1905-04-17

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 145) respecting a patent, No. 69772, of the Underwood Typewriter Company.-Mr. Grant.
Bill (No. 146) respecting patents of the (Underwood Typewriter Company. - Mr. Grant.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GALLII-IER moved :
That that part of the tenth report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders which refers to the petition of Patrick Burns and others for an Act of incorporation under the name of the Anthracite Coal and Railway Company he referred back to the said committee for further consideration.
He said : In explanation of this motion, I may say that at the time the matter was dealt with on the 3rd March last by the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders we had no proof before us of the due publication of the notice required by tbe rule. As that proof is now in our hands, the Select Standing Committee will be prepared to deal with tbe petition and to consider it favourably.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On tbe Orders of tbe Day being called :
Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I desire to ask the hon. acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) if he has the return concerning Port Arthur and Fort William harbours ?


Mr. HYMAN.: The report has been laid before the department and sent over to the Secretary of State in the usual way.

464&


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: The other day attention was called to certain peculiarities in the tenders for dredging at Port Arthur and Fort William, and the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) took the matter so seriously to heart that he has called for new tenders. However, the terms of the new advertisement are no better than the terms of the old because they inevitably provide that Conmee & Bowman, the contractors who have been doing work there for two years past without open competition and practically at their own price, must secure this work. Although Port Arthur and Fort William are a considerable distance from points in the Dominion where contractors own dredges, still the minister proposes to spend $200,000 for dredging, and he only gave practically two days notice for the receipt of tenders. The original advertisement was issued on the 7th of April, and tenders were to be in on the 14th of that month. Although there is direct communication of the best kind between Ottawa and Toronto there was the startling fact that these advertisements did not appear in the newspapers until the 11th of April. The acting minister (Mr. Hyman) may treat $200000 as a trifling expenditure, but the people of the country will hardly agree with him in that. The terms in this dredging tender are strikingly in contradiction to the terms of other tenders. I have here an advertisement for tenders for paving a small portion of Wellington street in this city, and yet eighteen days are allowed for tenders to be received, which is in marked contrast with the two days allowed for the dredging tenders. It is notorious why such a length of time was allowed for this comparatively small contract in Ottawa.' It is notorious that the Minister of Public Works dare not give an undue advantage to any contracting friend of the government in Ottawa, because the rest of them would be up in arms, and so perforce he was constrained to allow a reasonable time for tendering. Here is also an advertisement calling for repairs and alterations to the Toronto Drill Hall. This advertisement is dated the 10th of April and tenders have to be in on the 2Stli of April. The same rule applies in Ottawa as in Toronto; the minister dare not insert a newspaper advertisement giving only two days for tenders to be in, because the friends of the government who are contractors in that city would protest. Here is another advertisement for tenders for repairs to the public building at Galt, which is a comparatively trifling work, and yet the minister allows eighteen days for the tenders to be received. Compare that with this precious contract at Fort William and Port Arthur, where $200,000 is to be expended and which was so arranged that only Conmee & Bowman could secure it. It is idle to say the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) is not interested in this firm. Away back on the 9th of February
last, this contract-I will not call it a contract ; it is bargaining or trafficking in a contract-this very contract was before the [DOT] House then, and in the course of a lengthy discussion the name of the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) was introduced as being a beneficiary in the contract, or rather in the trafficking that had gone on for two years. Although that hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) is in Ottawra sometimes, though in his seat very rarely, yet he has not dared to deny that he is one of the beneficiaries. More than that, I saw the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) in the city on Friday or Saturday last, and I understand he is still here this morning, and yet, although, liis name was introduced into this discussion last Thursday he has made no denial. There is not a doubt in the world but that the hon. gentleman from Rainy River is practically interested in this matter. The minister is going to spend $195,000 at Port Arthur and Fort William, and yet here is a contract so framed originally that the member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), and his partner Mr. Bowman who is a member of the local legislature, were bound to get: it without competition. Let us look at some of the terms which hedge this contract and we will find that some of them are the direct opposite of the terms in other contracts.' One provision is that no compensation will be allowed on account of towing the plant to and from the site of the works. Now, we find from the Auditor General's Report of last year that Mr. Boone, a very great friend of the government, had some dredging to do at Victoria Harbour in the county of Simcoe. He brings over a dredge from Collingwood to Victoria Harbour ; he has some further work given him at Depot Harbour and he-brings the dredge from Depot Harbour to Collingwood, and for the use of the tug in connection with towing these dredges Mr. Boone is allowed a large sum of money. Mr. Boone has a contract at Dunnville-I won't call it a contract because that is a misnomer-and he is allowed by the government $1,533 for towing his dredge from Sarnia to Dunnville and from Dunnville to the Grand river, or in all over $3,000 is allowed him for the towing of these dredges to the works. There can be only one reason given for this condition in the Conmee contract, and that is that it will prevent competition from persons who might own dredges at Collingwood, Sarnia or other points, and who would not be allowed a single cent for towing them to the works. But, when there are party friends like Mr. Boone they have to be paid for towing the dredges and they are paid high prices too. What change has the minister made in this second advertisement calling for tenders ? Instead of the date for the reception of tenders closing on the 14th of April, it is extended to the 1st of May.
Now, what does that mean ? The ad-

vertisement was not published till the 11th oi 12th of April, so that parties have only from that time until the 1st of May, practically only a couple of weeks, in which to tender for this large work. But the most striking clause, and it is the same as appeared in the old form of tender, is that which provides that one firm and one firm only, can have this work, and that is, the *firm of Conmee & Bowman-why ? Because it provides that only such dredges as are registered in Canada at the time of the filing of the tenders with the department can be employed on the work ; and the acting minister has already stated repeatedly that the department is employing all the dredges which there are in the province, and there are practically only two dredging firms in the upper lakes

Mr. Boone, who is fully occupied in the harbour of Colling-wood, and Mr. Conmee, who is similarly employed at Port Arthur ; and naturally between these two firms there is no competition. When the minister makes his explanation, I would like him to state whether he knows that these dredges of Con-mee & Bowman were not formerly American dredges. Here is an idea for the minister. Let him throw open these tenders, make the competition fair and frank and full ; and if Mr. Brown or Mr. .Smith succeeds in getting the contract, let him go to the United States, buy a dredge, bring it to Canada, pay the duty on it, and register it as a Canadian dredge. But the minister says : No, you must first run the gauntlet, buy the dredge, bring it to Canada and register it ; if you get the contract, well and good ; if not, she will be idle on your hands. The minister and everybody else knows that dredges are dismantled in winder, and until after the 1st of May no dredges on the American side will be ready for commission ; but the minister says that no man can have this contract unless he has a dredge in Canada at the time of filing the tender with the department; and in the next breath he tells the House that the number of contractors in Canada is limited, and we all know from the public accounts that these two firms are the only ones that do the work. I said the other day, and I have no reason to withdraw the statement, that with the change of government in 1896, the exploitation of the dredging to be done in Canada was looked on as a means for the friends of the government to fatten at the public crib. That is not only the case with the Owen Sound Dredging Company. A man who is now a judge, who was formerly a member of parliament became associated with that company, and a gentleman who was not a member of the House at the time, but afterwards became a member, was also associated with that company. I made the statement the other day that the ex-Deputy Speaker of this House was associated with that same com-Mr. BENNETT.
pany, and I made it by reason of the fact that I heard a discussion in this House, in which the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) stated that the then Deputy Speaker, Dr. Macdonald, was part owner of a dredge. What was the excuse that Dr. Macdonald gave ? He said that he was not the owner of any stock in the company, but that his daughter was. I did not charge the other day that his daughter was the owner of stock in the company, because I thought it was decent to have a little delicacy in these matters ; but does any man who knows Dr. Macdonald, or who lives in his immediate neighbourhood, suppose that the members of his family, and particularly a young lady, had money with which to purchase stock in a company of this kind ? His son-in-law, Dr. Horsey, who was formerly a member of this House, had stock in that company before he was a member ;	1 shall not make the statement that he had stock while he was a member. That Mr. McKay, the ex-Coru-missioner of Crown Lands of Ontario, also had stock in the company is notorious, and I am surprised to hear the acting minister state that he was not aware that Mr. McKay was interested in that company. Why, it is notorious to everybody in the town of Owen Sound and also in the town of Midland that Mr. McKay is the largest stockholder in the company. There is nothing in the law to prevent Mr. McKay being a stockholder, but this only goes to show the close relationship of their friends in Ontario with this government. I had a letter the other day from Dr. Macdonald, who makes a mild protest against the statement I made, and I am going to be fair enough to place this letter on ' Hansard.' After a recital of the statement, he says :
That Dr. Macdonald, ex-Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, is not nor he ever was the owner or part owner of any dredge operating in the Georgian bay or elsewhere, and that never profited directly or indirectly one cent by the operation of any dredge either in Canada or elsewhere.
That is the explanation Dr. Macdonald gives to the House ; but the explanation only puts the matter in a worse light; for when he had a seat in this House, he did not attempt to contradict the statement of the hon. member for East Grey, but the explanation he gave was that his daughter was an owner of stock in the company. That was the explanation he gave, and I think it would have been more discreet and more decent for himself had he dropped the matter. The public knew that members of Dr. Macdonald's family were interested in that dredge, and the public know that Mr. Conmee, the member for Rainy River, is interested in this company ; and it must be for no other reason than that fact that he has a heavy political leverage over bon. gentlemen opposite, that he is allowed prae-

tically to frame a form of tender so that the contract will fall into his own hands and nobody else's. If the minister wants to be fair in this matter, if he wants to give the country the benefit of cheap dredging, let him call for new tenders, and let him provide that the man who gets the work must use a dredge of Canadian register, without any date fixed to it at all. Then, if any person or firm in the country succeeds in undercutting and giving the department a better price than Conmee & Bowman have given, let them put up their marked cheque, as required by the department, and let them go to the United States, purchase their dredge, and bring it over and register it as a Canadian dredge. If it is brought over, it cannot go back to the United States, as the customs duties must be paid upon it. At present it is a matter of necessity that the dredge shall be in Canada by the 1st of May, a time when it is almost impossible to bring her in ; first, by reason of the state of the weather, and, in the next place, because no one is going to bring in a dredge unless his tender is accepted. It is a notorious fact that Conmee & Bowman have been enjoying a monopoly of this dredging business. What is shown by the report of the town of Penetanguishene? That Mr. Bowman-I	do not know whether Mr. Conmee is associated with him in that dredge or not-is also employed in that town, and on the same terms ; and those terms are such as can only be of great benefit to the dredge owners and great disadvantage to the public generally. How is this dredging done? This question was brought up in the House before on February 9th, as will be seen on referring to 'Hansard,' page 862. The minister then admitted that Messrs. Conmee & Bowman simply got to work and were paid for their dredging $10 an hour. What does that amount to? It means that these little dredges-because they are very trifling dredges-will earn over $25,000 in the season. I know of another dredge which is owned by the Owen Sound Company which does work at Midland and is paid $120 a day, and it must be of the same capacity as these because they are all paid at the same rate of $10 an hour. I think if that dredge were put up for sale it would go begging a long time before any one would give $25,000 for it. It is notorious that wherever dredging is done under this government there is suspicion attached to it. When this matter came out I had a letter from a gentleman in Collingwood asking me why I did not move for the papers in connection with the dredging done there by Boone & Company and telling me that I would find out some revelations if I did. Go to Midland and no one will say that the country is getting full value for its money. Why? Because of the manner in which the work is done. At all hours of the morning and night you will hear this dredge popping away, and what do we get out of it? It seems to be working away at the same old place all the time, and there is a suspicion in the minds of every one, irrespective of politics, go where you will, that this .dredging is being done improperly and that the country is not getting the benefit. If you want any proof, all you have to do is to look at the fact that the men who own these dredges are closely allied with the government and are their own intimate personal friends. The hon. minister will not deny that Messrs. Conmee, Bowman and Boone are warm personal friends of his. To clinch the matter, you need only ask for one of these forms of tenders. Last year it was bad enough because no tenders at all were called for, and the work was given to Conmee & Bowman. In fact, protests were made even by the friends of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I have been informed that men who intended tendering, if there was open competition, have been petitioning the department. They ask that tenders be called for a certain date and that the party who succeeds in getting the contract may get his dredge where he likes, provided it be a Canadian dredge. There are many men in Canada to-day prepared to go to the States and buy dredges and pay the duty on bringing them in and take their chances in tendering in an open market, but they do not propose to go into competition with Conmee & Bowman on the terms mentioned in this advertisement. They want fair and open competition. The amount is a large one, some $200,000. But while the minister will not let a paltry piece of pavement on the street here or some little repairs on a public building in Galt or Toronto without giving three weeks' notice, he thinks it all right to give only a two days' notice when a contract of $200,000 is in question. It is due to the House that the minister should explain why this advertisement did not appear in the public prints at once as it should have. It was dated on the 7th of April and did not appear in the Montreal 'Herald' and the Toronto 'Globe' until the 11th and 12th. Why was that advertisement held back in the department? Why was it not directly sent to the newspapers when it was a notorious fact that two days' notice would not be sufficient? That is a matter which the hon. gentleman should explain. If some clerk held it back he is blameworthy. The House will expect the hon. minister to announce to-day that having found it was unfair, in the interest of the Dominion, not to have given more delay, he will withdraw these advertisements and substitute a new call for tenders altogether. Let him give till the 1st May and let him state that the party who is successful must employ a Canadian dredge and there will then be no cause for complaint. Let him reject this obnoxious clause which provides that at the time of the closing of the tenders the dredge must be a dredge registered in Canada. Of course if re-

gistered here it must be present in Canada. The minister should in all fairness change the whole form of the contract and even let it go till the 1st May. He should provide that so long as the dredge is a Canadian dredge all parties can come in and tender.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not much interested in the insinuations and deductions which the hon. gentleman draws from the record, because he is remarkable for the facility with which he can, upon the smallest foundation, base the most extraordinary deductions and make the most unwarranted insinuations. This matter was somewhat fully ventilated the other day. I wish to say in the first place, with regard to the shortness of time, that the original advertisements were drawn up in the usual way. It was the intention of the department to give 10 days' notice and it was quite well known that with only three or four plants-not one or two, as the hon. gentleman has said-there was no necessity for any great delay. I have found, on inquiring into the matter, that my chief engineer drew up these advertisements and typewritten copies of them were placed in the minister's office with the understanding that they would be immediately advertised. Had that been done there would have been seven or eight days' notice after the advei

tisement first appeared in the newspaper. But the advertisements were sent, in the ordinary course, to the King's Printer, and immediately after their return were placed in the papers. I have assured myself that there was no desire on the part of the officers of the department to shorten the time unduly.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are not the advertisements sent simultaneously to the King's Printer and the daily papers?


Charles Smith Hyman: Not always.


William Humphrey Bennett: Not frequently?


Charles Smith Hyman: Very seldom. They are sent to the King's Printer first, and after they come back they are inserted in the newspapers. The hon. gentleman made certain references to the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Oonmee). Those references were very unfair. 1 have this to say with regard, to the hon. member for Rainy River-and I think it is due him in all fairness that I should say it-that never in the course of my life has he mentioned the word dredging to me. I know nothing about his connection with the company. He has explicitly denied in the House that he had anything to do with it. All I can say is that never in his life has he spoken to me with regard to the matter of dredging. But what use is there of anybody making a denial to anything said by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett)? The hon. member has read a letter from an hon. gentleman who occupied the position of Deputy Speaker in Mr. BENNETT.
this House which that hon. gentleman denies categorically, in the strongest possible language


William Humphrey Bennett: He said his daughter had the stock.


Charles Smith Hyman: He denies most positively ever having had any interest in that dredge or ever having in any way benefited by it or by any work done by it.
What stronger denial is it possible for any one to make ? The deduction drawn by the hon. gentleman, that because a relative of a certain person is interested in a dredge, therefore that certain person must be interested, is one in which I cannot follow him. Insinuations may be founded upon the facts that have been alleged, but, as I understand the purport of Dr. Macdonald's letter, he denies in the strongest possible way that he has now or ever had any ownership in that dredge or that he has benefited by it in any possible way. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) refers also to the matter of the advertisements. As hon. members will understand, in the case of public buildings, and alterations in public buildings where the tenderer must figure on plans and specifications, it has always been the custom of the department, and always will be no doubt, to allow plenty of time for the calculations to be made. But, in the matter of such a work as the dredging at Port Arthur, I venture to say that any contractor could, within ten minutes after looking at the specifications, state at what figures he would take the work, because it is only so much per yard for the different classes of work, and having arrived at a figure for one class, he has established a basis for estimating the others. If you contract at 10 cents per yard for removing one class of soil, you have only to add or deduct a certain proportion for the others. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) brought up the question of towing, and the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) mentions that again to-day. I gave an explanation, which, I think, was perfectly satisfactory to every other member of this House. When a dredge is hired by the hour, that dredge, for the time being, to all intents and purposes, is owned by the department; and it has been the custom for the department, in such cases, to provide for the towing of the dredge to the scene of the work. But it does not follow that the same should be done in a case of this kind. In this case the work is to be done at so much a yard. That being the case, I gave instructions that the course followed in the case of dredges hired by the hour should not be followed in this case, so that there should be no claim made on the department on that account. As to the question of the changes that have been made in the advertisement to which the hon. gentleman referred, I think it will be found that the changes are such as to permit the openest kind of competition by Canadian dredge owners. The

only matter the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) seriously objects to in the change of wording of the advertisement, as I understand, is as to the dredges being owned in Canada. The new clause that has been inserted under my instructions, reads as follows :-
Only dredges may be employed upon the work which were registered in Canada at the time of the filing of tenders with the department.
That clause is intended-and I think it will be effective-to keep persons from tendering for this work, waiting until they find whether they are successful tenderers or not, and, if they are going to the United States and employing a plant and bringing it here to compete with Canadian plants


William Humphrey Bennett: That is what we want.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) says that is what ne wants. Well, so far I am concerned, and so far as the government is concerned, that is not what we want. The government do not want to see competition by American dredges with Canadian dredges-


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I did not say what he seems to think. Of course, it should be incorporated in the contract that these plants must be registered in Canada. This will make with Canadian dredges


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) is simply quibbling. He knows that if the clause were put in as he suggests, it would give those who found themselves successful tenderers an opportunity to bring in American dredges to do the work. The desire of the department is to have competition amongst Canadian dredges, but not to permit American dredges to come and compete. If these American dredges are brought into Canada, pay duty and are registered here before the filing of the tenders with the department, they can compete. I do not see what other course can be pursued, if we desire to have in Canada a fleet of up-to-date dredges. If that result is to be brought about, we must accord them some protection. Hon. gentlemen opposite are always talking against American competition in everything else, but when it comes to dredging their policy is altered, and they want to bring in American dredges. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to say, and to take my stand upon that saying, that we are not willing that tenders should be made looking forward to the employment of American dredges, their introduction depending upon the success of the tenderer in obtaining a contract.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) refers to the length of time given. The time for receiving tenders has been extended to the 1st of May. In addition to that, another clause has been altered, so that it now reads :-
Intending contractors must be ready to begin work within thirty days.
So, the plant need not be set at work until practically the 1st of June-of course, if the owners desire, they can set at work earlier than that. I think the work at Port Arthur is of sufficient importance to make it desirable to have the season as long as possible. Under the changed condition offered by the advertisement, I believe there is every opportunity offered for competition. The extension of time alters practically the only condition to which the hon. gentleman took exception. I have only to reiterate what I said, that the department are desirous that there should be competition in this and in all other dredging matters. I understand that the system of hiring dredges by the hour has been in vogue in the department for some time. I am seriously trying to have more competition amongst Canadian dredge owners. But this is a matter of considerable difficulty. I do not think that one, until he has faced it, can understand the nature of those difficulties or how serious they are. When a man owns only one dredge he is practically confined to tendering for one work ; for if he tenders for more than one he finds himself in a somewhat uncomfortable position should the department call upon him to proceed with these different works. X am trying to get all the competition that is possible, and I hold that under the new advertisement, with the exception of competition from American dredges, the department and the public will get the fullest competition from any dredges that are capable of doing the work in Port Arthur and Port William.


William Humphrey Bennett: Might I ask the minister where this denial by the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) of his ownership in this dredge is to be found ?


Charles Smith Hyman: So far as any denial from myself as to the ownership of the hon. member for Rainy River is concerned I can only say that I have no knowledge of the hon. gentleman's ownership of the dredge. The hon. member has never in his life discussed the question of dredging with me and I know nothing about it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not suppose he would.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman asks me to say yes or no. I am not in a position to state that because I have no knowledge. The hon. gentleman refers to Mr. McKay being a part owner of the dredge. I do not know why Mr. McKay should not own a dredge. Surely my word is good in this House, and I give my word as a member that I have no knowledge and have never had any knowledge on the subject. I never heard Mr. McKay's name mentioned in connection with the dredge of which he speaks. The hon. gentle-

man made some remarks afterwards to the effect that I must be an innocent duckling. Well, if not to listen to all the petty gossip around the corridors of this House and not to treat it seriously is being an innocent duckling I am afraid that I must plead guilty to that charge ; but I must say that I have no knowledge of Mr. McKay's ownership and if I had I see no reason why he should uot do the dredging at Port Arthur.


William Humphrey Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Smith Hyman: I can only say that Mr. McKay's being an owner of a dredge will have nothing to do with his getting contracts so, long as I am in the department unless he is the lowest tenderer and is fully competent to carry out the work.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister the figures in his hand to show how much money has been expended on these harbours at Port Arthur, Fort William and Kaministiquia ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the return for which the hon. gentleman asks will contain that.


Samuel Hughes: Will that be down this session ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is being made up in the department.


Samuel Hughes: The minister 1 frankly confess has made the best possible explanation he could of the situation ; he has talked all round the question and never touched it once. Let us look at the situation. An advertisement was sent out dated the 7th from the department to the newspapers and on the 11th this advertisement appeared before the public. On the 14th the tenders for which this advertisement calls for contracts at Port Arthur and Fort William, some hundreds of miles distant from here, were to be in. Any one knowing the .circumstances and looking at that advertisement will see at once that it applies to only one linn, the Aim of Conmee & Bowman. What are the conditions ? They must own the dredges on the 14th of April. You might as well publish an advertisement to the world and say the Department of Public Works of the Dominion of Canada hands over to the firm engineered by Conmee and Company the dredging of that harbour. Then contractors must be ready to begin work within ten days after being notified of the acceptance of their tender. No man in Canada could get a dredge there within ten days. You might as well write the words ' Conmee and Company ' on the tenders. The amended tender is no better. It extends it to the 1st of May next and says :
* Only dredges can be employed on the work which were registered in Canada at the time of the filing of the tenders with the department.' The tenders must be in the department at this time. It would be impossible for a firm to buy a dredge in the United Mr. HYMAN.
States or in any part of Canada and have the papers passed through by the 1st of May. Why should not the minister let the tenders be accepted and give the tenderers until a certain date, say the 1st of June or the 1st of July, whenever he wishes the work to be commenced, to register the dredge in Canada ? The dredges that are there now, I believe, were made in the United States. Therefore what harm could come to the Dominion if we again used dredges made in the United States so long as the country is getting good value for its money. In this connection I would ask if the minister has taken any precaution that the men working on the dredges shall be Canadians ; that is the part that Canadians are interested in,, and I venture to say that the great majority of men-at least I am so informed, I will not make the statement positively-employed on these dredges last year and in previous years have been men from the United States who are not Canadian residents, not ' registered in Canada.' Will the minister place that in his contract and require that Messrs. Conmee .V Bowman will employ only Canadian men ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Then we would like to see the advertisement. What are the facts of this case ? Many of the gentlemen here have seen the harbours of Fort William and Port Arthur and have also seen the harbour of Duluth. Upon the Port Arthur harbour since 1807 I understand that there have been expended in round numbers $721,431, and upon the harbour of Fort William and Kaministiquia river $509,000, in all upwards of $1,230,000.	1 understand that the items
are really considerably larger. In approaching Port Arthur and Fort William what do-we see for all the expenditure of public moneys ? It is true that the water was shallow, but it is also true that the water around Duluth and Superior City was shallow, so the two harbours are the same, they are both mud harbours, with sand and silt. The only improvement we can see from the expenditure of Canadian money is that little breakwater lying outside of Port Arthur. What have we at Duluth ? Those who have visited that harbour have seen miles of the best concrete docks, cribwork underneath and fine concrete wharfs for miles. You have there channels 300 feet wide, taking the largest draft vessels on the lakes. You have eight miles of continuous dredging between Duluth and Superior City, and these harbours are regarded as two of the best in the world. Upon these harbours for the whole eight miles, outside and inside, there have been expended up to date, including the cost of the old breakwater and the old piers and their removal, including the new docks and everything, about $5,000,000 in the two cities. In Duluth there was spent $852,299, in Superior City $695,883, and in the joint vote for Duluth and Superior City

which has not all been expended $3,130,553, or a total in these two magnificent harbours of $4,678,735. We have spent about one-third of that amount on the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William and except that little breakwater which you see outside of Fort William there is nothing to be shown for all that enormous expenditure of money. Why is there this difference ? The Duluth people, as is the case with all American government works, have got value for their expenditure of money ; the Canadian government has not got value for its expenditure of money. This is from the annual report of the Duluth Board of Trade :
The result is that Duluth canal has been widened to 360 feet and very substantial concrete piers built, and harbour channels dredged. Similar work is under way at the Superior entry, and Duluth-Superior harbour to-day is surpassed by no other. The quick despatch given vessels in loading at Duluth is proverbial, whether at the lumber, coal and iron docks, or elevators.
Then it goes on :
The collectors of customs at ports named below report for 1903 as follows :


New York ... .: 
William Humphrey Bennett: Thart is 15 cents a yard practically.


Samuel Hughes: The Auditor General's Report shows that last year the fol-148
lowing sums were paid for dredging at Port Arthur and Fort William :
Dredging in entrance channel to Kaministl-quia river-
A. F. Bowman, services of dredge No. 6, Aug. 13, Oct. 13, May 16-31, 139,596 cubic yards at 15 cents, $20,939.40.	-
Great Lakes Dredging Company, services dredge No. 5, Aug. 1-11, 14,128 cubic yards at 15 cents, $2,119.20. .
Dredging in Kaministiquia river near elevator ' D '-
A. F. Bowman, services of dredge No. 6, Aug. 1-12, 20,184 cubic yards at 20 cents, $4,036.80.
Great Lakes Dredging Company, services of dredge No. 5, May 26-31, 8,887 cubic yards at 15 cents, $1,333.05.
Dredging in Port Arthur harbour-
C. S. Boone, services of dredge ' Kingsford ' and plant, October 1-November 20, May 16-31, 168 hours at $12, 496 hours 50 minutes at $10, $6,984.33.
Dredging in Port Arthur harbour at new Canadian Northern Railway elevator-
A. F. Bowman, services of dredge No. 6, October 14-November 25, 39,313 cubic yards at 23 cents, 13,606 cubic yards at 40 cents, $14,484.39.
Twenty-three cents a yard and forty cents a yard. What is the difference, I want to know, between the material for which 23 cents was paid and the material for which 40 cents was paid.
Great Lakes Dredging Company, services of dredge No. 5, November 1-25, May 18-25, 30,641 cubic yards at 23 cents, 2,830 cubic yards at 40 cents ; dredge No. 1 (Arthur) October 16-No-vember 25, May 25-June 30, 14,250 cubic yards at 23 cents, 13,134 at 40 cents, 2,270 at 90 cents, 91 at $1.25, $18,917.28.
I believe that the Great Lakes Dredging Company is the new name of this outfit. Mr. Bowman, for dredging in the river Kaministiquia, at 20 cents a yard, was paid $20000 while the Great Lakes Dredging Company, for dredging at 20 cents and 23 cents a yard, received $13,000, and so on. A total of about $109,000 was spent last year and only a few yards in front of the elevator at Fort William was paid for at the rate of 15 cents a yard. All the rest of it was paid for at the rates of 20 cents, 23 cents, 40 cents and $1.25 a yard. I make the statement, and there is no one who is acquainted with modern systems of dredging but will bear me out, that with that class of work a contractor will be able to make a fortune at 5 cents a yard. It would pay a contractor to take this work in tile Port Arthur and Fort William harbours and in the Kaministiquia rivers at 5 cents a yard, to purchase modern dredges for the purpose of doing that work, and I venture the statement that on the basis of two years work, that is last year and this year, he would not only have made enough to pay for the dredges but to have a large profit over their cost. The gentleman who, when his friends were in power in the province of Ontario had handed over to him the whole of the fishing rights of Lake Nipigon and had handed over to him the millions of the guarantee



that -was given for a little railway in the vicinity of Sault Ste. Marie, is receiving this large sum of money for doing this dredging practically without competition, and now, the Dominion of Canada is to be taxed for the benefit of this outfit. We want the bon. acting Minister of Public Works to call a halt in this matter. We want these harbours to be improved as Duluth and Superior City harbours have been improved, but we want the money to be properly expended so that when vessels approach these harbours they will have, in place of the single lilttle breakwater there now, advantages equal to those at Duluth-Superior whose magnificent lines of concrete docks and magnificent channels 25 to 30 feet deep offer exceptional facilities to navigation, vvnile we have expended nearly $1,500,000 at Port Arthur and Fort William they have expended $4,000,000 at Duluth-Superior. There will not be a man in Canada who will not be ashamed of what is now going on at Port Arthur and Fort William.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in regard to this, because I think public attention cannot be directed too much to it. The hon. acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. .Hyman) said : I am not interested in the insinuations and deductions that the hon. member for East Simeoe (Mr. Bennett) made. He is not interested in the deductions ! Did the hon. acting minister desire to leave the impression upon the public that he was spending money improperly and not on the principle of open competition ? He was not interested in the public having that impression. That was one of the deductions, but going on by the same reasoning and bringing before the public the provisions of the tender, the next deduction of my hon. friend was that public money was not being spent by open competition, that it was not being properly expended and that the public were not getting value for the expenditure of that money. He does not seem to be interested in that deduction. Whether the country is getting value for it or not is a matter of indifference to him. If so, the country had better know it. If a minister of the Crown is going to spend Canada's money in such a way that it. may go into the pockets of friends, without getting value for it, then I say the sooner the country knows it the better. That is another deduction. Another of the deductions is that there seems to be a system established somehow or other between the government and their friends by which public money drifts into their pockets and by which they get contracts when outsiders cannot get these contracts no matter how they try. There are conditions attached to the advertisements for tenders, or conditions attached to the tenders, or something which always brings these contracts back to their friends. That is another of the deductions. Is he not Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
interested in these deductions whether they be true or false ?	Evidently he is
not, or at least he does not appear to be. If so let him enjoy that reputation, but let the country know that and the country will naturally estimate him at the value which it desires to put upon him. Look at the surroundings. He proposes to spend public money. The object is ostensibly to get the best value for the money that is expended in the interest of the country, but yet he makes it impossible to get the best value. It is utterly impossible from a business standpoint to get value for the money, because there is no competition. The hon. acting minister tells us in the first place that there was open competition, and he tells us in the next breath that there are only a few dredges on the upper lakes operating in Canada, and that none of the owners of these dredges can undertake more than one- piece of work, because they must use their dredges on each contract, therefore it is impossible to get competition. By the conditions of this contract he shuts off all competition from the outside, and yet the only competition possible is from the outside, and the only inference to be drawn
is,	that the acting minister (Mr. Hyman)
does not intend that the country shall get the best value for its money. We were told by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) that no time is needed for examining this work, because it is paid for on schedule prices. Is that so ? Is no time needed to inquire as to what the wages of the men will be, and what the keep of the men will be, and the price of fuel and the cost of working the dredges in that district ? Is it a fact that those who tender for these contracts never make borings to see what the nature of the material is.-When my hon. friend the Liberal whip, is through speaking to the minister, I will resume ; I have noticed that kind of thing going on too often


Mr. CALVERT.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ; surely I have the right to speak to a minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have seen so much of it from that source that I am about tired of
it.	I want the courtesy of the ear of the minister when I am speaking. I was going on to say that a gentleman who passed through Port Arthur on Friday told me that the ice is just as solid there now as it is in the middle of winter, and no examination of the nature of the material could be made unless you bored through several feet of ice. The conditions in the tenders made it impossible for a man living in this part of the country to go up there and examine the work and see what the conditions were, and then return in time here to put in his tender. The minister has now extended the time a little, but there is one condition which says that the dredges must be registered in Canada when the contract is let. Well, you cannot bring dredges across the

lake at this time of the year without paying an exorbitant price for it, and my own opinion is that you cannot bring them across the lake just now no matter what you pay, because most of the harbours are frozen up.
I am told by this gentleman that in all probability the ice will still be there on the 24th of this month, and we know that navigation is not open there very often until the 10th of May, so that no dredge could be brought into Canada at the present time. Year after year, when we press the Minister of Public Works to do some dredging in the Georgian bay, we are invariably met with the answer that there is no dredge available. For this reason the dredging at Collingwood, the dredging at Meaford, the dredging at Thornbury, the dredging at Owen Sound and the dredging at Midland had to be postponed from time to time. The government are not building dredges fast enough to supply the needs of Canada, and the only source of supply is the United States ; and yet, by the conditions in his tender, the minister makes it iimpossible to get dredges from the United States. I do not care where a dredge comes from, so long as it is owned in Canada, if it affords open competition and does the work cheaper than we are getting it done for to-day. That is the only business-like system under which the people of Canada can get full value for their money. When you shut out dredges purchased in the United States and brought over here, the result is that Conmee & Bowman get the work, and get whatever price they like for it. It is very interesting to think over the history of these contractors in the past. They are very useful men ; they are useful for their party. It is only a short time ago since they were reputed to be raiding the Ontario treasury-two millions of dollars of Ontario's money was to be guaranteed for the purpose of helping the Algoma Central Railway to pay its debts, and when the debts were paid, $44,000 of that money was to go into the pockets of Conmee & Bowman. We had an election up there at the Sault, and a protest was entered, and there was an examination as to where this money came from, and it was found that it came from Conmee & Bowman, the contractors who had the contract for the Algoma Central and for the dredging at Port Arthur- $1,000 put up to help to carry an election. Then there were two protests to be filed and the money had to be obtained, and who put up the money ? Conmee & Bowman did. They are very handy men to have around. That same kind of thing has been carried on for years with the same firm, and they are being repaid, in my judgment, improperly repaid, by an improper expenditure of the public money, for which Canada gets no adequate value in return. We want that stopped; we want the attention of the public drawn to it ; and if the acting Minister of Public Works knows nothing about all this, 1484
he is one of the most innocent men in Canada ; a man to whom ignorance is bliss. We give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) credit for being pretty smart in our part of the country ; and surely, as a minister of the Crown, he ought to know something about the political history of the men with whom he is dealing, especially as he himself has been in public life and has taken an active interest in politics for years. It will be hard to make the people of Canada believe that the acting Minister of Public Works is quite so innocent as he would make out. I say that these men have been raiding the treasury of Ontario for years, and now one of them comes down here, and it is well to have a friend in court. We want this stopped. I know something about the history of these dredges. When the present government came to power they were owned by Conservatives, and they could not get an hour's work from this government. I have it from the mouth of one of the gentlemen that the dredges were lying idle, rotting in the waters of the Georgian bay, and they could not get an hour's work to do for them until they were transferred to friends of the government, and immediately they were employed and they have been employed ever since. I want the country to know it, and I want to tell it to the acting Minister of Public Works, for fear he might plead innocence again of any knowledge of these celebrated contractors, Conmee & Bowman, the handy men when money is to be raised for the party, the handy men when corruption is to be done, the handy men when protests are to be filed. It would be interesting to know whether there is anything in the strange coincidence between the letting of this contract and the fact that there is an election going on in Edmonton. There must be money coming from somewhere ; where does it come from? We know that these men were always available in Ontario when money was needed to protest an election or to carry an election ; and now tenders are called for practically in the winter time for this work of dredging. The only explanation, to my mind, is that there is going to be an election in Edmonton, and money will be needed ; and I am afraid that if we had the whole history of this matter,- we would find that some of the money came through the channels we are referring to at the present time.


Mr. R. BLAIN (Peel).: I cannot see why tenders should not be advertised for five or six months before work of this kind is to be done. The acting Minister of Public Works has stated on more than one occasion that there were very few dredges in Canada. In the province of Ontario we are well aware of that fact, because when application is made for dredging at certain noints along the shores of Lake Ontario, my hon. friend answers that there are no dredges available. That has been the case for some years now, and it seems to me

that this should be sufficient warning to the hon. gentleman to give a very much longer notice than he is proposing to give for the dredging to be done at Port Arthur. It is well known that in the province of Ontario there is a very strong feeling against cabinet ministers or members of parliament having to do with public tenders and public corporations. This was one of the chief complaints against the Ross administration-that some of its leading members were identified with large corporations. For instance, the Hon. John Dryden, the Minister of Agriculture, was interested in an American ranch, and there was considerable complaint that he was giving up a large part of his time to the production of cattle in the United States instead of to the department which the people of Ontario were paying him to manage. With this before the hon. gentleman's eye, we would expect better things from the acting Minister of Public Works on taking charge of the department. He has had several warnings from the province of Ontario. There was a special warning on the 2oth January, when the Ross government was put out for actions of this kind and other actions that were not at all creditable. The advertisement for tenders for this work at Port Arthur reads as follows:	'
Sealed tenders, addressed to the undersigned, and endorsed ' Tenders for dredging in the harbour of Port Arthur,' will be received at this office until Friday, the 14th April, 1905, for dredging certain portions of the harbour of Port Arthur and channels leading thereto to a depth of 22 feet of water in Lake Superior.
It must be distinctly understood that the department will entertain no claim for compensation on account of towing plant to or from the site of the works, as the prices quoted must cover such towing as well as lost time and all other contingencies usually connected with such works, such as damage by collision with other craft frequenting the harbour, or other causes; also that no tender will be considered from parties who are not at the date of this call for tenders bona fide owners of the necessary dredging plant, duly registered in Canada.
The plant supplied shall be thoroughly examined by an officer of this department, and if it be found to be of an inferior description or deemed unfit to perform the work required, then on receipt of notice in writing from the Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works, such other plant as shall be approved by him shall have to be supplied within one week from the date of said notice, and in the event of failure or refusal to do so, the department shall have the power to terminate the contract.
Intending contractors must he ready to begin work within ten days after the date they have been notified of the acceptance of their tender.
The advertisement has some other peculiar statements which I will not read.
I have here an advertisement that was published in one of the Toronto papers by the harbour master of the city of Toronto for tenders for dredging, which reads as follows :


Richard Blain: Tenders addressed to the undersigned will be received until noon on Monday, the 6th May, 1895, for the dredging required in the harbour during the present year. Each tender to be accompanied by an accepted cheque for $200, payable to the order of A. B. Lee, Esq., which will be forfeited if the party whose tender is accepted should refuse or fail to carry out hi* agreement to perform the work specified.
The lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted.
Specifications can be seen at the Harbour Master's office.



MORGAN BALDWIN,

[Stage Direction]
Harbour Master.
There is no peculiar specification in this advertisement.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the date of that?


Richard Blain: April 29, 1895.


Mr. EMMERSON.: The tenders, I understand, were returnable on the 6th of May.


Richard Blain: The date of the advertisement may not be the first date on which it appeared in the newspaper; therefore you cannot make a comparison on that point. I do not wish to say that is not the date ; I am not complaining on that point. What I am pointing out is that this is an advertisement for straight tenders sent out by the harbour master of the city of Toronto without any conditions surrounding it that would lead any one to believe that he was trying to provide a special advertisement for a special contractor. My hon. friend knows that if Conmee & Bowman are the only parties who have a dredge ready at Port Arthur to go to work within a few days after their tender is accepted, he might as well say to them, you can have this contract at any price they choose to fix. My hon. friend must bear in mind, that this matter has not developed in the province of Ontario in one day ; it has a history ; it has been going on for many years, and the electors ot Ontario are aroused on this point. There was another acting Minister of Public Works since this government came into office. The present Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) was acting Minister of Public Works in 1900, when he sent out the following rather peculiar letter :
Ottawa, March 13, 1900.
My dear Sir,-During Mr. Tarte's absence I have been requested to take charge of his department for him, and it would be of great service in enabling me to take up his work if you would kindly write me at your earliest convenience with reference to the following subjects ;
1.	For what works in your constituency has there been a parliamentary vote ?
2.	Have these works been begun ? If so, in what state of progress are they ?
3.	If not begun, what is your advice as to whether or not they should be begun ?
4.	Are you asking for provisions being made in supplementary estimates for :
(a) New works.



WILLIAM MULOCK.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: What date is that ?


Richard Blain: Ottawa, March 13, 1900.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Just before the elections?


Richard Blain: The elections were held in November, 1900. That may have some significance. I wish to draw the acting minister's attention to this matter for I am quite sure he must have forgotten it. This is a note of warning to Reform candidates and members of parliament-something of an invitation to them to say to the government what work they want done. They are practically told : If there be no parliamentary vote, make an application ; here is a letter inviting you to do so. I suppose that letter was answered, the estimates of- 1901-2 and so on show tnat the members of parliament and candidates belonging to the Liberal party in Ontario and elsewhere took due notice of this letter sent out by the Acting Minister of Public Works in the year 1900. This matter was brought into the very heart of the city of Toronto. The mayor of that city was in Ottawa last year, and he is thus reported in the Toronto ' Globe ' on January 2, 1905. I may say that the mayor was a candidate for re-election just at that time and was speaking before his electors in Toronto and giving reasons why he should be re-elected. Somebody asked him to discuss the Toronto and Hamilton Railway question, which he did. That, he said, gave him abundant opportunity to prove his business capacity and aggressiveness. Here is what His Worship said as reported in the Toronto ' Globe ' of that date :
Taking his cue from this company that, in order to get right of way into the oity, had put up a lobby in Ottawa, the mayor had put up one of his own, and the best in the history of the Ottawa parliament.
That is how the lesson is spreading in Ontario. The mayor of Toronto came to Ottawa, there was a proposition before the Railway Committee affecting that city, he had learned from this letter of the acting minister (Sir William Mulock) and other onicial documents that what was necessary was not a good case but to be a specialist in lobbying, and when be returned to his electors he appealed to them for reelection on the ground that he had been to Ottawa and had put up the greatest lobby ever known. In the last election we had a special telegram sent by the First Minister ' all right.'


An hon. MEMBER.: It was all wrong.


Richard Blain: It was all wrong in the opinion of the electors, because they defeated that gentleman and sent the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as their representative. But I refer to this matter to show you that the people of Ontario are beginning to realize that special work has to be done in this parliament in order that they may get what is required for their municipalities or constituencies. Just one other item. I wish to refer for a moment to the expenditure in the constituency of Mr. McEwen, who represented South Huron in the last parliament.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I think my hon. friend is out of order. The question we are on is the question of dredging at Port Arthur.


Richard Blain: I understood this was a motion to adjourn the House.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, It is a motion to adjourn on the question brought up by the hon. member for East Simcoe, namely, the dredging at Port Arthur and Fort William.	-


Richard Blain: I am making a comparison with the expenditure in bygone days to see whether this government is growing better or worse.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I do not think the hon. gentleman is speaking to the question under discussion.


Richard Blain: I suppose I must how to the decision of the chair, and will do so with pleasure. I notice, however, that the discussion has gone very wide of the mark.
Mr. jSPROULE1. Aire you ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on moving the adjournment of the House we must confine ourselves exactly to the discussion which gave rise to the motion ?


Charles Marcil: My experience is that motions to adjourn are made for the purpose of bringing up some special subject, and the consensus of opinion is tnat, in order to save time, which is always valuable, hon. members should confine themselves as much as possible to the subject under discussion.


Richard Blain: I suppose I must bow to the chair and do so with pleasure. Thera are some other items to which I propose to refer but will do so on some more favourable opportunity. But I would invite the attention of the acting minister to the expenditure of $10,000 at St. Joseph wharf in South Huron and to another expenditure of $25,000 at Glace Bay in Nova Scotia. I hope the acting minister will take some new lessons from this discussion. I nope he will make a new departure in advertising and that he will advertise almost new for work to be done next year, so that if there are not sufficient dredges in this

country at present, parties -wishing to go into the dredging business will have an opportunity of giving their orders so that the dredges may be constructed in Canada. But if they cannot be constructed in Canada, I think the hon. gentleman should allow them to come in from the United States so long as they pay the duty. Having intimated that he was willing to change the advertisement, I would suggest that the hon. minister should take it out altogether and put in the kind of advertisement which will suit this side of the House, and if he does that he will toe acting in the interests of the country and satisfy the electors of his own constituency.


Mr. FOSTER.: With reference to this interesting letter which we have had read from the acting Minister of Public Works, who was also at that time, I believe, Postmaster General, I think it would throw considerable light on this whole discussion if the hon. minister would bring down the correspondence that ensued in answer to that circular.


Mr. SAM. BARKER (Hamilton).: The hon. the acting minister referred to a subject which I dealt with briefly some time last week in connection with the Boone contract. And the minister says he gave an answer which he thinks was entirely satisfactory. Well, it may have been satisfactory to the hon. gentleman, but it certainly was not satisfactory to me. My complaint was that there seems to be no system in the Public Works Department as to the manner of letting contracts, either as to the advertising or as to the terms. And I pointed out that while, with reference to the Port Arthur contract, he gave notice to the world at large that no allowance was to be made to anybody for bringing the dredges to the site of the work ; yet, in a case that we had been investigating in the Public Accounts Committee a week or so ago, it turned out that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland), the hon gentleman who is responsible for the department, had, in fact, paid the sum of $1,533 to bring a dredge from Sarnia to Dunnville. And it struck me that the department was endeavouring to fit its policy to the particular conditions of each case, and with some regard, perhaps, to the interests of party friends. Now, it did happen in the Port Arthur case that a few gentlemen, friends of the party in power, had a dreilge upon the spot. And there being a dredge there so owned, it appeared to have occurred to somebody in the department that no allowance should be made to anybody else who might want to bring a dredge to the spot to do the work in competition with these party friends. In the other case, there was no dredge at 'Dunnville, but there was a dredge elsewhere owned by a party friend ; and somehow, without advertisement or pretense of advertisement, that dredge owner was told to bring his dredge to Dunnville and re-Mr. BLAIN.
ceived the modest sum of $1,533 for doing so. This was the complaint 1 made. The hon. acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) met it by saying that he had determined that in future there should be no such allowance. But it would be more satisfactory if we had that assurance from the minister (Mr. Sutherland). A few months hence, or next year, we may have to investigate some other matters of this kind. And. possibly, If we point out to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) that he is departing from what the acting minister (Mr. Hyman) is now doing, we may receive the answer that that was only the decision of the acting minister. He may say : I, as minister, am not bound to follow what an hon. gentleman who-was temporarily acting for me chose to do. I do not think we are nearer to any improvement, because the Minister of Public Works, who does not happen to be present, has one system, and the hon. gentleman, who temporarily occupies his place has another. 1 think it rather aggravates the evil of which I was complaining. To show exactly how the department acts, how different is its action in one case from its action in another, I would like to take a few minutes to point out what was done in this Dunnville case. In July Mr. Boone, the owner of the dredge, writes to the minister, referring to a conversation he had with him about doing work at Dunnville and Port Maitland. The result is that, without any advertisement, without any tender, Mr. Boone is told to go ahead. And, although that communication was in July, the work was not begun until October, showing that there was no emergency, no reason why the ordinary course should not have been followed-an advertisement published and tenders received. Now, as a fact, it was a breach of the law, I take it, to let that contract without proper advertisement and calling for tenders. The work done amounted to something like $18,000. That is, $10,000 was paid for work done in the autumn, from October to December, and the Deputy Minister of Public Works assured us that the work done in the spring would probaoly be $8,000 more. 'So there was about $18,000 for one year's operations under this contract let as the result of a conversation-no advertisement, no tender. The acting minister (Mr. Hyman), no doubt, will say that that is not his case, because he has called for tenders. To my mind, the acting minister's way of doing it is worse than the minister's. The minister boldly set the law at defiance. There is a statute which required him to advertise the work and call for tenders; he took upon himself to order his officers to write and tell this man to go to work and they advised him of the terms and set him at work. The acting minister does worse than that, to my mind, as regard the work at Port Arthur. He puts an advertisement in the paper calling for tenders within two or three days after the advertise-

ment is published. Does he say that this is a compliance with the statute ? I should say it was an evasion of the statute, and really worse than if he had not made a pretense of complying with it at all. He took great care. It was a sort of ' no Irish need apply ' advertisement-it was a warning to everybody. Any dredge owner reading that advertisement would know that somebody already had the contract, and that he need not go to expense or waste time over it. No man would come to Ottawa to look at the plans or send to Port Arthur, hundreds of miles away, to investigate the soil, knowing what was in that advertisement. He would see plainly that somebody at Port Arthur had a dredge and that that somebody would get the contract. There cannot be any question about that. The minister speaks of ' deductions ' ; but is not that a fair deduction ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) practically admits that there was something wrong, because he has altered the advertisement already. But he has not altered it sufficiently. He made the alteration owing to the fact that the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) had called attention to the matter. Yet he finds, fault with the hon. member for East Simcoe, and speaks of ' deductions ' ; but is not that a But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) did not say a word about that advertisement that was not quite justified, and I think the acting minister (Mr. Hyman) virtually admits that.
Now, let me say a word as to the work performed at Dunnville, because it bears upon this general question. The acting Minister of Public Works seems to draw a distinction between paying a dredge by the hour and paying by the quantity. But where is the real difference, when It is provided that they may work so many hours a day and must do so much in a day ? You can call it paying by quantity or paying by the hour, but it is practically the same thing. The peculiarity in the work at Dunnville is this : It was begun on the 3rd of October and was carried on until about the middle of December. There were something over sixty days' work of that dredge. The dredge was paid $144 a day-twelve hours' work every day at $12 an hour. I have seen every report of every day's work; and, from the first to the last, from the 3rd of October to the end of the season in December, with the exception of two days, the report of the inspector is that the dredge moved and dumped 1,064 yards-every day, not a change, good weather, bad weather, in October when the days were longer, in December when the days were shorter every day 1,064 cubic yards of earth were removed and dumped.
There is not a solitary change at any period. There have been storms no doubt, days when it would be difficult to do work at Maitland and perhaps also at Dunnville, but every day it is the same, 1,064 cubic qards, for which $144 were paid. I do not
know whether the looseness that we are speaking of extends down to the inspectors, but there does seem to be a want of method and system. The minister, the head of the department, begins by ignoring the statute. In a contract involving $18,000 where he was bound by statute to advertise for tenders, he ignored the statute. Every one in the department knows it; he lets that contract out as the result of a conversation with Mr. Boone. I submit that when the tead of the department does this we cannot blame some official a little lower down in the department for running the business independent of rules. So it goes on, down to the inspector who says that $12 an hour makes $144 a day and that 1,064 cubic yards may quite reasonably be taken for every day and thus we have this account made up. It is about time that the House should know the system that is followed and should insist, in the interest of the country, that the statute relating to public works be strictly complied with, that there should be no verbal arrangements with ministers, that there should be no pretended advertisements, and that whether contracts involve expenditures of $100,000 or of $5,000, no advertisement should be published such as that read by the hon. member for East Simcoe. It is simply throwing away the money of the country ; it would be far better to keep the money in the treasury and do as the minister did, at Dunnville, have a talk with somebody and let the contract go at that. Such an advertisement as was published in the * Globe ' and ' Herald ' in this case is absolutely of no use; you have just given so much money to the newspapers and the country does not derive one cent of benefit.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Out.).: I think also that the acting Minister of Public Works, should be very much obliged to the hen. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) for bringing this matter to his attention on Thursday last. The minister has to a certain extent shown his appreciation of that circumstance by making an alteration in the .advertisement. I shall speak in a little while as to the nature of that alteration. I rose principally for the purpose of pointing out that the acting Minister of Public Works seems to be under a rather curious misapprehension as to the real object of this advertisement. He says that his object is to secure competition among Canadian dredges. Now, a dredge does not send in tenders for this work ; a contractor sends in a tender for this work and a dredge is simply a part of the plant which the contractor uses. The hon. gentleman should endeavour to secure competition among Canadian contractors, not competition among the three or four Canadian dredges which are on the spot. He should endeavour to secure competition among* Canadian contractors, and that he has not

sought to do by his own statement. He is very earnest about dredges from the United States. He says they should not be used and yet we have it an admitted fact, X tnink in the course of this debate, and in the debate which took place the other day, that the very dredges which are intended to perform this contract were brought from the United States.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sure the hon. gentleman wishes to be fair. I did not say that American dredges should not be used. If dredges are brought in here and duty is paid on them to ail intents and purposes they are Canadian dredges, but what I do object to and what I try to keep from is the idea of anybody tendering without owning a dredge and then if he received the contract going to the United States and getting a dredge to do the work practically without paying duty.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I said, my hon. friend desires to restrict competition to the two or three or four dredges which are on the spot, and among which an arrangement can easily be made to double the price. I would like to understand how the public interest will be injured it you create competition among the Canadian contractors and enable them to provide themselves with dredges wherever they can procure these necessary articles. What does the hon. gentleman say in his advertisement? He says in the first place :
Only dredges can be employed upon the work which were registered in Canada at the time of the filing of the tender with the department.
The time is now extended until the first of May ; it was originally fixed for the fourteenth of April. The minister originally desired to shut out every possible competition from every person who was not possessed of a dredge which should be registered in Canada on the 14th of April and we all know what that means. In his amended advertisement he says :
Intending contractors must be ready to begin work within 30 days after the date on which they have been notified of the acceptance of their tender.
1 would like to know, in the public interest, what difficulty would result from the course of procedure which I shall now suggest. Suppose the minister in the first place took security, as I suppose he does in some form from every tenderer, suppose he provided in his tender that every man who undertakes that contract shall be piovided with necessary dredges at the time *uhen he is called upon to begin work under the terms of the tender. Will the public Interest suffer in any way by adopting a course of that kind ? In what respect would it suffer ? By the very terms of the form of tender to which I have adverted, the contractor must be ready with his dredge when


Robert Laird Borden: file department calls upon him to do the work. Instead of taking that course the minister restricts it to the time when the tender is filed with the department. That is not the important date, the important date for the possession of the dredge is the date on which the man is called upon to begin to carry on the work. I think that should be clear to the meanest intellect in this House. If the minister were calling for tenders for this work as his own work and were paying for it out of his own pocket, can we imagine that he would insert in one of these newspapers such a form of advertisement and give such time as he has given for the commencement of the work in the present instance rehen it is to be paid for out of the public moneys of Canada ?
We all know that the bon. acting minister would not think of doing such a thing. Imagine the hon. acting Minister of Public Works, a business man of ability and experience, with respect to his own affairs, putting advertisements in the newspapers for a work of this kind under the conditions which he has adopted and giving three days in which to put in tenders after the advertisement had appeared in the public press. The thing is absolutely unthinkable, and yet I venture to think that the people of this country are entitled to receive from the acting Minister of Public Works in respect to an undertaking of this kind, exactly the same business treatment which might be expected from him if he were dealing with his own money and with his own private affairs. Now, this dredging business has come before the House for discussion on a good many occasions and there has been a good deal of criticism of the methods which have prevailed in the past in reference to the administration in regard to such matters. I have not the debates before me, but if I recollect very well what has taken place we have known of instances where these dredging contracts have over and over again been given to men who had not the slightest connection with that class of work at the time that the contracts were awarded. We know of one case in which a tailor was awarded a dredging contract. We know what was done with it ; it was simply farmed out at a profit of $1, $2 and $3 an hour by that man without him running the slightest risk and without his having the slightest connection with the actual work of dredging. In another case we had a dredging contract given to a real estate man. That gentleman took no part in the work of dredging, he had no dredge at the time and he simply let the work out to some one else. In all these cases these men got these contracts in the first instance simply because they were very strong partisans of the present administration. I do not know whether that practice prevails at the present time; certainly it did prevail in the past, but now the hon. acting minister is introducing, under the form of

advertisement used in this instance, what seems to savour very strongly of the methods to which I have just referred.
Now, one word more in reference to the point of order which has been referred to by my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and which, I think, was not a good point of order after all. The rule laid down by Bourinot in the second edition of his work, page 405, is this:
The rule as to relevancy in speeches has never been applied in the Canadian Houses to motions for the adjournment of the House or of the debate.
That is the rule laid down by Bourinot and that is the rule which I have seen acted upon by this House up to the present time. It is true that when there is a question before the House and a member moves the adjournment, that member must confine himself to the question. But in this case there was no question before the House. My hon. tfriend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) brought up a motion to adjourn as a substantive motion upon the Orders of the Day being called, and any member has the same right to discuss that subject, as he would have the same right when the right hon. Prime Minister moves the adjournment here to-night. If there is a question before the House and a motion to adjourn the House is moved, not as a substantive motion, but as an amendment, no reply is allowed for that reason and the debate in respect to that motion to adjourn must be confined to the question in respect to which the adjournment is moved ; but when, upon the Orders of the Day, a motion is made, not arising upon any question, the hon. gentleman who moves the adjournment of the House can speak upon it and any other hon. gentleman can arise immediately after and discuss a subject entirely foreign to that which has been discussed by the first hon. gentleman. No hon. gentleman of this House more than another has any right to move the adjournment of the House. The Prime Minister has the right to move it to-night at the conclusion of the business of the day. When the Prime Minister moves it to-night; I can arise and bring any particular matter to the attention of the House. Any other hon. gentleman can get up and bring any other matter to the attention of the House. I see that my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur) shakes his head. Well, he may shake his head, but he does so in defiance of the rule laid down by Sir John Bourinot.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I think that what Bourinot refers to in the first part is this: When a motion to adjourn is made by the Prime Minister at the end of the sitting the discussion shall be confined simply and purely to the question, whether the House shall adjourn or not, because the question is raised for that purpose. Sir John Bourinot told me that several times, but unfortunately that
rule was not carried out in the House. When I was Speaker I, in several instances, permitted hon. members to bring up questions which were not germane to the question before the House, which was whether the House should adjourn or not. But when we come to discuss a substantive motion I do not think my hon. friend will find that Bourinot lays it down that on that motion some other question may be brought up. It has always been decided and I have decided myself, that the question then should be confined to the subject matter which has been brought up by the person who has moved the adjournment.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand my hon. friend's reasoning at all. When we come back to the technical nature of the motion to adjourn it will be remembered that my hon. friend from East Simcoe moves that the House adjourn because it is not wise to proceed with the public business because the acting Minister of Public Works has not been diligent in the performance of his duties as a servant of the Crown. Any other hon. gentleman in this House can arise and support that motion for any other reason. He is not confined to the reasons given by my hon. friend from East Simcoe. He can arise and support that motion on account of any other reason. Subsequent speakers are not at all confined to the matter which was introduced by the hon. gentleman who made the motion in the first instance. When a motion to adjourn is made by way of amendment it is an entirely different matter. There is then a certain question before the House. A motion to adjourn is in that case not a substantive motion, but a motion in amendment and no reply is allowed. The only matter which can be discussed on a motion' to adjourn of that nature is the matter in respect to which the motion was made in the first instance. But this is not a case of that kind. There was no question before the House. My hon. friend from East Simcoe arose on the Orders of the Day and moved that the House should adjourn for a certain reason. Any other hon. gentleman on this or the other side of the House may either support or oppose that motion for the reasons which were given by my hon. friend for East Simcoe or for any other reasons which seem good in his sight. At least that is the way in which I understand the practice.


Wilfrid Laurier: Dire word first as to the question of procedure. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is right in saying that when a motion is made to adjourn the House the debate upon the motion to adjourn must be confined to the subject matter of the debate. Upon this my hon. friend and I agree. What is the rule which applies to a motion for the adjournment of the House? It is the privilege of any member of the House upon the

Orders of the Day being called to move the adjournment of the House. Our rule is not as severe upon this point as it is in England. In England there must be certain formalities complied with before that motion may be made, but in this House it is the privilege of any hon. member to move that the House adjourn. But the book says that such an amendment shall be moved only on some important and urgent matter and not otherwise, not matters of general debate, but some important and urgent matter. I have my opinion upon this question and I think I shall be able to satisfy my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in regard to it, perhaps not to-day, but at some later time. But when the question is brought up by a member of the House for the purpose of bringing the attention of the House to a certain subject which is urgent and important the discussion must be confined to that matter. My hon. friend says that hon. members are at liberty to roam about and to introduce other subjects. The debate was brought up on the question of dredging at Port Arthur and Fort William. Then the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) wanted to bring in the question of harbour improvements at St. Joseph. If that were the privilege of the hon. member for Peel it might be open to every one of the 200 members of this House to bring up on such a motion any subject that he pleases, and my hon. friend will at once realize-


Mr. BERGERON.: Only concerning dredging.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not the argument of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. My hon. friend says that the discussion shall not be confined to dredging but that it may be extended to any other subject. The discussion must be confined to the subject matter which is introduced in the motion to adjourn, and I think I will be able to satisfy my friend on that point at an early date. I have no objection at all to this matter being brought to the attention of the House in this man-mer. I agree with the acting Minister of Public Works that the origiual notices were too short, and he has amended them by extending the time. But I take issue with hon. gentlemen opposite as to the nature of the tenders which are to be admitted for this work. The acting minister has very properly confined them to persons who are at present the owners of dredges, or will be the owners of dredges at the time the tenders are'opened. My hon. friend opposite objects to this, but ihis own remarks give a very good reason why that course should be followed. Under the system which prevailed in the past, men who were not the owners of dredges and who did not follow dredging as an avocation sent In tenders. Is it not far preferable that whenever public works are to be done in Canada, those invited to compete should be men in the business ? All governments have to Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
guard against bogus tenders or speculative tenders sent in by men who are not in the business, and who run the risk of putting up a few thousand dollars so that they may get work for which they are not competent. The minister has taken the precaution to provide that no man shall be permitted to tender unless he is the bona fide owner of a dredge.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose that tomorrow a Canadian wished to buy a suction dredge at Duluth in order to enter into this contract, does the First Minister think he would have time to register that dredge under the terms of this contract ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not the point. It may be that the notice would be too short in that respect, but the real question is, whether it is better that only men should be invited to tender who can do the work, or whether we should open the door to tenders from all kinds of persons, whether they are competent or not. Under the latter system we would have men undertaking to do the work who were not able to do it properly, thus causing a great deal of inconvenience and damage. It is a question of policy on that point, and as to whether we are right or wrong we are in the judgment of the House. I believe that the action taken by the acting minister in this respect is the action that should have been taken.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is quite plain that the government intend that Conmee & Bowman should remain in undisputed possession of this work for the coming year. Under the principle laid down by the First Minister, no man can purchase a dredge in the United States and have it registered in Canada in time to tender for this work. In reply to the statement of the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) that I had made an insinuation, I can tell him that 1 do not make insinuations ; I make statements and I am prepared to back them up. I am quite willing to abide by what I say in this House or out of it and I won't take any reflections from the hon. gentleman from London (Mr. Hyman). I have been a member of this House longer than he has, and if he wants to try his hand in London again I will continue to be a member when he is not. This government places the member for London in a position to spend the money of the people, but he is not responsible to any person ; he is not a responsible minister of the Crown In the full sense of the term. He is put in that position because they know where they stand in the province of Ontario to-day, and this government says to the people of Ontario as Vanderbilt once said : the public be d

d. The
acting Minister of Public Works has told us that Mr. Conmee has not been to see him about this matter. I would not insult Mr. Conmee's intelligence by saying that he did go to see the minister. Mr. Conmee has

liis partner Mr. Bowman to do that, and what is more he has his other partner Mr. N. W. Rowell of Toronto. Does the minister know that. The minister won't deny It.


Charles Smith Hyman: I really must object to this. As a matter of fact, I do not know that Mr. Rowell has anything to do with the company at all, and the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) is most unfair.


William Humphrey Bennett: The innocence of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) is wonderful.
I can tell him, if he never heard of it before, that Mr. Rowell is a member of that firm.
I suppose he never heard of Mr. Rowell either? And who is Mr. Rowell ? Mr. Rowell was the gentleman who was employed by the Ross government as a go-between when this company over-reached the people of the province to the tune of $400,000. The public of Ontario does not expect anything honest from any department of this government. The evidences are so flagrant-postmaster, absconders with public money in their pockets and not prosecuted by the criminal law because they are party friends, about which more shall be heard before the session is ended. In the Department of Public Works it has simply got down to this :	that men who owned
dredges when the Liberals came into power were literally taken by the throat and compelled to give up their dredges because they could not get any work. Intermediaries were employed and the owners of the dredges were driven out of the business. The result is, that all kinds of contracts were given for dredging which never should be given, and never would be given if we had fair and open competition. No person, in Ontario expects any more honesty from this government than from the Ross government, and the people of Ontario gave their opinion on the Ross government. The acting Minister of Public Works tells us that there are only two or three firms owning dredges; there is the company with which ex-Deputy Speaker Macdonald is associated ; there is the company with which Mr. Boone is associated, and there is the company of Con-mee & Bowman, and they are simply dividing up the work between them and no one else is allowed a chance to tender. So far as dredging goes in the province of Ontario, there is no more healthy or honest competition. It is all fixed, and it is well that the country should know that not only the acting Minister of Public Works does this, but that the Prime Minister stands at the back of his government on this question. I would advise these hon. gentlemen to test public opinion in the province of Ontario. When Mr. William Lount went on the bench they put Mr. Bertram up in Centre Toronto and succeeded in electing him, but the other day they did not dare to contest the same constituency because apart from the school question altogether
they know what the people of Ontario think of them. Go to any part of the province of Ontario where there are public works and if it is not Conmee & Rowell and a crowd of grafters who are making an enormous profit, it is some person else. That is the reason this government stands to-day discredited in the eyes of the people of Ontario ; that is the reason they are afraid to take chances of a fall in the constituency of London, as they were afraid to take their chances the other day in Centre Toronto.
Motion (Mr. Bennett) to adjourn, negatived.



MANITOBA ELECTION RETURNS.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister once more to a matter which I mentioned on the 20th of February last. It was as to the performance of their duties by the returning officers in the province of Manitoba at the general election in November last. The Prime Minister was not in the House when I first mentioned the matter; but subsequently on the 22nd of February, I brought it to his attention, and the right hon. gentleman then said :
I may inform my hon. friend lhat I received to-day two memoranda from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery on this subject, but I have not yet been able to look at them. I will be able to give him an answer to-morrow.
The right hon. gentleman did not give an answer on the following day, but he told the hon. member for North Toronto that as the returns in question were in custody of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, who was an officer of the House, he thought it would be better perhaps to move to have the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery place all these documents upon the table of the House. I have spoken to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to-day on that point, and I do not think that would be a very convenient course, because the documents in relation to, I think, five constituencies in the province of Manitoba have been sent forward for the purpose of legal proceedings taken in that province. But what I want to point out to the right hon. gentleman is that there are certain provisions-I will not occupy the time of the House in enumerating them-in section 92 of the Dominion Elections Act of 1900 which require the returning officers shall transmit to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certain documents after the elections have been concluded, among the most important of which are the lists of voters and the poll books. I asked the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery whether there is any supervision over the election returns after they are made by the returning officers, and he frankly says there is not unless some question arises ; and indeed, I

think it would be impossible for him to make any thorough supervision of the returns with the staff he has at present. At the same time, it seems to me that it is not a desirable thing that there should be no supervision over the manner in which the returning officers, who are officers of this House, perform their duties. It has been alleged, with what truth I do not know, that some of the returning officers in Manitoba were not very responsible men. I am not going into that question now ; but if it should happen that a man not very well qualified were chosen in any part of the country, there might be a grave irregularity and sometimes a grave injustice, which would not be discovered at the time. I was very much struck, I think it was in 1897 or 1898, when I was investigating certain matters in connection with the West Huron and Brockville elections, at what the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery told me had actually come within his knowledge. Twenty-five or thirty years ago a certain election was held, I do not remember whether a by-election or a general election, and a certain gentleman was returned. Ten or twelve years afterwards the late Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, Mr, Chapleau, found it necessary for some reason to look over the papers, which had not been inspected up to that time, and he found that the man who had sat here for five sessions had never been elected at all, although returned, the figures at one of the polls having been transposed in the statement of the deputy returning officer. Of course, that is very unusual ; we would not expect that to occur very often, particularly where there was any sort of party organization. But I would think it desirable that the Prime Minister should take into consideration whether there should not be some more effective supervision over the manner in which these writs are executed. At pre-. sent there is very little, and there cannot be much. I am making no reflection on the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery ; he is a very capable, efficient and obliging officer ; I am only speaking of the system. I would think that a more convenient method than that suggested by the Prime Minister would be to have some examination, in respect of the constituencies which I mentioned on the 20th February, of the manner in which the returning officers executed the writs and complied with the provisions of the statute. I should think that could be done without any formal motion in the House ; but if the Prime Minister, after consideration, should think a motion necessary for that purpose, I will be prepared to make it at a later date.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have been unable to satisfy myself that the object which my hon. friend has in view could be reached without a formal motion. I shall be glad, however, to discuss the matter privately with him.


Robert Laird Borden: 



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 99) to incorporate the Title Guarantee and Trust Company.-Mr. Campbell.
George Eulas Foster: What is the position of that Bill ?


Mr. CAMPBELL.: In the discussion that took place on this Bill, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) objected to section 16 because he thought the securities the company were entitled to invest in were not of a kind that they should be allowed to invest in. I am prepared to move, as an amendment to that clause, to add after the word ' company ' the following words : ' which would be accepted by the Treasury Board as deposits from insurance companies under the Insurance Act.'


George Eulas Foster: That does not meet the strongest objections. Read section 16, and you will see how almost unlimited is the scope of investment.
The company may invest any money forming part of its own capital or reserve or accumulate the profit thereon in any of the securities mentioned in section 11 of this Act

That is all right. Those are really trust securities.

ror in the bonds or debentures of any incorporated building society or loan company-
Then the hon. gentleman's amendment provides for the sanction of the Treasury Board. That puts an additional guard on that part of it, so far as incorporated building societies or loan companies are concerned, but if you go a little further you will find it broader still :

or on the security of real estate in Canada
or iof any interest in such real estate-
That is an odd clause. There are interests and interests. Some interests would be a first mortgage which would affect the whole of the real estate, but if you are allowed to invest in even a thousandth part of any interest, that would be very dangerous. It will be very dangerous to point out to a board of directors that they can invest in such a security as that because it will tend to do away with their responsibility. They may say parliament has declared that this is a security in which you may invest, and therefore, we shall invest in it.
*

or on the security of the debentures, bonds,
stock and other securities of any chartered bank

They may be first, second or third class bonds, And here is the widest discretion of all :

or company incorporated by or under the
authority of the parliament of Canada


That is pretty stiff, because there can be almost anything incorporated in the parliament of Canada if it is properly taken hold of and insistently managed : "
*

or of the legislature of any former, present
or future province of Canada, as the directors deem expedient.
There are, we all know, all kinds of incorporations even in the most deliberate of deliberative assemblies. You will find companies incorporated which are certainly not very staunch or strong, and there will be no board of directors of any company incorporated in this country who will not be told that if they wish they can invest in such securities such as mining stocks or the stock of a company incorporated for the purpose of extracting gold from the sea or the air. All these would be perfectly safe investments, in the opinion of this parliament, for the capital funds of this company. The directors might invest in a dying machine company or a company which has patents under claims which may be found perfectly untenable.


Archibald Campbell: Of course I have no particular interest in this Bill and no desire to give this company any extraordinary powers. I understand it was copied from other Bills which have passed this House. There are to-day trust companies operating in Canada under provincial charters. There are three in active operation in Ontario with Dominion charters-the Trust A Loan Company, the Imperial Trust Company and. the Canada Trust Company. There are four charters also in Quebec, the companies holding which have the right to operate in Ontario, and I understand that the provisions of this Bill are exactly the same as those in other and similar charters. If the powers are too wide, you can amend them, but it seems to me you are drawing a very fine distinction. These powers are only given the company with reference to its own capital or its reserve or accumulated profits and we must suppose that intelligent business men will not invest their own funds In wild cat schemes.


Mr. FIELDING.: There is a distinction between the company's own money and its trust money. With regard to trust money, we need to be more particular ; but this clause does not refer to trust money, but to the company's own money, which is distinct from any trust fund. As to the investment on the security of real estate, it is the general provision in cases of this kind, because it may be an undivided interest which may be absolutely good security. As regards the investments in stocks and bonds or companies incorporated in Canada, that is a very general practice. In the Ontario Acts, the provisions are even more liberal. If those were trust funds, my hon. friend's
remarks would be justified, but not being trust money we are not called upon to be so severe in the way of restrictions.
Mr. FOSTER, After all these investments are the securities of the trust company ; and when a trust company goes out to make business, the first thing it points to is its paid-up capital, and this paid-up capital is the largest factor in the canvass for trust investments. The trust funds, of course, must be invested in a certain way. But I refer to the capital of the company, which is always looked upon as a part of the security and as adding to the safety of the trust fund investments. I would have less objection to the thing if no restriction were put upon the company at all in this respect; leave the directors free to invest their funds as they please. But in this clause you make a suggestion. A director is more apt to say : Well, parliament says these securities are good things to Invest in, and we can follow the law and escape responsibility. That is not done by the wisest or the most honest of men, but it is done at odd times, as we know, by some companies of almost every class.
There is another point to which I wish to refer-section 17. That section has been passed, but it may be worth while to mention the point. Section 17 provides :
Nothing in this Act shall he construed to authorize the company to issue any note payable to the bearer thereof.
It might be a question whether the company was debarred from issuing debentures. Now, no trust company in the province of Ontario is allowed to issue debentures, and I would like the promoter of this Bill, if he does not wish this company to have the power to issue debentures, to agree to amend this section so as to make it read ' nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the company to issue debentures or any note,' and so on. I do not say that there is any express provision authorizing them to issue debentures, but there is no prohibition. This point has been very carefully and constantly guarded against, so far as the provincial legislature of Ontario is concerned.


William Stevens Fielding: Unless the power were expressly given the company they could not have it by inference. There are many things that it is not desirable that this company should do, yet we do not expressly forbid them-we merely take care not to give the company authority to do them. If there is anything in the Bill authorizing it to issue debentures, it should be considered ; but I am inclined to think it would not be wise merely to put in a lot of ' don'ts.'


George Eulas Foster: The well-founded and persistently carried out policy of the province is to expressly forbid the issuing of debentures by such companies as this. You are going to make this a competitive company with the others, and I do not see any rea-

son why this prohibition should not appear in the Bill.


Archibald Campbell: I have no objection.


Charles Marcil: Shall section 16, as amended, pass ?


Mr. GALLIHER.: There is one phrase in this section which, I think, should be amended, because as it stands it is too wide. The company is here authorized to invest on the security of any interest in real estate. It seems to me that these words should be struck out, leaving the company to invest on the security of real estate. 'Any interest' may mean the equity of redemption of land which may be valueless.
!Mr. STOCKTON. Or some reversionary interest that might amount to nothing.


William Stevens Fielding: These words or their equivalent are to be found in the charters of other companies and in the General Insurance Act. They are meant to cover the case of an undivided interest. The .words in the Insurance Act are ' interest in real property in any province in Canada.'


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that there is so very much objection to that, because a real estate security may be worthless-the company might loan on a piece of land of very little value. But the point mentioned by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), it seems to me, is more important. You could uardly give a wider scope of investment to these directors than to say that they may invest 'on the security of the debentures, bonds, stock and other securities of any chartered bank or company incorporated under the authority of the parliament of Canada, or of the legislature of any province of Canada.' If we look over the records of this parliament and of the local legislatures, I think we must be convinced that it would be better to leave the directors to their own discretion rather than to make a merely nominal restriction of this kind. We know that companies are incorporated for all sorts of purposes, including those of a most speculative character1, and that the securities of many of these companies are absolutely worthless.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot see that the directors are relieved of responsibility by the powers we give them. The directors' responsibility remains the same and while we give them power to invest in the stock, bond or debenture of any company, they still have on themselves the obligation to apply business principles to that investment. It is possible that the directors under this might invest in the common stock of a company which was worth little, but the chances of that being done are so slight that it is not worth guarding against, unless in the case of trust funds, in which case we should insist upon investment in gilt-edged securities only. But these are not Mr. FOSTER.
trust funds, they are the funds of the company, and I think we are bound to give them some latitude, relying on their exercising the ordinary business sagacity that a man will exercise in dealing with his own money.


Robert Laird Borden: Should you not specify or restrict them ?


William Stevens Fielding: You still restrict them, because in some charters they are allowed to loan on the security of personal property which we do not permit here.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure if you do not make it worse if you leave it to the judgment of the directors. I think 1 would rather be a director making an investment under this, than in a case where there is a simple statutory direction.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: This clause is reproduced in almost all the trust charters, in fact it is more limited in its scope than in some charters. For instance in Ontario you will find that such companies are authorized to loan money on personal security, and I have before me the charter of the Royal Trust Company, well known to be one of the most careful and substantial trust companies in Canada, and that company is allowed to invest in securities and stocks and even goods in warehouse, so you will find that the scope is wider in the case of the Royal than in this.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be that It will work out well, that if you have a wide scope for investment in securities you will have good results.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved that clause 17 be reconsidered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved that after the word ' issue ' on the second line, the words ' any debenture or ' be inserted, so that the clause will read ' issue any debenture or any note, &c.'
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 108) to incorporate the Western Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Adamson.
On section 5,
Mr. HENDERSON.: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the provision made here for the representation on the board by the policy-holders, as worded in that clause, really will not effect very much. The Bill

provides now that nine directors shall be elected by tlie shareholders and six directors by the policy-holders, giving a three-fifths representation to the shareholders and two-fifths representation to the policy-holders, but there is nothing to prevent the shareholders electing all the six policy-holders' directors and consequently monopolizing the whole board. I speak for the company as well as for the public whom they may take into their -confidence when they insure -them when I say -that I believe it will be in the interest of both that no shareholder should be elected as a policy-holders' director, but that the six directors to foe elected by the policy-holders should be absolutely policyholders and not shareholders. Now, I -may instance the case of the Canada Life Assurance Company, in regard to which the same provision is made. Perhaps that was the -first company that granted to -the policyholders representation on the board. They allowed two-fifths of the board -to be elected by the policy-holders and the other three fifths by the shareholders, but when the directors were elected it turned out, I am informed, that there was only one policy-holder's director who was not a shareholder. Practically the policyholders had no representation on the board as policy-holders. There was only one out of fifteen and as the shareholders as a rule are large policy-holders and are active men who, -by means of acquiring proxies and by acting energetically they secure the election of a board almost entirely of shareholders. Practically the policy-holders are not represented on the board. I think it is very material that the policy-holders should be represented on any board. I would take again the illustration of the -Canada Life Assurance Company whose reserve amounts at the present time to about $28,000,000 or $30,000,000. Only $1,000,000 of that has been put up by the shareholders and yet the policy-holders have no control of the company's business although they have put up over $28,000,000. Policy-fholder-s will in future demand a representation upon these boards in order that their Interests may be protected. I know that -this demand is very strong. I know it from my own experience and from letters I am receiving. I received a very strong letter from -a policy-holder having a $5,000 policy only a day or two ago protesting against the privileges that are being given to companies, and I believe that the demand will be so strong yet that companies will be obliged to give way and allow the policy-holders to have representation on these boards. More than that, the company that gives the policyholders representation on -the board, will be the first company to command the public confidence. Were I an insurance agent, one of the strongest pleas X could set forth would be that the policy-holders had representation on the board of my company and had a share in controlling its affairs. This
company will make a mistake if it objects- to the representation of the policy-holders on the board. You can rest assured that if the Bill passes as it is now, the shareholders, in order to hold the power within -themselves, will exclude policy-holders by securing proxies and by other energetic means.
I move this amendment, and I would advise the promoter of the company to accept it.
To add to subsection 4 of clause 5 the following words :
Provided that after five years from the passing of this Act no policy-holder who is a shareholder of the company shall be eligible for election as a policy-holder director.
X do not desire to interfere with the company's operations for a period of five years, because in its early history it might be quite impossible to secure a sufficient number of policy-holder directors, but after the expiration of five years there would be no difficulty at all in securing a sufficient number of policy-holders who are not shareholders, to make up two-fifths of the board. This matter was discussed in the Banking Committee and received very favourable support and the majority against it, when the vote was taken was not very great. There were practically as many in favour of one proposition as the other, and the fact that my proposition was somewhat new and not fully considered no doubt militated against it. I would suggest to the promoter of the Bill that he will get a more popular charter and one under which he can solicit business with more hope of success if he accepts the proposition which I have made.


Mr. ADAMSON.: I would point out that this clause in the Bill is a new privilege which is given to policy-holders and is in itself a great protection to them. If the emergency should arise under which it would be necessary for them to exercise this power it is always competent for them to do so, but I do not think it would be in the interest of either the policy-holders or the shareholders that a shareholder should be excluded from being a policyholder director. A man might own a lew shares in a company for investment, and he might be	a	policyholder to the extent of ten thousand dollars, but I do not think the fact that he held even one share should exclude him from being a director of the company. I think there is quite sufficient protection for the policy-holders in this Bill ; at all events it gives them wider powers than any other charter.


David Henderson: What are they ?


Mfe ADAMSONS.: Because it provides for policy-holder directors.


Samuel Barker: I said very little in the Banking Committee, because having taken a very active interest in the change made with regard to the Canada Life, I thought I had better be a listener. My own impres-

sion is that if the representatives of the policy-holders' directors will be stockholders, nearly all if not all of the policy-holders directors will also be stockholders. The bon. gentleman (Mr. Adamson) says that the stockholders ought not to be deprived of representation on the board on behalf of policy-holders, but he has overlooked the fact that nine out of fifteen directors must be stockholders, and so nothing can be done at the board without their consent. If the 7'epresentatives of the policy-holders may be stockholders, the difficulty will be that practically speaking every agent of the company becomes an active canvasser to get proxies on behalf of the controlling power on the board and when you want to elect special representatives of policy-holders you will find that the active canvassers for the votes by the policy-holders will be the paid agents of the company working for the stockholding majority and in the stockholding interest. I have thought carefully on this subject, and I have come to the conclusion that the giving of separate representation to policy-holders will be nullified absolutely by the fact that nearly every man elected will not only be a policyholder but a shareholder. The hon. gentleman says : why should stockholders not represent policy-holders ?
That class will be fully represented on the board and will be the controlling class on the board. The object of all this is to attain a separate representation for the policyholders, that is, representatives who have no interest whatever in stockholders or dividends to stockholders, but whose sole interest is to see that the policy-holder gets his rights as against the stockholder. If ypu make such a change as this, I think you might as well make it effective, and say that the man elected as a policy-holder representative shall not be one interested in the opposing class. I confess, however, that while I think it is a very important provision that this representation of the policy-holders shall not take place for five years, until the policyholders have a substantial interest in the company, I am not so sure but I would be content if it were provided in the Bill that one-half of the six should be exclusively policy-holders. I do not look on this provision as giving the policy-holders control of the company. They cannot control the company, for they are only six against nine ; but I think it is important that there should be a representation at the board who would be able to scrutinize and have all the rights of directors to look into every act of the board dealing with the respective rights and perhaps conflicting interests of the stockholders and the policy-holders. I think there are questions, even in the Canada Life, with respect to which it might be of some little advantage to a policyholder to know exactly what is being done at the board of the company. I myself Mr. BARKER.
am a policy-holder in the Canada Life, and 1 have practically no voice in it whatever. I have some $12,000 of interest in that company ; I am not called on for premiums, as I have paid up my policy ; and I must accept their circulars adding to or taking from declared profits, and assume that all is correct. Yet there is a policy-holders representation of a sort, but if I attempted to run as a director of the Canada Life as a policyholder. my attempt would be perfectly hopeless. There would not be the slightest possibility of my election. I could only be elected if I met with the approval of the stockholder directors who control the whole management of the company.


Alan Joseph Adamson: Does the hon. gentleman think that his $12,000 would be safer or better administered if lie had that right ?


Samuel Barker: When it comes to the question of dividing the profits as between the stockholders and the policy-holders, I would like to have somebody there to look after my interests as against those of the stockholders. I do not say that I would get any more, but I would be more comfortable if I knew that there were intelligent men on the board, not subservient to the stockholders, but independent of them, to look after my interests. Policy-holders in the Canada Life have recently received a notice cancelling profits that had been granted to the policy-holders some y ears ago, because the directors say that in calculating the value of securities, they had overvalued them. I do not remember exactly how much I am to yield up. It may be quite right ; I have no means of knowing whether it is or not. If I had a competent director there on the board representing, not the stockholders, but the interest of my class, I would take my risks. I do not want to control the company, but I do want as a policy-holder to know (hat stockholders who are putting twenty or thirty per cent dividends into their pockets are not taking from me unlawfully and unfairly the profits which they formerly granted to me. I think it is right that the stockholders who invested their money originally, should have the control of the company. Nobody disputes that; but, wThen the interests of the policy-holders enormously outnumber the interests of the stockholders, I want to feel that the gentlemen who represent the smaller interest shall not determine the rights of the policyholders without any representative of the latter being there to know whether they are doing right or wrong. That is the whole question. I do not know whether six out of fifteen may be too many or not, but I do think that a substantial representation should be on every board, instead of the matter being left solely in the hands of people who are interested in taking as much as they can out of the profits for

the stock, and leaving as little as they can to the policy-holders.


William Alfred Galliher: I was in the committee when this Bill passed through in the shape in which it is now before this committee, and the way it struck me was this. We have gone along for a great many years without having this restriction in reference to having separate policy-holders' directors on the board. That I believe was put in for the first time this session.


Robert Laird Borden: It was introduced in the Canada Life five or six years ago.


William Alfred Galliher: That is the only case, I understand, But the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) desires to go further and still further restrict the company in the selection of their directors-that is the policy-holders directors. While what the hon. member for Hamilton states may he true and there might be a certain attempt to influence the selection of those directors, that could be easily got rid of, because the holder of stock might very easily, if it was desired that he should become a policyholder director, dispose of that stock prima facie and be elected as a policy-holder director and yet remain in fact the owner of the stock.	-


Robert Laird Borden: That would be fraud.


William Alfred Galliher: I do not think so at all. It is perfectly in order for any stockholder to transfer his stock and not appear in the books of that company as owning a share of it. He may hold nothing except the good faith of the party to whom he transferred his stoek, and yet if he be elected a policy-holder director he commits no fraud. He may have committed a moral fraud in having allowed himself to be put up for the directorate, but certainly no legal fraud. While those interested in the formation of the company are perfectly willing that we should provide that a certain number of the policy-holders be appointed directors, I do not think that the fact that some of the policy-holders might in the future be also stockholders should militate against them and prevent them becoming directors. I do not think we should draw the line so tightly in this particular instance. It is well to discuss this matter, and we may eventually come to the opinion of hon. members who are supporting this measure ; but at present I cannot see how the policy-holders can in any way be prejudiced by allowing the Bill to pass in its present shape.


Robert Laird Borden: I should hope that the ordinary directors of life insurance companies are not of the character that the hon. gentleman who has just spoken attributes to them.


William Alfred Galliher: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means. *


Robert Laird Borden: I mean just what I say. The hon. gentleman suggests that the djitficulty could be got over by means of what I would call fraud. That is to say, if it be provided in the statutes that a shareholder should not be a policy-holder director, he could easily get around that by transferring his shares to somebody else" to hold for him and then have himself elected as one having no interest in the stock of the company. However, I do not see that the point is of present interest, because I do not think that there are any stockholders in our life insurance companies who would lend themselves to any such subterfuge. But assuming the stockholders be of the very best possible character, there is still some need of supervision in the interest of the policy-holders. In the Canada Life, it is said that the policy-holders have an interest of $30,000,000 as compared with the shareholders' interest of $1,000,000. The company now seeking incorporation may be in the same condition twenty-five or thirty years hence. Questions arise all the time as to the division of profits and as to the mode in which these sometimes elaborate provisions of insurance policies shall be worked out. It is right, no doubt, that the shareholders should have the ultimate control, but it is just as right and proper that the policy-holders should be represented on the board by persons who are not interested in the capital stock, and who may exercise a necessary supervision. We know that questions frequently arise other than those which concern the distribution of profits. In the United States to-day there are enormous funds piled up by various insurance companies, amounting to six hundred million, seven hundred million or eight hundred million dollars ; and it has become so important to secure control of these companies that financial men of high standing, we are told, are making extraordinary efforts to obtain control of the directorate of one American company. One can readily understand how these funds may be manipulated. An insurance company places its securities in a certain quarter and that company passes them over to another corporation, so that eventually you find money of the policy-holders getting pretty far away, in one sense, from the securities in which the law authorizes the company to deal. All this is done in perfect accord with the law, but we can readily see that how important is the control of the directorate of these companies. I would think, as my hon. friend from Hamilton has said, that it is not only in the interest of the general public, but in the eventual interest of the company itself, that there should be some restrictions such as have been suggested. It is all very well to place [DOT]upon our statutes what purports to be a safeguard to the policy-holder, but it is not worth while to do that in such a way that after all he has no real safeguard. I am

46^1

inclined to think, not only with regard to this company, but all the insurance companies of Canada-in the stock of some of which X have a very slight interest-it would be right that parliament should pass general legislation on the subject, so that policyholders throughout the country would have a representation peculiar to themselves on the directorate of every insurance company in Canada.


Alan Joseph Adamson: I agree, to a great extent, with what the hon. gentleman has said, but what I object to is that we should pass an amendment which will make an exception of one insurance company and apply to it alone, and which is not going to rectify the situation my hon. friend represents as likely to arise. You are making a special mark of this company, which has not yet commenced business. I would be very glad indeed if parliament thought it necesary to make an alteration in the Insurance Act which would apply to all companies, so that we would be exactly on the same level as the others, but what I object to is having a special amendment made applicable to this company. We are quite willing that the policy-holders should have the protection suggested, but is it right that they should be excluded from choosing a class of men who might be very useful ? if. however, there was an amendment to the General Insurance Act to that effect we would not object. But suppose you were to make the amendment in this solitary instance, you would still have the powerful companies, which have these immense funds to dispose of, unrestricted. I do not think anybody is suffering in Canada from the lack of any amendment of this kind, and I might point out that although these large sums at the disposal of insurance companies do not belong to the shareholders but to the policy-holders, the same condition exists in banks, and one might as well say that the depositors in a bank should be represented on the directorate.


Robert Laird Borden: The depositors can draw out their funds at once. That is the difference.


Alan Joseph Adamson: The policy-holders can also withdraw from the company.


Robert Laird Borden: But only at a great sacrifice. Has the Minister of Finance given any consideration to a general provision such as has been suggested ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think there is something to be said in favour of such a measure being passed as a matter of general policy. The moment you come to that, there is the question of vested rights- though, of course, the hon. member for Hal-ton (Mr. Henderson) said there could be no vested rights in the case of this company. At the same time, it would seem to me an inequality to impose such a condition on one company while others were Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
free from it. There is much to be said on both sides. On the whole I was disposed to stand by the report of the committee, making this company the same as others. If such a difficulty as is suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) arise, I am inclined to think it would be necessary to deal with it by general Act. Until recent years we have not attempted to introduce this element in our legislation. Of course, it may be necessary, later on, to deal with the matter by a general Act. I am not prepared, at the present moment, to say that we will adopt it, because the other companies interested will naturally expect to be heard from before any action is taken. There is a good deal in the criticism which has been made that, even though you give the policy-holders the right which is proposed, it practically does not amount to much. I have consented in common with the majority of the committee
I know that my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) dissented-that the same privileges should be granted to this company as to others.


Mr. KEMP.: From what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) says I take it that there is not much hope of general legislation of this kind at an early date.


William Stevens Fielding: Not at present.


Albert Edward Kemp: 
David Henderson: I have only a few words to say in reply to the argument of the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galli-her) and the promoter of the Bill (Mr. Adamson). The hon. member for Kootenay contends that the promoters of this Bill have not asked for this amendment. Now. I do not think we are here simply to legislate for the promoters of companies. I think we have been doing that long enough and that it is time we began to do something for the people. If we frame our legislation in every instance to protect the corporations regardless of the interest of the people we are not doing our duty. That applies to life insurance companies as well as to other companies.
149}


William Alfred Galliher: I hope the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) does not draw that conclusion from the remarks I made.


David Henderson: If I have drawn a wrong conclusion, I am ready to apologize to the hon. member (Mr. Galliher). But the reason he advanced for not supporting the amendment was that the promoters had not asked for this legislation.


William Alfred Galliher: My chief reason was, as I said before, that, while the promoters were willing to accept the restriction put upon the Canada Life, it was here proposed to put a further restriction upon them, and that they ought not to be trammelled with that restriction.


David Henderson: As to the restriction in the case of the Canada Life, my impression is that this Bill came before the committee with that restriction in it. As I remember the Bill as introduced, gave the policy-holders six directors.


William Alfred Galliher: That is right.


David Henderson: That is, the policyholders were to have six directors and the shareholders nine. We propose that the six directors given to the policy-holders should be given and not held back while being nominally given. The company was only making a pretense of giving, because these six directors could he elected from the shareholders like the others. There was nothing in it for the policy-holders, and yet it seemed a very popular move. If I were a life insurance agent I would not want anything better with which to go to the public than to be able to say to the person whom I was soliciting for life insurance:	Why,
there will be six policy-holders on this board and your interests will be protected. It would be a very popular feature of this company and I have no hesitation in saying that with that clause I would get $5,000 insurance where 1 would otherwise not be able to get more than $2,000, and yet the statement would be a fraud, as the hon. member for Hamilton says, because whilst it would appear on the face of the charter that the policy-holders could elect six directors, we know very well that the shareholders would not allow" them to elect those six directors. I have had a good deal of experience in life insurance business during the past 30 years; I have solicited a very large amount of insurance, and I say without hesitation that the company will be the gainer if they have this amendment in the Bill; they will be so many years ahead of all other companies doing business inOanada, they will have something to go to the people with which no other company in Canada has, something they can boast of and put in their literature, something they can hold up as a reality, whereas it is now simply a promise in which there is nothing. I again say that the promoter of the company is making a mistake in oppos-

ing the amendment l have suggested. The hon. member for Toronto has referred to one notable case, the case, I think, of the Equitable Company in New York, where practically one family holding stock to the amount of $100,000 controls about $5,000,000 or more worth of assets. What security is there to the policy-holder under such conditions ? No security whatever. In the Canada Life the policy-holders own 30 times the amount of assets owned by the shareholders; while the shareholders have a million the policy-holders practically have twenty-eight, twenty-nine or thirty million dollars. Why should those whose money is in the business not have some say as to how the business should be carried on ? It is a most extraordinary procedure, but I do not think I shall have to stand up this year, next year or the year after to advocate this matter which I advocated very strongly last year, because the time is coming when it will be forced upon the government and parliament to protect the policyholders in insurance companies by giving them a controlling interest in the management of the funds of the business in which they have invested their money. The hon. gentleman says that a bank depositor does not demand representation on the board of the bank. A depositor can at any time withdraw his entire deposit, but if a man has gone into an insurance company, say at the age of 25 and is now 55 years of age, so that he is not again insurable, he is unable to withdraw from the company and he must submit to whatever' conditions the company may impose on him whether right or wrong and it is a most serious matter to him and to those dependent on him. My hon. friend from Hamilton referred to some matters personal to himself as to the treatment received from an insurance company.
I have in my desk four or five statements of policy-holders with reference to the treatment of assured in what I regard as perhaps the strongest and best company in Canada so far as financial strength is concerned. I hold in my hand a statement sent out to a policy-holder insured for $5,000, an hon. gentleman who was at one time a member of this House, and who is at the present time a judge on the bench. In 1882 he insured his life for $5,000. For a certain number of years he received profits accruing to that policy and then these profits stopped. Why? Not because the company was not earning profits. His statement is that they sent him a statement on the 30th of December, 1904, showing that his policy instead of being worth $5,000 was of the face value of $4,812.50. How much will come off that next year I do not know. Why is that done? Simply because the directors' of that company take the money that lias accrued to him and to myself and to many others as profits and apply it to their own capital account.


David Henderson: 


Mr. GERMAN.: Would the hon. gentleman state what company that is ?


David Henderson: I am quite free to state what company it is ; I am sorry to say it is the Canada Life Assurance Company, and there are several members in this House who know it, who know that they have not been receiving their rights, that their privileges have been withheld from them and that no satisfactory explanation has been given as to why they have been withheld. I have one letter from a gentleman in Montreal holding a policy of $5,000 who says that he is practically compelled to sell his policy and get whatever he can for it because he has been depending on the profits to a certain extent to pay his premiums. The time has come when parliament must speak and I hope the government will look into this matter with the greatest care and will protect the interests of the people. We are not here simply to protect the interests of the corporations. We have our duty and I think the assuring public to-day is" looking to us for assistance. I hope and trust we will not be backward in giving them that strength, but if the Minister of Finance will tell me now that he will give this matter his best consideration with a view to bringing down general legislation that will meet the case which I realize is a cause of very considerable hardship in the country at the present time, I have no desire to press this amendment. I do not know what the feeling of the House may be, and I do not desire the amendment to be defeated because the principle is right and as the Minister of Finance has already told us, if I understand him aright, that he is prepared to give his consideration to this question with a view to making general legislation.
I would ask the privilege of withdrawing the amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: I stated in answer to the hon. member for Halton that I was not prepared to give that assurance at once. All I can say as to the matter to which the attention of the public has been drawn in the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and also in this House, is that it is well worthy of consideration. To that extent I will promise my hon. friend not to neglect it. At the same time I would like to be quite free in any action I take. The view I take myself, while sympathizing with those whose case has been stated, is that we give this company the same privilege in regard to the election of directors as we give to the Canada Life. We give the policy-holder an absolute choice; if he fails to exercise that choice he cannot blame us. Still, if experience shews that that system has produced evils, then I think it should be dealt with by some general legislation. It is only right to say that while the Canada Life had that privilege extended to its policy-holders five or six years ago, up to this amount, so far

as the Insurance Department is concerned, we have never had any representation hut that that system was working satisfactorily. If it turns out that it is not working satisfactorily, and the policy-holders com-plain, as complaint has been made to-night apparently by two of them, then the matter might have to be dealt with by general legislation.


David Henderson: I would be very glad, indeed, to hand in five complaints to-morrow if it would have any effect, and I have no doubt that I could get 500 inside of five weeks. But as the minister has been frank enough to say that this matter shall receive the consideration of the government, and knowing that it is a provision that I can scarcely expect to amend without the consent of the government, I would ask to withdraw tile motion.


Albert Edward Kemp: I see an article in to-day's Toronto 1 World,' copied from the New York ' World ' and ' Tribune ' which I have not had time to read through, but which contains a statement which is signed by Mr. Hyde who says :
I shall do all in my power to carry out the amended charter, giving the policy-holders the selecting of the majority of the board. Beyond this I will make no further concession from my legal rights, and I shall defend as well as I may the rights which I have reserved.
This refers to the Equitable Life Insurance Company and although I have not read the whole article, I take it that this policy has been adopted by that company, that they have obtained legislation to permit the policy-holders to elect the majority of the directors.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the trouble in the Equitable Life Insurance Company has arisen from the fact that the policyholders had no vote at all. It was a joint stock company and the holders of a very small amount of stock were able to control the millions of dollars concerned in the company. They are now proposing to mutualize it and they are practically proposing to do that which we have been doing with Canadian companies for some time past, so that there has been a considerable difference between the Equitable Life and our Canadian companies.


Albert Edward Kemp: The principle applying to Canadian and American companies is practically the same. The shareholders have control now and they are proposing to give control to the policy-holders.


William Stevens Fielding: That has not yet been done, but it is one of the remedies proposed.


Samuel Barker: As the hon. Minister of Finance has said that there have been no complaints about altering the representation on the board of the Canada Life, I beg to say that I know very intimately what1
the views of the Canada Life policy-holders were and are. I was chairman of a committee of dissatisfied policy-holders of that company who desired a change in the manner of electing directors. The question came before this House and was discussed in the Banking Committee. The policy-holders at the time asked substantially what my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) is asking now. They were refused it at that time largely through the iufluence of the controlling powers of the Canada Life. The Canada Life got put upon their Act, practically what is wanted by the hon. gentleman who is promoting this Bill, that there shall be no restriction upon who shall be elected to represent the policyholders. It was the very opposite of that that the policy-holders of the Canada Life wanted and the fact that there has been no complaint since is due to the circumstance that the policy-holders of the Canada Life were rendered absolutely hopeless of any real representation by what was put upon the statute-book at that time. I really believe that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance fully appreciates the points that have been discussed here to-night. I maintain and nobody will dispute, I think, the desirability of having a fair representation of the policy-holders, though without the policy-holders being allowed to control the company. Nobody suggests that they should have control. All that was ever asked on behalf of the policy-holders of the Canada Life was that they should have an opportunity of knowing what was being done by the board. The policy-owner who receives such a circular as my hon. friend from Halton has read knows nothing whatever of the reasons for the deduction from the value of his policy. There was a man, who, twenty-three years ago, I think, according to his statement, took a policy in the Canada Life for $5,000 ; for twenty-three years he has been paying his premium and to-day his policy is worth less than $5,000. Hf he died to-morrow he would not get $5,000 though he has been paying the premium entitling him and his family to $5,000. It may be all right. I am not questioning that. All I say is that it is only fair and just that the policy-holders who have been paying for years the premium for a certain amount of insurance should know the why and the wherefore of any reduction of their policies. If I, twenty or thirty years ago, insured my life in a company for $5,000 and paid the premiums they asked, and if I should be told today my policy is only worth $4,500, that if I died to-morrow my wife and children would only get $4,500 when they thought it would pay them $5,000 it may be all light, but why should I not have people on that board who, from the policy-holders point of view, would know whether it was all right and the reason for the redue-tion. I do not ask and I do not suggest

that the representatives of the policy-holders should control the board, but they should have the right to be there and know why that $500 for which I have paid has been taken off. Is there anything unreasonable in that ? That is all that is asked. As to its being a new departure, where are we to begin ? The hon. gentleman who is promoting this Bill says he is not the first. Well, if he is not to be the first, who is to be the first ? The next man who comes along will have a better claim than he has. Why should we not begin ? He has no rights today. He is going in to start a company. Why should he not be willing to have a company with clauses in its Act that will protect the public as well as they protect the gentlemen who go into it as a business venture to make profits ? Why should this company start without conditions for the safeguarding of policy-holders which experience has shown are needed ? If the hon. gentleman can point out that there is anything wrong in that, let him do it. All he says is that you have granted other companies these privileges without any restriction and he wants the same. The Canada Life Company said that in 1899. The Canada Life was a company that had been in existence for fifty years and yet parliament made it accept a modification as to its board. Here is a company that is not in existence yet, that is appealing to this parliament for a charter. And when we could impose new conditions on a company which had been in existence for fifty years and that had done a business of $30,000,000 "or $40,000,000 why cannot we place any needful restrictions upon a number of people who have not put a five cent piece into this venture ? Are we to wait, are we to go on and have promoter after promoter come to this House and say that he must not be the first ? If that is the argument, when are we to begin ? Whenever ** charter comes up the man promoting it will say he is the first when you propose to put these conditions iu. I have appealed to my hon. friend the Finance Minister to go into this question with the desire to do what is right for the hundreds of thousands of people who for years have been paying enormous sums of money to life insurance companies, and whose wives and children depend upon tlieir insurance for their sustenance. We hear the agents of these companies telling a man whom they want to take out a policy how he should protect the dear ones at home against loss.
They will tell him a most pathetic story about that, but after the policy is obtained let him ask one iota of protection, and then they talk about vested rights. It is the absolute duty of the government and especially of the Minister of Finance to deal with this question, not only with regard to the company that is now seeking a charter but with regard to all companies. The Minister of Finance would strengthen Mr. BARKER.
his position were he now to say to this company : You are seeking a charter, and you must come under equitable terms whatever we may say to other companies who already have obtained charters without such conditions. I am willing to agree to concur in this amendment being withdrawn, but I do not think the Minister of Finance should wait for further experience or for complaints. He will not get complaints until some company fails and spreads destitution broadcast throughout the land. The government have had this question pressed upon them for the last five years, and it is the duty of the Finance Minister to consider it, not in the interest of a few gentlemen who want to get up a company, but in the interests of the great mass of the'people who have policies in these companies and whose widows and children will depend for bread upon the policy being paid.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



FARMERS' BANK OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 124) respecting the Farmers' Bank of Canada.- Mr. T. Martin.
On section 1,
David Henderson: For how long do you extend the time ?


William Stevens Fielding: This is a Bill to extend the power of the bank for one year. We have had numerous discussions both in committee and in the House as to the extension of bank charters, and I think the general sentiment of the House is that we should be very careful in granting an extension. This is the first application and we have agreed in the committee to let them have it with the distinct understanding that they should get busy.


Mr HENDERSON.: We will let it go thiS time.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 112) respecting the Hamilton, Galt and Berlin Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 133) respecting the Citizens' Bank of Canada.-Mr. Barr.
Bill (No. 129) respecting certain Patents of William A. Damen.-IMr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 135) respecting the Western Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GALLIHER-(for Mr. Ross, Yale-Car-iboo)-moved second reading of Bill (No. 139)

[DOT]respecting the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Not printed.


Samuel Barker: I might mention that I find on the Orders of the Day of the Railway Committee Bills that are not printed. Bill No. 115 is down for consideration by that committee to-morrow. I tried to-day to get a copy of that Bill in the distribution office, and I was told that it was not printed. I think we are getting somewhat loose in our way of carrying on the business this House. 1 have no copy of this Bill 139.


William Alfred Galliher: Here it is.


Samuel Barker: When was that distributed ?


William Alfred Galliher: To-day.


Samuel Barker: I am told that the Bill respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway has never been printed.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think that has been on the order paper for a considerable time.


Samuel Barker: That may be, but it has never been printed.


Mr. INGRAM.: This abuse is growing worse all the time. It was bad enough last session, but it is worse this session. I think that before allowing a Bill to go to a second reading the House should be sure that it is printed. Bill 115 is not on the tile. It ought to have been on the file a month ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I noticed this session a minister of the Crown introduce a Bill in blank, a doubled-up piece of paper. That is against the rules of the House. Therefore, I do not wonder at Bills which have not been printed getting through their second reading. This is just an extension of the pernicious practice that has been going on increasingly from year to year, and I think that the sooner we put a stop to it the better.


Charles Marcil: I may inform the House that the four Bills on the order paper are marked as being printed in English and French.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman tells us that Bill No. 139 has been distributed today. Is that right ? I may say that I know of a practice that prevailed in the State of Michigan for a number of years. A gentleman introduced a Bill with the name of a company on it, and nothing more. Afterwards they would put anything in that Bill they pleased. It might be a Bill to incorporate a railway company, while later on provisions were introduced for the incorporation of a bank or anything else, and then they would move to change the name of the company. We are apparently getting near that stage.
Mr. GADLII-IER. Surely these objections cannot apply to Bill No. 139, which has been printed and distributed.


Charles Marcil: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion 7


David Henderson: No, Mr. Speaker, we want something like respectful treatment. Even if the Bill was distributed today, that is not sufficient notice to members who desire to consider it. It is all very well for a man who does not wish to take the trouble of looking into the legislation of the House. No doubt this is an important amendment to a very important Bill. I know nothing of the Bill. I confess that I have not seen it, and I think that a Bill of this kind should never come up for a second reading until it has been printed and distributed some days so as to allow hon. members an opportunity of studying it and ascertaining whether it is proper legislation or not. We are taking far too much for. granted. The Bill may have been printed perhaps an hour ago, but we ought to have some time to look into it. This undue haste is altogether uncalled for. Here we are possibly three months from the end of the session ; and as the Senate has adjourned until the month of May, no progress can be made with the Bill after it leaves this House until some time in that month. It will be just as well therefore to allow it to stand over and give hon. members an opportunity to read and study it. We have an instance of a Bill to amend the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway which has been on the notice paper standing for the consideration of the Railway Committee from day to day and from week to week and we have never yet seen the Bill. We do not know whether it has been drafted. It may have been introduced as a blank piece of paper like a certain Bill introduced by one of the ministers a short time ago, and for all we know it may have no existence. We ought to see a Bill before we endorse its' principle. The simple fact that it is printed is not sufficient reason for our endorsing it. It ought to be printed sufficiently long to enable us to read it over once. I do not like to oppose the hon. gentleman's Bill, but we must stand by some rule which will protect the House, and I would advise him to leave it standing until Wednesday when no doubt it will get its second reading without a word.


William Alfred Galliher: I am going to accept my hon. friend's suggestion. There is nothing whatever in the Bill that calls for haste. The legislation is perfectly proper. I am not the father of the Bill, but proposed its second reading in the absence of Mr. Ross from Yale and Cariboo. I find that it was put on my files on Friday ; but in view of the request made me, I would ask that the Bill be allowed to stand.
Order allowed to stand.



THE MONTREAL BRIDGE AND TERMINAL1 COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PICHE moved second reading of Bill (No. 138,1 respecting the Montreal Bridge Company and to change its name to the Montreal Bridge and Terminal Company.
Andrew B. Ingram: The same objection applies to this Bill as to the other Bill. We have not got a copy of it.


Archibald Campbell: It is on the file.


Mr. PICHE.: The same objection does not apply. It was brought from the Senate on Thursday last and distributed on Friday.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What were the amounts received Irom foreign railways for use of cars under present traffic arrangements for exchange of cars, by Intercolonial Railway during the year ending 30th June last ?
2.	What were the amounts received from Canadian railways ?
3.	What were the amounts paid to foreign railways by Intercolonial Railway during the same period ?
4.	What were the amounts paid to Canadian railways ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 



CL. $77,899.07.

[Stage Direction]
2.	$132,335.77.
3.	$25,200.00.
4.	$70,323.00.

[Stage Direction]
. Mr. LEFURGEY asked :
1.	Were any surveys or borings made with reference to putting a wharf at Howard's Cove, lot 7, Prince Edward Island ? [DOT]
2.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a wharf there ? If so, when ?
Charles Smith Hyman: In answer to the first question, no surveys have been made. In answer to the second, consideration will have to be postponed until reports have been received.



PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Mr. GEO. D. GRANT (North Ontario).: Some few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the discussion on tills Bill, my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), Mr. GALLIHER
who is not now in his seat, I am sorry to say, was good enough to say that he would like to have an expression of opinion on this Bill from the member for North Ontario. In the course of his remarks on that occasion, my hon. friend referred to a by-election which took place in my riding some two or three years ago, the contestants in which were the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and myself. The hon. gentleman said that the Manitoba Remedial Bill was one of the issues, if not the principal issue, in that campaign. Now, I cannot let that statement go entirely unchallenged. Necessarily I took considerable interest in that by-election, and therefore must be supposed to know what the issues in it were, and I have this to say that not only was the Manitoba Remedial Bill and the action of the late Conservative government in reference thereto and the action of the ex-Finance Minister (Air. Foster), then a candidate, in the same connection- not only were all these matters not principal issues but they were not issues at all. Furthermore I do not think that the Manitoba Remedial Bill or the Manitoba school question has been at all an issue in the province of Ontario since the general election of 1896. I am much afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the memory of my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) is not at all dependable; I am afraid his memory plays pranks with him. And in this fear I am rather confirmed by what fell from the lips of his late leader, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who spoke in another place on the 1st of March last. Speaking of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) in relation to another matter then under discussion, Sir Mackenzie Bowell said :
I am utterly at a loss to know or understand how Mr. Taylor could have given utterance to such a statement, unless it be that he talked it over so often with others that he finally believed it himself. That is an idiosyncrasy of some people, as we know.
Well, in the best of good nature, I rather think that in his recollection of what took place in the election in North Ontario that idiosyncrasy of my hon. friend from Leeds has shown itself.
The hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Ames), who preceded me in this debate on Thursday last, made, in my judgment, a very moderate, calm and dignified statement of the case. He told how generously, how very well indeed, the Protestant minority of Quebec were treated by the Catholic majority of that province. But I rather think, in fact I am strongly of opinion, that the hon. gentleman marred it forceful and eloquent speech by the reference he made to the attitude of hon. members on this side of the House who support the government on this question. On more than one occasion, more frequently than was necessary to my mind, the hon. member for St. Antoine thanked ids

pleader for the freedom of action which bad been given to individual members of tbe opposition on this question. He seemed indeed very grateful that freedom of action bad been granted. In fact, he said, if not in so many words, yet in ,effect, that had it not been for that freedom of action given by tbe leader of tbe opposition to bis followers, be doubted whether be would take tbe position which be is taking upon the Bill. I have nothing to quarrel with in that attitude of tbe lion, gentleman. But be went on to express bis great sympathy for members on tbe government side who, be seemed to think, were bound to stand by the government-bound in what way I do not know-in its proposed legislation in regard to the Northwest. I must say to the bon. gentleman that we cannot accept his sympathy on this side-we do not want it. And I take strong exception to the innuendo in his remarks as to the attitude of government members iii supporting this Bill. I cannot understand him. Surely tbe bon. gentleman will not say that tbe same arguments for toleration, for respect for tbe rights of a minority, which appeal to him may not also appeal to individual members on tbe government side. Tbe boil, gentleman said-and I think it is not beside tbe question for me to refer to bis words and to clear up these points before entering upon the consideration of tbe main part of tbe issue-that bis leader-

has told them that they shall one and all
consult their constituents and their conscience and shall then vote as they see fit upon this Bill.
I want to tell tbe bon. gentleman that no instructions, no advice, different from that has emanated from the right bon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads tbe government to his followers.


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: We do not need it.


George Davidson Grant: No, as tbe bon. gentleman (Mr. Zimmerman) says, we do not need it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was tbe bon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) in tbe House when tbe lion. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said that if this Bill was not carried this government must resign ? That was tbe statement; and, of course, that declared the measure a government measure, and compelled tbe government's following to stand by them.


George Davidson Grant: I agree with tbe Finance Minister to this extent-that tne resignation of this government and the advent to power of my boil, friend -from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and bis friends would be a sad calamity for tbe Dominion of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not tbe question at all. I understood tbe bon. member (Mr. Grant) to say that nothing bad been given out on the government side that, in relation to this Bill, tbe government supporters were to do otherwise than consult
their consciences and their constituents, which was what was done on this side.


George Davidson Grant: I wish to repeat that, so far as I am aware-and I think I know pretty well what goes on-there has beef! no indication, either from tbe right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads tbe government or any member of the cabinet, to any private member supporting tbe government, as to the attitude be should take upon this Bill. Now, tbe bon. member for St. Antoine went on to say :

and, unless I am greatly mistaken, there
are many members on the other side of ttte House who would have been glad enough if their leader had made the same declaration. X think there are quite a few in that solidly united party of which we heard this afternoon, and of which we have heard on many previous occasions, who v'ould be glad enough if they might he allowed to vote as their own conscience dictated, and as their constituents demanded,-
Note tbe words-

at this time.
I want to tell my bon. friend that, at least so far as I am concerned, and so far iis my knowledge extends to other members oil this side, we are voting and acting upon this measure as our consciences dictate. And I regret that the bon. member for St. Antoine, who, I must say again, made a judicious, a moderate and a well-argued speech, saw fit to mar that speech by the reference that be has made to tbe attitude taken by government supporters in regard to this question. And again I ask if be supposes that the same principle of toleration and respect for the rights of the minor ity that appeal to himself do not appeal also to tbe members supporting tbe government ?
But on tbe same line, I read in tbe Ottawa ' Citizen,' the main organ of bis party in Eastern Ontario, as late as last Saturday, tbe following paragraph :-
There are several Conservative members voting for the Autonomy Bills not because they personally approve of the principle, but because they believe it to be their duty to represent the feeling of a majority of their constituents. On the Liberal benches the members do not appear to be afflicted with any concern as to how the majority of their constituents view the matter.
I think that was a very unkind, reflection for tlie chief organ of tbe Conservative party in Eastern Ontario to make upon gentlemen opposite who support this Bill. Boiled down, what does it mean ? It means, if it means anything, that these bon. gentlemen are trying to save their parliamentary hides by this vote. I think that a very jioor compliment to pay to these gentlemen. I do not believe that to be tbe reason actuating such members as tbe bon. and learned members for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), Beauliarnois (Mr. Bergeron) and Stormont (Mr. Pringle). I give it as my opin-

ion that these hon. gentlemen, in acting' as they are doing, while, in one sense, they may he acting against their own feelings, yet, in another, are acting according to the dictates of high duty. And, Sir, why cannot credit for acting from conviction and from a high sense of duty be given to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who are supporting the same proposals ? I plead for nothing else than this, Mr. Speaker, both from the newspaper press and from hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House, that they shall not impute unworthy motives to any member of this House, no matter how he speaks or how he votes on this measure. It is, I hope, to be taken for granted that no matter what position a member may take in regard to these Northwest Autonomy Bills, he is actuated in taking that position by a sense of duty, both to his constituency and to the country at large.
It has occurred to me that if a citizen of some foreign country were visiting Canada and her capital now for the first time for the purpose of inquiring into our legislative methods and ascertaining how we conduct public business, he would be curiously impressed by our treatment of these autonomy Bills ; he would be curiously impressed not only by the course of the debate in this House but also by the newspaper discussion throughout the country. Two large provinces are to be added to this Dominion of Canada, two provinces mighty in area, rich in resource and rich in future promise. The enacting legislation is under advisement, the proposals of the government in reference thereto, the terms and conditions of the entry into confederation of these provinces are now before us. Surely our visitor from abroad would say : The members of the legislature considering this question will discuss large issues, such as the adjustment o'f the public lands, and the settlement of these mighty areas in the west. Surely such large questions as these, the conditions under which these new provinces shall enter the union, will be well pondered and considered. However, one topic alone to the exclusion of other topics in my judgment much more important, seems to be monopolizing the attention both of parliament and of the country. And what is that question ? Stripped of all legal and mystifying verbiage, that question is : Shall the' people of these territories, in entering. the confederation as provinces, be allowed to maintain a certain school system that has been in force for more than a quarter of a century and which they themselves have moulded and formed. 1 think I am putting the case fairly when I am putting it thus. I say, Sir, that our visitor from abroad would surely be surprised at what I might term this phenomenon, and if he were of an inquiring and observing turn of mind he would seek some reason for the same, and I think, Mr. Speaker, he would not have far to seek ; he Mr. GRANT.
would not need much knowledge of Cana-x dian history to answer this question, he would not need any profound insight into our institutions to satisfy his mind and his curiosity as to why this one issue was monopolizing attention in this debate. He would find by a very superficial knowledge of Canadian history that agitations such as this in the past history of Canada have almost rent our country asunder ; he would find that the progress and the growth of Canada has been retarded and stunted in times past by agitations arising from questions similar to this, and he would, I think, conclude and rightly conclude that those people are indeed poor friends of Canada who would lightly make a political football of an issue of this soi;t. And, Mr. Speaker, poor friends of Canada indeed they are.
I venture to remark that in no other country where representative institutions obtain, certainly in no other part of the British empire, would such an outcry and such a commotion over a matter so comparatively trifling ever occur. When I style the issue as unimportant, I do not wish to be taken to say that the matter of education in and for these new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan is at all a trifling matter, but I do say that the aspect of the education question as presented to us is not of paramount concern, and I deal now with the practical aspect of the matter. I find in fact existing in those western territories a school system built up practically by the people themselves. I find that the local council and the territorial legislature have perfected a system that seems1 to meet the requirements and conditions of the west. I find that the premier of these territories has said that it is a satisfactory system, he has said that his constituents, if they had the power, would not change it to-morrow. I find that a great majority of the representatives of that western territory in this House expressed themselves in unmistakable language, is favour of its perpetutation in these two territories. I find that public opinion in the west is overwhelmingly in favour of the present system.
I shall not trouble the House by reading any long quotations but I would like to quote from a gentleman who for many years was superintendent of education in these Territories, Dr. Goggin. On the 23rd of February, speaking to an interviewer in Toronto, Dr. Goggin made certain statements as to the schools of the Northwest. He said :
The separate school in the Territories, Catholic or Protestant, is a minority school. Its course of study till 3 o'clock is identical with that in the public school. Its text books-readers in the first two classes excepted-are identical. Its teachers have the same academic standing, have undergone the same professional training as the teachers in the public school. It is subject to the same inspection and examination. It receives legislative grants on the same basis as the public school.

In the course of the same interview lie says :
The Territories had arrived at a working arrangement, and should-be left in charge of the
system.
Precisely what we propose doing by this Bill, Mr. Speaker. Later on he says :
Their experience

That is, the experience of the Territories.

Referring to tbe attitude of tlie people of Regina.

towards the school question is similar.
Without exception all those I have spoken to have no apprehensions with regard to that feature of the settlement. They know by experience the system they have got. They are perfectly satisfied with it, and if its continuance is a part of the settlement there will be no objection from the /people of the Territories. The Catholic portion of the population have at times exhibited dissatisfaction, but it has never been very serious, and the general expression is that if the present system is continued, practically everybody will be satisfied.
That is a statement of tlie opinion of the citizens of Regina as gathered by the1' Globe' correspondent who, as I have said, is not favourable to this legislation. Furthermore this 1 Globe ' correspondent went to Medicine Hat, farther west, I believe, in the Territories and this, as far as be could gather, was the view o>f tbe citizens of that enterprising western town :
The separate school is sometimes inferior to the public school from the point of view of what is regarded as its main purpose, namely, to impart secular education. But this is regarded with some placidity for two reasons : first, because there is the feeling that those who prefer the separate school are getting what they want, and, in the next place, that the provincial authorities hold the master key to the situation in possessing the right to inspect and approve or disapprove of the way a school is fulfilling the great end of its existence__
If a separate school in Ontario is inferior in any way there is really no effective means of compelling it to come up to the requirements. It is not so with the western separate school. It is as completely within the control of the Department of Education as what are called public schools.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I regret to have occupied so much time in quoting these op-

.inions, but it occurred to me that it might relieve to a large extent the impression *which exists in the province of Ontario as to the nature of the schools which we propose by this Bill to perpetuate in the west. For days and weeks some of the members of this House, assisted by a section of the public press, have delayed the despatch of public business, and are promoting an injurious agitation throughout the Dominion over this educational question, and why ? What prompts them to do it ? Surely it cannot be anything else but the knowledge that in the past discussions on matters of this kind stirred up ill-feeling in this country have stirred up sectarian strife and commotion and that the stirring up of strife and commotion may bring about political results unobtainable by methods more honourable and more patriotic. In the main this commotion has been confined to the province of Ontario. I do not know that that should afford me, coming from that province, any very great satisfaction ; rather the reverse, but it is quite true that this commotion has been confined to Ontario and to one section of Ontario. It is also a fact that the head and front of this agitation is the newspaper press of the city of Toronto, and this very fact may induce lion, gentlemen here coming from other provinces in the Dominion to conclude that tlie population of Ontario as a whole is convulsed over this matter and that the people of Ontario are sitting up all night devising ways and means of combatting fliis legislation. By no means. Let me assure my fellow-members from other provinces that such is not the case. The only part of our population in the province of Ontario that is really excited over these Bills is the city of Toronto. Toronto newspaper-dom particularity is working overtime in the effort to create and fan into flame those slumbering passions that it might be well to let lie. But, let me assure my hou. friends, and particularly my hon. friends from the province of Quebec, that Toronto is not Ontario and that the voice of Toronto is not the voice of Ontario. It has been said in times of crises that Paris was accustomed to speak for all France. Toronto has no such authority to speak for the province of Ontario. We of the province of Ontario, let me say, are profoundly thankful too that such is the case. Let me assure my hon. friends from the province of Quebec" and from the maritime provinces that there is a large silent, solid section of the province of Ontario, particularly in the rural parts, who are not of the mind of Toronto in this matter and not only in this but in many other matters too. I say from positive knowledge having visited several parts of Ontario since this trouble, if I may so term it, began, that the thinking men and the sober minded citizens of the province, having been correctly informed of the facts-and it is Mr. GRANT.
very difficult to get the truth through our Toronto press-have come to the conclusion that the government have grappled in a wise and statesmanlike way with a very difficult and delicate subject. Therefore, I ask my hon. friends from other provinces not to do us the injustice of thinking that the blatant mob of Toronto speaks for the whole province of Ontario. The incendiary daily cartoons that appeared in the Toronto ' News ' and other sheets published in that city were at first deplored by the good people of the province of Ontario, and now, I may tell you they are laughed at. The editor of the Toronto ' News ' occupied at one time a very honourable place as a publicist in our province, but, Sir, since he apparently has come to the conclusion that to be strong in Ontario he must be unjust and offensive to his fellow-citizens in other parts of the Dominion, he has lost the esteem of the self-respecting and the thinking and the solid people of Ontario.
Now, the policy of the Toronto ' News ' as outlined day after day on its front page is for a common school ; for a national school. I say that these Bills when passed will give to the Northwest Territories a common, a national school in all its essential and integral features. The Toronto 'News' at the inception of this trouble made a great deal of the constitutional point ; spoke a great deal about the shackling of the West, as it termed the educational clauses. If ou reference to the Judicial Committee W the Privy Council it were held-and it might well he held-that the minority of the Territories is entitled to a full system of separate schools .under the legislation of 1875, and the British North America Act. what becomes then, I want to know, of the contention for a common and a national school ? Is it to be a national school, constitution or no constitution, judicial decision perhaps to the contrary notwithstanding ? Is that the position assumed by the Toronto ' News ' and assumed by other opponents of the government in this regard ? I can readily understand a member of this House taking this or that view of the legal question and taking his stand and casting his vote pursuant to his view, but I caunot understand n positive demand for a certain system of schools simply because that system recommends itself to that man's turn of mind and may not at all be, and whether or not at all it is, permissible under the law and the existing conditions. As an example, I find a reverend gentleman-lie comes from Toronto of course, Mr. Speaker-I find a reverend gentleman speaking in Toronto and reported in tlie Toronto press of the 20th of March last, using this language :
Separate schools in Ontario would be done away with.
Now, it would require only the most fragmentary knowledge of our constitution to

know Unit separate schools In Ontario are an inherent part of the confederation compact, and cannot be done away with. This quotation from this reverend gentleman illustrates my point, which is this : Whatever one's individual views as to a system of education may be such language as 1 have quoted can only lead to trouble, to misunderstanding and to friction. It in no manner whatever contributes to the solution of the problem in hand ; on the contrary, it constitutes only, and it is intended only to be a threat to the Ontario Catholics, and is as unwise as it is idle.
Sir, it had not been in my mind to discuss the constitutional aspect of this case, but. in relation to that I want to quote from this same paper, the Toronto ' News.' The Toronto ' Olobe ' had said : that it was not a question of separate schools versus national schools ; it was purely a question of provincial rights. That is to say, it was a dry constitutional subject, purely a matter of constitutional law, and on that principle the Toronto ' Globe ' took its stand. The Toronto 1 News ' however, was not able to, or did not care to take that view of the question, and in commenting on the ' Globe ' position said :
Nor would it be wise from their point of view

He is referring to the opponents of the measure.
Nor would it be wise from their point of view to narrow discussion down to the interpretation and application of constitutional documents.
Oh, no, that would not suit the firebrand press.
That is an important matter no doubt, but it is one that interests only a small proportion of the people. The study of the constitution is a useful and interesting pursuit, but not in that way can a formidable public opinion be aroused and brought to hear upon the government.
What does that mean? If the English language can be made to convey any meaning it means, that you cannot excite the people about a constitutional point; you must import into the controversy 'Something of a semi-religious tinge in order to excite them, and the Toronto 'News' and those who stand with it on this question propose to import that tinge into the discussion.
The article continues :

In laying down the rule, therefore, the ' Globe ' is asking that Hamlet be played with the part of Hamlet omitted.
It has been said in criticism of the government and its supporters, that diverse attitudes have been assumed by the advocates of this measure. Well, I will not say whether that is true or not, but it certainly strikes me that very diverse attitudes are being assumed both by lion, gentlemen here and by their press in opposition to this measure. \\ hat was the one note ringing through the speech of the leader of the opposition in this House ; how many times did he repeat it; these were the words, we all know them by heart:
I argue not for separate schools ; I argue not
against separate schools.
And the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. II. S. McCarthy) said : With the merits or demerits of separate schools I have no concern, I do not know anything about it. And the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) entered into a long, able, discursive theological discussion on the demerits oif separate schools-the only part of his speech I could agree with was the peroration in which he quoted a part of the Lord's Prayer. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Scha finer) also made an onslaught upon separate schools; he said they tended to disunite the people, that they tended to all manner of evils, and he thinks the merits of separate schools enter Into this discussion although his leader does uot think so. I instance these only to show how very wide apart and on what different views gentlemen who are opposing this measure take their stand.
I said a moment ago that it was not my intention to discuss the constitutional bearings of this Bill. Other men of the legal profession, very much better fitted than I am, of very much more authority than myself, have done so, and I feel that it would be bold indeed for me to touch that question. But in a broad way, Mr. Speaker, what was the spirit of the union compact? What was the spirit that guided the fathers of confederation in 1866 and 1867 ? Surely it was the spirit of toleration ; more than that, it was the spirit of solicitude for the conscientious convictions, not to say the undoubted rights, of minorities; and the same spirit which actuated the fathers of confederation in 1867 should actuate us in 1905 when we are extending confederation-because it is really one and the same thing. In organizing these Territories into provinces, we find that the minority has been for over a quarter of a century in possession of certain school privileges. I say we should respect these rights. Nay, more, we should put it beyond peradventure that these rights shall be maintained to them. It has become the fashion to say that these minority rights amount to very little, that they are very trifling, and, therefore, we may leave them. While such may be the fact, I do not think that in itself would constitute a ground for perpetuating those rights. The ground is broader and deeper than that. It has its root and being in a great and generous principle, and that is, respect and care that the weaker party be protected and be treated with consideration, so that its confidence may be won and retained. I would not seek to make this Bill palatable by saying that it is nothing. I would say that by law and by right the minority have certain educational privileges in the Northwest, and

when they enter the confederation, as they are doing In this year of grace 1905, we feel bound to protect and respect those privileges. I happened lately to he reading the life of ihe late revered Principal Grant, written by his son. He was the principal of Queen's University, and a man whose name and memory stands hallowed, not only in the Presbyterian Church, of which he was a foremost divine, but by all classes and creeds throughout Canada. Principal Grant was referring to an agitation similar to this, which was gotten up for the purpose of ousting Sir Oliver Mowat from power in Ontario a few years ago, but which, by the way, was singularly unsuccessful.


An hon. MEMBER.: As this will be.


George Davidson Grant: As this will be. Said Principal Grant:,
There can be no doubt that Sir Oliver Mowat stands now for the fair treatment of minorities, and that is the only way to make possible a united Canadian people. Some Protestants seem to be scared now, and they will he ashamed of themselves by-and-by. We Protestants used to be fearless ; we used to say that the truth is great and would prevail ; that truth needs only a fair field and no favour ; but now some of us seem afraid of the rustling of a leaf. The forms that this thing takes are so extreme that it is impossible for the thing to last any time.
Tliis is an expression of opinion by the late Principal Grant on a similar agitation that took place in Ontario. I leave it with the House, feeling sure it will have great influence upon the hon. gentlemen in the consideration of this aspect of the case.
Now, I would like to point out that the giving of autonomy to these Territories will work no radical or revolutionary change up there. These Territories have gradually been growing up to a provincial status. On tbe 1st of July next, wheu, despite tbe threats of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and one or two others, these Bills will become law, things will be very much the same in those Territories as they were on the 30th of June, the day preceding. The enactment of these Bills will not change the face of nature. It will not make the prairies any more productive; it will not add a dollar's worth to the assets or the natural wealth of the Territories. One would imagine that some revolutionary changes were about to take place ; but should the rights of the minority, small though they be, change or rest on any less secure footing because autonomy, full and complete, has been granted to these Territories ? For instance, would those rights not indubitably continue if for some reason we postponed giving autonomy to those Territories for the next ten, "fifteen or twenty-five years. Would any hon. member of this House deny that statement ? The Act of 1875 under which the minority hold their rights have been in force nearly thirty Mr. GRANT.
years, and in that time there have been many opportunities to repeal that Act. Time and time again the Northwest Territories Act has been before this House for consolidation or consideration, and I think that on two occasions it was proposed by some hon. member of this House to repeal tlie educational clauses of that Act and hand over the entire charge of education to the territorial authorities. This House lias had the opportunity to repeal them on many occasions.


Mr. BELCOURT.: It could do It now.


George Davidson Grant: It could do it now, as the hon. member for Ottawa says. My point is tliis, that if the granting of autonomy were put off for some indefinite period, undoubtedly these educational rights or privileges of the minority would continue. Then, should tlie fact that we are admitting those Territories to full provincial status militate against the continuance of these rights and privileges ? That is to say, the minority may enjoy these rights and privileges according to their conscientious convictions while those Territories remain in a state of tutelage merely as Territories ; but when they become autonomous provinces are we then to put that minority in a less secure and less beneficial position by reason of our own act ? Supposing autonomy were not granted at tbe present time, the rights enjoyed by tlie minority under tlie Act of 1875 would continue. If those rights were infringed, this parliament would be appealed to, as it was in 1894 when the representatives of tlie Catholics of the Northwest Territories came down here and asked Sir John Thompson to disallow the Northwest Ordinances.
But it is said: Leave it to the provinces to say what system of education shall be established. In reply to that X say we are leaving this question of education to the provinces, because we are adopting their own approved and valued system. Moreover I would point out that the practical working out, the practical control of all matters of education, will be left with the Northwest legislatures themselves, and in the end it will be the power which has the practical every day working out of the educational system which will be the all controlling element in the matter.
I have already stated that I did not propose entering into a discussion of the constitutional bearings of the case, but some allusion thereto is absolutely necessary to a proper presentation of tlie facts. Very much difference of opinion has been expressed by legal gentlemen and laymen as to the real meaning and significance of the word ' province ' and particularly the words, ' at the union ' occurring in subsection 1 of section 93 of the British North America Act, which we all know by heart and which, if we go on discussing much longer, we will be all dreaming about at night. I cannot think-and I give my opinion in great fear aud trembling and

with all possible diffidence-that the union, the real union, in the fullest and proper sense of the term of those districts with the Dominion of Canada, occurred in 1870. The proceedings of 1809-70 merely incorporated those areas with the Dominion. That was not a union in the broad full sense of the word. Why, Sir, at that time these Territories were unpeopled. They had not even institutions of the most primitive sort. In my humble judgment, the real consummation of union will take place on the passage and going into force of these Bills. It would seem to me a matter of grave doubt whether, under the British North America Act of 1807, we' had the power to admit these districts into the Dominion, except on a provincial status. The Imperial Act of 1871, called the doubt removing Act, took away, however, any doubt on that point, and these regions in the west were incorporated with the Dominion, not as provinces, but as Territories. In my judgment, I believe that in legislating as we did in 1870, we exhausted the powers given us in that regard by section 146 of the British North America Act of 1867. But those powers were amplified or extended by the Imperial legislation of 1871.
It has been a matter of wonder to me that the Imperial House did not, in its Act of 1871, content itself with simply validating the Manitoba Act ; but it did not stop there. It went on to treat of the admission of further Territories west of Manitoba, and gave us power to constitute them into provinces, and in the meantime to make provision for their peace, order and good government. Had it been the intention of the Imperial parliament merely to validate our legislation admitting Manitoba into the union, surely that parliament would have stopped there, but instead it went on to add to our power ; and in my judgment we are to-day properly acting under clause section 2 of the Imperial Act of 1871 in constituting these provinces. Acting under the power given by that Act of 1871 this Dominion parliament undertook to provide for the administration of those Territories and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government therein. The most important piece of legislation in that regard was Mr. Mackenzie's Northwest Territorial Act of 1875. In the exercise of our powers, we granted a constitution to these Territories. The educational enactment of that Act of 1875 has been so often referred to that I shall spare the House a repetition of it. Suffice to say that a system of separate schools was instituted, and on that system was based the Territorial school system such as we know it to-day. Take up the debate which took place in 1875 on that measure, and you will find the utterances of the Diberal leaders-and they were Ontario men too-very instructive. Particularly instructive are the words by the Hon. Edward Blake. To an Ontario liberal-and I claim to be one-the words of Hon. Edward Blake ought to carry weight and authority. They have been quoted two or three times in this debate, but I am sure the House will bear with me whilst I quote them again. Discussing the Bill of 1875, Mr. Blake said :
The task which the ministry had set for itself was the most important it was possible to conceive. To found primary institutions under which we hope to see hundreds of thousands, and the more sanguine of us think, millions of men and families settled and flourishing

Bet me break off here to say that Mr. Blake evidently did not regard this legislation at all as of a temporary, fleeting character, because he was looking forward to the great future when millions of people would be settled in the Territories. He regarded the provisions of that Bill, not as temporary or fleeting in their character, I say, but as permanent and lasting.
He agreed with the hon. member for Kingston (Sir John A. Macdonald) that the task was one which required time, consideration and deliberation.
Further on he said :
He believed that it was essential, to our obtaining a large immigration to the Northwest, Territories, that we should tell the people beforehand what those rights were to be in the country in which we invited them to settle.
He regarded it as essential, under the circumstances of the country, and in view of the deliberations during the past few days, that a general principle should be laid down in the Bill with respect to public instruction. He did believe that we ought not to introduce Into that territory the heart-burnings and difficulties with which certain other portions of the Dominion and other countries had been afflicted. It seemed to him, having regard to the faetl that as far as we could expect at present, the general character of that population would be somewhat analogous to the population of Ontario, that there should be some provision in the constitution by which they should have conferred upon them the same rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction as those possessed by the people of the province of Ontario. The principles of local self-igovernment and the settling of the questions of public instruction, it seemed to him, ought to be the cardinal principles of the measure.
Surely no reasonable man can read Mr. Blake's remarks- and not be struck by -the fact that, in bis opinion the parliament of Canada was engaged in passing legislation, particularly with regard to the school system, which should obtain in the Territories, not for a few years, not simply while they remained as Territories, but so long as the Northwest Territories themselves lasted. That seems to me to lie tlie legitimate deductions from Mr. Blake's remarks. Need I go on and quote what the Hon. David Mills, also an Ontario Liberal-a name which we in Ontario, in Canada in fact, honour and revere-said. Here is the opinion of Mr. Mills :
There was another matter it seemed to him ought not to be disregarded ; and that -was the

That is, the law of 1875.

otherwise we should be as I say riveting
the system of separate schools upon them.
And further on he says :
What I say is this, that if this question of separate schools is to remain in its present position until w-e grant provincial autonomy to any parts of the Northwest, it will be practically impossible unless there is an enormous change in public opinion to deny them w-hat every other province that has joined confederation has been entitled to, what Manitoba was entitled to and what under the circumstances every province would be entitled to.
The inference from these quotations is clear, that so eminent a jurist as the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy gave it as his opinion tnat if the separate school system, or the right of the minority to enjoy their educational privileges, call it what you may, obtained in these Territories until the time when they came to us seeking admission as provinces into confederation, then we would be bound to perpetuate the existing state of affairs in regard to education. I want to point out how remarkably consonant this opinion of Mr. McCarthy was with the opinions expressed in 1875 by Hon. Edward Blake and Hon. David Mills, and consonant also with the opinion-not, of course, the opinion of a lawyer-expressed by Hon. George Brown in the Senate when the Bill of 1875 was under advisement. We hear very much about these proposals as regards education being an invasion of provincial rights. And, strange to say, this cry of provincial rights comes from a quarter that did not, in the old days, hold provincial rights in very high esteem. Why, Sir, the province of Ontario, whence I come, has on many occasions had to do battle and strenuous battle for provincial rights. And who constituted the enemy on those occasions ? The Conservative party in the Dominion who sat on these government benches and supported Sir John Macdonald when provincial rights were as-

sailed, as I say, on more occasions than one. And it was to the late Sir Oliver Mowat, that great advocate of provincial rights, that we in Ontario owe it that the assaults of that enemy were not successful. The Conservative party supporting Sir John Macdonald on these occasions had very little respect for provincial rights. Now, the doctrine of provincial rights is a good doctrine, an excellent doctrine. But it is not a doctrine, to be invoked in defence of the perpetration of a great national wrong. These estimable people in the province of Ontario who are so much concerned at the so-called invasion of provincial rights seem to confine their attention in that respect altogether to the educational clauses of this Bill. They have nothing to say, in their petitions and resolutions sent here to parliament, about the lands ; they have nothing to say about the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption. If the government proposals in regard to education be an infraction of provincial rights, how much more so are their proposals in regard to the lands ? And yet, do we find these very excellent people complaining or memorializing the government about the land clause of the Bill ? Nor do we find them complaining as to the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption. I am of opinion that in future years the matter of that exemption will bear very heavily and very harshly upon the people of the Northwest Territories. But do wo find any sympathy expressed by the province of Ontario with these new provinces either on the ground that they will not have their lands, or on the ground of the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption from taxation for all time to come ? No sympathy on that score is expressed at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that many petitions have been presented to this House from the people of Ontario praying that the people of these Territories be allowed their land and that there are also petitions from the west expressing regret declaring that they regard that as one of the provincial rights they should enjoy V


George Davidson Grant: I can readily understand the people of the west petitioning to have their lands placed under provincial control ; that is a natural thing ; but I have been pretty constantly in my place in the House and I do not think that one in 500 of the petitions from the province of Ontario made any mention of the lands at all ; they referred only to the educational part of the Autonomy Bill. I say if these excellent, estimable people were sincere in their regard for provincial rights, if they were solicitous for the future welfare of these provinces, they would not confine their attention and solicitude to the educational clauses of these Bills alone but would take up the points I. have mentioned. What does that convince me of, Mr. Speaker ? I am sorry 150
to believe it but I must believe that all this commotion and concern is manifested largely because clause 16 of the Bill relates in a measure to the religious convictions of a minority of our people. I am forced to that conclusion and any reasonable man must be forced to that conclusion because there are at least two other great matters that are of paramount concern to the people of the Northwest Territories, that they may have a right to complain of, in reference to which these people in Ontario who are stirring up an agitation are absolutely and entirely silent. It is said that the Liberal party is historically the defender of provincial rights. I am glad to acknowledge that; I heard the hon. member for East Grey say that in his place in the House the other day. The hon. member (Mr. Sproule) is quite correct in making that statement and 1 may say that the Liberal party were defending provincial rights from 1878 to 1890 when my hon. friend was supporting the late Sir John Macdonald in this House in six or seven struggles with regard to provincial rights, but my hon. friend if I mistake not was not on the side of the provinces in these struggles. It is charged that the Liberal party has changed its front with regard to provincial rights, and the leader of that party is also charged with a departure from his record, and it is vehemently charged that the Liberal party is false to its position and to the principles enunciated in connection with the Manitoba school difficulty of 1896. I take issue directly with those who charged the Liberal party with inconsistency, viewing their actions in 1896 in regard to the Manitoba school question and their actions in 1905 in regard to the Bills now under consideration. There is no parallel between the Manitoba school case and the case under discussion. Manitoba, in the exercise of her undoubted powers, altered a school system which she herself had brought into being. I am not saying whether that system was good or bad, I have no expression of opinion to make in that regard, but that system, at least according to the judgment of a great majority of Manitobans, had outlived its usefulness. The late Conservative government sought in the dying hours of a parliament to coerce an unwilling province to return to that abandoned system and we all know the result that followed that attempt. In the present case the Territories adopted their own system of schools and brought it to a state satisfactory to the * people of the Territories. The man who cannot see the difference between tin -\se of 1S96 and the case of to-day is either wiJfully blind or his perceptive faculties are. I think, very very weak.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman made a statement that Manitoba of her undoubted rights adopted a system and afterwards made away with it.


George Davidson Grant: I think that is the state of affairs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is as I understood him and the Northwest Territories of their own free will and accord have adopted a system. Does lie consider that the law which compelled them to adopt that system gave them any opportunity of exercising freedom either of will or judgment ? They were obliged to do it, whereas Manitoba acted of her own judgment and free will.


William Stevens Fielding: Did not the Northwest legislature by a resolution some years ago [DOT]refuse to ask for a repeal of their clause thereby confirming it ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That does not confirm it at all.


William Stevens Fielding: I say yes.


George Davidson Grant: My good friend-I may call him so-from East Grey, is no doubt an expert in medicine but I do not know if he and I entered into a legal argument either he or I would be wiser nor would the House be the wiser for that argument. I would say that the Northwest Territories by their ordinances have practically set up a system of schools satisfactory to themselves, because in my judgment-and I give it for what it is worth-they have very much restricted the rights of the minority as expressed and given by the law of 18T5, and I think Sir John Thompson was of that opinion and practically expressed it in a minute of council in reference to the petition for disallowance in 1894, so that I say, by taking the action which they did take, they to some extent at least have formulated a school policy that is satisfactory to themselves. It is also to be remembered that this Dominion parliament in 1875 held out the assurance of certain educational privileges to the minority and it is to this parliament that that minority must look for the protection of its rights. The legislation of 1875 in regard to education may have been ill-advised ; I do not say whether it was or not, it may have been ill-advised or it may have been very wise legislation. However, it has remained ever since on our statute-book and therefore I say that the somewhat specious phrase ' trust the new provinces ' has no particular force. The promise was made, the undertaking was entered into by this Dominion parliament and this sovereign parliament having enacted the law, having held out the inducement to the incoming settler, having continued the law in force, gave every sign that the law was to remain in force, ft is, therefore, incumbent on this parliament to follow the course set forth in the Bill. I have wondered since this agitation began, whether if the original proportion of Catholics and Protestants had remained in those Territories we would have had all the trouble and commotion that we have to-day. As I understand it, at the very beginning of the settlement of those new Territories the Catholic people Mr. GRANT.
were largely in the majority. They were the first settlers, they were the pioneers of those districts and were necessarily in the great majority. I want to know if that preponderance of Catholic population had kept up in the Territories and we found it existing to-day if we would have all this trouble and agitation over our proposals. I think, Mr. Speaker, we would have had a demand for the Protestant separate schools that they have in the province of Quebec to-day, and as a Protestant, if it were the very last vote I gave in the House of Commons, I would give that vote with the feeling that I was only doing equity and dealing fairly with this minority in casting my vote for the perpetuation of their privileges.
Now, Sir, I have said that the hon. leader of the opposition made it a point that the merits and demerits of separate schools <i,d not enter into this discussion. Hon. gen-Lemen opposite apparently did not think so and I have wondered too how some of them could bring themselves to support in its entirety the amendment offered by the hon. leader of the opposition to this Bill because quite possibly the logical effect of the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition might be to bring into force a full dual system of sectarian schools in the new provinces. I do not say whether that would be a blessing or whether that would be a great detriment to those new provinces, but I do say that hon. gentlemen opposite who have gone out of their way to attack separate schools should think twice and that they should think long before they vote for an amendment which may have the effect that I have just pointed out. I come from the province of Ontario. I do not know that separate schools have worked very badly in Ontario. I am like the hon. leader of the opposition ; I argue not for them. I argue not against them, but I have been observing in the province of Ontario and I am bound to say, whether I like the system or whether I dislike the system, that I have seen no evils arising from separate schools in Ontario. I do not think the system tends to disunite. I do not think it tends to any vital separation of the people. I know that in my own riding we have a number of separate schools. I know of no spot in the whole Dominion where people of different creeds live together in greater amity and concord than in my own riding of North Ontario and particularly in two townships where the population is very evenly divided between Roman Catholics and Protestants, and where, I am very happy to say, both unite in supporting the humble individual who is now addressing the House. In this onslaught upon separate schools it is well to remember that separate schools, as I have said, have worked not badly in the province of Ontario and while I expressly refrain from expressing my opinion in regard to them on this occasion, because it is not necessary, I want to refer

to what must be a very valuable opinion as to separate schools in Ontario. I want to refer to the opinion of the Toronto ' Globe ' expressed in 1895, at a time when, if my memory serves me right, there was an attack being made upon the Liberal government in Ontario in regard to the separate school question.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Who was the editor ?


George Davidson Grant: 
Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: It has been intimidated to me by a certain hon. member on the government side of the House, that it is desirable to bring a public measure of considerable* importance to the attention of the House to-day, and to have it disposed of if possible. Knowing something of the nature of that measure, at this late hour, I feel like not insisting upon my right to continue this debate but to give way

for tlie discussion of that measure which will no doubt occupy tile attention of tlie House as long as it will desire to sit tonight. I feel that I would only be doing justice to that hon. member if X moved to adjourn the debate.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not see any good reason, why at this hour of the night the debate should not continue.


Edward Guss Porter: It is pretty late to proceed with the discussion of this question now.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Go on.


Edward Guss Porter: I understood that I was to adjourn the debate in order that this other measure might be discussed. 1 have been sitting here since three o'clock this afternoon after spending a whole night on the train, and I , think it is rather pressing me to ask me to proceed with the discussion at this late hour. No time will be lost by adjourning the debate, and adopting the course a member of the government has asked me to assist in pursuing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There has evidently been a misunderstanding, because I was told that Mr. Porter was to adjourn the debate and that the government intended to discuss another Bill. Mr. Ritchie, of Toronto, was my informant, and I replied to him that it could only be done by the unanimous consent of the House. There must be some misunderstanding.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know that there is any misunderstanding, and if so, no one on this side of the House is responsible for it. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Porter) wishes to ask for the privilege of adjourning the debate that is one matter, but if that is done there is going to be no public Bill or order considered to-night so far as I am concerned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not asking that any public Bill should be considered.


Edward Guss Porter: I may have misunderstood my informant, and I may be wrong in stating what I did state to the House. If so, I am very pleased to withdraw it, and I would ask as a special favour to myself that it be not insisted on that I should proceed to-night.


William Stevens Fielding: I have nothing to say regarding any understanding, but we have on several occasions recently been asked to adjourn early and we have always consented upon the assurance that the next night we would not adjourn early. I think the next night has arrived now, and we should continue the business.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Edward Guss Porter: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have heard a great many expressions of surprise at the position assumed by the right hon. the First Min-Mr. PORTER.
ister upon this question. These expressions of surprise have emanated very largely from this side of the House, but, having heard the address delivered by the right hon. gentleman on the introduction of these Bills and his subsequent explanation of the amendment which is now under discussion, I am bound to say that the attitude assumed by the right hon. gentleman is not to me a matter of surprise. It is to me more a matter of regret. I say it is not to me a matter! of surprise, because from my observation, the course of the political life of the right l.on. gentleman since he was entrusted with the confidence of the people of this country, has been characterized by such qualities of insincerity, of deception, and of pandering to outside influences as to lead me to the conclusion that the course pursued by the Prime Minister on this occasion is perfectly consistent with what has been his political career heretofore. I say, Sir, that since the right hon. gentleman obtained power in 1896, he has shown such a willingness to sacrifice principle ; he has shown such a willingness to deceive the people of this country by the tortuous course he has pursued in this parliament, and he has shown such an utter want of principle as to satisfy me at least-and I think to satisfy the people of this country-that he is no longer entitled to the trust they reposed in him.
I have said, Sir, that his political career since 1896 has been characterized by insincerity, deceit and pandering to outside influences. Now, it would be unfair to the right hon. gentleman to make that assertion unless I were able to offer some reliable evidence in support of it. Ret me, then, offer to the House a few illustrations to prove the assertions I have made.
Perhaps the greatest question that has engaged the attention of the right hon. gentleman and his government since 1890 is the trade question. When the right hon. gentleman received the suffrages of the people of this country in 1896, and prior to that time, what was his attitude upon that question ? I might go almost so far as to say that he was an avowed free trader. He was taken to be a strong advocate of the principle of free trade. I cannot say that lie was a champion of free trade-and here comes in the evidence. We all remember the speeches delivered by the right hon. gentleman on that question in the province of Quebec, and also his speeches in the province of Ontario ; we know how his speeches in one province differed from his speeches in the other. It is perfectly evident to any one who takes the trouble to read those speeches and consider them that on that important branch of public policy, he was playing a double part and was deceiving the people of this country. When he came into power in 1896, he was not satisfied apparently with tne deception that he practiced up to that time; but

when he formed his cabinet, he took into it a gentleman who was before then and who has been since an open advocate on all occasions of the principle of protection. If we are to believe the statements made by that lion, gentleman, when he was taken into the cabinet, it was upon some understanding or arrangement that in the near future legislation would be introduced by the right lion, gentleman tending towards the principles advocated by that minister. Subsequently we found that minister advocating, as he had done before he entered the government, and as I submit he had a perfect right to do, the principles of protection under the arrangement that had been made with him ; but we find that the right lion, gentleman was not willing to carry out the promise he had made to his own minister, but played the double act again, and as a result of that duplicity he lost from his cabinet one of the ablest members who has graced it since 1896.
Let me give another illustration. The conduct of the right lion, gentleman was characterized in the same way upon the question of preferential trade. We all know, from his reported speeches delivered during the time he was in England, the position he took upon that question there. We know the speech he made in the city of Toronto when he returned from England, and we recollect the questions that were put to him on that occasion and the answers that he gave. He was charged there with having made speeches in England on that question that were entirely inconsistent with the position that he took before his Toronto audience ; and what was his conduct when he was accused in that way ? He had the audacity to tell that intelligent audience that when he was speaking in Great Britain, he was only fooling the people there, or, to use his own language, he was only luring them on. thus admitting that he was playing a double game.
Let me proceed a little further in this history. Take the railway policy of the right hon. gentleman, as embodied in the measure brought before this parliament in relation to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. When the right hon. gentleman introduced that Bill into this House, he declared that the agreement made between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was a perfect agreement, and that the Bill he had introduced was one that could not be amended or improved in any particular ; and that measure was forced through this House by the power which the right hon. gentleman had behind him. But, Sir, the very same thing characterized his conduct in that important matter as characterized it on the trade question. When it was ascertained that the Grand Trunk Railway Company were not satisfied with the conditions of that agreement, and of that Bill which he had declared to be perfect and unalterable, we find him coming
again to this House and swallowing holus bolus what he had declared, by introducing amendments to that measure-for what purpose ? Simply to please the outside influences that were operating upon him. And that was the second occasion on which lie refused to listen to the advice of perhaps the ablest minister on that particular subject in his cabinet.
He preferred to ignore the advice given to him by his ministers and to satisfy the outside influence of the Grand Trunk Railway, and upon that second occasion he lost another minister from his cabinet. Let us take another illustration. Look at the position taken by the right hon. gentleman in 1896 upon this very school question. At that time, with all the ability and eloquence at his command, he stood up and proclaimed that the minority of the province of Manitoba should not have remedial legislation at the hands of this government. He was then denying to the people of his own faith, his own church, the rights they were clamouring for. To-day he is making a complete right about face upon that important question. While in 1896 he was declaring hands off Manitoba and that the minority should not have separate schools in that province, you find him to-day just as strongly advocating in just as eloquent and forcible language that this parliament shall for all time to come fasten upon these two new provinces the system of separate schools. Again the right hon. gentleman has been playing a double game. Let me ask me why he is playing this double game ? What influence is it that is making him do so ? It is certainly not the advice of the one minster who above all others should advise him in this particular instance. No, it is due to a pandering to outside influence and a total disregard of that particular minister to whom he should have listened. And upon this, the third occasion, he has lost the most valuable member in his cabinet. So I might go through almost every branch of the government, nearly every particular measure which has come within the attention of this government since 1896, and draw the very same conclusion I have drawn from these two or three matters to which I have referred the House.
But let us take one more instance. We had in 1902-3 in this country a gentleman, a British subject, a soldier who had brought credit to himself and his country, a man who was sent here as the accredited agent or delegate of the Imperial parliament, a man who was charged with the performance in this country of a very great duty; and when that gentleman undertook to advise this government, his reports are said to have been mutilated or pigeon-holed, his advice is said to have been ignored. That was stated on the floor of this House and not denied, and that gentleman, when he found that he could not get the ear of the government and he could not carry out the important duty which he was charged to perform, took the

means lie did to call to the attention of the government and the country the fact that he was being ignored, and that the militia force required and should have certain reforms which he indicated. What was the course taken by the right hon. the leader of the government? That man, a British subject and a soldier, was called upon the floor of this House by the right hon. gentleman a stranger and a foreigner and practically exiled from this country. Let me ask what was the conduct of the right hon. gentleman with regard to a certain other stranger and foreigner. We have in our midst now a gentleman against whom I have nothing whatever to say personally, but a gentleman who is not, to begin with, a British subject, who is not charged with the performance of any public duty so far as Canada is concerned, and that gentleman is not only allowed to interfere in the legislation of this country, but he- is consulted as to what legislation shall take place. And that man is not called a foreigner and a stranger and is not sent away, but is taken into the bosom of the family, so to speak, and petted and pampered and excuses made for him. There was some excuse, whether Lord Dun-donal was right or wrong, for the course he took, but where is the excuse tlmt can be offered to any reasonable man for the treatment of Lord Dundonald in the way in which he was treated by this government and their treatment of Monseigneur Sbarretti. If the hon. gentleman was right in 1896 upon this school question, he must be wrong now. It is not possible for him to take the position he did then and now turn around and take the very opposite and say: I am right all the time. Let me ask you what was the attitude of the influence that was operating upon the hon. gentleman in 1890? Did the church of his faith, when he stood up in this House and defended the doctrine that Manitoba should not have separate schools, throw him out? Did it discard and did it discredit him ? Did it say he was wrong then and he ought not to advocate such a course? No, not one word of condemnation, not one word of criticism. Why? I will come to that in a moment. We find him taking exactly the opposite course on this occasion and he could not have been right in both instances. But was that the ease? No, just as in 1896, when they refused to condemn him for the course he took then, the church is standing by the right hon. gentleman although he is advocating an entirely different theory. There must be some reason for all that. The reason that appeals to my mind is this. That in 1896 there was some well defined plan, thoroughly understood between those two elements which was to have been worked out at some subsequent date, and I think the evidence before us in the Bills now engaging the attention of the House shows the working out of that proposition.


Edward Guss Porter: Now, Sir, when these Bills were introduced in this House there was a spontaneous expression of disappointment. That feeling of disappointment, after all the discussion that has taken place in this House, after all the discussion that has taken place through the public press has not downed at all, but has been growing and growing until it is a perfect chorus of condemnation of this measure from one end of this Dominion to the other. There is a general outcry against the injustice that will be done these new provinces by imposing upon them the system of separate sichools provided for in "these measures. There is an outcry at the injustice that will be done by binding and shackling the people in these new provinces by a system of education that is not agreeable to their wishes. These mutterings that we first heard in this House upon the introduction of these Bills have grown and will continue to grow, I verily believe, notwithstanding the passing of these measures by the force behind the right hon. Prime Minister. These mutterings will increase and grow, and there will be no possibility of there being perfect rest and a feeling of perfect freedom, unless this government shall see fit, In its wisdom, to withdraw the educational clauses of these Bills and allow these provinces to legislate on that subject as to them seems meet and just. And, now, Sir, this feeling of disappointment has been expressed by the press of this country, the greatest of all powers hot only for the expression but for the formation of public opinion. The majority of the press have condemned these educational clauses. Resolutions have been passed by public meetings held in many places throughout the Dominion condemning this legislation. There have been pulpit discourses from almost every religious denomination in condemnation of these clauses. Educational bodies meeting in solemn conclave for the discussion of this matter, have also passed resolutions condemning this legislation. Educationalists, who are especially fitted to judge of this matter, have also announced themselves against-this measure in unmistakable terms. And, Sir, hundreds, yes thousands, of the very best people in the Dominion of Canada have expressed the same sentiment by the petitions that have been presented from day to day to this House. And hon. members in this House have been endeavouring, for days and weeks to convince this government that the legislation proposed under these Bills is not in the interest of the new provinces. Now, Sir, can it be possible that all these bodies, all these persons, all these petitioners, and the great majority of the public press-that all these'are wrong upon this question? Is it possible that only the right hon. gentleman iSir Wilfrid Laurier) and the influences under which he is acting are right ? Is the intelligence of the right hon. gentleman upon this question so heaven born, is his knowl-

[DOT] 4734
edge so divinely inspired, that it is impossible for him to be -wrong ?


Mr. DANIEL.: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a quorum present in the House.


Mr. SPEAKER.: There is a quorum.


Edward Guss Porter: Such a denial of the will of the people as that of the Prime Minister expressed in the manner in which it has been expressed is, to my mind, subversive of the very first principle of freedom and tys a direct blow at the constitution of our country. I have hoped since the introduction of these Bills, that, observing the strong feeling of disapproval throughout the country in regard to them, the government would see fit to withdraw or alter these clauses in the Bill, to modify them so as to enable every hon. gentleman in this House to support the measure granting provincial rights to these two provinces so that on the first day of July next, when these Bills are intended to come into force and effect, there would be genuine cause for universal rejoicing at the birth of these two new provinces. But, Sir, if we make the mistake now of inflicting upon these provinces the system of separate schools intended by these Bills, we shall be doing an Act-and it is important for each of us to consider this- which is irrevocable, we shall inflict a burden upon these provinces which cannot be removed for all time to come. If we recognize in these Bills the right of the church to interfere in matters of state, especially in so important a matter as the education of the youth, if we set up the principle of separating or isolating different portions of the youth and preventing them from growing up together which is so necessary to the growth of a common interest and a common sentiment which alone can build up a young country like Canada, we shall be doing an injustice, which, I think, every member of this House will sooner or later regret. Let us, if possible, avoid that condition of affairs. If these new provinces, if any part of these Territories, see fit to inflict upon themselves a system of separate schools, that is their own business-it is their own misfortune.
Sir, I have been surprised at some of the arguments addressed by hon. members on the government side of the House as a reason why these Bills in their present form should be supported by this House. Some hon. members have gone so far as to say that the passage of these Bills in one form or their defeat in another might mean the defeat of this government, that it might mean the driving from power of the right hon. gentleman himself. For my part, I think it would be a thousand times better that this government should go down to defeat, if thousand times better that the right hon. gentleman should be driven from power, than that this parliament should inflict an injustice, however small, upon these new
provinces upon this the day of their birth. The sentiment expressed in regard to the defeat of the government or the driving of the right hon. gentleman from power is a fallacious sentiment. It is cowardly, it is unpatriotic, and I hope that no hon. gentleman in this House will hide himself upon the vote on this question behind any such subterfuge as this. Since the introduction of these Bills a great change has come over some of the government supporters. It is pretty evident that the right hon. gentleman, with the cat-o'-nine tails in his hand, has been able to whip his followers into line upon this question, but I venture to think the right hon. gentleman will waken up one of these days to the fact that he cannot, with the whip in his hand, whip the Dominion of Canada into line, and I believe the people of this country will wrest that power from the right hon. gentleman and will administer such a castigation as the insincerity displayed by the right hon. gentleman in this matter so richly deserves, and as the dominating powers have brought upon him. It is a well-recognized principle of legislation in all civilized communities, and one that I have never heard questioned, that all legislation should be so directed as to do the greatest good for the greatest number, and liberty is the boasted bulwark of the British constitution. I do not believe that by such legislation as that now before us the principle I have enunciated can be maintained, nor can liberty be upheld if we are legislating for a class as against the mass, or asserting the principle of coercion as against the principle of liberty. I have taken some pains to read the constitution and the constitutional history of this country, and while I acknowledge the fact that lawyers will differ, perhaps the view of this matter that has appealed to me will be such that some hon. members or the public will be able to gain some knowledge from it. I have searched the constitution in vain to find one word, clause or paragraph that makes it incumbent upon this parliament to legislate in regard to education in these new provinces. Especially is this so in the initiatory stages of this legislation. But, Sir, I find that there is a prohibition contained in the words in the 93rd section of the British North America Act, where it says that :
The legislatures may exclusively make laws In .regard to education subject to the qualifications therein set forth.
I want to point out that while we may differ in regard to the right of this parliament to legislate upon this subject, there is no obligation upon this parliament to do so. What is the position in regard to the local legislatures ? While the constitution, so far fs this parliament is concerned, leaves it in the position of a doubtful right and imposes no obligation ; in regard to the local legislatures, there is not only an undoubted right, but an obligation, too. What would

be the duty of this parliament under those conditions ? Here is one parliament completely clothed with an authority to legislate in regard to this subject. On the other hand, this parliament, which is attempting to deal with this matter, has at most only a doubtful right, and it has uo obligation at all. It appears to me that the wise, just and fair course would be for this parliament not to interfere, but to leave it to that other legislature which has complete jurisdiction in the matter. Why is this parliament to assume a doubtful right and to impose unnecessary obligations upon itself simply for the purpose of depriving the legislatures of their undoubted right and their obligation ? I must say that I have implicit confidence in the people of these two new provinces, I have perfect confidence that they will, when the time comes elect to their local legislatures men of integrity, men of wisdom, who, when the time arrives for legislation upon this subject, will be wanting neither in courage nor in toleration to pass such legislation and enact such measures as will ensure to the whole people of those two new provinces equal rights of civil and religious liberty. Another point to which I desire to call the attention of the House is the right of appeal that is provided by the British North America Act and which is retained by this parliament. A consideration of that right of appeal will lead to the conclusion that initiative legislation in regard to educational matters was intended to begin, and should begin with the local legislatures. The constitution provides that there should be a right of appeal for the minority. What does that right of appeal mean ? Is it limited in any way ? It is not limited, because it assumes that there shall be that right of appeal where there is legislation against any right or privilege of the minority. Here we have legislation affecting a right or privilege of a minority. The right of appeal could never be intended to mean an appeal from this parliament back to this parliament again. As I understand the right of appeal, and as I think every hon. gentleman in this House will understand it, it means the right to take any matter in controversy from an inferior to a superior tribunal Now, we are enacting legislation here in these Bills affecting a right or privilege and the constitution says there shall be an appeal in regard to that right or privilege. How are the minority in the Northwest Territories going to employ the right of appeal ? Is /there any right of appeal after we pass this legislation ? There is not, because when the minority of these two provinces apply to the legislature to remedy what has been passed here and to set right what has been made wrong against their rights and privileges, they find that the local legislature has no power to deal with the question. Then they turn to this parliament. Is there a right to appeal here? This Mr. PORTER.
parliament have initiated this legislation, can they come here with any hope of having that legislation disturbed ? I think they will be coining here upon a fool's errand, so to speak, and therefore that being the case I conclude that by this legislation the greatest safeguard we have secured by the British North America Act, namely, the right to appeal against legislation concerning a right or privilege in regard to education, is entirely taken away from the minority of these provinces. For that reason I again say that an injustice will be done to the minority if this legislation is passed. In regard to that matter it has been argued here that under the ordinances of the Northwest Territories the people there have acquired certain rights which have been referred to here by hon. gentlemen dismissing the question as vested rights. I want to look at that for a few moments. Just at the outset I would ask any hon. gentleman who entertains the idea that unless these Bills are passed in the form in which they are presented to the House these vested rights are going to be swept awray to strike out of this Bill every word and every clause relating to education, then read the Bill and see if there is one wrord or sentence that prohibits the establishment of separate schools in these two provinces. He will look in vain for such. There is not a single enactment, or word, or phrase that would prohibit the establishment of separate schools. It is not so in regard to the majority. These Acts are prohibitive as far as they concern the majority these Acts say to the majority of the people in those new provinces : Thou shalt not, to use a scriptural phrase, but you shall establish a certain system of schools in spite of yourselves, no matter what your wishes or desires may be in the matter. It appears to me that it is no more necessary to have this provision in these Bills to protect the rights of the minority in these new provinces than it is to have a clause in these Bills protecting the rights of the majority- and I cannot see, in view of what I have already said as to my view of the constitution in regard to that matter, that there is any necessity for it one way or the other.
Now, let me go a step farther in regard to that. What are these rights ? Is the maintenance of separate schools in these provinces a right that has been acquired or is it a right that is to be acquired permanently ? It is an acknowledged principle of law that I think no lawyer will contradict or dispute that a right cannot be acquired against a superior right so long as there is notice and there has been no abrogation of that superior right. Now, in this particular case under discussion, we have both the notice, we have the superior rights and we have no abrogation of those rights. What are those superior rights ? First the right to erect or to create portions of the North-

west Territories into provinces, and secondly, when they are erected or created into provinces these provinces shall have the exclusive right to legislate in regard to education. These are the superior rights granted under the constitution to the people who went into those Territories. Both of these superior rights are guaranteed by the constitution. That constitution is actual notice not only to the people of Canada, but it is actual notice to the people of all the world. Any person going into the Northwest Territories with that provision of the law staring him in the face must be taken to have gone into that country consenting to the conditions therein laid down. He has full notice of what his rights are, he has full notice of what his rights will be when those Territories are created into provinces, but he has no notice as to what will take place in the interval. But when these Territories are erected into provinces he has actual notice, he has notice that the people of those provinces shall enjoy these superior rights and he knows too that unless there is an abrogation of these rights, a giving of them up. these rights shall continue. Now, having that notice and knowing what the conditions are when they are erected into provinces, what right have a portion of the people of those Territories to say that in the interval they will acquire certain vested rights which will cut out the superior rights of some of their fellow-citizens there ? The position, it appears to me, is not tenable ; it is not one that can be fairly argued. Both parties, Roman Catholics and Protestants, start in there upon a fair footing, upon an even footing, knowing exactly what the conditions are and what the conditions will be. But, there is this to be said about it, and it bears upon the discussion which has taken place upon this particular point that in the interval between the time at which these people go into the Territories and the time when they are created into provinces some provision must be made for their government and that provision that has to be made in the interval must be made by the Dominion parliament. It has sole jurisdiction as to the subject, but limited jurisdiction as to the time. These people have notice that the parliament of Canada can only legislate during the interval. This parliament, by the constitution which has been adopted, agree with these people that they will only legislate during that interval.
Now then, that being the position, this parliament starts out to legislate, to provide for the government of these Territories in the interval and what do they do ? They establish a system of administration of justice, they establish a system in regard to public works, they establish a system in regard to immigration and they establish a system in regard to education. Neither can it be argued that this government intended, or that the people of these Territories understood, that any one of these provisions should be permanent. If any one is permanent why not all ? Why does the government not make provision in these Bills for the immigration policy of these new provinces, or for the administration of justice. If the people, under this legislation which was only of a tentative character, could acquire rights in regard to any one thing, they would have acquired vested rights in regard to all, and that being so, why single out this one particular department and declare what the law shall be in regard to it, and disregard the others altogether*. Carrying, the argument that length and applying it to every department of the government that this parliament has provided for in these two new provinces, it shows the utter absurdity of the position the government has taken in regard to that one department of education. No injustice will be done to the people of these new provinces by the government taking the position that the legislation passed prior to their becoming provinces was only tentative. It appears to me that where no injustice will be done them, and where they have complete legislative powers themselves to pass legislation such as is suitable to the condition of the people of the country, it is far more fair to these people to allow them to enjoy that position than for this parliament to impose any obligation upon them. Take the Protestant denominations going into these new Territories. They knew perfectly well, and they had the constitution of Canada as security for it, that separate schools would not and could not be imposed upon that portion of the country after it was erected into a province unless the legislature of that province said so. Catholics going into that country knew, and they had the constitution as security for it, that separate schools could be and would be established in these new provinces just as soon as the local legislatures of these provinces saw fit to so enact. There was no uncertainty as to the power of this parliament; there was no uncertainty as to the power of the local legislature ; there was no uncertainty as to the rights of the people ; the only uncertainty there was, was as to what the legislatures of these new provinces would do when they had the authority placed in their hands. And to guard against any injustice being done by that uncertainty, a clause was put into the constitution providing for this right of appeal in case any rights or privilege of the minority should be violated. But by these measures now before the House, that right of appeal has been taken away and the promise made by the constitution of this country to encourage these people to go into the Northwest Territories until such time as they should be erected into provinces ; that guarantee of good faith will be entirely taken away, and these people will have such an injustice

perpetrated upon them that I firmly believe this government will In future regret it. I say that no portion of the people of these two new provinces have any right to ask this parliament, in framing a constitution for the provinces, to provide that there shall be only public or national schools ; nor have the Roman Catholics the right to ask that this parliament shall enact that they shall have the right to separate schools. And Why ? Because the constitution does not give that right to either class of people. And while the people have no right to make that demand on this parliament, this parliament is bound by the very same principle, and what the people have no right to demand from parliament, this parliament has no right to inflict upon them. I argue from that, that this legislation is not only an infraction of the constitutional rights secured to the people of these provinces, but it is placing an obligation upon this parliament which it ought not to assume. Another reason why this government should not be asked to initiate legislation on this subject is, that it would be perfectly just and competent for them to say : we may have to sit in appeal upon whatever legislation may be enacted in these new provinces, and therefore it would not be fair for us to express our opinion in legislation beforehand. If these Bills are passed the government cannot take that position, and that shows again that the right of appeal has been taken away or interfered with by this legislation. After all, the question is not whether these provinces shall or shall not have separate schools; the question is: shall this parliament interfere with the educational rights of the provinces. I concur in the opinion expressed by my honoured leader ; I venture to think that the subsequent legislation has in no manner changed the position which I have argued prevails under the British North America Act. Take the Manitoba Act of 1870 or the confirmatory Act of 1871. It may be observed that that legislation was passed under very exceptional circumstances. It was passed owing to conditions prevailing in that province at that time, and I might say passed by agreement between the people of Manitoba and this government.
Now, no such conditions as existed in that province exist in regard to these two new provinces. The right hon. leader of the government, when introducing these Bills, did not see fit to shelter himself behind the legislation of 1870 or 1871 ; and perhaps I need not trouble jvith that more than to say that the Imperial Act of 1871 appears to give unlimited power to this parliament to frame a constitution for a new province ; but while that appears to be the effect of that Act, the British North America Act was in full force at that time. Now, that confirmatory Act of 1871 makes no reference whatever to the British North America Act and it cannot be contended that there was any Mr. PORTER.
intention on the part of parliament in passing that Act that the British North America Act should be interfered with. Had there been such intention, some reference would have been made in that Act of 1871 to the British North America Act. That being so what is the position ? Here we have the constitution under the British North America Act declaring that the provinces shall have the exclusive right to legislate in regard to education ; and we have the Imperial Act of 1871, passed under these exceptional circumstances, and to meet the condition of affairs to which I have already referred, and when it could not have been intended to affect the British North America Act. Granting that these Acts are both of equal force, we have the British North America Act which says you shall give the exclusive right to legislate to these provinces and the Act of 1871 saying you may give these rights or not as you please. Granted that they are both of equal force, what is the fair position that this parliament should take ? To carry out the guarantee which these people had under the constitution, or to take advantage of the permissive right which the statute of 1871 gives them ? In the constitution it is obligatory ; in the Act of 1871 it is only permissive; and for this reason I argue that the fair course to be taken by this parliament would be to say we will observe the obligation which we have entered into with you and will not take advantage of the right we have of denying you your full right of provincial government. Now, when the Act of 1875 was passed, the Act of 1871 was in full force ; but we do not find in that Act of 1875 any reference whatever to the Act of 1871; so that that Act of 1875 could not have been based upon the right that was conferred by the Imperial Act of 1871. Such being the ease, I conclude that the statute of 1875 offers no warrant whatever for legislation such as the government is pressing through the House now.
Considerable has been said in regard to the provisions of this Bill as it was originally introduced into this House, and the amendments now under discussion, nnd I want as briefly as possible to treat that subject as it appears to me. At the time of the introduction of this Bill it must have been apparent to any person who gave attention to the matter that whoever had charge of the drafting of the original Bill must have entertained a doubt as to whether the ordinances preserved all the rights and powers that were conferred on the minority by the Territories Act of 1875, under which Act, as the late Minister of the Interior said, there grew up, and was maintained a complete system of separate schools with the dual language, or what may be known as clerical schools, or that the ordinances superseded the provisions of that Act and deprived the minority of their rights to a complete system of separate schools with the two languages. This doubt must have

resisted in the mind of the person who drafted the original clauses of this Bill, because, if we look at the Bill as originally drawn, we shall find that the objectionable clause in regard to education has identically the same language as the Act of 1875. So that it is perfectly apparent, no matter what declarations as to intention have been made in this House upon the discussion of this matter, that whoever prepared that Bill intended that all the rights and privileges accorded by the Act of 1875 should be preserved to the minority in these two new provinces ; and those rights and privileges, as the late Minister of the Interior says, included a complete system of clerical schools. Now, when dissatisfaction was expressed, and it became so great as I have already pointed out, the right hon. gentleman, no doubt seeing the impossibility of defending such a course as that, either in this parliament or before the country, introduced the amendments now under discussion. The question now arises, do these amendments improve the situation in any respect, or do they preserve to the minority in those two new provinces exactly what was aimed at by the original Bill as drafted and brought down? I have given this question a good deal of consideration, and my firm conviction is that the amendments as they stand to-day will confer upon the minority in those two new provinces just as great and as wide rights as they would have obtained under the clauses of the statute of 1875, and I will tell you why. The amendment now introduced provides, in effect, that nothing in this Act shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege conferred upon the minority by the ordinances 29, 30 and 31. Now, what does that mean? I have looked over the ordinances very carefully and can only find one section that confers any right or privilege, and that is section 41, and section 41 confers that right without any limitation .whatever. Let me refer to this section in order to be perfectly accurate :
The minority of the ratepayers in any district. whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish a separate school therein, and In such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves In respect thereof.
Compare tbe wording of that section with the wording of the Act of 1875 :
Protestants and Roman Catholics may establish separate schools therein, and in such latter case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic schools shall he liable only to such assessments of such rates as they may impose upon themselves.
That is identically the language of the ordinance I have quoted. Then comes in this amendment which says :
Nothing in the provincial law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege conferred by such ordinance.
Now the right conferred is to establish separate schools without any limitation of any kind or description, just as the statute of 1875 contained no limit or restriction, and the same rights and privileges will grow up under section 41 as grew up under the latter part of section 14 of the statute of 1875. Hon. gentlemen opposite have argued that section 41 is controlled by the subsequent sections of this ordinance. That contention, I do not think, will bear investigation. They point to section 45 as controlling, but note carefully the wording of section 45 :
After the establishment of a separate school district under the provisions of this ordinance, such separate school district and the boards thereof shall possess and exercise all rights, powers, privileges and be subject to tbe same liabilities

Not the same limitations. '

as are herein provided in respect of public
school districts.


Archibald Campbell: And methods of government.


Edward Guss Porter: And methods of government. They are subject to the same liabilities but not to the same limitations, and even if they were, section 41 would be in exact accord with the statute of 1875, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the legislative assembly, hut section 45, which cuts that down, would be ultra vires that legislature altogether. So that this amendment, as it now stands, leaves the matter in this shape that the right to establish separate schools, without limitation or restriction, as provided by section 41 of the ordinances, shall be preserved, and it will not he in the powers of the provinces to cut down or prejudically affect that right. For those reasons I have concluded that under this amendment, these two new provinces will have fixed upon them unalterably, and for all time to come, the same conditions as are enacted by the statute of 1875, which the people of the Territories have tried to get rid of ; and having shown their disposition to get rid of that system of clerical schools it seems to me the greatest injustice for this parliament to endeavour to inflict that system upon them.
But apart from the constitutional question altogether, if I had uo other reason for opposing those Bills than the fact that the introduction of this subject, which, it appears, cannot be discussed without raising the ill-feeling that has been exhibited, I am sorry to say on more than one occasion during the debate, could just as well have been avoided and the matter left to the provinces to settle for themselves-if there was no other reason for opposing this measure, I would consider that a perfect justification. But if we are not to enjoy that condition of attending to

our own affairs and allowing the provinces to attend to theirs, upon whom should the responsibility rest ? It must rest upon the right lion, the First Minister. True, his followers will have to bear a certain share of that responsibility, but to him alone must be left the responsibility of having put his followers in such a position that they are obliged to choose between serving their country or their church, between serving the right lion, gentleman or the people. Upon the question of the advisability of having a system of separate schools in any portion of this Dominion, there is fair room for differences of opinion. We can quite understand why our Roman Catholic friends desire such a system. It is quite natural that I should entertain an entirely different attitude. That I do, there cannot be very much doubt, but I want to point out this. Whether separate schools be right or wrong is not the question before us. Every man has a right to his own religious belief, and I would be the last man to interfere with it. But to observe the laws of God and make laws for good government are two entirely distinct things, and I draw that distinction in this measure. The late Dr. Ryerson, than whom perhaps the country never had a greater educationalist, made use of this language in pointing out a similar distinction :
What ought to be done in regard to religious instruction and what the government ought to require are two different things. Who doubts that public worship should be attended and family worship performed ? But does it, therefore, follow that the government is to compel attendance upon the one or the performance of the other ? If our government were a despotism it would compel what it pleased, but our government is a constitutional and popular government.
I could not express my views upon that subject more forcibly than Dr. Ryerson has expressed them. And another reason why I am opposed to this system of separate schools is that the conditions do not at present exist in this country that would warrant the establishment and maintenance of such schools. It is, to my mind, very much better, very much more in the interest of the children growing up in this country that there should be a common system, that there should be a mingling of the children that will promote the growth of a common interest and a common sentiment. It is much better that that state of affairs should exist than that we should have a condition that would produce the opposite result. Dr. Ryerson said, speaking of the establishment of separate schools:
In the earliest history of separate schools they were desired to meet peculiar circumstances or extreme cases of neighbourhoods where religious bigotry and party spirit deprived the minority of protection from injustice and oppression.


Edward Guss Porter: Now, I venture to think that no such condition of religious bigotry or party spirit exists in any portion of this country as to warrant any section of the people in asking for separate schools to protect them from injustice and oppression. These being the grounds upon which separate schools were originally established, and there being no such condition of affairs existing in this country, I argue that it is not in the best interest of the country as a whole that that system should be continued or that we should enact laws to force such a system upon these new provinces.
There is an additional reason. I put it as matter of time. When you come to look at the time devoted to secular education and tlie time allowed for religious education, what do you find? You find that in the school week of five days there is a total of thirty hours, cut down by daily recesses to say 27i hours. On the other hand, if you allow ten hours a day for sleep, you have seventy-one hours still left for religious instruction. If 27i hours is sufficient for secular education, surely 71 hours is sufficient for religious instruction. Or carry it a step further and make the comparison on the basis of a year. We find that the school year, taking out vacations and holidays, including Saturdays and Sundays, is about 1,100 hours. 'This is the time allowed in a year for secular education. And upon the same basis as before what are you allowed for religious instruction? Seven thousand hours-over six times as much time as is allowed for secular education. Booking at the fact that ninety-seven per cent of the children never get beyond the common school, and of that proportion a large number attend school for only a short time, is it not manifestly unfair that the time these young people have to prepare themselves for the battle of life should be cut down by even half an hour a day? Would it not be better that the time for secular education should even be increased rather than diminished? That is why I should say it would be an injustice to the youth to impose this system upon them. We must recognize that there is a duty resting upon the parents and pastors as well as upon the state. The state has recognized very clearly and specifically parental duty. The state, for instance, does not furnish food and clothing for the children, but that leaves that for the parents to do. So, I think, the state should recognize the duty and obligation upon the parent to provide for the religious education of the child. And if the religious education of the child is deficient or wanting in any respect the blame rests upon the parent and upon the pastor-it does not in any way, to my mind, rest upon the state. It seems to me that it would be a very bad position for this country to occupy to make itself the tax-gatherer for the church. In all countries where that has been the case we know the result. The result has been that the people have attained no efficiency in matters of education. It is

a matter of history that in the countries where such an idea has prevailed, the people have grown up in ignorance, and where there is ignorance there is a corresponding amount of slavery. We ought not to impose such conditions upon this new country in the Northwest or any portion of it. I apologize to the House for occupying so much time at this hour of the night, even though I was not allowed to postpone speaking. I shall vote against the educational clause of the Bill. I had hoped that there would have been such amendments that I should have been afforded the pleasure of voting in favour of this measure to establish autonomy for the Northwest, but under the circumstances I cannot do otherwise than vote against it, and so I shall with pleasure support the amendment of the leader of the opposition.


Mr. F. A. LAURENCE (Colchester).: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded by the clock in front of me that the night is far spent and that the patience of the members of this House has already been considerably taxed. It would be improper, therefore, for me to prolong the debate this evening beyond a very few minutes, especially as I shall have an opportunity to complete my observations when the discussion is resumed. In offering to address the House upon this subject, important as it is, I have no expectation whatever that I can contribute anything to this debate. I rather seek an opportunity to Address myself to the House for the purpose of expressing my views and giving the reasons for the vote which I shall give upon this Bill.
I do so as a duty to myself and as a duty also to the constituents whom I directly represent in this parliament. It is nothing new to say that this is a very important measure. It is important, Sir, from many considerations. It is important because it marks the period when two new provinces are to be admitted to the union of the Dominion of Canada. It is important by reason of the vast extent of those two immense territories which are to be presently erected into two provoinces as part of our Dominion. We are informed that each of these provinces will comprise no less an area than 275,000 square miles. The mind of man almost fails to grasp the significance, the vastness, the greatness of these figures. We can only faintly do so, Sir, by comparison, and I may be permitted to say that each of these provinces will be nearly six times as large as the great state of New York, with its population of seven and a quarter millions ; each of them will be five times as great in point of area as the large state of Illinois, with its population of 5,000,000 ; each will be six times as large as the large state of Pennsylvania, with its population of six and a half millions ; each of them will be seven times as large as the large state of Indiana, with its population of two and a half millions. In point of fact, each of them is larger in area than the
states of Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Delaware and New Jersey, all combined together. Each of them is twice as large as England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, with their immense population of 42,000,000 people ; each of them is much greater than the German empire in Europe, with its population of 56,750,000 ; each of them is greater far than the republic of France in Europe, with its population of 39.000,000. By a simple comparison of that kind we are enabled to realize the immensity of the heritage which we as Canadians have in our great Northwest. This Bill deals, among other things, with the question of the public lands of these provinces. It proposes to leave them vested in the Dominion, as they are now and have been vested since they were acquired. For myself, I entirely concur with the arguments which were addressed to this House in favour of the proposition that the Dominion of Canada should administer those public lands. I realize, and I am sure every member of the House must realize, the importance of a vigorous, strong and national policy of immigration, in order that this country may grow and prosper. That policy of immigration, Sir, 1 think ought to be administered by the central authority of our country. Uniformity in the regulations with respect to immigration, uniformity in the price of lands and the conditions and regulations upon which settlers shall be invited to come into this country, is of the highest importance. We cannot permit one province to have regulations and prices and conditions of settlement of its own, inconsistent and at variance with the conditions and regulations and prices of another province. We must have system and uniformity in connection with these things. We must have a progressive policy, such a policy as we have had in the past, under which it is the proud boast of Canadians that our country is growing and prospering so well.
This Bill deals with another question, perhaps not more important, although one would judge by the discussion that has taken place here during the last six weeks, that it is at least quite as interesting-the question of education. This Bill is intended to settle the question of education in the new provinces by making the system now existing there part of the constitution of these provinces. That constitution is as prescribed in the British North America Act, save as to education, and the provisions with regard to education are in entire harmony and consistent with the principles, the spirit, the genius and the intention of the British North America Act. In fixing the constitution of an incoming province, we certainly have not plenary or absolute powers as to jurisdiction. We may not and we cannot disturb the arrangement of these jurisdictional matters prescribed by the British North America Act. We cannot, for example, commit to the provinces the regu-

lation of trade and commerce, or the right to legislate with respect to indirect taxation, nor can we give them control over the postal service, the military and naval defence of the country, currency or coinage, or the criminal law ; as defined in section 91, all of which are committed to the federal parliament. Nor can we, upon the other hand, usurp to ourselves in this parliament the right to legislate upon the subject of direct taxation within the provinces, or in respect to any other of those subjects which are exclusively and especially committed to the provincial legislatures by section 92 of the British North America Act. We have no such thing, as I understand it as absolute and unlimited power in regard to legislation upon the subject of education, either in this parliament or in any provincial legislature of this Dominion. A province may have an absolutely free and non-sectarian system of schools when it enters the union. It may change that system to a denominational system, but, that being once done, it can never change back again without violating the constitution and prejudicially affecting, as it is said, the rights of the minority and giving that minor ity the right of redress at the hands of this parliament. A province may have a sectarian system of education when it enters the union, and if thereunder the rights of the minority are secured by law, that system can never be altered under our constitution. I think it may be assumed then, in dealing with education, that we have a qualified power, not, however, inconsistent with or contrary to the British North America Act. We have a pregnant illustration of this in the case of Manitoba. The Act of 1870, which admitted that territory as a province into the Dominion of Canada, in respect of education, in a material and important sense varied the conditions and principles of one subsection of section 93 of the British North America Act by incorporating therein the words, ' or practice.' These words have an important signification taken in connection with the history and particularly the constitutional history respecting the province of Manitoba. These words are important considered in the light of the two cases, namely, the city of Winnipeg vs. Barrett, in 189], and Brophy vs. the Attorney General of Manitoba in 1894. These two cases really comprise the constitutional history of the struggle which went on with all its irritation, all its disturbing aspects and phrases and uncomfortable conditions during these years in the history of our Dominion. The system of education in 1870 in Manitoba was a purely denominational or church system and the schools were maintained wholly by voluntary contributions made up from the fees of the parents of the children and of the respective churches interested in these schools. None of these schools was established by law at that time, yet, Sir, so anxious was this par-Mr. LAURENCE.
liament to preserve, continue and perpetuate that system in that province that the words ' or practice ' were inserted in the Act by which the province of Manitoba was admitted to tlie union. Not only was the minority guaranteed by the Act which admitted Manitoba to the Dominion of Canada as a province, any sectarian or denominational system of schools which they then had by law, but they were guaranteed the continuance of any system that they might have had by practice, so anxious, I say, was the parliament of Canada to preserve the condition of things which existed at the time that Manitoba was brought in, which shows to my mind the jealous anxiety of this parliament to preserve and perpetuate the system of education that was existing in that country not only by law but by practice. The debates, such as we have of that period, show that this school question was wholly overshadowed by other considerations of more importance, but, Sir, the school question provoked little or no discussion, little or no opposition from any quarter or from either side of the House. While this parliament in the exercise of its right was perpetuating to the people of Manitoba the denominational system of schools which they had when they came into the union, not a voice was raised against the adoption of that principle then, no dissent, no objection whatever, and I apprehend that every man who participated in that debate and who participated in the formation of that province believed that he was carrying out the snirit and true intention of the British North America Act. In 1867, the Roman Catholics of the province of Ontario, then Upper Canada, had a system of separate schools and the Protestants of Lower Canadati at the time of confederation, insisted upon having the same principle incorporated into the compact of confederation. Some persons associate the term 'separate schools' with the idea of Roman Catholic schools. It is a mistake, Sir, to so confound the notion of separate schools with the Roman Catholics of this country. Looking at the institution of separate schools from the point of view of the British North America Act it will be seen that they are distinctly and emphatically Protestant schools because it was by the persistence of the Protestants and tlie representation of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec that the very principle now under discussion in this parliament of the right of the minority to enjoy these schools was incorporated in the Confederation Act. This is no reproach, Sir, to the Protestants and it comes as no shock to me as one of that persuasion to know that it is the case, for I regard it as an expression of a sentiment indicative of liberality, tolerance and respect for the religious convictions of those who cannot agree with us and who caunot see eye to eye with their neighbour. It is the expression (Sir, in a word of the golden maxim, ' Do

unto others as we would have others do unto us.' The Protestants are the majority in this Dominion and the Roman Catholics the minority. Let it never be said to the disgrace, the discredit and the shame of the majority that they only respect this principle when it works to their advantage, and that they are unwilling to admit its operation when it is sought by others.
I was referring, Mr. Speaker, to the history of this question in relation to Manitoba. In 1870, there existed in Manitoba a system of purely voluntary schools. They were entirely denominational, some maintained by the Roman Catholics and some by the Protestants, but all supported by fees paid by the parents of the children who attended them and by the several churches to which these schools appertained. One short year after the creation of the province in 1871, a law was passed by Manitoba establishing a system of denominational schools. A Board of Education composed of two sections was constituted, one-half Protestants and one-half Roman Catholics and the province was divided into twelve Protestant districts and twelve Catholic districts. Nothing could be fairer than this equal division as between the two denominations. This system was maintained until 1890 when the policy of the preceding nineteen years was reversed and the denominational system of schools swept away. The Public Schools Act of 1890 provided that all schools be free schools, all were declared non-sectarian and no school not conforming to this Act and to the regulations of the Department of Education could participate in state funds. Such was the legislation down to 1890. In 1S91, the minority, chafing under this condition had recourse to the courts and to litigation and we have then the irritation, the agitation, the painful disquiet which has lasted in this country during six long years down to 1896. I am reminded that I am already trespassing upon the promise I made and if agreeable to the House and if I am in order I will move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 1.15 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 18, 1905.