall probably call attention to them before I conclude.
hat, however, is the real question before the House at the present time ? The discussion has taken a wide departure from the Bill which has been introduced by the First Minister and the First Minister is responsible to a large extent for that departure, because, Sir, he unnecessarily imported into the discussion upon the first reading of the Bill a disquisition upon the relative merits of public schools and clerical schools.
Therefore, if there was discussion far afield from the real point involved in the Bill presented by the First Minister, he himself is the gentleman primarily to blame for this extended discussion. And. Sir, what is the question before the House ? It is not a question of separate schools ; it is not a question of race or religion, and probably it may be necessary-it may, at all events, be opportune-at this particular time to state to the House what is the question before us and upon which we are soon to vote. The question is this : This parliament by virtue of constitutional rights has had introduced to it by the First Minister a Bill to organize unorganized territory into a province, and in that Bill he has inserted clauses which we on this side of the House say are not justified by the constitution, clauses we say that should be eliminated, and in support of our contention the leader of the opposition has proposed his amendment. That is the only question before the House. It is a question of law, it is a question of constitutional interpretation, and when gentlemen supporting the government say it is a question of race and religion they are trying to throw dust in the eyes of the members of this House and in the eyes of the people of this country.
Now, Sir, let me refer to the policy of the First Minister upon this question. In 1896 the right hon. gentleman declared, or professed to declare, that he stood upon the roek of provincial rights ; to-day he and his party stand upon the slippery platform of coercion. The policy of the right hon. gentleman to-day is directly opposed to the policy he pursued in 1896. And how shall I characterize his policy now ? Well, I might say that it could be aptly characterized as a sort of kangaroo policy-first a hop in one direction and then a hop in the opposite direction, and no mortal man can tell what will be the direction of the next hop. Time *null not permit me to dilate further upon that interesting topic. I regret that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is not in his place to-night. When this Bill was introduced the Minister of Finance was not in Ottawa ; he came here shortly afterwards, and the rumour was that there was a sort of civil insurrection in the ranks of . the government. But, presto ; in a few
days the Minister of Finance rose in his place and said-what ? Not that he saw a ghost,^ but something almost as alarming. He said that he saw a crisis of great proportions looming on the political horizon. And what was the crisis ? Why, it was that if we did not permit the Prime Minister to have his way the Prime Minister might take it into his head to resign-a very remote possibility indeed-and the Prime' Minister having resigned, it would dissolve his government, and then, under the constitutional usages of our country, the Governor General would call upon my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to form a government, and, mirabile dictu, the leader of the opposition would have to form a wholly Protestant government without a Roman Catholic in it. That was the entire crisis ; but if the Minister of Finance had only waited a few days he would have listened to a speech, one of the best speeches delivered in this House, one of the best reasoned speeches, from the member for South Toronto, a Roman Catholic, objecting to and opposing the proposal of the right hon. gentleman.
In 1896 my hon. friend the Minister of Finance thundered from the platforms of Nova Scotia in opposition to separate schools -to-day he is advocating the imposition of separate schools upon the great provinces to be created in the west. In 1896 the Minister of Finance stated on the public platforms of Nova Scotia that Sir Charles Tup-per, through the influence of the Roman Catholic pulpits of Cape Breton, was trying to climb into power-to-day the Minister of Finance is afraid that there would be no Roman Catholic in a Conservative government. And what do we find now ? On the other side of the House is the Liberal party led by my right hon. friend, the party of coercion ; on this side of the House is the Liberal-Conservative party led by my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden), the exponent of liberty and freedom. Mr. Speaker, you have coercion to your right ; liberty and freedom on your left. I will not go further in that direction because of the absence of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.
It has been said that this debate has taken a tone that is worthy of and creditable to this House of Commons. Ordinarily speaking, that is true, but, Sir, there have been ungenerous and illiberal remarks made by the supporters of the government in respect to gentlemen on this side of the House. Because I choose to support the amendment of the leader of the opposition, why should I be called a bigot or a fanatic ? When I come here and seek to give my best judgment to the solution of a question which is constitutional and legal, how can it be said that I am trying to trample upon some race or upon some religious belief ? I am bound to say, Sir, that wlfen I heard the wholesale remarks made with respect to the city of Toronto, I felt that it was a shame that such a city should be so charac-

terized in this parliament. A few days ago I went to the city of Toronto, and I found the people there clothed , and in their right mind ; I saw no blatant mob ; on the contrary. I saw a city magnificent in its universities and its colleges, in its public institutions, in its private enterprise, in the energy and intelligence of its people, and I came away feeling that Canada should be proud of Toronto. Let me refer for a moment to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).
I think he was the greatest sinner in this respect; and yet there were some things in the hon. gentleman's speech that I agreed with-that I felt were in keeping with the dignity and the tone of this debate. But a large part of his speech seemed to me to be a mixture'of fact and fiction, lit up by a somewhat lurid declamation of a rasping character ; and therefore 1 felt that if that hon. gentleman expects, as I believe he does, to become a man of light and leading for the people of united Canada, it will be necessary for him to mend his methods and moderate his language. But the member tor Labelle has also gone back on his record with respect to the question before the House. In 1902, when an effort was made in parliament to have a Dominion registration for the medical men of the whole of Canada, the hon. member for Labelle opposed that on the ground that it was a quest"on of education, saying that educational questions belonged exclusively to the province. Why this change ? Is this not an educational question ? Does it not, then, as exclusively belong to the province as the question of Dominion registration for medical men ? And yet the hon. gentleman to-day is taking a directly opposite position from that which he took in 1902. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the sheet anchor for the permanence and security of the rights of minorities in any country is to stand solidly by the constitution. It may suit the convenience or the inclination of the minority to-day to encroach upon the provisions of the constitution, but it will come back to them in the years to come with double force and when they least expect it. Therefore my view is that we should always stand unflinchingly and solidly in line with the terms of the constitution.
Now, I am hot going to discuss certain questions which I might have otherwise discussed at greater length, because this has been rendered unnecessary by the remarks of the hon. Minister of Justice this afternoon. Yon have heard, Sir, considerable discussion during this debate as to the meaning of the British North America Act and as to the powers to be given to provinces not only those in esse, but in posse; that was the language used, and you heard* that because Lord Carnarvon, when the British North America Act was before the House of Lords, had said that certain clauses of that Act would apply in esse and in posse, therefore that was the in-Mr, STOCKTON.
tendon of the imperial parliament, and we would have to follow that upon this particular occasion, and indeed whenever we interpreted the British North America Act. Now, Sir, an Act of parliament is an expression of the legislative will. The same canon of construction that applies to a contract you apply to the interpretation of an Act of parliament ; that is what the Minister of Justice said this afternoon, -,wliicli will shorten my remarks upon this particular point. If I meet with you, Mr. Speaker and we enter into a contract which for certainty we reduce5 to writing, the intention of the contracting parties is discovered by the language which we have used, and the courts will so determine ; and if this or any other legislature enacts a statute, the intention is the mind of the legislature as expressed in the words that are used. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice will not deny that that is the correct canon of interpretation that you are to apply to Acts of parliament as well as to written contracts between private individuals.
Now, I listened with very much interest the other day to the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur) who said that there was a compact between these provinces even reaching out to the great Northwest ; but when he was interrogated by the leader of the opposition, he admitted that whatever the compact was, was expressed in the Act ,of parliament-that you could not go back of the Act of parliament. But. Sir, on the top of that, with a kind of triumphant wave of the hand, he turned to the supporters of the government sitting behind the First Minister, and he said :	Are you going back upon
the compact and the terms that were agreed upon in the years gone by ? And he was applauded to the echo. It did occur to me that my right hon. friend the leader of the government moved a little uneasily in his seat when the Minister of Inland Revenue made that statement; because he was the great exponent of going back on the compact in 1896, when he refused to carry out the terms of the Manitoba Act as to remedial legislation ; and therefore it seems to me that it was hardly worth while for the Minister of Inland Revenue to dwell upon that when he was compelled to admit that the intention was within the four corners of the Act itself. No wonder that the hon. member for Labelle, in consequence of the action of the First Minister in 1890, in answer to the Minister of Inland Revenue, then said that he was rather skeptical about any remedial legislation that might hereafter arise in consequence of what happened in 1806.
Let me say another thing. The Bill introduced by the First Minister is designed as a law for the minority ; it does not pretend to look after the majority. The majority is supposed by the First Minister to have no conscience. Only minorities are supposed to

have consciences. I do not know whether the First Minister applies that to parliament. Well, Sir, if the Bill passes, while the law may be general, the separate school provisions will apply only to minorities. Look at section 41 of ordinance 29, and if I am wrong I ask the Minister of Justice to correct me. You cannot bring a separate school into existence under section 41 of that ordinance unless the minority moves. There can be no separate school without that. Well, then, what about conscientious scruples against being taught in the public srhools under the law as now proposed by the right hon. the First Minister ? Suppose for instance, there should be in a district, twenty-five Roman Catholics and ten Methodists, the minority can have a separate school. The majority must have a public school, separate and apart [DOT] from every separate school, and yet, Sir, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Bro-deur) yesterday said that there could be remedial legislation if the majority were not satisfied. Will my hon. friend the Minister of Justice inform this House where there can be in that-ease remedial legislation ? The Minister of Inland Revenue was interrupted by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), and I am bound to say that I think that hon. gentleman got the better of the argument. Of course it might be possible-nay, quite probable-that there would be occasions in which these great western provinces, when conditions that I have named might actually arise, yet the right hon. gentleman makes no provision for any such conditions.
There is just another question or two I would like to ask the Minister of Justice. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) flung a very undisguised sneer at the draftsman of clause 16 of the Bill as originally introduced. On a former occasion and today the Minister of Justice, in a very meek and penitential way, admitted that he was the draftsman. I think. Sir, it is now due from the member for Brandon to make an apology to the Minister of Justice for the manner in which he referred to the draftsman upon that occasion. But, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be in a somewhat inquisitive mood to-night, and I would like to know who was the draughtsman of the proposed amendment to section 16 ? It was drawn by no 'prentice hand. Was it the Minister of Justice who was the draftsman ? The hon. gentleman, I notice, this afternoon took particular care to steer clear of that inquiry. Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) were satisfied at all events with the amendment that was drawn. In consequence of that amendment they withdrew their opposiltion to the Bill ; and when they gave us their reasons why they had withdrawal their opposition and were now in hearty support of the proposals of the right hon. the First Minister, they said : Why,
this amounts to nothing ; this is only a little question of religious instruction from half-past three to four o'clock in the afternoon. And if you would believe the statements of those hon. gentlemen, you wrould think that this system of separate schools was a somewhat weak, attenuated thing, and that you would require a microscope to detect the first germs of the separate school principle in it. If that be true, then what crushing force in the argument of my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) ?
Is it possible that the government is pretending to give something when it is giving nothing ? Now, I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Justice what, in his opinion, is the difference ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: If the hon. gentleman really wants an answer, if he will apply his logical mind to this debate, he will admit that the time to explain that will be when the amendment is before the House.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: There must have been some explanation to the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to induce them to come back to the fold. The hon. the Minister of Justice did not wait, in their case, to make an explanation, and in making the explanation to get the support of the Liberal members of the west. I say it is due to this House, before we vote upon the second reading, that we should have an explanation from the first law officer of the Crown.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Then the hon. member had better not vote on the second reading in that case.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I want to say to my hon. friend that I am not voting on his recommendation. I want to say that I am voting against both propositions, and there-. fore it is not necessary to give that explanation in that respect; but it is due, not only to the House, but to the country, that the public should know what the government, at all events, consider is the difference between these two proposals. But the Minister of Justice either does not think there is any


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hear, hear.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Or he will not tell- one thing or the other.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman is so well qualified that he has proved he can tell the difference himself.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: We may both be qualified to understand that ourselves, but there may be others who may not be qualified, and who are not lawyers, and we want to know from the hon. minister what the difference is. If he explains what he truly believes is the difference, as a lawyer, he would shake the confidence of the men behind him.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: Better cement your own men behind you.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: What did the hon. gentleman say ? You must be easy, you know, with a young member. If the hon. minister says yes, there is a difference ; then the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) is right, and a deception is being practised on the friends of separate schools. But if, on the contrary, he says no ; then in what position are the members from the west and Ontario who support the government on the strength of the statements made by the member for Brandon and the Minister of Finance ? I leave those questions for the consideration of the Liberal members of the west and the province of Ontario. I have failed to get any information from my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. He does not seem to be in a communicative mood, and therefore I will pass that by and proceed to another phase of the discussion.
I wish to say a few words with respect to the legal aspect of this question and the constitutional rights of this parliament to enact this legislation. Will the Minister of Justice deny that if the amendment is passed ordinances 29 and 30 of the Northwest Territories become the organic law of the provinces to be organized ? He will not. If it is the organic law of the provinces to be organized, how can we be blamed if we do not know just exactly what the law is when these ordinances contain about 200 sections ? And yet this is being forced by legislation by reference into the constitution of these new provinces in a way which I say ought not to be tolerated in any legislature in Canada. I state, as a lawyer, that no mortal man can tell with any degree of certainty what -the constitution of either province will be if you legislate in the way that is proposed by the First Minister in this Bill. The Minister of Justice will not deny that I am right in that statement. Now, the First Minister, in introducing this Bill, said there was a necessity on the part of the government to import int* the constitution of the new provinces the school clauses of the British North America Act.
I think I am correctly stating the position taken by the First Minister when he introduced this Bill. Where does any lawyer find in the British North America Act,' or in the Act of 1871, or in the Act of 1886. any foundation for any such statement as that? Why, Sir. section 93 of the British North America Act applies only to a province at the time of the union. And it was stated by some hon. gentleman yesterday-I think it was the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie)-not only that he was going to apply himself to the discussion of the legal question, but that he was going to answer my hon. friend the leader of the opposition with respect to that proposition. But he forgot to fulfil the promise he made. Let me say, Mr, Speaker, that I agree witli the legal position taken by the leader of the


Alfred Augustus Stockton: opposition (Mr. R. l. Borden) in that respect, and I have heard no statement on the floor of this House by any lawyer who cares anything for his reputation saying anything to the contrary. But it is also said-and I shall not dwell upon this, because I wish to get through as speedily as I can-that you must put these educational clauses in the constitution of the two new provinces Why ? Because, under the Act of 1875. there are clauses relating to separate schools. And my hon. friend the Minister of Justice said this afternoon : If we could legislate with respect to schools in 1875, why cannot we do so to-day ? I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Justice if he thinks that is a fair argument ? I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Justice if he thinks that is a legal argument ? He does not. For he well knows that to-day we are legislating for the constitution of a province, but in 1875 we were legislating for the government of an unorganized territory-two entirely different things. And yet the Minister of Justice sought to convince the members of this House-he did not believe it himself, I am satisfied-that that was a valid argument, and that what we could do with respect to the law of an unorganized territory in 1875 we could do with respect to the constitution of a province in 1905. The statement has only to be made to refute itself. The Act of this parliament of 1875 was only temporary, it applied to the organization of a territory for the time being. And the Minister of Justice this afternoon used the argument that the people of the Northwest Territories voluntarily voted in support of the school system of that province. Did they ? Where is it ? Will the Minister of Justice point it out ? It cannot be done, Mr. Speaker. Why, what he referred to was this- that under the Act of 1875 they made ordinances to carry out the terms of the separate school clause imposed upon the people of the west by that Act. Was it a voluntary act on the part of the people of the west, passing these ordinances ? Will the Minister of Justice say that ? No ; he cannot say that. It was not a voluntary act, and he knows it, because, under section 11 of the Act of 1875, it is provided that they ' shall ' make ordinances to carry out the terms of the legislation. Yet this is the kind of argument that was met with thunderous applause by hon. gentlemen opposite. Now, Sir, I go further. The Act of 1875 never received the assent of the people of the west. They had no option in the matter ; it was imposed upon them whether they willed it or not. I am not questioning the right of parliament to pass the Act of 1875. That Act was with respect to an unorganized territory. But I do question the right of parliament to pass the legislation now proposed. But hon. gentlemen opposite say that because the separate school system under that Act of 1875 has existed in that country for thirty

years, therefore it must continue. It must continue, how ? By law ? The Minister of Justice will not say that as a lawyer. Must it continue ? Where is the law saying it shall continue ? The Act of 1875 was an Act that could be changed every year by this parliament, it was a law under which the administration of the Northwest Territories was under the control of this parliament ; and then to say that the Northwest Territories voluntarily adopted the principle of separate schools is-well, putting it in the mildest way, contrary to the fact. Now, I want to refer to one or two matters mentioned by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice in his very eloquent and very exhaustive speech this afternoon.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Take your medicine.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the observation just made across the floor of the House by the hon. member.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order, gentlemen.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Well, I am going to be just as good-natured as I can, and as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice this afternoon deplored anything that might stir up personal animosities, or race or religious feelings, let me ask him to consider his own advice to the members of this House at this particular time. Now then let me come back to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice referred to section 2, 22 and 30 of the Manitoba Act. Why, Mr. Speaker, there is no relevancy-my hon. friend will pardom me for saying it-there is no relevancy in citing that Act with respect to the case before the House. The Manitoba Act received the sanction of the imperial parliament, and was to all intents and purposes an imperial Act, and therefore it was the constitution given to the province of Manitoba by the imperial parliament. which has all power throughout the realms of the British empire. Then my hon. friend referred to the law officers of the Crown. I have great respect for the law officers of the Crown-in England.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Very clever, indeed.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: And for my hon. friend the Minister of Justice as a lawyer in this House.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Thank you for nothing.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Well, Sir, if a man gets something for nothing he is a pretty lucky individual. Now referring to the law officers of the Crown in England, I understood the Minister of Justice to say that they had no doubt about the legality of the power of this parliament to pass the Manitoba Act, in 1870, I think it was. But if there was no doubt, why did they invoke
the authority of the imperial parliament to validate the Act ? There was no necessity for that, if everything was so clear as stated by the Minister of Justice. But in the very application that was made to validate that Act as it was read by the Minister of Justice this afternoon, there was a provision and statement that no authority should be given or read into the constitution greater than that existing in any of the provinces of Canada at that time. But my hon. friend puts that proposition to a strange use; he says that while that may be so, you can clip the sovereignty out of the provinces, because it does not say that no less shall be given. Is there any necessity for any less to be given after a statement of that kind ? Did any man ever suppose there would be an attempt in this parliament to create a province, and to give it autonomy and bring it into the sisterhood of provinces under the constitution of Canada, and not put it on a footing of equality with the other provinces ? Why, Sir, the suggestion is something remarkable to my mind, at all events, and I do not think the minister can reasonably suppose that there is much strength in an argument like that.
But the hon. gentleman referred to Sir John A Macdonald and the Liberal-Conservative party as led by him at that time, saying in substance :	I want you now,
Mr. Leader of the Opposition, to explain the difference between your party as led by the great statesman, Sir John A. Macdonald in 1870, and the position you are putting the Liberal-Conservative party in to-day. Well, Sir, he need not have gone quite so far back in history, he need not have gone further back than 1896, and have said :	Explain
the difference between the position of my own leader in 1896 and his position in 1905. My hon. friend referred to the Riel case, he referred to the words ' Peace, order and good government of Canada.' That was under a criminal law, and that is essentially within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. I have not lately read the report of that case which was referred to by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice this afternoon, but I shall take an early opportunity of reading it.
But the hon. gentleman says that because, in 1871, the imperial parliament confirmed the Manitoba Act-I do not wish to misrepresent what the hon. gentleman said -therefore power is given to do in this case what is claimed by the First Minister in his Bill. Is that the argument ? The hon. gentleman does not deny that, well, now, what was the Act of 1871 ? You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when confederation took effect there were but four provinces that came into, the union, the two Canadas and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. But under section 146 provision was made for the admission of the provinces of Newfoundland, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, the latter two of which

came in also. Under authority given to the parliament of Canada upon addresses which have been referred to by the .Minister of Justice this afternoon, unorganized territories could be brought in and become paid and parcel of the Dominion of Canada. Now then what is there in the Act of 1871 ? Take the Act of 1897, the Act of 1871, and the Act of 1886, and they have to be constructed together as one Act; the Minister of Justice knows that.
Suppose that section 2 of the Act of 1871 had been originally in the Act of 1867-and, so far as imperial legislation is concerned, it is the same as if it were originally in the Act of 1867,-would the Minister of Justice then make the argument that he made this afternoon ? Certainly not. Another statement that the hon. gentleman made this afternoon surprised me- I was not surprised before. The hon. gentleman said that there was no province in Canada to-day which had the exclusive right to legislate with respect to education. In admitting Prince Edward Island and British Columbia into the union was anything said about education ? The Minister of Justice cannot say that, Mr. Speaker ; nothing was said about education and therefore the educational clauses automatically were read into the constitution of Prince Edward Island. But I want to ask another question and that is this : What other power to-day can legislate with respect to education in New Brunswick outside the legislative assembly of the province of New Brunswick. Will any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House answer that question ? There is no authority and if there is no authority then, Sir, under existing conditions, the legislative assembly of the province of New Brunswick has the exclusive legislative power to-day. The hon. gentleman said

and to a certain extent I agreed with him in that-that we have not gone far in nation building if we cannot to-day do what we did in 1875. We are to-day legislating for a constitution for a province, not a territory, for the people of these western provinces in which will be read a clause over which they have no control, which has been placed there without the consent of the people of the Northwest and which they can never change ; which can only be changed by an Act of the imperial parliament.
I am not going to refer to Mr. George Brown because he was always opposed to separate schools and the quotation that has been brought out by the government in the argument which they have sent forth does not controvert that in the least. When George Brown made that statement he made it either as a statement of policy that would be adopted by every government in the future or he made it as a matter of law that would be read into the constitution. If he stated it as a matter Mr. STOCKTON.
of policy that would always be followed by any government in Canada, we know, Mr. Speaker, that the policy of the government is not always uniform in this country. If he made it as a matter of law, then Mr. George Brown was not a lawyer, and the decisions of the courts since have shown that if he meant that he was in error ; that is all I have to say about that quotation. But the Minister of Justice says that this is established by the free will of the people. The free will of the people? And he quotes Mr. Haultain as saying that he wishes the preservation of the status quo and yet the First Minister and his supporters in the next breath say that they will not trust the people of the west with respect to this school question. My hon. friend quoted Mr. Clement who has written an excellent work on the constitution of Canada. He quoted a letter from Mr. Clement with respect to section 93 of the British North America Act, to the effect that if a constitution is now formed for these Territories and there is a system of separate schools in existence in the Northwest Territories at the time they are constituted a province, that system will automatically go into the constitution of the new province ? Does the Minister of Justice as a lawyer believe that? Does the Minister of Justice as a lawyer concur in that view. If so, why does the government seek to place legislation upon the statute-book that gives an emphatic denial to any such principle ? The hon. gentleman evoked the enthusiasm of his followers when he said that the policy of the Liberal party was clear before the election. Clear before the election ? I want to say that so far as I am informed and so far as I can understand, if the policy propounded by the right hon. gentleman to-day had been propounded in the province of Ontario and in the west prior to the election a great many gentlemen behind the First Minister would not be here supporting the Bill that he has introduced. I may be wrong in that, Mr. Speaker, or I may be right. The general consensus of opinion, so far as I have been able to gather it, is that I am right.
I now wish to sum up the legal conclusions which I have been arguing and to put them in as concise language as I can.
1.	No duty under the law or the constitution is laid upon the government to include any educational clause in the Bill.
2.	The Act of 1875, was passed by this parliament for the government of unorganized territory, subject to change from year to year, during the period the country remained a territory. Under that Act the' government of the territory was compelled to pass ordinances to carry out the separate school clauses.
3.	The legislation of 1875, was not legislation sanctioned or agreed to by the people of the territory. It was an Act of this

parliament, imposed upon the people, who were bound to carry it into effect, including the ordinances relating to schools.
4.	No right arose under the legislation for a continuance of the educational clauses. Those who contend to the contrary must inform us when the statute of limitation, confirming the right, began to run, and when the prescriptive right became complete. There is no such prescriptive right. The people of the territory passed the ordinances in obedience to the law, which they were bound to obey. To argue from that, that the people were in favour of separate schools or had voluntarily adopted the principle is contrary to fact.
5.	In granting provincial status to a territory, parliament is bound by the law and the constitution, and cannot withhold full provincial sovereignty under the terms of the constitution. If you can withhold one right of self-government you can go further. so that a province might be compelled to enter the union a dwarf in respect of provincial sovereignty, shackled and shorn of legitimate power for efficient administration and development. Such construction cannot be and I venture to assert is not the frame and intent of the Canadian constitution.
Suppose, however, outside of the law parliament has the power to pass this Bill, then what as to the expediency of passing it? My right hon. friend the First Minister declaimed-and I admire the First Minister for that-against coercing Manitoba. He is doing to-day what he deplored in 1896. Trust the people, do not coerce them; that was the language of the Finance Minister upon the platforms of Nova Scotia in 1896. To him I say to-day : If you could trust the people of Manitoba trust the people of the Northwest Territories, they are not African savages, they will do what is right by their fellow citizens; trust them and leave this legislation in their hands. The people of the west are freemen, or they suppose they are freemen. They hope to be freemen, but let me tell the right hon. gentleman who leads the government that if he forces this legislation upon that country and places these constitutions upon the statute-book against the will of the people of the great west, he will be but sowing the dragons teeth which in the near future must inevitably produce an abundant crop of discontent, of discord and of bitter strife. I have faith in the people of the west as I have faith in the people of the east. I vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition because it is along the line of liberty and freedom of action for the west ; I vote against the proposition of the Prime Minister because it is of the essence of coercion and of distrust in the people of the west.


Mr. J. E. E. LEONARD (Laval).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, in rising to address 171



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
the House on this question, I must say, at the outset, that I do not intend to speak at any length ; it is not customary for me to do so, and besides, I do not wish to detain hon. members who are anxious to get away. But before casting my vote against the amendment introduced by the hon. gentleman whose follower I have had the honour of being heretofore, I think it is incumbent upon me to offer a few personal explanations for the information of hon. gentlemen who are listening to me, and also in justification for myself.
My object, in the first place, is to protest against the unjust warfare carried on, on behalf of prejudice and bigotry, by politicians and newspaper men belonging to either party. It behooves, Sir, members of parliament and men of mature thought to direct public opinion in the right channels. It is a matter of deep regret for me to find that in my province, as well as in other provinces, newspapers are endeavouring to set the various races at war against each other, and that solely with a view to political gain. I regret to read, from day to day, in the Ontario papers, whether Conservative or Liberal, Tory or Grit, attacks such as you may have read yourself, Mr. Speaker, against Catholics in this country and their clergy. Catholics, and the Catholic hierarchy as well, are above such attacks and such insults, and I shall not lose time in defending them.
But, Mr. Speaker, what aggrieves me much more than these attacks and insults coming from people who do not know better, it is to find these reproduced in the columns of our French papers, with the object of making our people believe that these attacks are not confined to certain English-speaking Tories, but are engineered by the Conservative party as a whole. I am deeply aggrieved to find that, in a purely partisan spirit, these newspapers are endeavouring to set up the peaceful inhabitants of Quebec against the English-speaking and Protestant Conservatives in general. Now, is that racial and religious warfare-which, after all, as any fair-minded man will have to admit, is not as widespread as some contend-is that racial and religious warfare canned on exclusively by Tories ? Have you not, Mr. Speaker, heard, as I have in this House, only a few days ago, the h5n. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), ex-Minister of the Interior, the same man who, during two parliaments, has had charge of one of the most important of our public departments, boast of his having been the principal means of abolishing the use of the French language as well as the Catholic schools in Manitoba ? Have we not heard him claim such conduct as his most glorious feat ? Did not the 'Globe,' the leading Liberal organ in the province of Ontario, publish, on the 20th of April last, the following lines, which I quote from an article too lengthy to be given here in toto :

[Stage Direction]
But the point of capital importance, and *which cannot be disproved by shutting one's eyes to its undesired existence or by shouting bravely that it does not exist, is the unmistakable fact that not in Toronto alone but in scores of centres throughout this province the sanest and steadiest and most intelligent men cannot bring themselves to approve of the Dominion parliament, on any pretext whatsoever, interfering in the educational affairs of the new provinces. The men who make this objection are not Tories. They are not Orangemen. They are Liberals. They are, some of them, the men who give virility and prestige to Liberalism in their constituencies, and without whom there would be no Liberal iparty worthy of the name. To ignore the fact of their opposition, to minimize its significance, or to misunderstand its quality is to play the part of children in a situation which demands the wisdom and courage of men.
As a Conservative of the school of Lafon-taine and Baldwin, I wish to enter my protest against these attacks and insults on the part of certain Ontario Conservative newspapers. Quite as deplorable as this campaign carried on in Ontario, are the efforts made by the Liberal papers in Quebec to indispose the French and Catholic population of that province against the Conservative party. I protest against such conduct on the part of both. I am acquainted with the political history of our country, especially within the last thirty or forty years, and X suppose every hon. member in this House is also acquainted with it. Well, that history shows that the Conservative party was formed through the union of the English-speaking Tories of Ontario and of the French-speaking Liberals of Quebec. It is through that alliance that this country has been built up within the last thirty years and has reached its present status. Present day politicians should be satisfied thereby that the best policy to follow is that which makes for the union cf all nationalities and all creeds in a common effort to ensure the greatness and prosperity of our country, Canada. They should be satisfied that no party will ever gather, in appeals to religious and racial passions and prejudices, sufficient strength to enable it to control and manage public affairs in this country.
It is also incumbent upon me to protest most energetically against that other insinuation made on several occasions by some Liberal newspapers' in Quebec, that we, Conservative members from that province, are going to vote against the amendment of the leader of the opposition only through fear of the coming elections. I may state at once that in voting as we intend to vote we do so because we are satisfied that this parliament has the right to add to the Bill now before the House a clause providing for the establishment of separate schools. I must state at the same time that I have not received from my constituents any petition, any instruction whatever regarding the vote I am to give to-night on this question.
Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: I am left perfectly free to act as I think best.
I shall not undertake at this late hour to discuss the various questions brought up by this Bill, reserving my right to do so when we are in committee. I shall be content just now with stating that I am in favour of the establishment of these new' provinces, and that, in my opinion, this parliament has the right to insert in their constitution clear and definite enactments stating, in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, that the people of those provinces will be entitled to separate schools ; or, in other words, that the father of a family will have the right of giving to his child that education which he thinks proper.
There is no doubt as to the right of provincial legislatures to make such law's as they deem proper for the carrying on of their system of education, but they are bound to respect in every case the natural right of parents to give to their children the education which they think best, provided always, that it conforms to public morals and to existing laws.
I know that in the mind of its promoter, the amendment introduced by the leader of the opposition has not for its object to deprive the minority of their right to separate schools, but solely to assert the principle of the unrestricted autonomy of the provinces in educational matters. Unfortunately, those who are seeking to wipe out the French language and the Catholic religion will take advantage of this amendment to attain their object. To these people, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest, with calm and moderation and in the best of spirits, that they should study the true facts of the country's history. They will find that a powerful oligarchy that governs, that the Colonial Oflice and British cabinets have made similar attempts, at a time when we were weak and in small numbers, and have only succeeded in wearing down their claws and teeth in the act.
Our English-speaking fellow-citizens may well absorb and assimilate sparse groups of Scandinavians, of Mennonites and Doukho-bors ; we do not object in any way, and do not envy them that increase of strength : but as regards ourselves, never will they succeed in doing so. We were Canadians before Canada was ceded to England. A Canadian who settles in France or in the United States remains a Canadian. That is why I say we form a distinct nationality, having preserved and being still anxious to preserve our language, our faith, our aspirations and our notions.
So-called national schools are wanted : and it is on us original settlers of this country that an attempt is made to fasten these inefficient, Godless schools contrary to our aspirations. And do those who wish to rivet such schools on us know what a school is ? Ninety-nine per cent of those who make the

most noise are ignorant of it. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know what it is. Our system of primary schools does not suffer from a comparison with that of several European countries, and is greatly superior to that which exists in any other province of the Dominion. I shall give evidence of that presently. But a system, however good, will not be efficient unless properly applied ; and I must acknowledge that in some of our country places the system is not well carried out. In the cities and in the older parishes of the province of Quebec, however, the system has been properly enforced, and the results have been such as to surprise the world at the universal expositions at Paris in 1871. of London in 1885, of Chicago in 1893 and in Paris again in 1900. At these expositions Canada was competing with the great countries Off Europe, Asia and America, and the awards obtained there are a credit to us. Possibly the only report you have read concerning these expositions is the official list of awards. I regret it. The school exhibit was made by provinces. Let us take, for *example, the primary public schools of Ontario. What did their exhibit consist of? Photographs of school buildings, text-books, school furniture and curricula. As regards specimens of pupils' work and corrections made daily by the teacher, there was nothing to show ; absolutely nothing, neither at Chicago in 1893, nor at Paris in 1900. And why ? Because they toad nothing to show. Fine programmes, without actual, perceptible results, are invariably characteristic of humbug.	,
Quebec, on the contrary, has always been noticed for the thoroughness of its school exhibits. Specimens of pupils' work in all branches, covering the ten months of the preceding term, together with the daily corrections of the teachers, specimens of manual work of all kinds, have been exhibited, but very few, if any photographs of school buildings.
In order to cut short, I shall merely quote a few appreciations in connection with the last Paris exposition. I shall quote, in the first place, from Mr. de Caux, a leading French educator, who has spoken with praise of several of the books in use in our schools, and has made a very full review of the specimens of school work exhibited. From that review I quote the following :
The Brothers of the Christian schools of Canada have obtained a silver medal at the universal exposition. In their show-case may be seen those magnificent specimens of commercial school teaching which constitute everywhere one of their strong points.
Further on, after referring to other congregations, he goes on to say :
It should be observed that these special awards are of very great significance, as the school exhibit of Canada had already received collectively a grand prize won by the province of Quebec, and gold medals had been granted 171*
to the Catholic school board and to the Protestant school board of Montreal.
As regards the schools for girls, he adds further on:
The exhibits forwarded by the nuns are so numerous that it is impossible to make special mention of any of them, although they are all worthy.of attention, and give an impression of admirable thoroughness. What was done was simply to collect pupils' copy books containing their daily work and forward them to Paris. That is the right way of understanding an exhibit. We have gone over a good many of these copy books, and our general impression may be summed up as follows : A very complete and varied teaching, adapting itself to local needs- very well given-very well understood by the pupils, who evidently are much benefited thereby.
A last remark of Mr. de Caux on the education given to our girls :
I repeat It in concluding, for therein lies to my mind, the 'Special character of that fine exhibit, while being quite true, quite literary, thoroughly scientific, and philosophical, in a word, while bearing on all subjects as it is proper it should do now-a-days, French Canadian education seems to me more practical than ours.
Such are the words of a French educator,
and nevertheless it is desired that we should relinquish our methods of teaching to adopt a system whose results nobody dare show in public.
Another French educator, Mr. Baudrillard, a Protestant, if I am not mistaken, has published in the ' Revue Pedagogique ' of Paris, his appreciation of our school exhibit. I shall only quote a few of his remarks :
Canada's exhibit at the Trocadero comes to a great number as a surprise. . . .
Under the constitution of 1S67, educational matters are assigned exclusively to the provinces. As a result, we find rather dissimilar school systems in the various provinces. . . . That lack of unity is apparent ait the exposition, in the varying importance of the exhibits contributed by the various provinces.
Thus Ontario, where, however, primary instruction appears to be very much respected, only displays photographs, statistics and classical works. Nova Sicotia, Manitoba and British Columbia have still more incomplete exhibits which give scarcely any means of judging the value of their educational systems. In fine, New' Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have not taken part in the exhibition.
As to Quebec, it presents a very complete collection. Certain European countries are far from presenting their primary educational systems with such a wealth of documents.
The Catholic schools of the province of Quebec come to the exhibition in a most complete manner. ... In a general way, it may be said that the instruction given in those schools is solid and serious.
And, in closing :
The organizers of the exhibit from the province of Quebec have had the happy thought of presenting a volume containing the texts of the lectures prepared ... by the members of the staffs of the normal schools and intended to be read and commented upon by the inspec-

tors. Side by side with the copy books that show what the schools of to-day are, the lectures give us a glimpse at what the schools of to-morrow may be. Let us at once state that they will give way to those of no other people, if the instructions offered are followed.
This is what competent men, even in Paris, write and think about us. These are the results of the educational system that we desire to have obtain among our people in the new provinces Instead of subjecting them to the ignorant caprices of a heterogeneous population. Where is the sane man who could honestly and sincerely say that we are wrong ?
I do not desire to enter more fully into the study of this question. Several members have claimed that, constitutionally, this parliament has not the right to pass such an amendment. It is useless to entrench ourselves behind legal technicalities in order to refuse the minorities the right of having schools of their choice. I have often heard, and with surprise I must say, members of this House express the wish that in this country there should be only one school and one language. I have no fear to assert that the French Canadians are not only necessary, but essential, to the maintenance of the British empire on this Canadian soil.
The day on which the French Canadians would have lost their nationality, their faith, their aspirations, they would cease to look on Canada as their country, they would no longer possess that love of the land which is the strength of patriotic sentiment, they would take.no more interest in the destinies of this country, nor would they have any ambition to see it continue along the highway of progress. I do not hesitate to say here that in Canada there do not exist more devoted subjects to the British Crown than are those who were raised and whose minds were formed by that very Catholic hierarchy which, for some weeks past, a certain section of the press has so much insulted, subjects who received their education in the very schools of the province of Quebec, that these same newspapers have vilified to such a great extent. All we desire-we French Canadians

and I close with this, is that every minority, no matter which it be, should have the right to follow its own faith and to have its children brought up according to the natural rights that belong to the parent. The majority need fear nothing from the exercise of those rights thus claimed by the minority. Our English Protestant fellow-citizens may rest at ease, for in the province of Quebec we do not question as to whether our neighbour is English or Protestant ; we make no inquiry as to his religion ; we ask not if he is an Anglican, a [DOT]Methodist or a Presbyterian ; all we want to know is that be is a good citizen, that he is willing to join his efforts with those of his fellow-countrymen and to devote his ener-Mr. LEONARD.
gies to the service of all causes calculated to help in the expansion and prosperity of Canada as a whole.
House divided on amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden.
YEAS *
Messrs.
Alcorn,	Jackson (Elgin),
Armstrong,	Kemp,
Avery,	Lake,
Barker,	Lalor,
Barr,	Lancaster,
Bennett,	Lennox,
Blain,	Maedonell,
Bland,	MacLaren,
Borden (Carleton),	Maclean (York, S.),
Boyce,	McCarthy (Calgary),
Bristol,	McCarthy (Simcoe),
Broider,	McLean (Queen's, P.E.I.)
Chisholm,	Martin (Queen's, P.E.I.),
Christie,	Nonthirup,
Clare,	Osier,
Clements,	Porter,
Cochrane,	Reid (Grenville),
Cockshutt,	Roche (Marquette),
Crocket,	Schaffner,
Daniel,	Sproule,
Elson,	, Staples,
Foster,	Stockton,
Fowler,	Taylor,
Ganong,	Tisdale,
Gunn,	Walsh,
Haggart,	Ward,
Henderson,	Wilmot,
Herron,	Wilson
Hughes (Victoria),	(Lennox & Addington).
Ingram,	Wright (Muskoka)-59.
NAYS : Messrs.
Adamson,	Laurence,
Ames,	Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Archambault,	Laurier (L'Assoniption)
Beauparlant, .	Lavergne
BSland,	(Drummond & Arth.),
Belcourt,	Lavergne (Montmagny),
Bergeron,	Law,
Bickerdike,	LeBlanc,
Black,	Leonard,
Bole,	Lemieux,
Borden, Sir Frederick,	Lewis,
Bourassa,	Loggie,
Bourbonnais,	Lovell,
Boyer,	Macdonald,
Brabazon,	Maclean (Lunenburg),
Brodeur,	Macpherson,
Brown.	McColl,
Bruneau,	McCool,
Bureau,	McIntyre,
Burrows,	Mclsaac,
Caldwell, .	McKenzie (Bruce),
Calvert,	McKenzie
Campbell,	(Cape Breton, N.),
Oar.ney,	McLennan,
Carveill.	Marcil (Bagot),
Cash.	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Clarke,	Martin (Wellington!,
Copp,	Mayrand,
Costigan, .	Meigs,
Crawford,	Miller,

Cyr,	Monk,
Delisle,	Morin,
Demers,	Mulock (Sir William)
Derbyshire,	Oliver,
Desjardins,	Parmelee,
Devlin, Dubeau,	Paterson,
	Paquet,
Dugas,	Parent,
Dy.memt,	Perley,
Emmerson,	Piche,
Ethier,	Pickup,
Fielding,	, Prefontaine,
Finlay.	Pringle,
Finlayson,	Proulx,
Fisher.	Reid (Restigouche),
Fitzpatrick,	. Riley,
Forget,	Rivet,
Fortier,	Roche (Halifax),
Gallery,	Ross (Rimouski),
Galliher,	Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Gauvreau,	Rousseau,
Geoffrlon,	Savoie,
Gervais,	Schell (Glengarry),
Girard,	Sche'lU (Oxford),
Gordon,	Scott,
Grant,	Sifton,
Guthrie,	Sinclair.
Hall,	Sloan,
Har.ty,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Hughes	Stewart,
(King's, P.E.I.), '	Talbot (Bellechasse),
Hunt,	Talbot (Strathcona),
Hyman,	Telford,
Jackson (Selkirk),	Thompson,
Johnston	Tobin,
([DOT]Cape Breton, South),Turgeon,	
Johnston (Lambton)	. Turriff,
Kennedy,	Watson,
Lachance,	Wilson (Russell),
Lamont,	Worthington,
Lanctot,	Wrright (Renfrew),
Lapointe,	Zimmerman-140.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition. Messrs.
*German,	White.
Amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden) negatived.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, the speech made this afternoon by the Minister of Justice was in many respects a very able one. It was a speech worthy of his high position ; was a speech worthy of his party : but in his prologue and in his peroration, he had evidently culled a number of gems from some of his St. Jean Baptiste Day addresses, and he delivered them with all the fervor of some of his St. Patrick's Day orations. That speech, in so far as it was argumentative, was a very able and very creditable speech to himself and to his party ; but as I listened to it I came to the conclusion that it was delivered in the interest of a lost cause-that it was the last argument which was to be made in this country in favour of the ecclesiastical school that we know in the province of Ontario-of that school which the late Minister of the Interior condemned in former and recent times ; that school which the new Prime Minister in the province of
Quebec has set out to reform, and which the late Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Mr. Tarte, has made special mention of in his newspaper by demanding reform in public instruction in the province of Quebec. And that speech was marked by something else : it was characterized by the fact that the Minister of Justice demolished the whole argument of his leader. The argument of his leader was that the constitution was imperative, that it was categorical, that it devolved on parliament the duty of introducing separate school clauses into this Bill, if I gather anything from the argument of the Minister of Justice, it was that there was nothing categorical or imperative in the constitution in that respect. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Stockton) challenged the government to show where the constitution lias made it imperative that such a clause should be introduced into this Bill. And he referred to something on which we are entitled to an explanation this evening : he referred to the changes that had been made in section 16 of the Bill. That amended clause was made a part of this measure on the proposal for its second reading. What was more to the point, it was on the original section 16 that the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) withdrew his support from the government, and we are told that he was followed by all the members from the west. Some explanation was made to the late minister and to the members from the west as a reason for the change that was made in that clause ; why was that reason not given to tlie House to-night ? Why was it held back at a time when we were entitled to it'/ The Minister of Justice this afternoon argued that the question was one of expediency, that we were free to do as we liked, but that we were in honour bound to carry out our engagements to the minority. That may be ; but we were in honour bound to do something more ; we were in honour bound to do justice to all the people of the west rather than to the minority. That point also was made very clear in the speech made this evening by the hon. member from St. John. N.B.
The Minister of Justice rested his whole case on this argument, and on it I intend to take my stand and make an appeal to my supporters in my own constituency and in my own province from one end of it to the other : he said that as he read the constitution there was no province that was not restricted in the matter of education. That in a measure is true, but if the provinces restricted, if a condition was imposed on Ontario and the other original contracting provinces, it was imposed upon them by themselves. In this case, however, the restriction is imposed on the people of the west, not by themselves, but by an almost solid Quebec. These people in the west are just as much entitled to be considered in the matter of schools as were

the original contracting provinces at the foundation of confederation. And I claim, on behalf of the west, that they should be as free to choose for themselves to select the conditions they care to have imposed on them as the older provinces, and on that argument I can appeal to the people of Canada from one end to the other. I can appeal to them on the plea that the people of the west have as much right to be consulted in a matter of this kind as the original provinces. If we do not consult them, if we do not leave the settlement of the school question to the people of that great and free west, we are imposing shackles on them, we are fettering them, we are nailing rivets into their liberties and rights. That is the issue before the House, that is the issue that will come before the people of this country ; and hon. gentlemen will see, when they come to discuss it in the country, that the people will demand that the same liberties be accorded to the people of the west which were accorded to the original contracting provinces. The people of the west have not been given any liberty in this matter ; they are being restricted, against their will. A solid Quebec, a Quebec which demanded that nothing should he done in connection with education, as far as it is concerned, without its consent, is today imposing restrictions upon the people' of the west which it has no right to impose, and that province may yet come to see that in this it has made a great mistake.
The Minister of Justice this afternoon went a long way to eulogize and pay great tribute to the people of the province of Quebec and to the Roman Catholic Chuch. To all that he said, I have no objection to make. I join with him heartily in those encomiums which he paid. But surely there are others in this country besides French Canadians and some other church besides the Roman Catholic. Surely when he paid such a tribute to the French Canadians 'who are identified with the early settlement of this country, when he paid the tribute he did to the Jesuit martyrs,why did he forget the names of Samuel Champlain and Count Frontenac, two distinguished statesmen of this country, and who were the first to see its great possibilities. And when he praised the Jesuit martyrs, is there to be no praise, no recognition of the Church of England missionaries in this country in the early days, and of the circuit riders of the Methodist Church such as Egerton Ry-erson and men of that character ? is there to be no recognition of the Presbyterian missionaries ? I grant all that the French Canadian race did for the establishment of this country, but what about the United Empire Loyalists that bulit up Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and where descendants are to be found all over Canada ? Surely the men who professed the faiths I have named are in some Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
way entitled to some recognition. But so far as I could gather from the remarks of the Minister of Justice, there is nothing we have in this country of Canada worth boasting of, which is not due to the province of Quebec ; and that when we come to speak of the ecclesiastical institutions of the country, there is only one we should recognize, and that is the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I happen to come from that province of Ontario which has been so much maligned in this debate, which has been described here as illiberal, intolerant and incendiary, and I still further have the misfortune to come from the city of To-, ronto which is supposed to be the hot-bed of all this intolerance and illiberality. I happen also to be identified with one of those five intolerant and incendiary newspapers published in the city of Toronto. We have been denounced and my province has been denounced, and yet the Postmaster General who comes from that province and my own county, has never had a word to say in defence of its people or of the city of Toronto. Let me, Mr. Speaker, tell you something about the people who come from the province of Ontario. They have certain characteristics, and if there is anything that marks those people with regard to their political and religious views, it is this, that next to the birth of our Saviour they regard, as the greatest thing in the history of the world, the reformation which marked the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries of Europe. Next to that they are proud of the Protestant churches of Germany, the Protestant Church of England, and the Protestant Church of France that came out of that great reformation ; and after the reformation in England, if they are proud of anything it is of this, that after the establishment of the Protestant Church and after revolution and civil war and any amount of parliamentary strife and trouble, there came out of all that revolution and strife and struggle and all that civil war those great free institutions of constitutional government which England gave to the world and made her the mother of parliaments. The people of Ontario are proud of these things, when we have to legislate and make the laws of this country. More than that, Professor Goldwin Smith has said that the greatest glory of England is the United States. Concurrent with the development of all these things in the way of constitutional government, concurrent with the rise of free principles in England, there was that settlement of British institutions in the United States and portions of what is now our country of Canada, and notwithstanding the war which took place between the mother-country and her American colony, these great English institutions were transplanted to, were developed there and built up that great republic which we know today, and which Goldwin Smith has

said is England's greatest pride and which men like John Morley and Professor Bryce delight to study and to point to with admiration and sympathy. The people of Ontario have watched the progress that has marked the rise of British institutions, they have seen these institutions transferred to this country, and they find to-day that the English language is spoken by over eighty million peopleon the North American continent. They see this great continent, under the influence of these British institutions, progressing as no other portion of the world is progressing to-cl,ay. They think of these things, and try to find out what is the underlying principle of that progress, what is the spirit of the American continent, and what is the spirit of that great English movement that has taken place and has been transferred from the little Isle across the sea, to this great continent, and dominates this great continent to-day.
And what is it ? First and foremost it is that the spirit of the American continent, including Canada, is a thorough belief in liberty of conscience. Next to this is a belief in equality of civil rights, the belief that every man must be equal before the law. Following that is a belief in complete separation of church and state. And last of all is the belief that the hope of the nation, the hope of British institutions on the American continent, is in a national system of education.	The
right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) saw fit in his first address on this Bill to pass certain reflections upon the national schools system of the United States. By innuendo, nay, by direct statement, he sought to lead this country to believe that the divorces and other disorders in the United States were largely due to the national school system of that country. I take issue with the right hon. gentleman there. Had it not been for the national school system of the United States, that country would never have been able to digest the great foreign element that has come into it. And I contend that if you impose separate schools, ecclesiastical schools, on these new provinces of he west, you are going to put them back twenty-five years, yes fifty years, in the race of progress upon which they have so hopefully entered. The public school system is the hope of the United States. If they have great problems, the men who are being trained in their public schools are the men who will solve them. I have often spoken in this House against some of the institutions and political movements of that country, but there is no country on the face of the globe to-day that is producing nen of the calibre and capacity that the United States is producing. As Professor Bryce said the other day, there are no people like the people of the United States to tackle great questions of transportation and industrial development, especially of the great interest in which we are so much concerned, that of agriculture. The great transportation problem, even under their system of private ownership, the great questions of finance and agriculture, are being handled by a class of men in the United States who for calibre and for capacity, for ability to rise to the necessities of any question, cannot be surpassed in any portion of the world. And every one of these men, as a matter of fact, came out of the public schools of that country. So that any one who would stigmatize the public school system of the United States and say that it is a menace to that country says that with which I cannot agree. Let me read what a friend of mine says in a letter received the other day. The writer is a Canadian who is now in the United States :
Your national schools are turning out Canadians and British subjects, your separate schools, Catholics. You must get out of the church business if you are to have a nation. Every taxpayer in the United States contributes to the support of the national schools. If he wishes to send his children to private or other schools, he may do so, but he still pays his taxes to the national school. Why should he not pay for public schools ? The United States is not running any particular church ; it is running the country, and, in an educational sense it is Tunning it well. It is educating children to be United States citizens. The child is Americanized by the national school. On account of the national school of the United States, there are no brokerings or political fights between the Protestants and Roman Catholics. The people here are Americans, not Protestants and Roman Catholics. Whore the separate school exists in Canada, you have Protestants and Catholics, not Canadians. If you are to have ' peace and good will ' in the Northwest, in the years that are to come, give the people national schools, and no other kind. Any man who advocates a Separate school for the west is an'enemy of Canada-the worst enemy the country can have.
And just the other day a very distinguished prelate of the United States delivered an Easter Greeting to the people of his country. I refer to James Cardinal Gibbons, the worthy archbishop of Baltimore. On the loth of April be issued this address to the American people :
In one century we have grown from, three millions to eighty millions. We have grown up not as distinct, independent and conflicting communities, but as one corporate body breathing the same atmosphere of freedom, governed by the same laws, enjoying the same political rights. I see in all this a wonderful manifestation of the humanizing and elevating influence of Christian civilization. We ^receive from abroad the people of various nations, races, tongues, habits and temperaments, who speedily become assimilated by the human mass and form one homogenous society. That is the secret of our social stability and order. It results, from wise laws based on Christian principle, and which are the echo of Christ's eternal law. That is the cohesive power that

makes us one body politic out of so many heterogeneous elements. It is the religion of Christ. We live as brothers because we recognize the brotherhood of humanity-one Father in Heaven, one origin, one destiny.
If that great humanizing brotherhood can be brought about in the United States by a national system of education, if these foreign elements can be digested by that country and made a portion of the people by a national school system, why cannot the same force work out in this country and humanize, and christianize and brotherize every element in this country in the same way ? These are the views held by these people in Ontario who are denounced here to-day and insulted as they have been insulted in this House. Is it wrong for a man brought up under British institutions, who recognizes what is the glory of British history and what are the underlying principles of Britain's greatness, namely, religious freedom, civil equality, no church and state, a national system of education-I say, is such a man, such a Canadian to be stigmatized in a Canadian House of Commons as we in the province of Ontario have been stigmatized here ? Is it a sin, is it a crime, to hold views of this kind ? As far as I can gather from the speeches which have been made and the criticisms which have been passed upon the newspapers which try to voice the opinion of Toronto and Ontario, it is a crime in the opinion of those who thus stigmatize us. Consider these newspapers of Toronto that have been criticised as so illiberal. There are five newspapers in Toronto that are trying to voice the sentiments of the people of Ontario, and I think that they are doing it. There is just one newspaper there that is supporting the government and that denounces the people of the province of Ontario and denounces its fellow journals as fire-brands and incendiaries.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Who owns it ?


William Findlay Maclean: Sir, the only newspaper that hon. gentlemen on the other side can find in the city of Toronto to voice their views is a newspaper owned and in the name of a lawyer who is the trustee and agent of a number of exploiting capitalists in the city who for consideration received in several directions at Toronto and at Ottawa, are ready to give the support of that newspaper to the government as long as their interests are advanced as they have been advanced.


George Taylor: What paper is that ?


William Findlay Maclean: The only newspaper in Toronto that is supporting the government, and has not been stigmatized in this House as being incendiary and a firebrand. Now then I have that much to say for the people of my own province. I have listened to the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and others in this House who Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
have chosen to discuss questions of race. Will the House pardon me if for a moment I refer to myself, only in the way of illustration.


Mr. A. LAVERGNE.: It is not the first time.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it the first time ?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No, I do not think it is.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the young gentleman will have a little more respect for members who are addressing this House,
I do not think he adds any dignity to this House by throwing remarks across the floor and by making these interruptions. Now the illustration I propose to address to the House is personal in this respect, that my own family, five or six generations ago, say about 1760, lived in the highlands of Scotland. They knew' not one word of English. Any little refinement, any little education they had, they got from France, they often went to that country. They were Jacobites, they had been all through the wars of Scotland in connection wdth the Jacobite interest. The cause was lost, the families were broken up, and our people drifted south. For fifty years or so they were located around Glasgow, and early in the last century both sides of my house came to this country and took up land. If there is anything I am proud of it is to be able to say that that land they took up nearly 75 years ago is still in the hands of some of them. Five genera-tityis of these people now sleep beneath the sod of this country, and while I may be at times inclined to go back to the idea that I happened to be Celtic and highland Scotch, and that my ancestors spoke Gaelic and could speak nothing else, I am to-day a Canadian and nothing but a Canadian. These recollections of the past are only a romaulic reverie, a reminiscence to me, for to-day I am a Canadian and nothing but a Canadian. There is only one thing that I concede to the member for Labelle as having an advantage over me, and that is that his people were here a little longer than mine. I do givw the French Canadian people credit for this, that they are sons of the soil, they are autochthonous, as the Greeks used the term, they are sprung from the soil, and they are proud of it. So am I. I have no other loyalty, in the highest sense of the term, to any other country than Canada. I agree with all my hon. friend from Labelle has said in that respect-he is a son of the soil, the French Canadians are sons of the soil. But, Sir, so are three-quarters, if not a million of the descendants of the old highland Scotch people who came to this country, they to-day are sons of the soil. Now if we are sons of the soil, whether we are of Scotch origin or of French origin, we are also brothers of the soil, and if we are brothers

of the soil, as I hope we are, is not one national school good enough for all who are brothers of the soil ? That is a consideration that animates the people of the province of Ontario, and are they to be insulted and condemned as illiberal if they thinlr, as the great majority of them do, that those who are sons of the soil, who are brothers of the soil, are good enough to go to one national school and be educated together ? That idea is prevalent throug-out the province of Ontario. We have a separate school system there, but people are gradually abandoning it. They see these separate schools promote disunion rather than peace and harmony-and yet the latter consideration has been used as an argument for their existence. Under a national school system the people who come into this country are going to become just as good Canadians as foreigners who come into the United States become good Americans. The foreigner who comes to the United States seeks to be naturalized, and being naturalized, he wishes his children to become sons of the soil. That is the great characteristic of the United States. People come in there from all other countries and become brothers, they become unified.
But in this country at present, and for a good many years past, we have been trying to evolve unity out of two races by adopting the worst possible we could, that of maintaining two distinct and separate systems. Not. satisfied with possessing that 'system in the province of Quebec, the people of that province, as I think most ungenerously, are trying to impose it upon the people of the west. I say to the province of Quebec : You have your institutions, you have your laws, you have your language, you have your school system ; be content with that and enjoy it if you wish. In Ontario we have a dual school system, and we do not propose to interfere with it. We say to Quebec : Keep what you have, let the people of the west elect what system they will have in regard to education. Is there anything incendiary in the people of Ontario saying that ? Has the province of Ontario any interest in that great west ?
We have been told about the old coureurs des bois, the old voyageurs who discovered the western prairies, who discovered the Mississippi, who were first to see the Rocky mountains, the Red river, the great west. But if they discovered the great west, who developed it ? Was it not the province of j Ontario ? I take a list of the hon. members who make up this House, and when I select the 2S members who sit here representing the 28 constituencies west of Lake Superior, seven-eights of those men who have succeeded in the west are natives, sons of the soil of the province of Ontario. Surely then the province of Ontatrio that has given its best blood to develop the west, that has sent thousands of men with its capital, its business instincts, and its enterprise into
that country, has a right to take an interest in the institutions of that country, and that is all that we are doing. We say that the natives of Ontario who are now the majority in the great west and who are building up that country, have a right to say what its institutions should be. W'e say that the rights of the majority are worthy of respect as well as the rights of the minority. As the member for St. John (Mr. Stockton) said to-night there are two parties in this controversy. Parliament was not intended to devote its energies to the welfare of minorities. Our great duty, our chief duty is to look after the interests of the whole people of this country. All our people ask for is freedom, and all the people of Ontario ask is that those people who went from Ontario and are now settled in the west, who are developing the west, who are giving it a healthy newspaper press, who have taken their municipal institutions, who have taken the school system of the province of Ontario there, shall be left free to have a voice in the selection of the school system that they desire to adopt. Why should the province of Quebec by a solid vote try to impose a school system on these people who come from Ontario these people who are developing the west. Why do they not give to them that freedom which they have claimed and advocated for themselves ? Is there anything wrong in asking for the same liberty that Quebec enjoys to-day ? I do not think so, and I do not think that any one can be justified in the attacks that have been made upon the liberty of the people of the west.


Mr. PATERSON.: If every member from Quebec had abstained from voting what would have been the result of this vote ?
Mr. W'. F. MACLEAN. I do not think the question of the hon. gentleman is pertinent, because I want to tell the hon. gentleman that he is in power to-day, why ? Because of a wrong alliance between a solid Quebec and a great exploiting corporation interest that centres in the city of Toronto, and if the hon. gentleman for Brant the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) thinks he voices the views of the province he knows how to ascertain the exact truth. Let him resign his seat and he will find some one ready to fight out the issue with him.


William Paterson: The only reason I ! made the remarks is that the hon. gentleman's remarks may fairly be considered open to the inference that this vote had been carried through a united Quebec.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Or those under the control of Quebec.


William Findlay Maclean: I shall now come to the main question. The question before the House and country to-day is one of law or it is one of policy. The Prime Min-inster said it was one of law ; the Minister

of Justice this afternoon said it was one of policy. If it was a question of policy, it must turn in the carrying out of contracts that had been made with minorities. I believe it is not a question of law ; I have to disagree with quite a number of my hon. friends on this side of the House. To me it is not a question of law but absolute- ' ly a question of policy, and even were it a question of law, even were it a consti

tutional question, we all know the conversation that occurred between Catherine of France and Henry V. when kissing was under discussion. The king said : ' Nice customs must curtsey to great Kings.' Now, to me the constitution is very much of the nature of a custom and it at times has to curtsey to a great king and the great king in this question is that enlightened public opinion which upholds those ideas of political freedom and progress which mark this American continent, namely, civil and religious equality, no connection between church and state and a national school system. That is a custom to which even a constitution must make curtsey. Because the public opinion of the country may say that even if the constitution says one thing the welfare of the country demands another thing. The Minister of Justice has been continually talking about carrying out contracts with minorities and the right hon. the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) often speaks about the sacredness of contracts and about vested rights. Do they know that if this talk were true in which they indulge about maintaining contracts with minorities and the sacredness of vested rights, there would never have been any constitutional progress in England or in this country that contracts, that rights must be continually commuted for something better and that all the constitutions that ever were written have been distorted, have been thwarted in the public interest ? The constitution of the United States as judged by the institutions in that country is now the most distorted document that was ever put to pen and ink, and it was because the interest of the country required that changes should be made and when changes could not be made by altering the constitution, they were made by the decisions of the courts, made by judges who were largely of a political complexion. The right hon. gentleman shakes his head, but the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States are not based upon the constitution ; they are based upon the political necessities of the people of that country.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Does my hon. friend approve of that ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, i say that i approve of everything that is obedient to the great popular will as it can be ascertained, and I say that the whole constitutional progress of England is based absolutely upon reforms effected by a commutation of Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
existing conditions and of certain so-called rights and vested interests. The British constitution, the constitution of that country of which we are so proud, those institu-tutions that I say govern the 80,000,000 people who now speak the English language on this continent, are the result of revolution, constant or progressive, and they are the result of changes and sometimes of the deprivation of the rights of minorities. England has not regarded in every instance the rights of minorities and vested rights ; she has at times swept them away and while I am not advocating a single change in the rights of the people to separate schools in the old contracting provinces of Canada, I do stand here to-day for the fullest liberty for the people of the west in regard to schools. They should not be bound by the bonds that contract the people of the east, were imposed on the people of the east by their own election, but the people of the west are to have no say in the selection of the bonds that are to bind them and that is the issue that will be before the people of this country. This to me is absolutely a question of statesmanship, as was said by some hon. gentleman opposite. And what is the duty of statesmanship ? There have been forty legal arguments imported into this debate as to what the meaning of the constitution is. My experience is that you can get as many opinions as the number of lawyers whom you care to fee and every one of those opinions is arguable. But what a statesman does and ought to do is to select a policy, to judge of the situation, to face the conditions that confront him, to face the problems before him, and if it depends upon the constitution to select a constitutional position, to take his stand on that view of the constitution and if the constitution does not suffice in carrying his policy, what can he do ? He can amend his constitution ; he can even go to the imperial parliament to have confirmed what he thinks is in the interest of the Canadian people in regard to this separate school question in the west as hon. gentlemen may have to do before many moons are over. And so it comes to this that the legislation that is proposed on any great question in the 20th century, methods and conditions. I have listened to and have almost been surfeited with the praises that have been bestowed on the fathers of confederation and with versions of what the fathers of confederation meant in regard to the government of this country. I pay great respect to the fathers of the confederation, but what have the fathers of confederation to do with the sons of the confederation who are to-dav in front of a great political question ? We pay respect to what they say, but can George Brown, can John A. Macdonald settle the questions that to-day confront us ? We must do it to the best of our ability for our-

selves, and I am not afraid to quote the Greek who said before Troy :	We indeed
boast to be better than our fathers. I take that statement in the sense that we at least are more competent to deal with existing problems, because we are of the century and of the time when the problems arise. We would not be men and we would not be British subjects if we were not competent to solve problems ourselves on the information that is before us and on the conditions that exist. Sir, I am not in favour of written constitutions being stereotyped and cast iron bound; I pay respect to them, but they must bend as everything else in the world has to bend. The interpretation of Holy Scripture has changed and changes almost every year, and so must the interpretation of the constitution.


William John Macdonald: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: The lion gentleman is a good Presbyterian perhaps, but he will not deny that doctrine, and it is nowhere more evident than in his own church.	I


William John Macdonald: As a good Presbyterian I do deny that doctrine.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to question the hon. gentleman on the shorter cathecism after the House adjourns.


William John Macdonald: I can stand any examination the member for South York can put me through on the shorter catechism.


William Findlay Maclean: I will meet you later. I come to another phase of the question now, and I suppose I am going to be subject to a great deal of criticism for what I am about to say. I intend to discuss this question of a solid Quebec,
I do not want to be charged with saying anything unfriendly towards my fellow-countrymen in that province.


Mr. BELCOURT.: You might discuss a solid Nova Scotia at the same time.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes


Mr. D. D. MACKENZIE.: Yes, and a solid British Columbia, by the way.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, but it was not a solid British Columbia or a solid Nova Scotia that imposed this legislation on the new provinces in the west. The people of the west as they have a right to do, come to us and say : We want autonomy and our provincial institutions ; but the province of Quebec comes along and says : You will not have your institutions as you want them, we will define what institutions you are to have ; and Ontario comes along and says to Quebec : Hold on brother, don't do that, leave it to the people of the west. That is the actual situation. Quebec says thev will define the institutions of the west and all
Ontario says : Hands off, Quebec, leave the matter to the people of the west.


Mr. A. LAYERGNE.: Not all Ontario.


William Findlay Maclean: The province of Quebec in doing this has for the first time made itself a solid Quebec.


Wilfrid Laurier: For the first time ?


William Findlay Maclean: Nearly ; for the present it has made itself a solid Quebec. It used to divide on the old party issues but at present it is solid on this question.


William John Macdonald: Only one has gone astray.


William Findlay Maclean: Only one. l make the remark, that if the province of Quebec wishes to make itself a solid body.
' m dictating to the west, is it not likely that some day, if this thing is carried too far, there may be a united west beginning at the Ottawa river, which in some way may resent what they consider unjust and unfair interference. To my ifellow-country-men in the province of Quebec I say that their action is not just and is not fair, they themselves have all they want and they should not present themselves before the House and before the people of Canada as a solid block against any other section of the community. It would have been far better for Quebec if it had divided on the old times or on some kind of constitutional interpretation. What a spectacle is presented to the country. If there should be a solid Quebec in anything, should it not have been when Charles Tupper the younger and Charles Tupper the elder, tried to impose remedial legislation upon the province of Manitoba at the request of the province of Quebec ? If ever a party tried the province of Quebec it was the Conservative party when in 1890 it tried to carry remedial legislation in this parliament. But there was no solid Quebec then.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: If there had been it would have been all right.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not say that.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: If it were a Conservative solid Quebec it would have been all right.


William Findlay Maclean: Let the hon. geu-leman make his speech when I have finished, if he wants to.	[DOT]


William John Macdonald: When Quebec was solid for the Conservative party it was all right.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know whether it was or not. what I am saying is that a solid Quebec is to-day trying to impose conditions on the west which the west resents. They are interfering with the west and they do it without consulting the people of the west.


William John Macdonald: Do I understand the hon. member to say that the west resents ?


William Findlay Maclean: I do.


William John Macdonald: I want to ask my hon. friend, upon what circumstance he bases his statement that the west resents any action by this House to-day 3


William Findlay Maclean: I have it upon statements made in this House ; I base it most of all upon the fact that the government could only select a Minister of the Interior in the far and distant west. They would have found out what the voice of the country was and what the view of the west was if they had opened a seat in the [DOT]central or eastern portion of the new Territories, but instead of that they chose a seat where there was a large foreign element and where there was no discussion of this question and no opportunity to discuss it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


William John Macdonald: What about the man 3


William Findlay Maclean: If you want to know what the verdict of the west is look at the verdict in the riding of Mountain.
.gome hon. MEMBERS. Oh.


William Findlay Maclean: That was a verdict on this question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


William Findlay Maclean: The newspapers of the west, the speeches of the members from the west on this side of the House, the public meetings of the people of the west show that they de resent this and they would not be British subjects and Canadians if they did not resent it. If hon. gentlemen opposite were not afraid of the west would they not have gone to the west and discussed this question and told the people what they proposed to do 3


Mr. BUREAU.: Why didn't you go up there ?


William Findlay Maclean: I have the floor and' if my facts are distasteful the hon. gentleman can answer me. This solid Quebec is so strong that it dictates to the entire Liberal party. I do not like to see that in this country, and yet this policy has been introduced at the dictates of Quebec. In doing this I am afraid they have destroyed the Liberal party. As hon. gentlemen opposite well know, the Liberal party has lost the confidence of the people of Ontario. The meetings held in Ontario, the expressions of opinion by Liberals in that province all go to indicate that fact. If the Liberal party in Ontario was based on anything, it was based on the fact that it enjoyed the confidence of the great Presbyterian vote, the great Methodist vote, the great "Baptist vote in that province.


William Findlay Maclean: To-day those Liberals of Ontario see that their party has been shattered in this province by the dictation of the province of Quebec to the Liberal party to. pass this legislatioii in regard to the west. There is evidence of that in the fact that this attempt has ruined the political future of the Minister of the Interior; he has had to leave the government, and his career as a public man is ended. There is an end to the career of most of the members from the west who are to-day justifying this interference with the people of the west.
1 see the end of the Postmaster General as a politician in this country. You can see the end of public man after public man.
I do not see how they are going to square themselves or how they are going to have any future after obeying the dictates of a solid Quebec where a solid Quebec had no right to interfere. This solid Quebec, in thus interfering, as I said before, is repudiating the spirit of America, that spirit which animates the 80,000,000 people who speak English and live under English institutions on this continent. If Quebec wished to be sure in her institutions, as I take it she does, she would have rather shown her gratitude by leaving the people of the west free to exercise their rights, as she has been free to exercise her rights and enjoy them.
I want to come to another question, the question of church and state. It is a well known doctrine in the United States that there is no connection between church and state, and we in this country are supposed to have no such connection. I do not know whether hon. gentlemen deny that or not, but let me read the law on the subject. In 1851, the old province of Canada had to deal with an agitation that was then going on in regard to the connection between church and state. The Church of England had been established in the old province of Canada in the reign of King George III, and the Church of Scotland had been established in this country then or at some later time: and so in 1851 the parliament of the old province of Canada had to legislate on that subject. In 1851 it passed an Act. chapter 175, which was reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's wishes on the 30th of August, 1851, the royal assent was given by Her Majesty in Council on the 15th of May, 1852, and proclamation of the Act was made in the same year. Let me read to this House a little of this legislation of the old province of Canada bearing on the connection between church and state :
Cap. 175, Stats. Can. 1851 ' An Act bo repeal so much of the Act of the Parliament of Greaf Britain ' passed in the 31st year of King George the third and chaptered SI, as relates to rectories and the presentations of incumbents to the same, and for other purposes connected with such rectories :

Whereas the recognition of legal equality among all religious denominations is an admitted principle of colonial legislation ; and whereas in the state and condition of this province, to which such a principle iis peculiarly applicable, it is desirable that the same should receive the sanction of direct legislative authority, recognizing and declaring the same as a fundamental principle of our civil polity ; be it, therefore, declared and enacted by ' the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty_____
And so on. Therefore, in 1851, the parliament of the old province of Canada enacted a law which expressly declared against any connection between church and state, and it enacted that at the agitation of the Roman Catholics of the province of Quebec, assisted by George Brown and others in the province of Ontario. Some years later the secularization of the clergy reserves took place, and what occurred ? In the Act of 1859, secularizing the clergy reserves, clause 4 of chapter 25 begins in this way :
To remove all semblance of connection between church and state, and to effect an entire and final disposition of all matters, claims and interests arising out of the clergy reserves, the Governor in Council may, &c.
Here we have the old province of Canada, in these two very significant Acts declaring for the complete separation of church and state, and both of these are the law of this land to-day. That Act of 1851 was carried into the statutes of Upper Canada and into the statutes of the province of Ontario, and it is in the laws of Ontario to-day; but by some strange accident, it appears in a mutilated form in the laws of the province of Quebec. But there is the express declaration of our fathers in 1851 against any alliance between church and state and it is to-day the law of this country. But something happened, very like the story of the cuckoo's nest. Very shortly after the Church of England and the Church of Scotland had had their connection with the state severed, a separate school system was established 'in the province of Ontario, and that is construed by many people as establishing a connection between the state and the Church of Rome in this country. Now, the people of my own province do not like to see this connection between church and state, and, while they recognize find support the connection so far as it exists to-day in rela-, tion to the separate schools of Ontario and Quebec, they do not wish to see that connection between church and state transferred to the provinces of the west. There is nothing wrong in the people of Ontario holding views of that kind. . If they do not believe in church and state, surely they have a right to protest; and if they see in this proposal to force separate schools on the people of the west against their wish and without their being consulted, they have a perfect right to protest and to take
every fair and honourable measure to see that that doctrine of church and state is not imposed on the people of the west against their wish and without their being consulted.
I want to come to another matter, and that is, the presence of the Papal ablegate In this country. According to the confession of lion, gentlemen opposite he comes here at their request to discipline the clergy of the Catholic church in the province of Quebec. It was alleged by hon. gentlemen opposite that the clergy of the province of Quebec had been interfering too much in politics. He came here for that purpose ; but In these recent negotiations something else appeared. Not only was he here to discipline the clergy of the church in the province of Quebec, but according to the testimony that has been presented in this House, and according to documents that have been presented to this House, he had another mission. He had a rnision in some way to try to obtain remedial legislation for the minority in the province of Manitoba. The proposal, that the Papal ablegate, in all the dignity of his office, made to the Attorney General of the province of Manitoba was in the nature of remedial legislation

of that remedial legislation which the Liberal government refused to give, but which the Liberal sov-ernment are at the same time in this Bill trying to impose and determined to impose in the form of separate schools upon the people of the west. The Papal ablegate, who was brought here to discipline the clergy of the province of Quebec, was interfering in the politics of this country. He was negotiating a settlement of the school question in the province of Manitoba, and I say that no such dignitary, no matter how high ha may happen to be, has any right to interfere in the constitution and the policy of the people of Canada. The Canadian people are able to settle their own questions ; and if the delegate is here to secure remedial legislation for the minority in the province of Manitoba, he ought not to be here, and hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible both for his presence as a disciplinary force on the clergy of Quebec and for his interference with the liberties of the people of Manitoba. Have there been any negotiations between the government and any one representing the Anglican church in this country or between the government and the great Methodist body who make for so much in the population of the west ? Have there been any negotiations, secret or otherwise, between the government and any representative of the Protestant church in the west ? No, but' there are clandestine negotiations going on constantly between the government and the Papal ablegate with regard to the settlement of the school question of Manitoba. More than that the negotiations were carried on in such a way that

the extension of the boundaries of that province was hung up as the price of the surrender of the educational liberties of that province. If there is anything clear and patent, it is that the settlement of the boundaries of Manitoba was held back until negotiations could be conducted and an opportunity given to secure remedial legislation. Hon. gentleman may laugh, but I ask them is it or is it not a fact that the Papal ablegate spoke of the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba at the same time that he wasne gotiating with the Attorney General of that province for remedial legislation ? We knew that to be the case, and hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to screen themselves behind the Papal ablegate. Why did they not go to the Prime Minister of this country and ask for that remedial legislation ? There is to-day a justification for such legislation in connection with the province of Manitoba. The constitution reads that way, and we have been told by all the authorities that the law sanctions it. Then if hon. gentlemen opposite believe in that remedial legislation, they should get it by way of their party and not through negotiations with the Papal ablegate. The Papal ablegate, so ldng as he confines himself to discharging the functions of his office in connection with his church, may remain here as long as he pleases without objection from anybody. But the people of Ontario who are being maligned as illiberal and intolerant, do object to any foreign representative being in this country and interfering with the settlement of our domestic affairs and most of all interfering with the settlement of our educational matters. Have people who are Protestant and British anything to fear from the interference of the Papal ablegate with their affairs ? Hon. gentlemen opposite, in justifying his interference, touch a very tender spot. There is a Canon Law of the Roman Catholic church and there is the syllabus of the late Pope Pius the Ninth ; and when a British-speaking people see these things taking place, they recall that Canon Law and that syllabus, and there are some very strange declarations in that syllabus with regard to self-government.	.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Name them.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman knows what they are. I shall read one or two of them. The following paragraphs are from the syllabus of the late Pope Pius the Ninth, issued December 8, 1864, and subsequently by the decree of infallibility confirmed as truths eternal and equal in authority with -the Decalogue :
The state has not the right to leave every man fre-e to profess and embrace whatever religion he shall deem true.
It has not the right to enact that the ecclesiastical power shall require the permission of the civil power -in order to the exercise of its authority.


William Findlay Maclean: It has not the right to the entire direction of state schools.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: You are not reading the true text.


William Findlay Maclean: I will let the hon. -gentleman cite the syllabus himself, and in the meantime I will ask him to quote the letter which Goldwin Smith sent his friend the member for Labetle (Mr. Bou-rassa) the other day, in which Professor Smith said that while be and the member for Labelle were friends and respected each other's religion, the interference of the church with the state is recorded in the history of Europe.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I will do that if my hon. friend will read the answer of the hon. member for Labelle.
-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I leave that to history and the history of the world. There is an issue between people who profess to be Protestants and those who profess the Roman Catholic faith with regard to the authority of the church in connection with state affairs. There is a great issue, and we all know what It is, and when we see this interference of the Papal ablegate, we all know a good deal of the past and go back to it, and reading this Syllabus and the Canon Law, we fear what may follow.
I was going to refer to the position of my right lion, friend the leader of the House, and I shall only say this. There is a feeling-in the province of Ontario that when he got their support in 1896 as standing out against the coercion of Manitoba, in some way he deceived them. I regret to say that the man who occupies the high position of Prime Minister of this country is regarded to-day by the people of a large section of this country and the people of my own province as having deceived them by this change of policy which has taken place. He opposed coercion then and be advocates it to-day. To-day be refuses to give the people of the west a single voice In the settlement of the school question. He has deceived the people of the west, and I leave him in their hands. Where are we to-day and what is the upshot of it all ? We are on the eve of a great struggle in this country which nobody wishes to see. It is only beginning. We know what Is likely to come to pass. We know, from the speech of the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur), that there will be -litigation out of this legislation if it ever carries, that there will be a demand for remedial legislation. We know also that there will be a certain amount of opposition in the west and a refusal to comply with that demand. There will be an appeal to imperial England. Imperial legislation will be asked. We will be kept in this House this session for months yet talking over these Bills.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Does the hon. gentleman assume that the new provinces are going to repeal the present law ?


William Findlay Maclean: I say that the Northwest provinces will do a great deal similar to what the hon. gentleman's friends did in Manitoba.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is not an answer to my question. There will be no cause for remedial legislation unless the new provinces repeal the law we are about to enact. Does he pretend that they will do so ?
Ml'. W. F. MACLEAN. They will pass their own laws and exercise tneir own' judgment on the question. The hon. member has no right to dictate to them what they must do. They must have the very same liberty that is enjoyed in the east. They must have the freedom he and his co-religionists and friends in the east have had. And I say they would not be a patriotic people, they would not be men of British blood if they did not resent this interference. Now, the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has brought on all this. He has made a great mistake, first of all in transferring to the federal arena a comparatively small question, one that could have been settled in the comparatively local field where it ought to have been settled. For some reason or other he has chosen to cause strife, to cause agitation, to cause dissension, from the Atlantic to the Pacific over this question. There was no need of it. I say that we are now on the eve of a long period of strife in connection with this matter. This has not been brought about by this side, it has not been brought about by the 'intolerant ' people of Ontario, but by the province of Quebec and the Liberal party of the Dominion, and the responsibility must rest upon them. We do not want these school questions brought into this parliament. The Conservative party brought them into this parliament once, and the Conservative party almost disappeared from this country by reason of this act on its part. The Liberal party have brought this question into this parliament, and the same doom awaits them for the same offence. Leave these questions to the provinces ; leave it to the west to settle what kind of schools they will have. I have enough confidence in my fellow-countrymen in the west to believe that they will do substantial justice. So far, they have done it. I would sooner trust my rights and interests to them than to an Act of the parliament of the Dominion which has to be enforced by the club, if at all, but that can never be en- I forced in the west. There can be no enforcement of such a law upon a free people who have not been consulted in the making of the law. The Liberal party, the party that claim to be the party of public rights, ]
of progress, making chains to shackle the great and free people of the west! The people of_ the west will not stand it. And, if there is dissension, if there is disorder, if there is an appeal to the courts, if there is an appeal for remedial legislation, it will be because the Liberal party have gone back on their pledges, have gone back on their record, and have chosen the harsh way to settle a question that might have been negotiated and settled in a much more moderate way.
Now, for saying the things X have said here to-night, I shall be charged with all kinds of intolerance, with being rancorous, with being malignantly rancorous, as I have been charged in the press of Quebec. But I say I am speaking for the people of my province, and I believe I am speaking for the people of the west. I believe what I say is on the line of the political institutions which are the pride of our people and Which are being worked out in this country. There is no rancor in my heart. I think as much of my fellow-countrymen of the east, no matter to what province they belong, as I do of my fellow-countrymen of the west. We have to govern this country ; we have to live together. We must learn to grow together. But we must have discussions of this kind in parliaments of this kind. All our progress on constitutional lines has been worked out in discussions like this. Parliament is a place for discussion. And because men take strong ground in parliament, and because they try to justify their position by argument, there is no stigma to be placed upon them for that. Never was one of these questions threshed out in old Canada, or in old England, such as we are now discussing when there was not this feeling that now exists, and this charge and counter-charge. All this is of the nature of the case. And so, while trying to make a strong case from my point of view, I do so with high respect for the views of those who do not agree with me. In some way we have to work this thing out. We have to learn to govern the country as it is to-day, with diverse races and diverse religious professions. We have to do it respecting one another and according to one another the right to the fullest expression of the views we hold. And it is in that spirit that I am addressing the House to-night. I know that some good will come of this discussion. I know that out of it ail, in some way, the people of the west will be left free and that they will assert their freedom to deal with the school question as they will. We cannot by any Act of this parliament impose conditions upon them if they see fit to refuse to carry them out. And, stating the case as I do. and stating it as strongly as I do, I state it from the patriotic standpoint and no other.
I join my fellow-countrymen in Quebec, and ' my fellow-countrymen in the maritime pro-

vinces anti of tlie -west, in an earnest wish to see this country become great and united. But we wish to see it become great and united on sound lines. And there is no line so sound as the good old Liberal doctrine of provincial rights of leaving all educational questions to the people of the provinces that are concerned in them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time on the previous division reversed.
Wilfrid Laurier: I desire that the House should go into committee, pro l'orma, that we may begin the committee stage. I move, Mr. Speaker, you do now leave the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
Wilfrid Laurier: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Robert Laird Borden: When does the right hon. gentleman propose to proceed ?


Wilfrid Laurier: At the next sitting of the House, taking up the financial clauses.


Robert Laird Borden: That is to-day ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: At what hour does the right hon. gentleman propose to adjourn -at six o'clock or at the usual hour ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am very much in the hands of the House on that subject.


Mr. OSLER.: To attend the funeral of the late Mir. Sutherland, it will be necessary "'to leave at six o'clock.


Wilfrid Laurier: The funeral is not until Saturday, I have been informed.


George Taylor: There are a great many who wish to go out by the 11 o'clock train. The unanimous feeling is that we should adjourn at six o'clock.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will discuss that with hon. gentlemen on both sides, and, if that is the desire I will not object.


Robert Laird Borden: I must once more call attention to the schedules which I have mentioned publicly as well as privately on many occasions already. This Bill has been before parliament since the 21st of February. The regular procedure would have been to lay before the House the schedules when the Bill was introduced. We have not had the schedules and have been proceeding irregularly all along. I made no objection so long as we got them in a reasonable time. But, Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
after we have been debating this Bill steadily for six weeks, we do not know yet what schedule A or schedule B is.	.
I want to say to the right hon. gentleman and to the members of the government, that if there is delay for this cause and in this connection, they will have only themselves to blame. I wish to be entirely reasonable about it, but at the same time I do not propose that we should have our hands forced on this side of the House by the introduction of these schedules at a time when it will be impossible for us to investigate them. We may require five or six weeks to investigate them, we might have had them five or six weeks ago but we could not get them. I simply wish to notify the government that if there is very great delay on account of the character of the schedules that they may bring down, they will have no one to blame but themselves. I think my right hon. friend will recognize the absolute justice of the observations I am now making.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say to my hon. friend that I expect to be 'able to place the schedules in his hands to-morrow,, or at least on Friday. I think he will find they are very reasonable.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope so.
Progress reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the second reading of Bill (No. 70) to establish and provide for the government of the province-of Saskatchewan.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not think that stage ought to be taken on this Bill to-night.


William Stevens Fielding: It is the same Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: I know, but we should at least wait a day or two. I do-not think we ought to take the second reading to-night. We may have to discuss that Bill as we have discussed the other one. At this hour in the morning, I do not think it is fair to make that proposal.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend is not ready to proceed with this tonight I will not press the motion.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see any particular reason why we should go over the same ground twice. At the same time, if objection is made by any hon. gentleman on this side of the House, it will be better to let the Bill stand for the present.


Wilfrid Laurier: I withdraw the motion.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 1.40 a.m., Thursday.


Thubsday, May 4, 1905.