1912-03-05

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Borden for the second reading of Bill No. 115, to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba.
Mr. GEORGE H. BRADBURY (Selkirk).: Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is not a new one. It has been before the country for a number of years; it has been before this House and has been discussed at some length: it is a question in which the province of Manitoba is vitally interested. And it is a question that has been played with by the late government. That government practically penalized the province of Manitoba for years and refused to place the province on an equality with the sister provinces of the west. And now, when the right hon. leader of this government (Mr. Boi'den) brings in a Bill for the purpose of doing common, everyday justice to the province of Manitoba and to implement the pledge that he gave to the people of that province, we find the right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) doing all that he can to frustrate this government in thus doing justice to that province. And it is strange to realize that the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House do not even agree in their opinion upon this proposed measure. The leader of the opposition takes the ground that the proposed Bill deals too generously with Manitoba, while the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), the former Minister of the Interior takes the ground that Manitoba is not to be a gainer but is to be a loser under this proposed arrangement. It is very hard to reconcile the opinions of these two hon. gentlemen who sat side by side in the Cabinet for a number of years when justice was denied to the province of Manitoba.
I shall not detain the House at any length, but I wish to refer to a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for
Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) in dealing with the Bill before the House. That hon. gentleman performed some strange feats of argumentative gymnastics when dealing with the figures relating to the swamp lairds in Manitoba. He stated that Manitoba had
8.000.	000 acres of these lands that would be transferred back to the Dominion if this Bill went through. And he assumes that these lands had a value of $3 an acre, and said, in view of that fact, that the province of Manitoba was handing back something like $24,000,000 worth of lands. But he was forced to admit that when he claimed that these swamp lands had an area of
8.000.	000 acres, it was only an estimate. As against this, we have the estimate of the late Mr. Young, who was well known as the chief geographer of the Department of the Interior. Mr. Young had the facts before him, I .presume, when he made this estimate. And this is his statement:-
The unsurveyed area in the province of Manitoba is estimated at .12,900,000 acres. This is largely unexplored. It is thought that 30 per cent, (4,870.000 acres) may be swamp. This land will be of considerable less value than the swamp lands already referred to.
This is the estimate of a man competent to make an estimate if any man was; and he reached the conclusion that less than
5.000.	000 acres of swamp lands are at present held by Manitoba available to go back to the Dominion in case this Bill goes through. Again, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) estimated that, because the swamp lands already disposed of by the province had netted the provincial government something like $3 an acre, the remaining swamp lands were of equal value. But, there is no man in this House who knows better than the hon. gentleman himself that the swamp lands in Manitoba that have already been sold were picked lands, lands lying adjacent to settlements and to railways, and consequently of more value than the swamp lands still remaining in the possession of the province. Ninety per cent of the lands that were sold were prairie lands. I think it safe to say that 95 per cent of the remaining swamp lands of Manitoba are practically bush lands, and any hon. gentleman who knows anything about the bush swamp in Manitoba, can have some idea of the comparative value of the bush swamp area and the prairie swamp area. In my own county there is a large area of that kind of land." Some of it has been drained and cleared, and the men who have done this, estimate that it cost them from $15 to $25 an acre to clear and drain it. So, it is safe to say that when the hon. gentleman estimates that the swamp lands remaining in the possession of Manitoba are worth $3 an acre he very much overestimates the value of these lands.

Another statement that the hon. gentleman made and that was in keeping with a great many statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite dealing with this question, was that these lands were never sold in competition but were sold by private sale; and he gave that as a reason why the lands had not brought higher prices. This statement he made in face of the fact that while he himself was Minister of the Interior large tracts of school lands were sold throughout the province of Manitoba by public auction, or so called public auction, and yet the swamp lands sold by the province of Manitoba realized as large a price as the school lands-which were supposed to be good lands, some of them first-class lands -realized in the sales as carried on under the direction of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver).


Mr. OLIVER.: - May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bradbury) to give the figures upon which he bases that statement. I think the House would be glad of that information.


George Henry Bradbury: I have not the figures at hand. But I am satisfied that when the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers) takes the opportunity to reply he will give the figures. He made the statement yesterday-and I have seen similar statements in the Manitoba papers and reported as having been made in the legislature by the Premier of Manitoba and others-that the swamp lands of Manitoba had realized as good a price as the school lands sold by the late government by competition, so called. Under the late Dominion government peculiar methods of conducting the auction were followed. One was this:	If in a given
district some of their friends wanted a particular piece of land, some person attended the auction who would bid the land away up above its value, and then would fail to deposit his cheque for 10 per cent as was necessary in order to make the sale binding. This land was supposed to be sold, every man present in the office supposed this tract of land was sold to Mr. So-and-So, to Mr. Smith, we will suppose, who was bidding on it, and the consequence was that the auctioneer in settling up would find that the land was not sold at all. We had evidence of this thing in Manitoba on different occasions, and the friends of the government got the land at their own price.
I wish to say in	reply to the
charge made by the ex-Minister of the Interior that the swamp lands of Manitoba never having been advertised, that there was one large area that I remember something like 200,000 acres, in the year 1905 or 1906, it was advertised in To-Mr. BRADBURY
ronto, Ottawa and Montreal papers and in American papers for thirty days. That land was situated in my own county and the highest bid that the provincial government received at that time was 52 cents an acre. Now, Sir, knowing the land as I do I did not wonder at it because I did not consider it was worth any more. I want to say right here that knowing the bush swamp land of Manitoba as I do there are hundreds of thousands of acres of it that would be dear if the government gave it as a gift to any one who would undertake to drain it, clear it and put it in shape for cultivation. And still my hon. friend tries to make out that the province of Manitoba is losing by this proposed settlement. Who is to he the judge? Is it the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, who knows very little about the province of Manitoba, and I am bound to say cares less, ot is it the late Minister of the Interior who is a resident of another province and who has been cheated in a princely fashion by the late government of which he was a member, or is it the people themselves who live in the province of Manitoba? I have an editorial here from the Winnipeg * .Tribune,' a paper that supported (the right hon. gentleman for many years, that supported his candidates in every constituency at the last campaign and did all that was' possible to defeat the Conservative candidates in every riding of this Dominion. Here is what the Winnipeg 'Tribune' says:
Thursday, February 29.-So far as we can
see at present Manitoba is to be congratulated upon the terms embodied in the Bill which Premier Borden lias introduced to define the boundaries of this province. Especially are our people to be congratulated upon the financial terms to be accorded to this province.
And this, Mr. Speaker, is. what my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) tries to convince this House is unfair and inadequate to the province of Manitoba, while the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition takes the opposite tack and claims that the terms .are altogether too generous tor Manitoba. The article goes on to say:
Mr. Roblin has maintained a long and strenuous battle for terms of equality with Alberta and Saskatchewan and his final victory entitles him to the thanks of the people of this province. The new financial terms make a splendid addition to the income of this province. The argument against the increase advanced by Sir Wilfrid the other day is scarcely worthy of him. The fact that Manitoba has gone along for forty years on a niggardly subsidy, while her more favoured and recently launched sisters, Saskatchewan and Aiiberta, were accorded princely terms, should be regarded as an irresistible argument in favour of according to Manitoba justice, even if belated. Sir Wilfrid takes tbe other view for what reason it is difficult to conceive, except it be due to a prejudice against

the postage stamp province which the ex-premier has long been suspected of harbouring.
Meantime Premier Roblin and his government and the people of Manitoba are to be congratulated upon the settlement that has been secured.
Now, Mr. Speaker, who is in a better position to speak for the people of Manitoba? The Winnipeg ' Tribune,' an organ of the late government, a paper that championed the cause	of the hon.
member for Edmonton and his leader, which has the honesty and the fairness to come out and congratulate the Premier of this Dominion and the Premier of Manitoba on this magnificent settlement that has been effected. But we have other witnesses? Take the local legislature now sitting in Winnipeg. Every hon. gentleman knows that for years the local legislature has been unanimous in demanding that the province of Manitoba be placed on an equality with her sister provinces. A few days ago a member of that House, Mr. D. A. Ross, the member for 'Springfield, was asked his opinion of the action of the right hon. leader of the opposition in this parliament regarding the boundary question, and he made this statement:
Mr. Ross said only snatches of Sir Wilfrid's views had been published, but he declared that as far as the ex-Premicr's reported stand of Manitoba-getting-too-much was concerned, he was not favourable.
Mr. Ross hesitated. He said only bits of Sir Wilfrid's speech had been published, and he was eager to express an opinion. If it was true, however, that Sir Wilfrid begrudged Manitoba the money, as retroactively speaking, he is reported to have done, well then Mr. Ross said, he is most certainly opposed to that phase of the ex-Premier's stand.
Mr. Ross is a Liberal member of the local legislature, I might say one of the strongest Liberals in Manitoba, and one of the most ardent supporters of the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition in this House. Another reference was made by another member, Mr. Molloy, M.P.P., a bright young man, Who said on the boundary question:
On the boundary question, he said that Manitoba was being sold out by the arrangement made with the Dominion government. He held that they should have been allowed to retain control of the swamp lands, and that the compensation offered was not sufficient to recompense them. The speaker based his argument in regard to the area of the swamp lands on figures given by the late Minister of the Interior, Prank Oliver.
The Premier, intervening, said that Mr. Oliver at that time had simply been playing a game of politics. He (the Premier) had seen Sir Wilfrid Laurier officially immediately afterwards, and the then Premier of the Dominion had told him that the statements of Mr. Oliver were absolutely untrue.
Now I do not wonder that the right hon. gentleman made that statement in face of the facts laid before this House by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, when he read to this House a statement which I have just read by Mr. Young and which shows that the swamp lands even at the biggest estimate, comprise less than 5,000,000 acres. Still my hon. friend Taised the estimate up to 8,000,000 acres, to suit his argument, and to make it appear that Manitoba was losing a great deal by this transaction.
There was a piece of swamp land sold in the province of Manitoba, and it was sold by public competition as every acre of swamp land has been sold in Manitoba during the past ten years. Books have been opened, provincial valuators have been put over the land, and an upset price put on each parcel, and any man, the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), for instance, could have walked into the office and' bought any of the land that he wanted to buy as hundreds of his Liberal friends did. There was one piece which especially interested Mr. Edward Brown. The hon. gentdeman knows bo whom I refer, and he knows Mr. Brown is not a Conservative. He is the ex-leader of the Liberal party of Manitoba. There was a large area of land offered for sale, and Mr. Brown put his valuator over that land. The upset price of the government was $2.60 an acre. The valuator came back and advised Mr. Brown that the valuation was too high. The consequence was that Mr. Brown refused to pa}' $2.60 an acre for the land, but Mr. Brown had the opportunity like any other Liberal in the country. But the truth is, that it would pay the country to give a clear title to much of this swamp lands on condition that they were properly drained.	It does seem strange, just
on the eve of everyday, common justice being done to the province of Manitoba, that the right hon. leader of the opposition, and1 his friends, should take the position they are taking at the present time. Instead of assisting the government in settling this question, and allaying the irritation that exists in Manitoba on account of the unfair manner in which they have been treated for years by the late administration, we find these hon. gentlemen arraying one province against another, and trying to incite the jealousy of the lower provinces, and of Ontario as against Manitoba. I hold that this is an unworthy position for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to take. If this country is to prosper, and be what it ought to be, a great and prosperous nation, it must be by the united efforts of both parties to unite our different provinces, and unite our people from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When



my right lion, friend the leader of the government, is attempting to implement the pledge which he gave to the province of Manitoba, brings in this Bill for the purpose of d'oing justice, and of placing Manitoba on an equality with the two western provinces, it is hard to understand the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in opposing that proposition. We, who have lived in that province during the last thirty years, realising that Manitoba is the pioneer province which has blazed the way for the great provinces that have sprung up to the west of us, feel the unfair and harsh treatment that we have received from the Liberal party in this province during the last eight or ten years. Manitoba has been penalized. Why? Because the Conservative party rose equal to the occasion ana turned the rottenest government that ever existed in Manitoba out of power, and placed a Conservative government in power. Ever since that day the Liberals in Ottawa led by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) have penalized that province and have refused to do it simple, everyday justice. In conclusion, I want to congratulate my right hon. friend the leader of the government upon bringing this Bill in to do for the province what he promised, to give to the province an equality in the great family of provinces, and to place Manitoba in the position which she ought to have occupied years ago.


Rt.   H@: Mr. Speaker, during the last campaign which terminated on the 21st of September, everybody will remember that loud and many were the promises that, if the Conservative party were to be victorious in the contest, the long-pending controversy over the Manitoba boundaries would be settled to the satisfaction of Manitoba, and the whole of the Dominion. Loud and many were the promises that as soon as a Conservative administration had been installed in Ottawa, Manitoba would cease to be a postage stamp on the map. They were victorious, and now the attempt is being made in this Bill to implement the pledge which was made, not only to the people of Manitoba, but to the people of the whole Dominion. This is a sample of the manner, I suppose, in which the different pledges of the present government are to be implemented. Manitoba, forsooth, by the terms of this Bill and of the order in council to which I shall have to refer also, gets an increase of its boundaries, but there is a stigma placed upon the territory which has been added to it. Manitoba is granted financial terms which no one begrudges because they are large, but which we oppose because they are unfair to the rest of the Dominion. Let me remind the Mr. BRADBURY.
House, thgt when parliament was dissolved at the end of July last, there were upon the journals of the House resolutions adopted as far back as the month of July, 1908 whereby it had been declared expedient by this House that the boundaries of the province should be extended northerly up to the 60th parallel of latitude, and easterly to the 89th degree of longitude. The resolutions also declared that it was expedient that in the added territory which was given to Manitoba, there should be granted to to the province an allowance in money to be a fair equivalent for the land included in that extent of territory. It may not be out of place that I should quote this part of the resolutions:
That whereas notwithstanding the extension of territory above described, the ungranted lands of the Crown in the territory so to be added to the said province will still continue to be administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of the Dominion : and the said province will not have the public lands as a source of revenue.
It is just and equitable to recognize the increased cost of civil government which such extension of territory will occasion to the province, and in view of the premises, to make to the said province an increased allowance by money payment, the amount of which should be the subject of negotiation between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba.
When parliament was dissolved everybody in Canada knew that uron these resolutions there had been extensive negotiations between the then government of Canada and the government of Manitoba. We had offered to the province of Manitoba an extension of territory such as is described in these resolutions northerly to the 60th parallel of latitude and easterly to the 89th degree of longitude, but the government of Manitoba demurred to these terms, and claimed a very extensive territory indeed- much more than we thought it would be fair to give them. It was only after thrice repeated negotiations that finally, in the month of March last, the province of Manitoba agreed to accept the boundaries which we had tendered them, and which are now embodied in the Bill before the House.
As to the financial terms, we offered what we thought were fair and reasonable terms to the province of Manitoba in lieu of the lands which were to remain in the Dominion, but the province of Manitoba insisted upon negotiating on an altogether different basis. That is to say, the province of Manitoba was not satisfied with simply having compensation for the lands which were included in the territory which was to be added to its then existing area, but insisted on having an allowance for all the lands comprised in her present and future limits, not only upon the
140,000	square miles or thereabouts which

are to be given her under this Bill, but upon the 70,000 square miles which constitute her present territory. Upon that basis we could not negotiate and that was the line of cleavage between us and the government of Manitoba when parliament was dissolved. When the present government was organized, Mr. Roblin, the Premier of Manitoba, accompanied by Mr. Campbell, his Attorney-General, came to interview the Cabinet. They presentied their claims and they stated they would be satisfied, as they had declared in the course of the year 1911, to accept the boundaries which had been defined in the resolution of July, 1908, but they insisted also, as they insisted with us, on having financial terms given to them, not based upon the extended territory alone, but based upon the whole territory of the province. They concluded their claim in the following language:
We, therefore, most humbly pray and request Your Excellency and your advisers to take such action respecting all and singular the terms as shall give every effect to the extension of the boundaries of the province in accordance with the proposal of the House of Commons contained in a resolution adopted on the 13th of July, 1908, and upon terms of equality with either the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta or the provinces of Ontario or Quebec, or upon such other terms or further terms as may be agreed upon between the federal authorities and the legislature of this province.
We understood, from the public press, that Mr. Roblin received audience and was admitted to the Council Chamber to plead his case. And, after that, we are informed by the declaration of Mr. Roblin himself that he carried every point; that he got everything he had asked for; that he was given the boundaries which we had agreed to give him, and that he was given the financial terms which we thought could not be given. At all events, when Mr. Roblin left Ottawa on that occasion, he was quite exultant and jubilant. So jubilant was he that he had to pour out all over the land the echoes of the joy which filled him and which if pent up would have torn his bosom. He proclaimed his joy and his triumph from the housetops and from the street corners. He buttonholed every reporter that came within speaking distance, and told him all he had achieved. But, unfortunately, Mr. Roblin crowed too soon and his crowing was his undoing, for his boasting aroused from his slumbers Sir James Whitney, the Premier of Ontario. Mr. Roblin in the excess of his joy, interviewed, before he left Ottawa, the reporter of the ' Evening Journal,' and on the 21st of November the 'Evening Journal' thus gives the conversation it had had with Mr. Roblin:
Before leaving for the west last night Premier Roblin of Manitoba made the definite statement that as a result of conferences held here during the last few days a basis of settlement of the Manitoba boundary question had been arrived at. The new boundaries of the province as fixed by the Laurier government and as agreed to by the Manitoba government, have been accepted, but the terms of financial assistance to be given to Manitoba have been varied.
The amount of additional subsidy which Manitoba will receive has not been announced, but it is satisfactory to Premier Roblin arid Attorney General Campbell, who have carried on the negotiations with Premier Borden and his colleagues.	.	,
The Federal government will this session introduce a Bill providing for the settlement, and it will doubtless be concurred in by the Manitoba legislature. The settlement, _ it is said, will put Manitoba on an equality in regard to financial terms with Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Premier Roblin said that now that Manitoba was to come into its own and be extended to the shores of Hudson bay, the provincial government would take steps to open up the hinterland and secure all data in regard to the country with a view to the future development of its resources.
From Ottawa, Mr. Roblin went to Toronto, and in Toronto it was natural for him to go to the office of the 'Mail and Empire,' and the ' Mail and Empire ' gave out, on the 22nd of November, the confidences he had poured into its ears in the following paragraph:


Hon.  R. P.@: Roblin and Hon. Colin Campbell. of Manitoba, go back to Winnipeg to-day having settled the vexed question of the provincial boundaries.
Premier Rbblin anounced to-day that the-agreement arrived at with the Federal government provided for territorial extension north and east, as laid down in the proposal of the late government.
The financial settlement which the Laurier government refused to make has been conceded bv the Borden ministry, Manitoba, in respect to the added territory being placed on exactly the same financial footing as the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. This involves a subsidy from the Federal treasury in lieu of the public lands, the whole arrangement being in accord with the expressed wish of the Manitoba legislature. Fort Churchill on Hudson bay thus becomes a Manitoba port.
Mr. Roblin stated tliat a Bill will be probably introduced in parliament giving effect to this settlement this session. He said that on his return to Manitoba he will set to work on a policy of development of the new north country providing transportation facilities, &c.
And from the ' Mail and Empire ' office Mr. Roblin went to the ' News ' office and the ' News ' gave the tenor of the conversation it had with him on the 21st in the following language:
Hon. Mr. Roblin, Premier of Manitoba, who arrived from Ottawa, stated to the ' News '

this afternoon, that through an arrangement with the Federal government the province of Manitoba would have its annual subsidy increased from $200,000 to about $400,000.
' Are you satisfied with the boundary settlement of Manitoba/ he was asked?
' Absolutely/ he replied, it was practically all we asked; Manitoba will henceforth enjoy equality with the other provinces which it has heretofore been denied.'
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Roblin spoke too soon. He awoke Sir James Whitney and when Sir James Whitney saw that Churchill was to become a Manitoba port, Sir James Whitney came down to Ottawa and asked fair or foul that Churchill must belong to Ontario, and then everything was upset. Then the ministerial papers were told that they had to sing another tune, not the tune of the success of Manitoba and of the triumph of Mr. Roblin, but that Manitoba and Ontario had to agree together before any settlement was made. The Ottawa ' Journal ' on the 24th of November, contained the following:
Tbs Manitoba boundary question lias not yet been settled; it will not be until the claims of Ontario are heard and given that full consideration which their importance demands.
This statement was made to-day by one of the Ontario Cabinet ministers.
' Despite the reports sent out from Ottawa purporting to be official or semi-official, to the effect that this important question had been disposed of, and that in the solution the rights of Ontario were disregarded, you can authoritatively state that such is not the case. He said. "'The government simply discussed the matter with Premier Roblin, but as yet the reported concessions have not been granted.'
Following this tug-of-war between these doughty champions, Sir James Whitney on the one side and Mr. Roblin on the other, there were marches and counter-marches, manoeuvring in one direction and another, secret expeditions from Ottawa to Winnipeg and back to Ottawa again, secret expeditions from Ottawa to Toronto and back to Ottawa again. Mr. Roblin insisted that Churchill and Nelson should belong to Manitoba; Sir James Whitney insisted that, fair or foul, Ontario was bound to have both Churchill and Nelson. And so on, for three long months or thereabouts, these negotiations went on, until the whole affair was patched up in the shape of the hybrid conception which we now have in this Bill and the order in council giving to Manitoba the sovereignty without the land, and to Ontario the land without the sovereignty. And this is what they call justice to the province of Manitoba; this is what they call equality with Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Let us go a little further into this mystery. Let me quote now the order in council which is to accompany the present Bill,


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Before discussing a subject of great public interest now under the consideration of parliament, I desire to touch upon certain questions of paramount importance to the people of tEe west. To-day in Canada six provinces enjoy the right to control and administer the public lands, mines, minerals and other natural resources within their boundaries. That right is not enjoyed by the three prairie provinces. The Liberal-Conservative party since .1902 has firmly asserted and maintained the rights of these three provinces to their public domain. We stand for that right to-day and we will maintain it. The public lands, and natural resources are vested in the Crown, to be administered for the 'benefit of the people. In six provinces the Crown, in dealing with the ipu'blio domain acts upon the advice of the provincial ministers and under laws enacted by the provincial legislatures. In the three prairie provinces the Crown in dealing with such lands acts upon the advice of the federal ministers and under laws enacted by the federal parliament. Why should there be any such discrimination against the people of these three provinces? The day is not far distant when Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will receive from a Liberal-Conservative government at Ottawa the just recognition of their undoubted right to their public lands and natural resources.
' There is a Conservative administration in Ottawa to-day and it is dealing with that province, not however, by giving the lands to that province.
Then at Brandon my right hon. friend spoke in these words:
In 1902, in 1905, in 1907, and again in 1910, we have stood for the right of the western provinces to own and control their public domain. It is the right of the people of those provinces to have their public lands and natural resources administered by their own governments under the control of their own legislatures. They say that they are free men and being free men in a free country have as good a right to control through their own local legislatures, and by their own provincial executives, the administration of their public lands and natural resources as have the people of any of the eastern provinces who enjoy and have enjoyed * that right. The Liberal-Conservative party supports that claim and will enforce it at the first opportunity.
Will enforce it at the first opportunity ! Is there not the opportunity here to do so? What prevents my right hon. friend from carrying out the promises which he made to the people of Brandon and the people of Winnipeg and the people of the whole province of Manitoba, in Manitoba?. My right hon. friend had the opportunity to do so, but has deferred doing so. What reasons he has for this course I do not know, tout I know one thing, and the statement was cheered a moment ago that the opportunity would come for him to do so, I know one thing that whenever my right hon. friend attempts to carry out the promises he made to the people of those provinces Sir WILFRID LAURIER,
and to give back to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, their public lands, he will find in his path the same lions which he finds to-day and which make him recoil from his position and force him to go back upon his promise.
That is very significant, but there is something which is perhaps more significant than what has been said by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not the only one who has spoken in grandiloquent terms upon this question. My hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Roche) in a speech delivered in 1906 on this question, on a motion made by Mr. Lake, then member for Qu'Appelle, on the question of the coal strike, said:-
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) has spoken about the humiliating position in which our country has been placed. In the first place I claim it was a humiliating position in which to place those new provinces to withhold from their hands the control of their own public lands. Had the rights of the people of those provinces been fought for as they should have been fought for by hon. gentlemen supporting the government, the provinces would have control over their lands to-day, and the provinces would have been able to grapple with their own coal strike without calling on the federal government for relief.
It was a humiliation to the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta that their own public lands were not given to them. If it- was a humiliation for Saskatchewan and Alberta, how are we to characterize the deeper humiliation of Manitoba whose lands are given, not to Manitoba, but to another province, the province of Ontario? I have only to say that, in my humble judgment, the position taken in this respect, by Manitoba and by the government of Canada in relation to Manitoba is poor business, politics, and still poorer statesmanship.
Wtih regard to the financial terms given to the province of Manitoba, I have not much to say beyond what has been said by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). I do not begrudge at all the money which under the terms is given to the province of Manitoba. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) stated that 1 had been the enemy of Manitoba. Why should I be the enemy of Manitoba? I am a Canadian, and look upon this question as a Canadian. And, as a Canadian, and a representative of the people,
1 am bound to regard it not merely from the standpoint of the extension of Manitoba's boundaries, but from the standpoint of the stewardship which I, like the hon. zentleman and every other member of this House, owe to the people of Canada. So far as I am concerned, Manitoba is welcome to the money. But I have serious objection to the principle upon which this money is to be given to Manitoba. It. is

not to the giving of the money, nor to the sum, high as it is, that we take exception; but I say without hesitation, that the principle involved in this Bill cannot be defended before any audience outside of the province of Manitoba. Nay, it cannot .be defended, even in Manitoba. Manitoba is following the example so often given of trying to secure special terms from the Dominion, and it is a rather ungracious task to fight against the province of Manitoba getting more money than she is now receiving from the Federal Treasury. But I have this to say to my hon. friend from Selkirk, that the question is higher than the mere question of money. We stated in 1908, when we introduced the resolution now partly implemented by the present government, for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, that, so far as this territory was concerned, as the addition to the province would involve a greater expenditure on the part of the provincial government, it would be fair, as Manitoba was not getting the lands, that she should get the equivalent of those lands. But that is not what is done to-day. It is not an equivalent for the land of this territory that the present government has agreed to, but this government undertakes to review the whole financial terms of Manitoba, a province which has existed for more than thirty years, and to give new terms, new facilities, new subsidies to that province over that which she has enjoyed for many years past. Is there any justification to this? What justification can there be for such an attitude? This provision to give more money to the province of Manitoba over the subsidy which she now receives from the Federal Treasury is in no way a corollary of the extension of the boundaries in Manitoba. Whether the boundaries are extended or not does not affect this question. Manitoba can always come here, if she chooses, to ask for better terms. But there is a limit to this thing. There is a parity amongst the provinces, and there is no reason in the world why one province should be better treated than another. But since the principle is admitted by the present government of treating with Manitoba on a basis which was not the basis of the resolution of 1908, since the principle is admitted that better terms should be given to the province of Manitoba, because of what she is now receiving for the cost of the administration in the province, I should have supposed1 that the most natural way would have been for the present government to give Manitoba lands and not money. I believe Manitoba preferred to have the lands, and no one knows it better than my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers). Again and again the province of Manitoba through its legislature, expressed its preference, in the arrangement of the matter
which we are now considering, to have lands and not money. Why were not the lands given? Why were not the promises made by the Prime Minister to the people of Manitoba not twelve months ago-hardly eight months ago-why were they not implemented? It was his policy, a policy for which he has fought for years. He proclaimed that policy from one end1 of the Dominion to the other. He has the majority; every one behind him was ready to vote to give the lands to Manitoba. And yet, it is not lands but money that he is giving to Manitoba. What the reason can be I do not know. But one thing I do know, and that is that the question is not so simple for the right hon. gentleman now that he bears the responsibilities of government, as it was when he sat on this side without responsibility. It was easy to say:	We will
give the lands. And, for my part, so far as concerns those lands which are not prairie lands, I see no difficulty at all in giving them to-the province. My objection to handing over the prairie lands is that these lands are the basis of our policy of immigration, and it has always seemed to be right that we should retain that basis of our policy in our own hands. I do not know hut that my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden), may have come to the conclusion^ now that he has the responsibilities of office, now that he must be responsible for what he does, now that the difficulties which we saw when in office, but which he ignored, loom up so large and so dark before him, that he must recall his oft-proclaimed policy and declare that he will not give the lands, but will give the money instead of the lands. With regard to the compensation in money, whether the province of Manitoba receives less or receives more, for my part I am not very much concerned. If she receives more, she is welcome to it; if she receives less* that is her business. The question is not there, the question is in the constitutional difficulty. What Teason can be given for changing the allowance for debt which was given in 1885, to the province of Manitoba? What reason can oe urged in behalf of Manitoba that cannot be urged also on behalf of every other province in the Dominion? I listened yesterday with great attention to the argument on this point presented by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meig'hen). As usual, he put his case clearly and in felicitous language. I have no objection to offer to his case or to the premises he laid down, so far as they went. But he did not go far enough in the premises he laid down. I followed him and agreed with him as to the basis of his debt allowance. When the four original provinces of confederation were joined, the Dominion

assumed the debts of those provinces, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The terms were not very clear at first. But, in the course of time they were all elucidated. The debt, I think, was calculated to be some $90,000,000. At all events, it was stated officially, and has been accepted ever since, that the debt which was then accepted by the Dominion government, and of which the provinces were relieved represented an average of $13.43 per head of the population of that day.
And whenever a new province was brought into the Dominion, it was thought reasonable, seeing that the newcomers were to undertake a share of the burden in the government of the province, that an allowance should be given to them at the rate of $32.43 per head of the population. That has been the accepted policy ever since, that was the policy accepted for Manitoba, that was the policy accepted for British Columbia, for Prince Edward Island, and for all the other provinces as they came into the Dominion. But after the province had come into the Dominion, if she was entitled to compensation on her population at the time she entered the Dominion, what reason can be alleged why she should be given better terms than any of the other provinces, on an increased population? The only reason advanced by my hon. friend was that the thing had been done for Saskatchewan and Alberta. I take issue with him. Alberta and Saskatchewan were not treated differently from Manitoba, or Prince Edward Island or British Columbia. Remember that the population of Alberta and Saskatchewan, when they entered confederation, was larger than the population of Manitoba when she entered confederation, or that of Prince Edward Island, and of British Columbia. But the moment British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba entered confederation, from that moment they assumed their share of the advantages and of the burdens of confederation. After that they are on a parity with the other provinces. I repeat that there is no difference whatever between the position of Manitoba and the position of Saskatchewan and Alberta, with the only exception that the population was larger in the one case than in the other case. If there is any difference at all, it is- that Manitoba was treated more generously than any other province of the Dominion was ever treated. No one knows it better than my hon. friend. He knows that time and again the terms which were originally allowed to Manitoba were improved, as he said so himself yesterday four or five times. It is so, they were increased from time Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
to time, but they were increased not on any principle but out of generosity, they were increased, and more favourable terms were given every time, not because -Manitoba was entitled to more favourable terms, but simply because she was in some condition of dire distress. My hon. friend states, and that was the only argument which he gave in support of his views, that there were precedents for what we are now doing. There is no precedent at all. Again I repeat that the terms which were given to Manitoba from time to time were not advanced on any principle at all, but simply in order to assist the province 'in somewhat difficult circumstances.
The hon. gentleman stated in answer to a statement made yesterday by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), that the thing had1 been done without a conference. True, the terms were increased without a conference; but this shows only the necessity of having a conference. If we had had a conference we would not be where we are to-day, we would not have Manitoba coming and knocking at our doors for better terms, and another province likely to come for better terms. We would not have British Columbia knocking at our door for better terms if we had had a conference at that time, or at any time, to settle once for all what should be the relations between the provinces one towards another, and it seems to me that the basis of confederation would be more secure, secure though it is. What answer can be given to the argument of my hon. friend from St. John when he says that if you do it for one province you have to do it for another province? Why is it that Manitoba is to-day receiving a uebt allowance on some $8,000,000? Simply because the population of Saskatchewan and Alberta, when they entered confederation, being estimated only at 250,000 each, their debt allowance amounted1 to $8,000,000. If the population of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta had been 100,000 they would have been entitled to less, and so would Manitoba; if their population had been only 50,000, they would have been entitled to still less. That would be acting according to principle. There is no answer at all, I submit, to the statement which was made yesterday by my hon. friend from St. John that you are opening the door to claims which you cannot resist when they are presented. If the province of British Columbia asks to have her terms improved under the same pretence as Manitoba is asking, because the population of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, estimated at 250,000, gets $8,000,000, what answer can you give British Columbia? Will it be any answer to say, you are a mountain province and Manitoba is a

prairie province? because after all, that is [DOT]vvhat it amounts to. You have to treat the three provinces similarly, and so far as the money terms are concerned, the amounts should be exactly as they are.
I see no serious objection to that. But so far as the debt allowance is concerned this is an abuse of the power of the majority; and moreover, I do not hesitate to say and to repeat that you are opening the door to consequences which you will reap at no distant time.
There is another feature of this Bill for which there is also no possible justification, and that is the arrearages to be given to the province of Manitoba. Again I repeat , what I said a moment ago to my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), it is not a pleasant task, it is rather an invidious task, to have to insist on this principle, because the effect would be to deprive the province of Manitoba of what she is getting under this resolution. But what is the basis of this resolution? My right hon. friend stated, in opening this debate, that Manitoba had asked her arrearages to date back to 1905. Why? Because it was in 1905 that Alberta and Saskatchewan were brought into the Dominion. He thought, however, that would be giving Manitoba too much, even for his extravagance, and he said, we will give her these arrearages dating back to the month of July, 1908. Why from the month of July, 1908? Because at that time this parliament passed a resolution to which I will refer, providing for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. Well, I could conceive that there would be some justification for the allowance which is now made if the province of Manitoba were in a position to tell us in 1908, we would have accepted the boundaries which were then offered, but we could not come to any settlement, because the late administration denied us the terms you are now giving to us. Under such circumstances there might be a basis of justification. But if Manitoba did not get her enlarged boundaries before this year, it is because the late administration differed with Manitoba upon the financial terms. The reason why Manitoba was not given enlarged boundaries at that time was because she did not accept the offer that was made her. Shall I give you the proof? Here it is, in the petition presented to this government by Manitoba herself. This is what is said in the memorial of the province:
While we maintain that the province has been unfairly dealt with in this respect, and, as a matter of right, is entitled to have included within its area all the northern territory proposed to be divided between Manitoba and Ontario, we desire to apprise Your Excellency of our decision, and the conclusion
arrived ait by the legislature of the province in the year 1911.
In the year 1911. It was only in the year 1911 that Manitoba acepted these boundaries and, under such circumstances, I put it to the common sense of every hon. gentleman in this House, what reason can there be why Manitoba should be given the extra time which is granted before she accepted these boundaries. It is too palpable not to be interpreted at once. But the government has decided otherwise, for what motive I do not know, for what motive I cannot comprehend, and, therefore, for these reasons it seems to me that this Bill and these terms are altogether extravagant, uncalled for and unjustified. As to the allocation for public buildings, I think the terms are generous but I do not discuss them. There is, Sir, in the province from which I come an agitation going on upon this question and in a paper which supports the government, 'L'Evenement' of Quebec, we read two or three days ago, that there should be no agitation, that the minister would speak and that they would give us an explanation. They are not in a great hurry to speak. We have been expecting that they would give us their policy. They have not done so and as they have not discussed this particular part of the subject I will not discuss it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand very well the spirit of those cheers. These gentlemen have a policy that they dare not explain, but they want us to discuss it even before they have presented it to the House. That is the spirit in which the subject is approached. Why do not these gentlemen speak if they want us to reply to them? Let them speak and for my part I shall be very happy to give them my views.	; J


Mr. PELLETIER.: Why not give them now?


Wilfrid Laurier: Because my hon. friend (Mr. PeUetier) has not said anything. I understand that my hon. friend has a speech covering a ream of paper to prove his point. I shall be happy to hear him. But, in the meantime I stand within the lines of Torres Vedras. I shall speak when the time has come and then I shall not be backward at all.
But, with reference to the case, as we have it now before us, I beg to say that in my humble opinion, the government have approached this question, not from the point of view of principle, but from the point of view of expediency, and as is usual when expediency is substituted for principle, they have created new trouble for themselves and for the country. They

have brought into existence new difficulties which it will be more difficult to settle than the difficulties that they are now pretending to settle. They have failed to give to Manitoba that fair measure of justice to which Manitoba is entitled, they have failed to give to Ontario, the right to which Ontario thought she was entitled, they have opened the door to claims which are just and fair, and just as equitable as anything that is now to be found in this Bill, and, in my humble judgment, they have done more, they have violated some of the soundest principles of constitutional government as applied in this country. Therefore, for these reasons, I beg to move in amendment:
That this Bill be not now read a second time, but that-it be resolved, that while this House is favourable to the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba, it is of opinion that the terms under which it is proposed to make the said extension, as set forth in this Bill and in the order in council of the 20th February, 1912, are unfair and unjust both to the people of Manitoba as well as to the people of the other provinces of the Dominion.


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of the Interior).: Mr. Speaker, before venturing to make answer to some of the arguments as advanced by my right hon. friend who has just resumed his seat (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and before undertaking to deai with some of the provisions as contained in the Bill now before us, for our consideration, I desire to say but one word in respect to my own position as a supporter of this Bill, and it is this, that I do not wish to be understood by the members of this House, as supporting this Bill simnly and only because I happen, for the time being, to occupy a seat upon the floor of this parliament as a representative from a constituency within the borders of the province to which this measure directly relates. But, Mr. Speaker, I desire to be understood by the hon. members of this House, and by the people of this country, as supporting this Bill, because I find in its provisions evidence that it adopts the principle of equity and of justice. I desire to be understood as supporting this Bill, because I find in the clear and straightforward statement, as made by the right hon. gentleman who leads this government (Mr. Borden), when he moved the second reading of this Bill yesterday afternoon, representing, as he does, the great party to which he belongs, and which he leads, I recognize that he stands to maintain and to uphold that grand old traditional policy of the party, that has ever stood in the past and that I trust, ever mav stand in the future, to uphold equal rights and equal justice to all and all parts of our country. That, to my mind, is exactly what this Bill un- | d-ertakes to repfesent. It promises noth- 1


Wilfrid Laurier: ing more and it promises nothing less. This Bill is made necessary in order that we might rectify a condition of affairs through which and by which a serious injustice has been done to the province of Manitoba.
The right hon. gentleman, dealing with this question this afternoon, has. gone over somewhat of the history of the conditions which prevail in Manitoba, but he did not undertake to tell the whole story to the House. He has not told the House that Manitoba occupied a position of inequality with every province in this Dominion; he has not told the House that during the past eight or ten years that province pleaded with him, as t'he leader of the Dominion government, to rectify the injustice and to remedy the adverse conditions of which she complained. We have, as was rvell said by the right hon, the Prime Minister two classes of conditions in respect to provinces in this confederation. We have provinces that own their own lands, their mines, and their natural resources, and we have the three prairie provinces that have been treated upon an entirely different basis. Now, when in 1901 the people of Manitoba presented their views as represented by a unanimous legislature to the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister, we were told that we would have to wait for the terms and conditions which we were pleading for, until such time' as the new provinces would be formed out of the Northwest Territories. We regarded that answer as reasonable and we so accepted it in Manitoba. We in Manitoba waited in patience for the day and for the hour when it might suit the convenience of the right hon. gentleman to introduce the necessary legislation for the formation of these provinces, and, when that day and that hour came Manitoba was represented here pressing her claims. But, we very-soon found that we came here under circumstances well described by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) this afternoon; we found that our claims were to be treated by the then Prime Minister and by his government as a whole, as a political question. We came here representing a unanimous province and our first words to the right hon. gentlemen were in effect that a fair and just settlement of- Manitoba's claims would in no way effect either one party or the other. But, that did not seem to satisfy my right hon. friend; he did not think that such was the opinion of his own political friends in Manitoba. Presenting that case as strongly as was possible for the representatives of Manitoba to present it, it was necessary for my right hon. friend to make some answer and while he did not do the representatives of the province the honour of giving them a

direct answer upon that occasion, he made a statement from his place in parliament which was in effect: that Manitoba could not be treated with, that Manitoba's position could not be considered at the time, simply because he had sitting behind' him in this House a gentleman who represented that territory and who had entered an objection. And, when we made inquiry, as to why the hon. gentleman representing a small portion of that territory was objecting, we were told that the hon. member for the constituency of Mackenzie objected by reason of the fact that he was fortunate enough to secure a Liberal majority in that particular district, and, therefore, he did not want it to go to the province of Manitoba or to anywhere else. That is a sample of the treatment which we were receiving from the Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at that time. It is true that the public press took some note of that statement and the right hon. gentleman found it necessary to meet that objection, and he prepared a Minute of Council about a month later and transmitted it ' to the province of Manitoba. In this minute of Council he undertakes to find another excuse. It is dated March 21, 1905, and the concluding paragraphs, set forth:
The committee are likewise of the opinion that the desire of the province of Manitoba for an extension of its boundaries to the shores of Hudson bay is not an unreasonable one, and they suggest that when the measures now before parliament for the formation of the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are disposed of, the subject of such extension of the boundaries of Manitoba might profitably be considered. This committee think it possible that in this connection questions would arise which concern other provinces inasmuch as the territory lying to the north of the other provinces may be made the subject of requests of a character similar to that of the province of Manitoba in the present case. The committee, therefore, recommend that at a convenient date after the formation of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan the request of Manitoba for an extension northward be taken up with the object of coming to a speedy conclusion, and trust that this suggestion may be acceptable to the government of the province of Manitoba whose welfare and development the present ministry desire to promote in every way compatible with their obligations towards the other provinces of the Dominion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you find here two excuses by the right hon. gentleman as to why the extension of the Manitoba boundaries should not take effect at once. The first excuse was that it might be necessary to consult other provinces in this matter. It is true that my right hon. friend undertook upon that occasion exactly the same course that he is taking to-day so far as the province of Ontario and the province
of Manitoba are concerned. He is disappointed to-day, in that it was impossible for him to make trouble between the province of Ontario and the province of Manitoba. I know that it is disappointing to the right hon. gentleman to see that the province of Manitoba and the province of Ontario have been able to effect a settlement which has been acceptable to both provinces and entirely satisfactory on every ground. My right hon. friend in this Minute of Council next told us-and I would remind you that this Minute of Council was dated in 1905-that he would endeavour to bring about a speedy settlement of Manitoba's claims. Well, what about that speedy settlement ? Here we are in this parliament seven years later proposing a settlement, and I am sure if the right hon. gentleman had been allowed politically to live, and finish his work, that the province of Manitoba would have waited seventy-seven times seven years before justice was rendered to her by him. The right hon. gentleman did not like the idea of that little province of Manitoba sending down to Ottawa eight or nine supporters of the right hon. Mr. Borden when in opposition as well as when in power. That is the only reason I can see why we did not get fair terms from Sir Wilfrid Laurier on that occasion. Now, the leader of the opposition takes objection to the fact that Manitoba is getting certain arrears in respect of the claim which she had from that date in 1905 down to the present time. In 1905, by virtue of that Minute of Council, Manitoba was obliged by the then government to meet in conference the other provinces and that no doubt, with the object oi delaying the settlement of Manitoba's claims. That conference took place in 1906, and in 1907 we were promised in the Speech from the Throne that a Bill would be presented to parliament by which this vexed question would be settled, but, the pledge of the right hon. gentleman as usual was not kept and no Bill was introduced.
It is true, a resolution was introduced in 1908, and in 1909, a copy of that resolution and of a Bill, as prepared by the right hon. gentleman, was transmitted to the government of the province of Manitoba for their consideration. The moment the government of Manitoba received that Bill, they sent representatives to Ottawa to discuss terms and conditions with the right lion, gentleman. When we arrived we complained that the boundaries provided for were not those to which the province of Manitoba was entitled. I am not going into the details of that matter, which were fully covered by my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins), last night. But when the representatives of Manitoba found in 1909, as was stated to the delegation by the right hon. gentleman himself, that the Liberal members assembled

around him, as representing the province of Manitoba, had decided1 on those boundaries, and therefore, they were fixed, and finally fixed, as far as he was concerned, we felt that there was no other course open to us, under the circumstances, than to accept the boundaries as laid down, and they were accepted by us. Manitoba heard1 nothing more during the year 1910. During the year, 1911, we received an invitation to come and meet the right hon. gentleman, and his colleagues. That conference took place, lasting for two afternoons, and no settlement of any kind or description was reached, because the right hon. gentleman did not appear to be willing to treat Manitoba in the fair manner in which we believed she was entitled to be treated. But, worse than the conditions proposed, and the delay which was practised1 by the right hon. gentleman during his regime, was the policy by which he penalized and punished the province of Manitoba to such an extent that I want to say, from my place in this House, that no amount of money which this parliament could vote could compensate the province of Manitoba for the injury which was done her by the actions and the words of the right hon. gentleman.
Now, a good deal has been said during the course of this discussion in regard to the swamp lands of the province of Manitoba. If there was no other reason, this very question of the swamp lands furnishes a good and sufficient reason why the province of Manitoba has been at the door of the Dominion of Canada asking for a rearrangement of the terms which were made in 1885. If the terms which were then made, had been faithfully and loyally kept by the Dominion of Canada, there would perhaps have been less reason why the province of Manitoba should be here today asking for the changed conditions which she is asking for, and if there is one man in public life to-day who is more responsible than another tor the violation of that contract of 1885, in respect of the swamp lands, it is the right hon. gentleman who was the leader of the late Liberal government. Under the contract of 1885, between the government of Manitoba and the Dominion government, Manitoba was to receive certain swamp lands; and let me give you a sample of how these lands were dealt out to the province. Under that contract an arrangement was arrived1 at by which certain inspectors were to be appointed to go out and decide what sections or quarter sections were swamp lands and what were not. It was provided that the government of Manitoba would have the right to appoint one or more representatives on a commission for that purpose, and the Dominion a like number; and as soon as the government of the right hon.


Robert Rogers: gentleman opposite took office, one of the first things they did was to dismiss Manitoba's representative on that commission, in order that Manitoba might be penalized1 and punished. Following that, when a Liberal government was in power in Manitoba, an effort was made by the government of the right hon. gentleman opposite, during 1898, the first full year after they came into power, to convey certain swamp lands to the province of Manitoba. As will be in the knowledge of hon. members of this House, the Liberal government was defeated in Manitoba in the year 1899, and how do you suppose the province was then treated by the Liberal government at Ottawa in Tespect to its swamp lands? In the year following, in the first half of 1899, the province got 160 acres of swamp lands from the government of the right hon. gentleman; a short time afterwards they got about 60,000 acres more; in 1901, they did not get an acre; in 1902, in the first half of the year they got
20,000	acres more; in the last half of the same year they got 160 acres more. I will give you another sample, from a Minute of Council as prepared by the government of Canada, of how they deprived the province of Manitoba of a great portion of the territory that rightly belonged to her. That Minute of Council, which was passed on the 28th of September, 1904, after reciting that the inspectors had examined an area of 284,000 acres, goes on to say:
The minister states that of the area thus examined the commissioners find an area of 146,274 acres falling to 'the province as swamp lands.
That by a comparison of the schedules furnished by the commissioners 'with tihe hooks of the Department of the Interior and its agencies in Manitoba, it has been found that of the total area of 146,274 acres selected as such swamp lands, an area of 43,192-27 acres is available.
The minister submits a revised schedule of such of the lands included in the schedule of the commissioners as aire found available, comprising an area, of 43,192-27 acres, and, being satisfied of the accuracy of the same, recommends that the lands enumerated ther-in be vested in His Majesty King Edward VII, for the purposes of the province of Manitoba, under the provisions of the fourth section of chapter 47 of -the Revised Statutes of Canada.
By that one act alone the government of the right hon. gentleman were able to take away that which their own inspectors claimed belonged to the province of Manitoba. In that one inspection of 284,000 acres, they were willing to give to the province of Manitoba only 43,000 acres, and keep over 140,000 acres, which, as they themselves admitted, belonged to the province of Manitoba. I may say that the same condition was applied throughout, with the

result that nearly a million acres of the swamp lands belonging to the province of Manitoba were used by the government of the right hon. gentleman opposite for their own purposes.
I say it was no wonder Manitoba complained of her conditions and complained bitterly in respect to the matter of swamp lands. The same conditions continued all the way through. We had an interest in certain lands upon which a mortgage had been given by the province of Manitoba in connection with the Hudson Bay railway and Manitoba pleaded with the government of the right hon. gentleman opposite again and again to have those lands surveyed but without success, with the result that Manitoba had to accept the cash value of the obligation or even less than the cash value of the obligation out against them; and a few days after the Canadian Northern Railway got control of those lands they were able to come down here to the government at Ottawa and secure from them the right to go to Saskatchewan and select the very best lands found there. This prevented the province of Manitoba from getting justice and the resources of the Dominion of Canada were exploited entirely for the benefit of a railway corporation. I might continue with the discussion of the manner in which the district of Keewatin -was taken from Manitoba and various other matters but I shall not take up the time of the House In dealing with these details. I shall at once take up the question that has been so fully discussed by the right hon. gentleman' (Sir. Wilfrid Laurier) and by every other hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who has taken part in this debate. The right hon. gentleman complains that the terms and conditions as provided by this bill should not date back to the year 1908. I would remind my right hon. friend that this is no new course for this House to take. My right hon. friend undertakes to tell the House that it is a violation of the constitution that such a course should be taken. This House did the very same thing in 1869 and again in 1885 for the provinces of Ontario, Nova Scotia, Quebec and New Brunswick and the same principle; the same course that is being adopted by this government to-day was adopted by the governments of those days. My hon. friend from St. John undertook to tell us yesterday that Manitoba had made a final settlement of her claims in 1885 and told us something more, in which he was supported by the hon. member from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that before this House approves of the bill now before us for 'consideration, we should invite a conference of the different provinces of the Dominion to consider whether or not the terms and conditions. being granted to the province
would be acceptable and satisfactory to the other provinces of Canada.


Frank Oliver: It is hardly that way. My idea was that there should be a conference of the provinces to enable the other provinces to have their claims dealt with, at the same time as the claims of the province of Manitoba.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend from Edmonton may have had that idea, and I can quite understand, perhaps, that he does not know as much about that question, or at least should not know as much about it as the hon. member for St. John. I think 1 shall surprise you and shall surprise this House, when I say that the very claim embodied in the Bill now before us was presented by the premier of the province of Manitoba to an inter-provincial conference held in the city of Ottawa in the year 1906, and further, that the province of Manitoba on that occasion, was able to get a unanimous endorsation from the conference, and that it had no better friend upon that occasion, no man who better helped and assisted to bring about the unanimous decision in favour of Manitoba, than the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). Yet, six years after, for reasons best known to himself, he comes down to this parliament and undertakes to tell us that we should again go before an interprovincial conference with respect to our claims, as now presented. When this conference was called a letter was addressed to the premiers of the different provinces of Canada, as follows:
Ottawa, Sept. 10, 1906.
Sir,-In accordance with the request of the provincial governments for a conference with the Dominion government to discuss the financial subsidies to the provinces, I beg to inform you that such a conference will take place at the city of Ottawa on Monday, 8th October next, at 11 a.m., which you are invited to attend.
Your obedient servant,



WILFRID LAURIER,

[Stage Direction]
When the province of Manitoba received that invitation, that province took precautions to avoid conditions such as we are meeting from the other side of the House to-day. A Minute of Council was passed and transmitted to the right hon. gentleman and to the Secretary of State of which I shall read the last portion:
On the recommendation of the hon. the President of the Council, Committee advise,-
(1)	That the hon. the President of the Council of the executive of the government of the province of Manitoba be authorized and empowered to represent the province at the said conference for the purposes aforesaid, and, on. behalf of the province, to agree to such solution of the said several matters in issue, having regard especially to the rights of the province of Manitoba, as shall, in his opinion,
[Stage Direction]
be fair, reasonable and just, and in the best interests and welfare of the province.
(2)	That at the said conference it be distinctly understood and agreed that any allowances that may be made to the province of Manitoba, with respect to the said several matters in issue, shall in no wise abrogate or dispose of certain other claims of the province respecting the swamp lands, the adequate compensation to the province for public lands taken and used for the purpose of the Dominion, the readjustment of the capital account of the province, the handing over to the province for administration of the school lands and the school lands fund, and the extension of the boundaries of the province, and any and all other matters or things nob embraced within the special matters set forth in said interprovincial conference resolutions, to all of which such other matters or things the province claims to be entitled to substantial relief from the Federal authorities.
(3)	That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Canada.
Certified,
20th September, 1906.
C. GREYBURN, Clerk, Executive Committee.
It was on these terms and conditions that Manitoba attended that interprovincial conference. When her representatives came here,- they came prepared with an order in council which was presented by the premier to the Interprovincial Conference. In order that the House may understand the position taken by that province at that time, I shall read you the parts of that order in council that referred particularly to the amounts that are now being asked for in the Bill before us. Part of the second order in council presented to that conference was as follows:
It is contended, and strongly so, that the province of Manitoba is equally entitled to be paid as large an annual sum by way of compensation for public lands as the two recently created provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
These provinces, it is provided, are to he each paid annually, until the population reaches 400,000, in the sum of $375,000. and thereafter on an increasing scale as the population multiplies up to the extent of $1,125,000 annually. Manitoba but receives $100,000 annually and the amount is fixed for all time to come and subject to no increase, no matter what the population of the province in the future may be. Surely, it cannot he reasonably maintained that this dissimilarity and discrimination between Manitoba and the other new provinces is fair to the people of Manitoba. In all phases of the subject the injustice to Manitoba is most apparent. At the present time the two new provinces each started with $375,000 in lieu of public lands. Manitoba but receives $100,000, notwithstanding its population is greatly in excess of either Saskatchewan or Alberta. As previously stated, the present annual payment to the new provinces, in lieu of lands, is subject to increases, on the basis of population, until the population reaches 750,000, when thereafter Mr. ROGERS.
the payment to each is to be $1,125,000 annually. The effect of this arrangement is, that at the present time each of the new provinces are given $275,000 more than Manitoba, with provision for increase as the population grows, and that, when their population is 750,000, they will each receive +'or public lands, anually, $1,025,000 more than Manitoba, notwithstanding that Manitoba, in a great measure, as the parent Prairie province of the west, has stood the vicissitudes and hardships of pioneering for many years, and is largely responsible for the present stature and significance of those provinces, and may have at that period as great, if not greater, population than either of those provinces. It may he that the new provinces have not been given too much, hut, if so, it must naturally follow that. Manitoba receives too little-a mere pittance in comparison.
Manitoba went further in this memorandum and dealt with the question of the capital account. Referring to the amount oE allowance at $32 per head, on a population of 125,000, making a total of $4,054,759.35, and they concluded in this way:
It is contended that the fixing, in 1881, of 125,000 as the population upon which the pro vince should he paid a. per capita allowance of $32.43 per head was an arbitrary proceeding, it being impossible at that time to estimate, with any degree of accuracy, what the population or requirements of the province would reasonably be at future periods, and it is the more evident that placing the population of Manitoba at 125,000, for the purposes aforesaid, was entirely too small, viewed in the light of the parliament of Canada having, a little over a year ago, based the capital account of Saskatchewan and Alberta on a population of 250,000, when, as a matter of fact, the population of those provinces, in both cases, was far inferior to that of Manitoba, as it is to-day.
The province claims, in any event, that it should be accorded in this respect the same or equivalent treatment as the two new provinces named, who each draw annually, on this account, $405,375, or just twice as much as Manitoba.
That was the case made by the province of Manitoba at the time that conference assembled at which were present the gentlemen whom I have just named. In order that the House may have a clear understanding of the facts of the case, I desire to read the reports of the public press in respect of the work and the action of the conference on the matters to which I have just referred. The conference assembled on the 8th of October, and Mr. Roblin at once presented Manitoba's case. This is the report of the matter in the Toronto ' Globe ' of October 9th:
After sqine discussion, therefore, it was recognized that the resolutions could hardly he presented to the Dominion Cabinet in their original form, and a committee consisting of Messrs. Gouin, Weir, Murray, McBride, Pugsley, Foy and Campbell was appointed to

suggest amendments which would overcome the obstacles to a general endorsation of the resolutions. Then the conference adjourned and left the committee to their work. The latter remained in session until shortly after six o'clock and reached conclusions which they will report to a general committee which will meet to-morrow morning at ten o'clock. An hour later the provincial delegates, it is expected, will be able to lay before the representatives of the Federal government the demands for an increase of subsidy in an amended form.
In case some hon. gentlemen might doubt the accuracy of the report of the Toronto ' Globe,' let me give the report of the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' of the same date:
Resuming in the afternoon Mr. Charles Lanctot, Deputy Attorney General of Quebec, was appointed secretary to the provincial gathering. The Quebec resolutions of four years ago were considered and it was decided to appoint a sub-committee to frame a resolution regarding them. This sub-committee consists of Messrs. Gouin, Foy, Pugsley, Weir, McBride and Campbell. They sat until six o'clock, and it is understood agreed upon the text of a resolution to be submitted to the general conference to-morrow. It reaffirms the resolutions of 1902, leaving it open, however, to each province to make independent representations.
The province of Manitoba was represented at the conference upon these terms, and insisted that the question should be left open to independent representations.
While the provincial delegates were in conference the representatives of Alberta and Saskatchewan asked permission to retire so that they might confer on the subject of the resolutions of 1902. This was granted and when bliey re-entered |the conference Premier Scott announced that they concurred with the other delegates on this subject.
Then on October 10th:
From other sources, however, it is learned that the provineialists were making anything but progress. The resolution submitted by the sub-committee reaffirmed the subsidy resolution of 1902 with a clause reserving to each province the right to make special representations to the Dominion authorities. This proviso particularly affects Ontario, Manitoba and British (Columbia,. Manitoba does not want her claim for a readjustment of the provincial boundaries to be sidetracked. . . .
In the afternoon the situation improved. The conference sat for three hours and after it had risen Premier Gouin once more told the waiting newspaper men that there was nothing to announce. It seems, however, that after a stubborn fight the original resolution was finally agreed to unanimously with a special proviso in it reserving the rights of those provinces which have claims for additional recognition to have them considered. The resolution will be presented to the federal ministers 'tomorrow morning by Premiers Gouin and Whitney and an opportunity will be afforded to Premier McBride to present British Columbia's case for special consideration.
The Toronto ' Globe ' goes on to deal with the report of this same committee.
I may explain that the reasons were presented the following day, as stated by the press to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who now leads the opposition. Let me quote to him the reasons as they appear in the public records of this House:
Therefore, it is unanimously.
Resolved-1. That the subject matter of the resolutions adopted by the conference of the representatives of the several provinces, held at Quebec in December, 11902, and which were shortly thereafter presented to the government of the Dominion and which were ratified by the legislatures of the then existing provinces, except that of British Columbia, be now pressed upon the government of the Dominion for immediate and favourable action, under reserve of the right of any province to now submit to such government memoranda in writing concerning any claims it may have to larger sums than those set out in the said resolutions, or to additional consideration or recognition.
That reason was unanimously accepted and carried by that committee and presented by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads the opposition to-day. I would like to quote what the ' Globe ' had to say in dealing with these reasons at that time.
Premier Roblin continued to press his claim, and I find in the Toronto ' Globe ' the following report of the official minutes of the conference:
Moved by Mr. Roblin, seconded by Mr. Peters, that the report of the committee charged with the preparation of the resolutions embodying the views of the conference on the resolutions of 1902 be adopted, and it was unanimously adopted as follows:
Whereas the members of this conference are of the opinion that it is desirable in the interests of the people of Canada and essential to the development of the provinces that an immediate provision be made for an increase of the subsidies granted by the Dominion to the several provinces and for the award to the provincial governments by Canada of an amount sufficient to meet the costs of the administration of criminal justice not exceeding twenty cents per head of the population; therefore it is unanimously resolved (1) that the subject matter of the resolutions adopted by the conference of the representatives of the several provinces held at Quebec in December, 1902, and which were shortly thereafter presented to the government of the Dominion and which were ratified by the legislature of the then existing provinces, except 'that of British Columbia, be now pressed upon the government of the Dominion for immediate and favourable action, under reserve of the right of any province to now submit to such government
[Stage Direction]
memoranda in 'writing concerning any claims it may 'have to laTger sums than those set out in the said resolutions, or to additional consideration for recognition.
(2) That in the case of the government of Canada concurring in the views of the conference as expressed in the above resolution a measure should be submitted to the parliament of Canada at the next session (providing for payment of such increased subsidies and allowances as may be determined upon, pending an amendment of the British North America Act if such amendment should be .deemed necessary.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those resolutions were presented in the amended form as suggested, to the right hon. leader of the then government and his colleagues, who joined that inter-provincial conference, and you will be surprised to learn that he accepted those resolutions as representing the claims of Manitoba:
The Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier announced that the Dominion government had come to the conclusion to agree to the resolutions embodying the views of the interprovincial conference submitted by the hon. Mr. Gouin on the 10th October, with the exception of that portion of the first resolu; tion proposing an increased subsidy towards the cost of the administration of criminal justice.
This was not anything that affected the province of Manitoba more than any other province. Then later on I find in the report of the minutes signed by Mr. Lanc-tot and Mr. Joseph Pope:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier further observed that his government had considered this question up to this moment in the hope that the present interprovincial conference would he unanimous. He said that while there is unanimity with respect to the principle of increased subsidies and also in regard to that portion of the resolution of the interprovincial conference submitted by Mr. Gouin on October 10, to which the government has agreed there was a special claim from British Columbia touching which some difference as regards the amount exists. Sir Wilfrid Laurier added that he wished to report to his colleagues on that point before giving a final assent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you will see that Manitoba had presented her case, and in doing so had obtained the support of the representatives of all the provincial governments. Mr. Roblin presented his case to the right hon. gentleman, and he accepted it. Now let me ask if Manitoba was not justified in asking for arrearages back to 1905 and 1906? When shp could not get arrearages back to 1905, she wanted to get them at least to 1906, when the right hon. gentleman accepted the resolution in confirmation of her claim as presented by all the provinces. I ask you what more could Manitoba have done Mr ROGERS.
to establish her case in the clearest possible manner than the course she has adopted in pressing her claims now for fair treatment, and for equality of treatment with the other provinces of this Dominion? I mentioned a moment ago that she was promised a speedy settlement in 1905 by an official Minute of 'Council. She was again promised a settlement by the official statement of the right hon. leader of the government in 1906, when he accepted the basis recommended by the Interproviflcial conference. Again in 1907 Manitoba was promised a settlement in the Bill by which her boundaries were to be extended, and a settlement was to be effected of the terms and conditions. Then again we had the resolution of 1908 which was brought before the government in its amended form, and whi'ch was accepted' by the province of Manitoba. And yet after all these things, we have the right hon. gentleman the leader of the opposition and his followers coming here and discussing this question from various points of view, some undertaking to place one province against another, and others undertaking to set the east against the west. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) was Very solicitous with respect to the maritime provinces.
Mr. PUGSLEY.: Hear, hear


Robert Rogers: I do not blame my hon. friend for standing up for his province. But when in 1908 the right hon. gentleman who sits beside him was passing a resolution for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, my hon. friend from Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) raised the same question on behalf of the maritime provinces, and what answer did he get from the then leader of the government ? The answer was read yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers), and I will not trouble the House by reading it again. But the right hon. gentleman made it clear that he would not consider the proposals then made by the representatives of the maritime provinces. Now let me tell you that the conditions are different to-day. We have at the head of affairs as Premier of Canada a gentleman who represents a constituency in the maritime provinces, and what did he tell this House yesterday in discussing this matter ? He assured this House that when the time arrived for making a final settlement of the natural resources of the three great provinces of western Canada, at that time the government would take into consideration every interest relative to the affairs and welfare of the maritime provinces. Now I ask you, and I ask every hon. member of this House, if there is a citizen in the maritime provinces who is not prepared to accept in its

entirety the word of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government of Canada to-day. Some hon. gentleman opposite have undertaken to say that our natural resources are being withheld from us. The leader of the opposition who addressed the House this afternoon dwelt somewhat warmly on the position taken by the leader of the government in respect to the natural resources of the three prairie provinces. He said that the leader of the government had promised certain terms previous to the last general election. Well, I want to tell him [DOT]that we are under a different regime in this country now than we were in 1905, and that when the present leader of the government makes a promise to his fellow countrymen they can depend upon it that that promise will be fulfilled. The reason why the three prairie provinces are not getting their natural resources to-day is simply because this is a matter so important that it involves a great deal of consideration, it involves considerable time. I know that the leader of the opposition would have been glad to use this lever to justify him in continuing his policy of penalizing the province of Manitoba, to which he has taken such a particular dislike during the past ten years. But. this is not a matter that can be settled hastily, because we have evidently a work of education to perform in some of the western provinces in this respect; we find that even some gentlemen in the province of Saskatchewan, for example, are willing to follow in the footsteps of the leader of the opposition.
He is willing to take the ground that the natural resources of the province should not be handed over. That is the position taken by the Hon. Walter Scott, Premier of the province of Saskatchewan. Surely you would not expect this government to force a provincial government to take over the natural resources if they did not want them. Mr. Walter Scott, following in the footsteps of my right hon. friend opposite, has been ready and has shown by his statements, that he wishes to treat this matter from a political point of view. That is the manner in which he has treated it ever since he came into power . I hold in my hand some statements made by Mr. Walter Scott with respect to this particular matter, and I would like to quote them to the House. Dealing with this question, Mr. Scott said in 1906, that:
He could prove that before he went to Ottawa for the Autonomy session he had come to the conclusion, with a great many other people, that it would be better that the public lands should not be banded over to the possession and management of the people of the province, and if they could induce the Dominion to give them a fair subsidy it would be better for the lands to remain in the care of the Department of the Interior. Then it came down to the very simple question as to the adequacy of the terms. His friends contended, and 140
would contend, he had no doubt, to the end of the chapter, that the terms were inadequate. (Mr. Wylie-' Hear, hear/)
^ The member for Maple Creek said ' hear, hear,' hut let him look among his political friends outside the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and he would fail to find one who would agree with him.
Mr. Wylie. But we are the judges.
Mr. Scott remarked that they had the judgment of the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Before the provinces as a whole stated their opinion at the elections last fall there was a by-election at Edmonton, and since the provincial elections they had had three other contests, all of which endorsed the terms. West Assiniboia. and Saskatchewan went unanimously in support of the Act, and Strath-eona gave a large majority.-Scott Budget speech, ' Leader/ May 21, 1906.
Therefore, Mr. Walter Scott was willing then, as I presume he is to-day, to measure terms and conditions for the province with respect to the natural resources and to treat the question as a matter of politics. If it is necessary, I am satisfied that we are' prepared to go to the province of Saskatchewan and educate the people there, and I am also satisfied that it is in their best interests, notwithstanding Mr. Walter Scott or Mr. Anybody-else, to have their own natural resources and to administer them for the benefit of their own province. Then again, speaking in 1908, I find Mr. Scott saying:
In addition to the parliament of Canada having settled the question, the province has settled it in the campaign of 1905. It was plainly put and fully discussed. He was satisfied that the cash grant which the province obtained in lieu of their public domain was more advantageous to them than the lands would be. (Hear, hear.)
Then again:
There was not a public man except a hitter partisan, who had opened his mouth on the subject who did not admit that Saskatchewan and Alberta had been made much better off by the federal administration of the lands than they would he, had the lands been under their control.-Regina ' Leader/ Aug. 8, 1908.
Again on August 15, 1908:
We have heard a good deal about the land issue. As I pointed out in this hall on Wednesday evening, in view of the verdict the people gave three years ago on the land, as well as other autonomy questions, what was there for the government to do but what we have done? The people did not want the land arrangement disturbed. They said : lie same again yesterday. How long is it going to take the people of Saskatchewan to convince Mr. Haultain that they are satisfied with the terms granted them bv the Autonomy Act?- ' Leader/ Aug. 17, 1908.
Then we have Mr. Scott speaking as follows on October 6, 1911:
If Saskatchewan had the lands, what would we be doing with them? Mr. Haulitain tells



you we should be using them for revenue. This is the burden of his contention-that the province is losing revenue by not having the lands.	_
This land bargain issue in Saskatchewan is a false issue. For practical purposes we might as well discuss stopping the sun in its course.
The autonomy land bargain is not a legitimate issue in the provincial field, and would not be used as an issue if the opposition thought there was good ground on which to attack us in the sphere where we are really responsible.
I am willing, not only willing, but glad, to defend the vote which I gave in parliament in 1905 in favour of the land terms.
The straits of the opposition as regards finding any reasonable grounds of attack against the government's record or policy is confessed by them, in their desire to keep the autonomy land bargain before the province as an issue. They thereby confess that they lack auy real ground of criticism.
Lastly, suppose that Mr. Haultain is in office on the strength of this collection of suppositions. it is his policy to acquire the lands. He has been elected to get the lands. How will he go about it? In 1905 and to-day 1 believed and believe it better that we should have money in lieu of lands, but I can conceive of changed conditions which might lead me in 1920 or 1930 to want the public domain W the province, and against such a day I should really like to know wliat machinery assists to turn the trick. My curiosity is perfectly sincere.
Mr. Walter Scott undertakes to say that in twenty or thirty years he would be willing to consider the proposition of accepting the natural resources for the province of Saskatchewan, and he asks what machinery there would be to turn the trick. I answer Mr. Walter Scott that the Conservative government of this Dominion, are the machinery through which, and by which that trick will be turned to the advantage of the great province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Scott goes on to say:	[DOT]
I have questioned lawyers and I have yet to learn how it could be done. They tell me that the thing is impossible.
It therefore follows that Mr. Haultain would he utterly helpless to obtain the lands. The province has no more power to take possession of the lands than it has to obtain the moon. Parliament's power to enact the Saskatchewan Aot was as complete as its authority to elect the Customs Act, and the land bargain has no more place as an issue in our provincial affairs than any tariff schedule.
If time permitted, I could bring, to quote an illustrious Canadian, ' mountains of evidence ' to sustain the Liberal position on this land question. I assure you that it is not on account of lack of defence that I complain against the dragging in of the issue, because our position is sound and strong, while the opposition ground is easily Upset.
Am I going too far when I suggest a doubt as to the sanity of any Saskatchewan man who complains against our land terms?
When urging the principle of local ownership of the lands. I know that all I hoped to Mr. E,OGEES.
obtain was recognition of our right of proprietary interest in them. I certainly never expected the actual transfer to the new provinces.
That is what Mr. Walter Scott has to say upon this matter, and let me repeat what I said a moment ago, that when this government have had the opportunity and time to investigate this matter, the promise, as made by my right hon. friend who leads the government, will be faithfully and loyally carried out.
I may say, in reference to the question of financial terms, as cited in the Bill, that my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) in discussing this question to-day, in reference to the capital allowance, makes a very different argument when he is arguing against the province of Manitoba from the argument which he made, when he was arguing for the same condition of affairs by the creation of the two new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. I hold in my hand a copy of ' Hansard ' which contains the argument as advanced by the right hon. gentleman at that time. I am not going to quote at length from what the right hon. gentleman has said, but I desire to place the following before the House:
What can have been the- reasoning which induced the fathers of confederation in 1867 to depart from so obvious a principle of finance and government?
The reasons are simply these. Confederation was the result of several compromises. It would have been impossible to establish it if there had not heen a policy of give and take adopted among all the constituent bodies. And I am quite sure, I am speaking absolute historical truth when I say that [DOT]neither Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario nor Quebec would ever have consented ito part with their revenues, to give up their powers of taxation in oustoms and excise, if .they had not heen promised that out of the federal revenues they would be allowed a pertain sum every year to defray the expenses of their own local governments and administrations. This is the reason why this provision is to be found in the British North America Act. It is there. I do not think ,it is sound, but though in my judgment impound, it is the duty of everybody in this House and in this country to take confederation as we find it, with its good points and its blemishes, and carry it to the end on the principle upon which it was established. Therefore, upon this point I believe it is ,the duty of the Canadian parliament to continue that policy in this instance and make a liberal provision for these two new provinces which we are about to admit into the Canadian family.
That was the argument advanced by the right hon. the leader of the opposition upon that occasion, when discussing the question as to whether the position of the provinces then to be created would be the same as the other provinces in respect to customs and excise taxes. I submit that the same

conditions exactly apply to the province of Manitoba. For example, in this past year of 1911, the province of Manitoba contributed to the public treasury of this Dominion in customs and excise something like nine and a half million dollars, and as against that the subsidy given to the province of Manitoba by virtue of the policy adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite was something about $800,000. I therefore say it is not to be wondered that Manitoba makes the claim she is making to-day in order that she may find relief from the condition in which she finds herself of being placed in a position of inequality to every other province in this Dominion. It is upon that ground and upon that ground alone that Manitoba has appealed to this parliament time and time again for justice. Manitoba appeals to the parliament of Canada asking that the restrictive conditions that were applied to her as a province shall be removed, so that she may be enabled to take her place of the full sisterhood with the other provinces that form confederation. Let it be remembered that the people of Manitoba have for the forty years past been the pioneers of that western country. Let it not be forgotten that through their energy and determination and perseverance as pathfinders in that great western land, its possibilities have been opened up to eastern Canada and there has been demonstrated to the world the happy future in store for the hundreds of thousands of settlers who made their homes upon the fertile prairie. Is it fair and reasonable that that province which undertook the hardships of the early pioneer life should be compelled to accept an inferior position to other provinces either in the west or in the east? This Bill undertakes to place Manitoba in a position of equality with the other provinces of the Dominion, and that is all it undertakes to do. Manitoba complains that she has been too long regarded as the kitchen province of the Dominion; she thinks it time that she should be invited to the dining room and given her full status amongst the provinces of this confederation. That is the position which this Bill undertakes to place her in, and I submit to this parliament and to the people of this country that it is only just and fair that such fair treatment should be accorded her.
House divided on amendment (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
YEAS:
Beland,
Bellemare,
Boivin,
Bourassa,
Boyer,
Brown,
Messieurs
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Law,
Lemieux,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Maclean (Halifax),
Buchanan,	McGraney,
Cardin,	McCoig,
Car veil,	McCrea,
Cash,	McKenzie,
Champagne,	Marcil (Bonaventure
Chisholm (Antigonish)	Marcile (Bagot),
Chisholm (Inverness),	Martin (Montreal,
Clark (Red Deer),	Ste. Mary's),
Cruise,	Michaud,
Delisle,	Molloy,
Demers,	Nesbitt,
Devlin,	Neely,
Douglas,	Oliver,
Gauthier	Pacaud,
(St. Hyacinthe),	Papineau,
Gauvreau,	1'aquet,
German,	Pardee,
Guilbault,	Proulx,
Guthrie, i	Reid (Restigouche),
Hughes (Kings,	Boss,
P.E.I.),	Sevigny,
Kay,	Thomson (Qu'Appelle
Knowles,	Tobin,
Kyte,	Turgeon,
Lachance,	Turriff,
Lamarche, j	Verville,
Lanctot,	Warnock and
Lapointe	White (Victoria,
(Kamouraska),	Alta.)-65.
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
Aikins,	Lavallee,
Alguire,	Lennox,
Ames,	Lesperance,
Armstrong (lork, O.), Macdonell,	
Arthurs,	Maclean (York, O.),
Baker,	McCurdy,
Ball,	McKay,
Barnard,	Marshall,
Bennett (Calgarv),	Meigheu,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Merner,
Best,	Middlebro,
Blain,	Monk,
Blondin,	Moi phy,
Borden,	Munson,
Boulay,	Nantel,
Bowman,	Nicholson,
Brabazon,	Nickle,
Bradbury,	Paul,
Rroder,	Pelletier,
Burnham,	Ferley,
Cliahot,	Porter,
Clare,	R.ainville,
Clark (Bruce),	Reid (Grenville),
Clarke (Wellington),	Rhodes,
Clements,	Kobidoux,
Cochrane,	Roche,
Cockshutt,	Rogers,
Crocket,	Schaffner, .
Crother6,	Sexsmith,
Currie,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Davidson,	Sharp-e (Ontario),
Doherty,	Shepherd,
Donnelly,	Smith,
1 Id wards,	Stanfield,
Elliot,	Staples,
Elson,	Steele,
F'sher,	Steven6,
Foster (Kings, X.S.),	Stewart (Hamilton),
Foster (Toronto, N.),	Stewart (Lunenburg)
Fripp,	Sutherland,
Gauthier (Gaspe), .	Taylor,
Girard,	Thompson (Yukon),

Goodeve,
Hartt,
Hazen,
Henderson, Hughes (Victoria, Jameson,
Kemp,
Kidd,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Thornton,
Walker,
Wallace,
W ehster, 0.),*Weichel,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox,
Wilson
(Wentworth) and Wright.-103.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.
Opposition.
Messieurs
White (Leeds),
Burrell,
Haggart,
Osier (Sir Edmund), Forget (Sir Rodolphe), Northrup,
Hepburn,
Garrick,
Fowler,
Bristol,
Thoburn,
Smyth,
Barker,
Beattie,
Boyce,
Cromwell,
Barrette,
Achim,
Lewis,
Armstrong (Lambton), Tremain,
McLean (P.E.I.), Coderre.
Emmerson,
McNutt,
Gordon,
Lafortune,
Brouillard,
Bureau,
McMillan,
Lapointe (Montreal), Pugsley,
Charlton,
Robb,
Clarke (Essex), Martin (Regina), Sinclair,
Richards,
Wilson (Laval), Seguin,
Fortier,
Murphy,
Biokerdike,
Carroll,
Power,
Ethier.


Mr. CARVELL.: I beg to call attention to the ijact that the hon. member for Yamaska has not voted.


Mr. MONDOU.: The reason I have not voted' is that when the Bill goes before the committee I intend to explain my position fully.


Mr. LAMARCHE.: Before the vote is taken on the second reading of the Bill I wish to speak and explain the position I have taken.
. Amendment negatived.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
ence to the patents of a man named Ram-baut, and while the House did not decide as a matter of principle that they _ Would not pass the Bill, still the hon. member who had charge of the Bill was satisfied that it should not be passed and dropped that particular portion of it. The whole object of this particular Bill is to place some five or six patents with reference to a certain mechanism for making tin cans under the provisions of section 44 of the Patent Act. That is the section which allows the commissioner of patents to grant to the patentee the right not to manufacture in Canada as was purely the intention of the patent law but to license some other persons to manufacture and to pay him a royalty. As I before said>
the only class of patents to which this clause should apply are those dealing with articles such as heavy machinery for which there would be very little sale. If we adopt this Bill then this patentee will be in a position to license some one else to manufacture, and perhaps it may be five or ten years before the industry would be established in Canada, whereas in the ordinary course he would have to manufacture within two years of the issue of this patent.


Mr. BORDEN.: The Minister of Agriculture is not in the city to-day, but he will be here to-morrow. I suppose there would be no objection to allowing the Bill to go to the committee where the considerations which the hon. gentleman has mentioned, and which are very important, may be taken into account.


Mr. MACDONALD.: The point raised by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) is one which goes to the very principle of the measure and can hardly be considered a matter for the committee. In the last parliament this question formed a subject of discussion and the sense of the House then was against giving to foreigners the right by special legislation of this parliament to continue for a longer period than there was any necessity for under the original patent the rights of the patentee.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the second reading of Bill (No. 119), respecting certain patents of the Continental Can Company.- Mr. Fripp.
Robert Laird Borden: I have never understood that the second reading of a private Bill affirmed any principle.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: That is true to a great degree where you are dealing with a private Bill which simply confers corporate powers, but here the proposition involved is really an amendment to a substantive law in so far as this particular person is concerned. It is not a matter to be settled by a committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In my opinion this Bill should not receive a second reading. This is really the same question that was discussed in this House last week in refer-


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection to allowing the Bill to stand, but I think that considerations of that kind should be entertained by the special committee to


Robert Rogers: which a Bill of this special character is to be sent. The Bill comes back to the House in the ordinary course upon the report of that committee either for or against the Bill. In fact, as the hon. gentleman knows, it comes back to this House, it goes into Committee of the Whole, and the report of the committee upon it is usually adopted by the House.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I have no objection to the Bill going to the committee with the distinct understanding that I do not approve of the principle of the Bill, and I do not want to have it afterwards said that we are bound to accept the report of the committee to which I do not belong.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: With that understanding I am willing to withdraw my oposi-tion to the second reading, but I would not like to be told that a committee has decided this question and we have to abide by the decision of the committee. I would like to reserve the right to oppose it when it comes back from the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
.	SECOND READING.
Bill (No. 120) for the relief of Ethel May Stewart-Mr. Clark (Red Deer).

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Borden for the second reading of Bill (No. 115) to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before my friend proceeds with the debate, I want to raise a question which I raised before six o'clock, and which was not decided by the Chair. I raised the question that the hon. member for Yamaska was sitting in the House and had not voted, and I claim that I am entitled to a decision, because under the authority of Bourinot at page 504, it is distinctly stated:
If a m-unber of the Commons who has heard the question put does not vote, and the .attention of the Speaker is directed to the fact, the latter will call upon him to declare on which side he votes; and his name will be recorded accordingly.
Now, Sir, I raised the point that you, Mr. Speaker, should call upon the hon. member, to state on which side he voted. That is supported by a number of references, one of which says:
In the English House of Commons, 3rd February 1881, Mr. Speaker informed the House that several members who had given their voices with the noes when the question
.was put, had refused to quit their places, and consequently he had submitted their conduct to the consideration of the House. A number of members were then suspended for refusing to withdraw during the division after having been warned of the consequences by the Speaker.
And not withdrawing during the division would be the same as not voting in this House. I think the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou) should be requested by the Chair, to state his reason why he did not vote and on which side he would have voted.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I have only to say that I did not notice the hon. member (Mr. Car-veil) raising the question, or I would have attended to it then. But, as other business has intervened in the meantime, it is too late now to raise the question.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: Before the House rose, my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had proposed an amendment which had been voted down. It was as follows:
That whilst the House is favourable to the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba, it is of opinion that the terms under which it is proposed to make the said extension as set forth in this Bill and in the order in Icounoil of the 20th of February, 1912, are unfair and unjust both to the people of Manitoba a9 well as to the people of the other provinces of the Dominion .
I voted for that amendment; but not for the same reason as my right hon. friend. I voted for it because that amendment declares that the terms under which the extension of Manitoba's boundaries are proposed in the Bill are unfair and unjust. But, in my opinion, they are unfair and unjust, not because the conditions-set forth in the Bill are so, but because of the absence of other clauses-, which I judge, are absolutely necessary. And it is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to develop as briefly as possible the reason why I take that position. The liberty for the people of this country to express their free will through the voice of their representatives is one of the most precious privileges that has ever been granted by the British Crown, and it is the underlying principle of our parliamentary institutions.
The will of the people of my constituency, clearly manifested, on the 21st of September last, by their cheerful and generous acceptation of the promises I had made to them during the campaign, shall to-day dictate my conduct and force me to break away upon this important question from many political friends, for whom I have personally, the most profound respect, notwithstanding our divergence of views and opinions,
The Bill, which is to-day submitted to the approval of this House, provides for

and we shall see immediately how their intention has been carried out.
\Vhen the statutes of Canada were revised in 1906 the Northwest Territories Act, as modified by several amendments, was inserted as chapter 62, but the Kee-watin Act was left out, and moreover, if we consult in Vol. IV, of the Revised Statutes, 1906, page 7, under the title of History and Disposal of Acts, we find ' District of Keewatin, Chapter 53, effete and recommended for repeal.' Furthermore, Art. 4 of 6-7 Ed. VII intituled ' An Act respecting the Eevised Statues, 1906/ reads as follows: ' The several Acts enumerated in Schedule ' A ' to the said Eevised Statutes are hereby declared to be and to have been on, from and after the last mentioned date (31st January, 1907) repealed to the extent mentioned in the said Schedule/
And in Schedule ' A ', Vol. Ill, E.S.C.,
p. 3063, I read the following: '53. An Act respecting the District of Keewatin the whole repealed.'
I think every lawyer in this House will bear me out when I say that, at least, since the revision of 1906, which came into force on the 31st January, 1907, the Keewatin Act is no longer a law of this country, and, as a result, the District of Keewatin, is no longer excepted from the Northwest Territories as they are defined in Article 2 of chapter 62 of the Eevised Statutes of Canada, and which reads as follows:
Article 2 in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) Territories means the Northwest Territories which comprise the Territories formerly known as Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory, except such portions thereof as tform the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory, together with all British territories and possessions in North America and all islands adjacent thereto not included within any province, except the colony of Newfoundland and' its dependencies.
The Northwest Territories Act applies, therefore, not only to that strip of land', which has never been excluded from the Northwest Territories, but it applies also to the other part to be annexed and which has automatically returned to the Northwest Territories by the disappearance of the Keewatin Act. The Northwest Territories Act, however, as we find it in the Eevised Statutes of Canada, chapter 62, is somewhat different from the original legislation of 1875 and this as a result of several amendments.
The original Article XI of the law of 1875 relating to separate schools has novs become Article X of chapter 62 of t.is Eevised Statutes of Canada, and it reads as follows:	1


Paul-Émile Lamarche: X.-The Commissioner in Council, if authorized to make ordinances respecting education, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect thereto, but in the laws or ordinances relating to education it shall always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor; and also that the minority of ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Homan Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
Do we find in that Article X the existence of a right in favour of the minorities to separate schools and a protection, against the payment of a double school tax? It is my opinion. The Commissioner in Council cannot pass an ordinance establishing a school system without providing for the rights of the minority. The Commissioner in Council, however, cannot pass such ordinance without, first, being authorized to ifchat effect by the Governor General in Council. Therefore, the government is at liberty to give or to abstain itself from giving the proper authority to the commissioner, but if it is given, it is to the establishment of separate schools and nothing else.
Now, is it possible to establish a school system in the Northwest Territories in any other way than by the means of an ordinance emanating from the Commissioner in Council?
I think so, but the only way would be by a law of this parliament passed in open session, in the regular way, but I hold that, even that law would have to provide for the rights of the minority, unless Article X of the Northwest Territories Act is repealed, modified or made non-applicable, which would be the breaking away from the just and equitable policy of Mr. Mackenzie, consecrated thirty-six years ago by the Conservative as well as the Liberal party.
If you peruse the disposition of Article X, you will find that it is divided into two distinct sections, although they are not numbered, but simply separated by a semicolon, after the word ' thereto,' in the third line.
The first part simply states that the Commissioner-in-Council shall pass all necessary ordinances respecting education, if he receives the proper authority. No mention is made in that first part, of laws, for the good reason that the Commissioner-in-Council has no right to make laws. His legislative powers are exercised by way of ordinances. This is clearly stated in Ar-

tide VII of the Northwest Territories Act, which is entitled ' Legislative Powers of Commissioner-] n-Council,' and there can be no doubt about it.
In the second part of Article X it is clearly stated that not only the ordinances shall provide for the protection of the rights of the minority, but the laws as well. In other words, not only the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories is ordered to respect the rights of the minority, but even the parliament of 'Canada.
The government of Canada, through its executive, has the right to give or to refuse to the Commissioner-in-Council, the proper authority to enable him to pass an ordinance establishing schools recognized by law.
Has the government made any use of that power ? If my information is correct, the government of Canada, under the past administration, as well as under the present one, has either refused or neglected, not only to give the proper authority to the commissioner, but even to name the persons to form his council, although it had been duly and repeatedly requested by a certain number of British subjects inhabiting the territory which is now contemplated for annexation to the province of Manitoba; and a certain newspaper, ' The Manitoba Free Press,' if I am not mistaken, qualified the lack of action in that matter as a sharp piece of work and good tactics in contemplation of the prospective extension of boundaries. Now, I think the non-existence of regular school system in Keewatin would be a very poor reason to allege, especially by those who have been instrumental in refusing to act. But, is it necessary, Mr. 'Speaker, in order to find the true spirit of the law which is now in force, to go through all those tortuous legal technicalities ? The article which now regulates education in that part of the country should be considered as forming part of a constant policy in existence for thirty-six years in the minds of those who have worked for the best interests of Canada, and in order to know the true meaning of that law, those who are to be consulted are not the politicians who have modified and tortured the texts, during the past few years, but those rather who have given life to that legislation of justice, expecting that it would last untrammelled longer than their own mortal existence.
Last week, curious coincidence, the Canadian statesman who has been the instigator of that charter of rights for the people of the northwest, passed away practically at the same moment as an effort was being made to leave in oblivion the work of his life. Why not live up to the former engagements entered into by the government of our country ? Is it because the other party to the Act is weak and feeble ? I do not think such an idea could
make its way in the spirit of a broadminded people, and I do not think it could be invoked with success in a British country like ours.
Is it because the respect of minorities is a principle which has been productive of bad results in our country? We have been told several times by the best accredited representatives of the English minority of the province of Quebec that it was a good principle and that the majority of that province was very particular in taking the means to safeguard and respect it. Why should not the same principle work as well in other portions of Canada? We are told very often that in this free country of ours all religions are on the same footing. We know also that the full exercise of the Catholic religion has been guaranteed from the time of capitulation. It is the duty of Catholic parents to send their children to a school of their faith and, Mr. Speaker, I say that we are limiting their liberty in that respect in making them pay a double tax for the exercise of that privilege, when we can avoid it. In the province of Manitoba there has been a school question which has been incompletely settled. A judgment of the highest tribunal of the empire has recognized that the Catholic minority of Manitoba was suffering serious grievances. To-day we are asked to vote in favour of a Bill which provided for a concession to Manitoba. That Bill is only the first part of a contract because the Legislature of Manitoba has to accept the terms of the arrangement as they are laid down in the present measure. It would not be in my mind, a policy of coercion but rather a policy of conciliation to insert in the Bill a saving clause for the rights of the minorities in the new district to be annexed, similar to the clause which I have seen in the Bill which protects the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company.
I have respect, Mr. Speaker, for those who differ with me in their opinions. The question is difficult and intricate if we look only into its legal aspects. I will even admit that I have considered the spirit of justice and equity stronger than the doubtful solutions arising from the text books. The principles I have set forth, which I think are just and equitable, I have preached politically for ten years, and, in the last campaign, I made, in connection with this Keewatin question, some declarations that were not ambiguous, and I made them to the knowledge and in the presence of those to whom my candidature was agreeable and useful. I am here today to keep my word and I shall do my duty.
These are the reasons why I have voted for the amendment moved by my right hon. friend and these are the reasons why I shall vote against the Bill that is pro-1 posed to the House.


Hon. F. D. MONK (Minister of Public Works).: Mr. Speaker, I personally am obliged to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lamarche) for affording me an opportunity of giving some explanation to the House with regard to the point which he has raised. My hon. friend has explained his position in moderate and clear language. I do not think anybody, even those who do not entirely agree with him, can find fault with the manner in which he has placed the case before this House. But Mr. Speaker, before taking up the consideration of this phase of the question which my hon. friend has touched upon, I would like to say, after all I have heard this afternoon that, upon the whole, my hon. friends on the other side of the House have taken what I would call a somewhat gloomy view of the measure brought down by the government. It is, to my mind, necessary to point out that there is a brighter view and that in bringing down this measure my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Mr. Borden) has placed, so to speak, the keystone in the arch of confederation, completing the great work begun by Macdonald, Cartier and the other fathers of confederation.
It is the rounding up of that great work *at which we are assisting this evening, and it seems to me that such an important event for our country should afford cause for more gratification, and more self-congratu-lotion than we have heard from the other side of the House during this debate. Three provinces, Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario, are profiting by the work which, to-day, the traditional descendants of the founders of confederation are bringing to completion. For my part, having more intimate connection with the province of Quebec, I congratulate the government upon bringing into the provincial organization of this Dominion the territory which is being added to my native province, because I believe that the very best results will come from it. The territory which is being assigned to the province of Quebec is of immense value. There is within its confines great lumber, wealth, vast water-powers, which when developed, will enrich our whole country, extensive mineral areas, and most productive fisheries along the coast which comes under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. To the province of Ontario an equally valuable area is assigned for development, an area which comprises probably more agricultural resources than is to be found in the territory given to Quebec, a territory where there is lumber wealth and mineral resources and which brings the province of Ontario into contact with the great fisheries of the Hudson bay. And, to the province of Manitoba, this is a particularly welcome thing, because it brings^ to an end the discontent, the justifiable discontent, which had prevailed in that Mr. LAMARCHE.
province. I have never been able to understand why, when we carved out the provinces of Saskatchewan and AJberta, we did not, at the same time, in view of the temper of the people of the west, and the icng-standing aspirations of Manitoba, the first born of the provinces of confederation -I have never been able to understand wh'T we did not satisfy the claims of Manitoba at that time. No man can look at the map of the Dominion to-day without seeing with the naked eye the comparatively insignificant position which that province occupies territorially, and none can fail to appreciate why there is dissatisfaction in that eldest of the prairie provinces. We are now at long last rendering justice to Manitoba; we are handing over to her territory which ought to belong to her as a province, and1 we are finishing up the work of confederation in this way. When I heard my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, presenting this measure to the House, I recalled that nearly forty years ago when I was not more than a boy, I myself heard Cartier, one of the great workers in the initiatory process of the foundation of this Dominion with prophetic version foretelling the hour when the whole of British North America would be organized into provinces and when the dream of himself and his associates would be polarized. Well, Sir, to-day we are giving effect to that prophecy of the great Sir George Cartier. One would suppose, hearing the remarks of my hon. friend* from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), that the first organizers of confederation had entered into the scheme as a land speculation. When we heard the hon. member speak of the necessity, in the disposal of these great territories, of consulting provinces far removed from the regions which we are discussing, and talking of compensation being given to these provinces, one would suppose we were assisting in a land deal. Well, that is not the spirit in which the founders of confederation proceeded; that is not the spirit which presided over the negotiations when they acquired Rupert's Land and the territories of the northwest. There was no payment there for real estate; it was under an order in council of the Imperial government that most of these lands were handed over to us, and, while it is true, that in 1868, compensation was paid to extinguish the rights-other than trading and commercial rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, the idea at the bottom of it was that these territories would afterwards be distributed among the provinces in order to complete a symmetrical plan under which this territory would become provincially organized for the fuller and more completed development of the confederacy then in an embryo state. It is not a matter of adjusting accounts among the

provinces; it is not a matter to be taken up in a book-keeping spirit; but it is a matter which should be regarded in the light alone of the fruition of the scheme of confederation. It seems to me, therefore, that the criticism we have heard to-day about the financial terms granted and about consulting the other provinces, and about an accord between Manitoba and Ontario, as to a right of way for a purely provincial railway into the hinterland and towards Hudson bay; it seems to me that the constitutional points raised in these questions did not evince on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite that large and liberal-minded view which we should take of an event of this kind, and which should lead us to a more generous, more comprehensive, and larger view of the whole situation. The port on the Hudson bay is a port which belongs to the Dominion and which will be developed by the Dominion, and what more natural than since an arrangement of this kind cannot be come to without the mutual consent of alii interested, that there should toe a consent to this right-of-way giving Ontario the privilege of pushing its provincial railway up to the very shores of the Dominion harbour on Hudson bay.
This is a matter which, it seems to me, ought to be the subject of general congratulation and exultation, at least in its general features. But in all human events a bitter drop usually surges out of the fountain of our joys, and my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) has 'brought to the surface that bitter drop in this instance. For my part, I am very glad to be able to explain to this House and to the country, my position on this question. A great many very unfair criticisms of the government have come from certain quarters in regard to the educational aspect of this question. I have read of these criticisms with very great regret, because I do not think they are in the least degree founded. But from their tone, one would suppose that it is in a certain way the resuscitation or resurrection of the Manitoba schooi question. It is, I think, proper, to point out, in order to clear away what doubtful points may exist, in regard to this matter, that, as I have always understood, the Manitoba school question was finally, and for all time, settled in 1897, by the settlement arrived at between the Dominion government and the government of Manitoba, in regard to that question, and it cannot in any sense come up again. I have always held to that opinion, and have expressed it on many occasions, though I have absolutely condemned the terms of that agreement. There are several ways in which, under our constitution, the Federal government can intervene, and interfere in matters of education. They are provided for in section 93
of the British North America Act, and, in the case of Manitoba, in section 22 of the Manitoba Act, the charter of that province under Imperial authority. It was under the latter section that what I cannot help calling the regrettable question at that time arose. But it does not in any sense, arise in the present instance. Where disagreements arise, we can interfere by conference, under section 22 of the Manitoba Act we can interfere by remedial order, we can interfere by legislation, and we can interfere by settlement; but surely, to anybody who reads with attention and care the dispositions of section 22 of the Manitoba Act, and of section 93 of our Constitutional Act, when those means have been exhausted and a settlement has been arrived at, there is the end of the matter. I remember having given public utterance to that sentiment in 1896, after the general elections of that year, in which the electorate had declared against the mode adopted at that time, by the leader of the government, Sir Charles Tupper.	_
After that election, I expressed the view, and I think with reason, that the country had decided that there should be no remedial legislation, and that, as far as remedial legislation was concerned, the Manitoba question was settled. I gave public utterance to that view, which was commented on at the time by the papers in my own province, and I believe outside of it. What happened in 1896? My right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition at that time and the leader of the opposition to-day, declared as his policy before the country that there should be no remedial legislation-that it was not the proper system to adopt in order to remedy the grievance which had been established by the highest court, of the empire _ as a real grievance of the minority in Manitoba. He was in favour of conciliation and he held out to the electors of Canada that as soon as he was placed in power he would name a commission, the chairman of which would be Sir Oliver Mowat, a man commendable to everybody, and that under the management of that commission this question of the Manitoba schools would be settled, not by remedial legislation, but by conferences and agreement. Well, Sir, in my own province that programme was absolutely ratified and adopted, we who were in favour of remedying the grievance by remedial legislation returned from the province of Quebec a small baker's dozen, if I remember correctly. Therefore, the attitude of my right hon. friend in that regard was endorsed in my province and all over the country. What happened afterwards? A settlement was arrived at in 1897 though not exactly in the manner announced by my right hon. friend. As brought down to the House in 1897, that settlement is to be found in the Sessional

Papers of that year, volume 30, Sessional Paper No. 35, and if this is consulted, it will be found that the agreement, in the estimation of the minority themselves of the province concerned, was absolutely inadequate to remedy the grievance. I condemned it as such, but it was approved by parliament. The ministerial party of that day without any exception approved of the terms of that agreement, by voting confidence in the government after it had been adopted. It was approved by the country in the elections of 1900, more particularly in my own province.
I think I am justified in saying that as far as interference from the Dominion parliament or the Dominion government is concerned in any way we are to-day absolutely functi-offlcio. There is no power in the Dominion parliament or in the Dominion government to touch in any way the disabilities, the inconveniences, the great injustices to my mind from which at the present moment the religious minority in Manitoba age suffering. Therefore, it seems to me that it is our duty to examine what rights there are in the district of Keewatin which, according to my hon. friend from Nieolet, are to be safeguarded or attended to. From the animadversion and vituperation with which certain attacks have been made upon those of us in the Cabinet who are supposed to be more particularly concerned with the protection of the rights of the minority, that we should inquire if there are any vested rights in the Roman Catholic population of the district of Keewatin. In the petitions which I have received, in the requests which have appeared in the public press, reference is continually made to the Statute of 1875 to which the hon. member for Nieolet (Mr. Lamarche) has referred. The statute of 1875 contained the disposition which he has read to the House and which I would like briefly to quote. It is to be found in chapter 49 of the Statutes of 1875, section 11, regarding the Northwest Territories. It says:
_ When anti so soon as any system of taxation shall he adopted in any district or portion of the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the consent of the council or assembly, as the case may be, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education, hut it shall therein he always provided, that a majority of the ratepayers of any _ district or portion of the Northwest Territories, or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they may think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor; and further, that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and that Mr. MONK.
in such latter case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they may impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
This disposition is reproduced in the statutes of 1896, but it never was in any way enforced in the district of Keewatin. This Act of 1875 never applied to the district of Keewatin in any way. In the year after the Act was passed the district of Keewatin was organized separately under the Keewatin Act and this separation of the district of Keewatin from the rest of the Northwest Territories was for the purpose of temporarily providing for the administration of that district. Even as far back as 1875 this intention was expressed by parliament, as we find in the debates; the disposition of that territory was purely temporary, it was intended to incorporate it with the province of Manitoba or part of it with the province . of Ontario. It was separated from the territories of the Northwest as being immediately about to be incorporated with *existing provinces, and the disposition of *section 11 to which I have referred was especially for that purpose and then there is the Keewatin Act. Mr. Alexander Mackenzie, as will be found on referring to the debates of 1876, stated that this leaving out and this failure to provide any School law protection, any educational guarantee, was because the measure was temporary and it was intended before long, even at that time, 30 years ago, to place that territory under the school administration of the province of Manitoba or the province of Ontario or even perhaps to return it to the Northwest Territories. 'Therefore, I say that from the 7th of October, 1876, the date at which the Northwest Territories Act of 1875 came into force and the district of Keewatin Act of 1876 was also proclaimed, there never was any educational guarantee or law of any kind in the territory with which we are now dealing up to the time of the erection of the two provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, 30 years during which this district was kept in that state of suspense, and it is, I think, fair to assume that during that time there never was any law in existence in that territory under which any vested rights of any! kind or description might be acquired.
I come now to the moment when the two provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were organized. Up to that moment, during 30 years, in the district of Keewatin, there were no schools, there was no school 'legislation, there was no law of any kind under which any living man could claim 'any guarantee of any kind whatever in respect of education. In 1905 we created the two new provinces of Saskatchewan

'and Alberta by the two Acts of that year 'and in the same year was passed this statute which, I think, is important to 'quote to the House, because we are coming to a crucial and important moment 'in connection with the examination of this question. In the year 1905 at the 'time the Dominion parliament was creating these two large provinces alongside 'of Manitoba, we passed a statute amending the Northwest Territories Act, chapter *27, 4 and 5 Edward VII, section 3. We were then left with the Northwest Territories and with the district of Keewatin. 'What were we going to do? We had not 'carried out the expectation and the very 'natural request of the province of Manitoba to simultaneously receive its own 'extension of boundaries. This is what I find in section 3 of that statute:
The _ Northwest Territories shall hereafter comprise the territories formerly known as Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territories, except such portions thereof as form the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the district of Keewatin, and the Yukon Territory, together with all British territories and possessions in North America and all islands adjacent to any such territories or possessions except the colony of Newfoundland and its dependencies.
Therefore, the Dominion parliament, after having created and organized these two new provinces, as I read this sentence -and I submit to the House that it is not subject to any other interpretation-declares what shall be the new Northwest Territory, and keeps out of the Northwest Territory the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the district of Keewatin and the district of the Yukon. That was, at that moment, the will of parliament. Keewatin was not thrown into the Northwest Territory, but by the express declaration of the will of parliament, and for the same reasons that had prompted the creation of the district of Keewatin in 1875, it was kept aside to be placed in the province immediately adjacent. I say that was the will of parliament at that moment. _ The will of parliament was that the district of Keewatin should not once more be thrown into the Northwest Territory. At that very moment this annexation to the province to which we are annexing it to-day was already an urgent, a burning question. And1 parliament, with perfect reason, decreed that Keewatin should remain under the same regime as that under which it had been before.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: Was Keewatin not reannexed to the territories in 1905, by a proclamation which was provided for in the Keewatin Act of 1875?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have just stated to the House what was the legislation immediately following or contemporaneous with the creation of the two new provinces. But four days afterwards, on the 24th July, 1905, under the section of the old Keewatin Act, the Dominion government passed1 an order in council-the order in council to which my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), referred. This did not detach from Keewatin, in conformity with the terms of the Act, some proportion or portions of the district, but assigned the whole of the district to the Northwest Territories. And it is claimed-and I think with reason -that the order in council was absolutely ultra vires of the powers of the government under the section of the Keewatin Act to which I have just referred. But the strangest part of all came about when the revised statutes of 1906 came into force. The revised statutes of 1906, chapter 62, section 2, provides as follows:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, ' territories ' means the Northwest Territories, which comprise the territories formerly known as Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories, except such portions thereof as form the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and Yukon Territory.
Leaving out entirely the district of Keewatin in spite of the statute to which I have referred, passed in the previous year. So that, as I understand, the Act of the previous year was not repealed.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the hon. minister please read that section again?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I say that under section 2 of chapter 62, the Act respecting the Northwest Territories, the description of the Northwest Territories is not taken from the Act of 1905. It is not made to comprise the Northwest Territory except the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the district of Keewatin and the Yukon territory. The district of Keewatin is left out in the revision of the section. Although the will of parliament declares in 1905, that the statutes to which I have referred was that the district of Keewatin should remain outside of the Northwest Territories, and although that statute of 1905 is not repealed by the revised statutes -it is mentioned among the statutes revised-still in this section the Keewatin district is left out of the list of exceptions and so is thrown into the Northwest Territories.


Mr. ETHIER.: May I ask the hon. gentleman to read the last part of the section 2? He does not read it all. The last part concludes the definition of the word "territories". The hon. gentleman reads only the exceptions.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will read it all to my hon. friend:

. 4416
' Territories ' means the Northwest Territories which comprise the territories formerly known as Rupert's Land and the northwestern territory, excespt such portions thereof as form the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory, together with all British territories and possessions in North America and Ml islands adjacent thereto, not included within any province, except the colony of Newfoundland and its dependencies.
What I wish to point out is that the statute of 1905, though it is not purported to he repealed by the revised statutes, but consolidated, clearly takes out of the Northwest Territories the district of Keewatin, whereas under this section 2 of chapter 62 of the revised statutes as it is proclaimed in the following year, the district of Keewatin is left out. Therefore under this section 2 of chapter 62 it was actually thrown into the Northwest Territories, contrary, as I submit, to the clearly manifested will of parliament expressed by the statute passed in the previous year.


Hugh Guthrie: But the revised statutes, I presume, would supersede the statutes of the previous year. We passed the revised statutes as well as the others.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I suppose so. But the statute of the previous year was not repealed.


Hugh Guthrie: I would take it to be repealed by implication.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think so.


Mr. PROULX.: Is it not repealed by the statute ofi6-7 Edward VII-the next year?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Now, Sir, let us take the section to be found in the revised statutes of 1906. Up to 1906, we have not a shadow of reason for contending that there is in the district of Keewatin during the thirty years during which it had existed any legislation of any kind whatever concerning education or educational privileges. But let us take what happened in 1905 and 1906 and let me read to the House these sections concerning education to be found in the revised statute. I quote from the revised statutes of 1906 chapter 62, section 10:
The Commissioner in Council, if authorized to make ordinances respecting education, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect thereto; but in the laws or ordinances relating to education it shall always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the territories, or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor; and also that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein and in such eases, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic Mr. MONK.
separate schools shall be liable only to assessment of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
Taking it that this enactment of section 10, to be found for the first time in 1906 as applicable to the district of Keewatin, taking it that it came legitimately into our legislation, were there any vested rights of any kind or description whatever created under that section ? The House will note that in order to create any of these rights it was necessary that the commissioner of the northwest should be provided with a council. Without that council he could not pass any laws or regulations whatever in respect of education. But that was not the only condition. Not only must he be furnished with a council without which he had no authority whatever to legislate, but he must be specially authorized by the Dominion government to pass ordinances in respect to education. Neither of these conditions were ever fulfilled. It is not surprising that they were not fulfilled, because everything at that moment in that territory was in a state of transition; there was no necessity for providing it with a' council. It was not necessary for him to pass any ordinances in respect to education, because the regime over which he had control particularly in that direction was in a transitory state. Whatever may have been the reason, he was never authorized to pass any ordinances, he never received any council to advise him in his legislative capacity, and no law or regulation of any kind was adopted in that regime in respect to education. And can it be pretended that there were vested rights in respect to education ?


Mr. GUILBAULT.: Will the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly.


Joseph Pierre Octave Guilbault: When was the nomination of that council asked for the first time? Was it under the present government or under the ex-government?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe that the first request addressed to the federal government of appointment of a council was made in 1909. In a few moments I will refer to the matter mentioned by my hon. friend.
I say, therefore, that when you speak of vested rights in respect of education, you speak of rights that have been obtained in a substantial form, and under legislation which has been adopted. This section 10 which came into force under the circumstances I have indicated, in these peculiar, strange, mysterious circumstances, in respect of which I think some explanation ought to be offered by those who at that time were responsible for the legislation, was potential legislation, permissive or restrictive legislation. But, surely no vested

rights of any kind could arise under a clause of that kind until it became effective by the creation of a council under the authority conferred upon the commissioner to legislate, and furthermore, by legislation putting in force ordinances and regulations by the commissioner thus surrounded by his council and vested with authority. There never was at any time anything of that kind. So that what we have to-day in the district of Keewatin is merely a restriction which never became operative or effective because the clause itself never came into operation through the failure to name a council and to authorize that council to legislate.
I have spoken in regard to the district of Keewatin. My hon. friend from Nico-let (Mr. Lamarche) has referred to the narrow strip on the eastern part of the district of Keewatin, probably one-ninth at most of the territory with which we are dealing to-night, and which, when the two new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were created, were left out of those provinces for the sake of symmetry and remained in the Northwest Territories. But in that narrow strip, although the former section of the Act of 1675 applied without any interruption, it never became effective, no schools were organized, the ordinances of the Northwest Territories were never applied in that district, and no vested rights of any kind, to my mind, were created. Now under these circumstances I do not think it is possible to say that there are, in any portion of that district, acquired rights with which we can deal. Let me here mention to the House, in answer to the question put by my hon. friend from the county of Joliette (Mr. Guilbault), a petition was presented to the government- [DOT]I have a copy of it here-on the 9th of July, 1905, for the establishment of a school at Le Pas. That petition does not indicate the character of the school to be established. There is a correspondence upon the subject. I will not take up the time of the House in quoting lengthily from the correspondence upon that subject, but I will merely state the facts. In 1909 application was made to the government for the establishment of a school in that strip. The government does not seem to have thought at the time that it was possible to organize that school under any law. The report of Mr. White, commisisoner, was that there were no laws under which effect could be given to that application. I believe that application was fronu the Catholic minority. So far as I can see from the document, it was for the establishment of a school at that place. There was afterwards an application from a Roman Catholic bishop. That application was made since the present government came into power. The matter was referred to the
commissioner of the northwest, and the report was in the same sense, that there were no ordinances applicable or susceptible of any application in that territory under which any possible effect could be given to that expressed desire for a local organization.


Wilfrid Laurier: I thought the question of my hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Guilbault) was whether there had been an application for the appointment of a council, and when it was made for the first time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am not aware that there was at any time an application for a Council; it may be so, but I am not aware of it.
There were several applications-I think two or three, at any rate-for school organization under the laws, but I am not aware that there was any demand-although there might have been a demand- for the nomination of a council. When this government came into power, one of the very first questions brought to our consideration with which we had to deal-* I think the very first question-was precisely the demand of Manitoba for an extension of its boundaries. There has been a pretension that at that moment it was the duty of the government to complete the council and to authorize the commissioner, assisted by the council, to pass educational legislation. It seems to me a most preposterous proposal that we, at that moment, when seized with the immediate question of the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, which had been before the country for years, and obliged to deal with that question, should, by the nomination of a council and the authorization of the commissioner to pass ordinances in Tes-pect to education, still further complicate the question which was already before us to be decided. It would have been not only highly improper, but absolutely preposterous at that moment. We would have been called upon to deal immediately with the territory, to name a council, and to complete the organization of that territory as if it were to remain permanently outside of the province. I always considered that that was a most improvident demand and a most indefensible proposal. I think this is a proper view to take of it. Then, there were no vested rights of any kind in Keewatin territory, and there are at present no vested rights, nothing substantial in the way of legal or acquired rights in the territory with which we are dealing. There is a legislative restriction in case the commissioner in charge of the. territory should be provided with a council, and in case he should be authorized to legislate on education. But, there is no council, we found no council, we have to deal with the question and the commissioner has never been provided with a

council or authorized to legislate. There are no obligations of any hind existing under any legal disposition in that territory. Let me read to the House the law which governs our dealings with this question at the present moment. I shall quote from the Imperial Act, 1871, 34-35 Vic. We are doing something absolutely different from what we were doing in 1905, because^ then we were organizing 'tw|o new provinces. These are the sections of the Imperial Act, under which we are authorized to create new provinces or to extend the boundaries of a province:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, mate provision for the constitution and admission of any such province and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said parliament.
3. The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting thfe effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
In 1905 we were giving a constitution to the two new provinces. Under the third section, under which we are acting at the present time, we have no constitution to give to the province of Manitoba. It has its constitution under Imperial legislation. In 1905 we were called upon to establish the constitutions of the two new provinces. We found there a territory under which there had been legislation in respect to schools in force for a long time, in which there was a population, in which there was a Catholic minority, a number of schools organized under these ordinances and what we were required to do, was to provide protection for the actual, substantial vested rights of that minority under the new constitutions of these two provinces. We were making constitutional limitations. My right hon. friend ('Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at that time, took that view of it, and he will remember that he invited us to mount with him upon the rock of constitution and the very section of the Northwest Territories Act was to be incorporated in the constitutions of these new provinces, which we were dealing with, with such limitations as we think were fit and proper at the time of the foundation of these new provinces under section 2 of the Imperial Act.
But, in this case, we have no constitution to confer upon any of the provinces be-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: tween which we are dividing that territory. We have no power to place constitutional limitations upon those provinces under section 3, under which we are acting. We cannot change the constitution of any of these provinces. It might be argued that, under the very general permission of section 3, which I have just read, we could impose conditions upon the province of Manitoba. To what extent can we impose those conditions? I have said to the House that in my estimation there are, in this territory, no vested rights, no substantial rights acquired under any legislation. But, if you admit that, and if you say that we can, because this is a matter of mutual consent between ourselves and this province, impose any condition we like, it becomes a question of policy. What should be the policy? Is it the opinion of the House, is it the opinion of my hon. friend from Nico-let, that since it is a matter of mutual consent, we should say to the province of Manitoba:	You shall not have this territory to which you are clearly entitled under the scheme of the division of the territory unless you accept as a condition that you will have a dual system of schools in your province; you have the system which exists in the old province of Manitoba; and which has been declared to be constitutional by the decision of the Privy 'Council in the Barrett case, as a matter of constitutional law; you will not have that territory unless you consent to a dual system of schools in the enlarged and extended province. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to conceive of a proposition more calculated to do injustice to the very large minority of Catholics who are to-day in the old province of Manitoba, and for whom there is reason to hope that the government end the people of Manitoba will do somethin'* in the future to relieve them from the disabilities and injustice under which they suffer at present.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Has the hon. member (Mr Monk) any assurance or understanding that any such thing will be done?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: None whatever. But, leaving aside now the legal question of vested rights and of what should be the policy in dealing with that great province, I submit that at the present moment, without the existence of any properly or so-called vested right, to say to the province: you will not have this territory unless you consent to establish within your limits a dual system of education, would be, in my mind, an extremely unwise and unfair condition to place upon Manitoba. There are, in my opinion, no legal rights whatever to safeguard, and as a matter of pure policy to say we will place that condition upon any transfer of territory would be absolutely

contrary to the best interests of the country, and. even to the best interests of the minority in that province. It is a well known fact that in spite of the extremely unenviable conditions of the agreement arrived at in 1897, the minority in the province of Manitoba has been treated with the extremest indulgence possible by the government of Mr. Roblin. There is no dcubt whatever that everything that could be done for that minority under the laws as they exist, has been done. At the present moment, it seems to me that for us to take up that extremely hard and unjustifiable position with respect to this territory, would be impolitic and improper. That is the opinion I hold of the situation, viewed from the standpoint of policy. Then, Mr. Speaker, if it is to be considered entirely as a question of policy, it seems to me that would bring up the whole question of public schools, so to speak. For my own part, I am not a believer in the system of education which perhaps meets with the approval and favour of the majority of the members of this House, and which to-day meets with great favour in the United States. I believe in a system of education which preserves absolutely for the parent the right to educate his child according to his consicence; I believe in a system of education with moral and religious training for the child, and that principle is the principle which, notwithstanding the fiercest educational controversies, has always been maintained in the legislation of England. In the United States a different opinion prevails. Some fifty years ago in that country the people came to the conclusion that the primary system of education which had produced the greatest men of the republic from Washington to Jefferson -was not a proper system, and the prevailing educational system was then commenced to be introduced, and in my opinion, after years of trial it has been found absolutely insufficient and defective. To-day, throughout the republic of the United States, the most eminent men and the greatest thinkers of every religious persuasion have come to the conclusion that the prevailing educational system has not in any way produced the result which its promoters expected from it. Now, I do not believe in that system, but it undoubtedly has obtained great favour in many parts of our own country, and there is hardly a doubt that it meets with the approval of the majority of the members of this House. Now, what would be thought of a policy by which this parliament would say to all three provinces concerned in this transaction-Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba-we will not transfer to you any part of this territory unless you establish denominational schools in every part of this annexed territory. I 141
know, Sir, that in the province of Quebec, such a proposal as that would be deemed an affront and no doubt the province of Ontario would take the same view. If you divest this question from the idea of vested legal right; if there are no legal rights whatever and it becomes a question of policy, I say that the proper policy for us is to transfer the territory to the province of Manitoba without any condition whatever in that respect. And, there is no provision which we could insert in the deed of transfer which would afford any protection to the people of the annexed territories better than the protection which is afforded by the constitution of Manitoba in section 22 of the Manitoba Act. We neither could nor should afford any other protection than is to be found in that legislation, and under it, if there are any rights of any kind existing in that territory, those rights will continue to exist after the extension of the boundaries. What laws may be in force will continue to be in force until altered by competent authority, and that competent authority, if it is the provincial authority, will be absolutely limited by the constitutional provisions which exist under section 22 of the Manitoba Act, to which I have referred. There is therefore, to my mind, nothing which we can place in this Act as a question of policy, which would give greater protection to the people of the new territories than is provided under the constitution of Manitoba itself, and in our dealing with that province, as in our dealing with the other provinces concerned, I think we cannot do a wise; thing under the circumstances than to pass the territory over without any conditions of any kind whatever.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: The hon. member states that if there are vested rights there is no necessity for putting in a proviso to protect these vested rights.
On the same principle, if the Hudson's Bay Company has vested rights, why is it necessary to make a proviso for them? What is the difference between the vested rights of. the minority and the vested rights of the Hudson's Bay Company?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The difference is this, that the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company are purely proprietary rights, as to which there is no dou'bt whatever, and in trans'-ferring this territory, we are obliged to provide for those proprietary rights. I do not think there are any vested educational rights, but if there were any, the only way in which they could be protected, if the transfer is to take place, is under the educational clause 22 of the Manitoba Act, which we cannot change or vary in any way.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is clause 22? The right of appeaJls only?
REVrSED EDITION


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is the charter of Manitoba, which says this:
In and for the province the said legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law or practice in the province at the union.
Then there are two subsections with regard to an appeal and remedy in case that provision of the law should be violated.


Wilfrid Laurier: What application has this to the present case?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Under this section, if there are any rights existing in this territory, and if after its incorporation into Manitoba those rights are interfered with, this section will operate to protect those rights, whatever they may be.


Wilfrid Laurier: But I understood my hon. friend to say there are no rights there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am certainly of opinion, and have endeavoured to show, that there are no rights of any kind existing. I say the commissioner was never authorized to legislate, and no rights of any kind were created under that permissive section. There were no schools organized under the law and no rights to be protected; and under the imperial constitution of Manitoba there can be no other guarantee than the guarantee provided in section 22.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 22 has no application at all to this territory. It refers to any right which existed in the province at the union, that is, in 1870.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The words seem to me to have the same application as those of section 93 of the British North America Act. Subsection 2 provides for an appeal in case vested rights are interfered with.


Edmond Proulx: I beg to remind the hon. minister that section 22 deals with a province; hut this territory 'does not come in as a province; it is only added to a province.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: For every part of a province I believe there is a remedy under section 22. I thought it necessary to show to the House and the country that this matter has been most carefully considered by ourselves, in view particularly of an agitation which it has been attempted to start, and whidh I consider most unfounded and unwise. Speaking as a member of the Catholic minority, I am not at all dispoi&ed to say that there should be the slightest disposition to give way when we have clear and established rights. I Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
believe that the foundation of the prosperity of this confederation, in which we all have faith and hope, reposes on absolute respect for the rights of all minorities, and the strict maintenance of those rights on every occasion possible. But I believe at the same time that we must confine our exactions as a minority to the clear cases in which those Tights exist under the law. There should be a strict adherence to the constitution. Where there is no evidence of any existing right, it would be, I think, unwise and wrong to make claims that have no foundation in law. I and my colleagues have endeavoured to give to this matter the most careful consideration. As a 'matter of policy, after the irritation that has existed in regard to the Manitoba school question, the idea no doubt prevalent in the minds of many people is that the settlement of the Manitoba boundaries has possibly been retarded by the acrimony that prevailed in regard to that question. It would be wrong at the present moment to make excessive claims. I have absolute confidence myself that the Manitoba government will in due course give favourable consideration to the disabilities under which the minority suffer within the limits of the old territories, and with whom, under my interpretation of the law and of the agreement of 1897, they have no power whatever to interfere. I believe that at the present moment to impose conditions with regard to this transfer which are not clearly founded in law, would indispose the government and the people of Manitoba. These western communities are generous and broad-minded, but they do not like control or domination. In this case there is to my mind no ground for any such domination or any such imposition of conditions, and I have confidence that, from the measure in the shape in which it is submitted by the government the very best results will follow.


Mr. W. F. MAOLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will bear me for two or three moments while I refer to this question. I have listened to what the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. La-marche) has said, and if I can interpret his argument, it is this, that there wo lid have to be coercion of Manitoba in connection with education if his suggestion were entertained.
If anything ever was settled by this House once and forever it was settled1 in 1896, that there was to be no coercion of Manitoba in respect of education. I was a member of the House at that time, and I disagreed with my party then in regard to this question. I was one of seven, and there are only two of us in the House now, who took this stand that there was to be no coercion of a province, and we were supported, in that contention by the

then opposition, led by the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition at the present moment ( Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and it was settled once and1 forever that there was to be no coercion of the province of Manitoba in regard to education. If the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), means anything to-night he proposes that there shall be inserted in this Bill something coercive of Manitoba. Hot for one moment will the people of this country stand for the coercing in any shape or form of a sovereign province like Manitoba whose rights in this matter were settled long ago.
In 1896 the then government of the day felt that they were constrained by the constitution to give remedial legislation on behalf of Manitoba. That was argued and upheld by the government, that they were coerced to do that thing. I contended1 against that then, the province of Ontario from which I come also took that view, and now when another Conservative government are in office they do not feel that they are constrained by the constitution to in any way attempt to coerce the province of Manitoba. Thus you can see that there is some kind of progress in a constitutional way, and to my mind it is a sign of progress that neither the government nor the parliament to-day are disposed to coerce a sovereign province like Manitoba in the matter of education.
Passing along we come down to the legislation which established the new provinces in the northwest. To my mind there was coercion then. It carried' after a very long and severe fight, but even then there were members in the Liberal party who left their party on that occasion because of what was considered coercion of the provinces. In the first instance coercion was attempted by the government and failed1, and later on when a modified form of coercion was attempted it succeeded in a way, but still the circumstances were different in that we were creating new provinces in the second1 case, and interfering with an established province in the first case.
Now we come to this case. There is a proposal that there shall be some kind of coercion of Manitoba in this case. I am voting for this measure to-day and I am glad to vote for it because there is no attempt at coercion in it, and in that respect it is altogether different from the two former measures. I grant that on the line of the argument of the previous speaker the minority may have a grievance, but, if they have a grievance the remedy is still in an appeal to the province of Manitoba to_ do them justice, and I believe if their grievance is a good one and they persist in it, they will get some kind of modification that will meet their views and that would be better than that we should at-I41i
tempt the coercion of a province and should interfere with what might be called the rights of the majority, because a majority may have rights, and these rights may be greater than what the grievances of a minority may be. If the proposal of the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) means anything it must mean that there shall be coercion of the whole province or coercion in regard to education in the newer portion that is now to be added to it, and in that case we would have a province with two different kinds of laws in regard to different sections of it. That anomaly surely could not exist. If it meant that the law was to be widespread and the minority's rights were to be incorporated in the statutes of Manitoba now, I say we would be going altogether too far in interfering with that province. So I have simply risen to say that I am voting for this measure because I have seen this parliament grow, both as regards the government and as regards the House, in at last adopting the policy that there must not be coercion in this country in matters educational, and that it Is best in every way to leave these questions to the people of the respective provinces.
I believe the people of all our provinces will respect the rights of minorities and will do justice to all, and that the only natural and the proper thing for this House to do either in the past or on this occasion, is to absolutely keep clear of these questions and to leave them to the provinces for settlement and for the doing of any right that a minority can fairly claim. This Act shows an advancement, a progress in our country in this respect, that at last we have decided not to interfere in any way with a sovereign province in the matter of education.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Bill we have before us now is one of great importance in itself, but its importance is greatly enhanced by the fact that it will be considered by parliament together with two other Bills, one extending the boundaries of the province of Ontario, and the other extending the province of Quebec.
This country is growing rapidly, and its population is keeping pace with its progress.
It is now proposed by two of these Bills, that Ontario will take over and administer all that portion of territory extending from its present limits as far as Hudson bay, and to extend to the boundaries of the province of Quebec, so as to include the whole of Ungava.
By the present Bill it is also proposed to extend the boundaries of the province of Manitoba, but it is to be noted that special conditions are made as to public lands and school lands which this government keeps.

The features of this Bill which have not met with the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite are mostly what I might call the financial terms or conditions. It has been argued by some gentlemen that this government was giving too much to Manitoba. Other gentlemen on the same side of the House have argued that the government was doing the reverse of that. It has been attempted to convince the maritime provinces that they were unfairly treated. I do not think I am going too far in saying that no very great or serious objection has been raised in that regard.
One argument which has been put for-'ward by the hon. member for St. John '(Mr. Pugsley) may at first sight have been 'considered as having some force. He 'said that the resolutions provided for the 'extensions of the boundaries of these two provinces had all been passed in the same year,-as a matter of fact, they are contained in the same resolution. Why, then, he said, should we give to the province of Manitoba arrears which we are not giving to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec? Speaking with all due deference to all the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this question, this was the only argument that struck me as being, at first sight, very serious. But if we consider the state of affairs existing then as it exists now, I think that even the hon. member for St. John, who has put forward this argument for his own province and the two sister provinces by the sea, will admit that his argument cannot live in the light of the facts. I may not have understood it, and I speak subject to correction; but it seems to me there is a vast difference between the positions of Ontario and Quebec in this respect, and that of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905. We must not lose sight of the fact that to Ontario and Quebec we are giving the lands within their boundaries, but we give here to the province of Manitoba only the extension of boundaries, but we keep under this government the school lands and the public lands. What the government did in 1905 for Alberta and Saskatchewan is what this government is doing to-day for Manitoba in that respect. Even if .that resolution of 1908 had been put on the statute-book and agreed to by all the provinces, Ontario and Quebec would not have had much revenue from these territories. As a matter of fact, they would have had none. But Alberta and Saskatchewan had been receiving, in deu of public lands, a money grant. And if Manitoba had been treated like the sister provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, she would have received a similar grant from 1905. But Manitoba has been deprived of this revenue. Now I ask the question-and it is a fair one-why should Mr. PELLETIER.
we be reproached for giving to Manitoba wdiat she ought to have received from 1905? Are we to be told that this in an unfair arrangement. Surely not. Speaking for myself, I should have been disposed to consider a claim by Manitoba going back to the time when the money was given to the other provinces, because Manitoba was entitled to that amount as much as Alberta and Saskatchewan were. This argument of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) which I have been considering -as the only serious argument, and is the only one to which I think it necessary to refer. ,
Manitoba has been kept in the background because, in the eyes of the late government, she was guilty of being a Conservative province, and now that the *Conservative government is in power at Ottawa, we intend, at once, to give the province of Manitoba the territorial limits to which she is legitimately entitled and of which she has been unjustly deprived.
The financial conditions are, as I understand, reasonable and acceptable, and [DOT]there seems to be no great obstacle in the way, except, that as far as the Catholic members of the Cabinet are concerned, they are told that they are not doing their duty on the vexed question of separate schools.
My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Sir. Wilfrid Laurier) has told us that on this question he is within the lines of Torres Vedras. My right hon. friend knows that ground well; he has been there very often. I have never been there: I am not going to be there to-night.
Now, this is an important question. The papers in our province, as the right hon. gentleman himself put it this afternoon, speak of nothing else just now but this question. The right hon. gentleman referred to it but said he was not going to speak of it. I am not here to judge the course my right hon. friend has chosen to follow in this matter, but I have the right to look on and see what is going on. And I see here a great party the leader of which says in this House that we have before us an important matter, but he is not going to touch it, that he has no policy with regard to it. And he says, very aptly: Give us your policy on this question. Mr. Speaker, we have put the Bill before the House: that is our policy. The right hon. gentleman was fifteen years in power, and when he brought measures before parliament, if somebody had told him he had no policy with regard to the matters involved he would have been very much surprised. And I was surprised this afternoon to be told that this government has no policy. The right hon, gentleman's own papers in the province of Quebec are calling us archtraitors because this Bill is before the

443C
House in the form in which it appears. The right hon. gentleman (Sir. Wilfrid Laurier) has nothing to say. I take it that if there are clauses in the Bill which the government brings before the House which are bad in the eyes of certain members, those members should stand up like men and tell us so. And if a Bill which the government brings down shows important omissions, it is the duty of the loyal opposition in this House to tell us:	You have forgotten to
put something in this Bill which ought to be there.
Since we are confronted with it and since we must look back to that past, so as to know where we stand for the present and for the future, if the House will give its attention for a short time, we will consider the facts.
But even after my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works had spoken, again these gentlemen have nothing to say, they are playing a waiting game. They were waiting for me, and they are not going to be disappointed. For my part I do not approve of the game they are now attempting to play. When a government has a policy to lay before parliament and the country, it is the duty of that government to state clearly the reasons which actuate it. For my part, Mr. Speaker, 1 am quite ready and intend to utter my opinions on this subject freely and boldly, whatever the consequences may be to my future and to myself. I am going to take a stand on this question, because I believe that the time has come when every man must take a stand upon it. It is not my purpose to play with this question politically; it has been made a football long enough. Fifteen years ago this question was approached by one of the political parties with the sole object of making political capital out of it. I may be pardoned if I look at this question briefly. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Work' has referred to the statute giving existence to the province of Manitoba. He has read a part of the statute, and as it is one of the important bases of my argument, I will recall briefly the facts of the case. The statute giving Manitoba its existence as a province, contained the following clauses:-
Section 22. In and for the said province, the said legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and1 according to the following provisions:
1.	Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have, by law or practice, in the province at the union.
2.	An appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any act or decision of the legislature of the province, or of any provincial authority, affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education.
3.	In case any such provincial law, as from time to time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite tor the due execution of the provisions of this section, is not made, or in case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper provincial authority in that behalf, then, and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the parliament of Canada may make remedial laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section, and of any decision of the Governor General in Council under this section.
It is useless to dwell at any length on the interpretation to be given to the clauses which I have just read. Their sense and meaning have been interpreted by the highest judicial tribunal of the British Empire, the Privy Council in England, and I shall refer to that in a moment. Let me say in passing, that they leave no doubt whatever as to the rights which, under that statute, the minority, either Protestant or Catholic, had to their own schools.
In defiance to that Act, the Greenway government, in 1890, submitted to the Manitoba legislature a Bill which ignored the vested rights which the minority had. This was done for a political purpose, to obtain undue political advantage; however, it 'became the law of the province, and it has remained the law of the province, with slight amendments, ever since. This law might have been disavowed by the federal government. If it had been disavowed, it would probably have been enacted and re-enacted year after year, and it would have kept the province at war wtih the federal government, and a most unsatisfactory state of affairs would have ensued. As the law creating Manitoba contained stipulations providing for a better, more complete and final settlement of the question, in a judicial or ' quasi ' judicial way, it was thought better that the interested parties should have recourse to them.
When the working out of the Manitoba School Act was attempted or rather begun, a number of interested parties questioned the' validity of the law and its constitutionality; this is the case known as the Barrett case. It went from court to court, to the Privy Council in England, and here is the holding of the Privy Council:



AN APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
City of Winnipeg, Appellant, and
Barrett, Respondent.
Held, that the Act of 1890, which abolished the denominational system of public education established by law since the union, but which did not compel the attendance of any child 'at a public school, or confer any advantage in respect of attendance other than that of free education, and at the same time left each denomination free to establish,
[Stage Direction]
maintain and conduct its own schools, did not contravene the above proviso; and 'that, accordingly, certain by-laws of a municipal corporation which authorized assessments under the Act were valid.
I am not here to criticise that judgment. 1 have to take it as it stands; it declares that whilst the statute, erecting Manitoba into a province, provided that the minority's schools should not be interfered with, the Manitoba School Act which apparently did take them away was ngorously constitutional. The -point ot view taken was that the Manitoba School Act did not compel the Catholic minority to attend1- any schools except their own, that they were still at liberty to have their own schools and to send their children to them. However, the matter did not rest there; the Catholic minority had another remedy which was given them by the constitution, by means of an appeal to the Governor General in Council. This appeal was made, but at the time, there was a great agitation over the question in this country; some people were clamouring that this appeal could not and should not be entertained that the judgment of the Priivy Council in the Barrett case had settled the question, and so forth. The government of that day acted' very prudently in the matter; in view of the fact that their power to hear this appeal was questioned; they decided that t-he question should be referred to the courts, so that, like the Ne Temere question, it would be decided by the highest court of the empire. They fully expected, and had reason to expect, that when the Privy Council had spoken, everyone in the country would submit to the decision given at the foot of the Throne.
The case was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, and was there decided in one way. That judgment was afterwards carried to the Privy Council, which reversed the decision of the Supreme Court, holding as follows:
Where the Homan Catho-lio -minority in Manitoba appealed to the Governor General in Council against -the Manitoba Education Act of 1890, on the grounds -that their rights and -privileges in relation to education had been affected thereby:
Held, reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court on a case submitted to it:
(a)	That such appeal lay under section 22, subsection 2, of the Manitoba Act, 1870, which applies to rights and privileges acquired by legislation in the province after the date thereof.
(b)	That Roman Catholics having acquired by such legislation the right to control and manage their denominational schools, to have them maintained out of the general taxation of the province, to sdleot books for their use, and to determine the character of the religious teaching therein, were affected as regards
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 

JACQUES CARTIER HALL, QUEBEC.

[Stage Direction]
Do not misunderstand my intentions, I repeat here that I wish the minority in Manitoba to obtain justice. It is a principle written in letters of gold in the programme of my party, that the rights of the minority must >be respected. . . .
If the people of Canada bring me to power, as I am convinced they will, I will settle this question to the satisfaction of all interested parties. I shall have with me in my government Sir Oliver Mowat, who has always been in Ontario, at the peril of his own popularity, the champion of the Catholic minority and of separate schools. I will put him at the head of a commission, where all the interests at stake shall be represented, and I affirm to yon that I will succeed in satisfying those who are suffering at this moment. Is not Sir Oliver Mowat's name alone a guarantee of the success of this plan?
And finally, if conciliation does not succeed, I shall have to exercise that constitutional recourse which the law furnishes, ' a recourse which I shall exercise completely aud entirely.'
Briefly put, it reads thus: To you Catholics of Quebec, I, your future Prime Minister, promise and undertake that I shall give your people of Manitoba a more complete measure of justice. I will have the great Sir Oliver Mowat with me, he is a friend of the Catholics, always has been.
This speech inflamed Catholic enthusiasm in Quebec, and the small fry, the ward-heelers, went with that speech throughout the province, adding on to it special comments, such as the following which I had heard at almost every meeting during that election, and which ran thus:	Now gentlemen, you see what this
great man Laurier will do for his Catholic people in Quebec. Do you not think that Catholic Laurier will do better than Protestant Tupper?
Mr. LEMIEUX.: That's what Sir Charles Tupper said in Winnipeg, reversed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) instead of attempting to deny this admits it and tries to bring in Sir Charles Tupper, which is entirely beside the question.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: What did you say?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What I said then I am saying now. I would suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that they take their 1 medicine like men. We are told, and it is

true, that a great many of our own people went back on Sir Charles Tupper, and did not extend to him the ' glad hand ' of gratitude.
I am not here to approve of what they did. To say the least, I think they made a great mistake, but it is, to a certain extent, explained by the fact that when appeals are made to religious enthusiasm, either Catholic or Protestant, we always find people who allow themselves to be carried away by them.


Mr. McKENZIB.: Like the navy question in Quebec last election.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We will let the navy rest for the moment with the remark that a gentleman who has been -a judge ought to know that we should try each question judicially. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) were addressing a jury no doubt he would speak about the state of the weather outside the courthouse. But let him come with me to Massey Ha'll, Toronto, and hear what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said there, and I quote from the Toronto ' Globe ' so that there be no mistake about it.
Mr. Laurier said: He was there (in Toronto) to say, not that he would give either a small or a large amount of relief to the minority, but that assisted by his friend, Sir Oliver Mowat, he would settle the question, not by appeal to any class, but by appeal to the sense of justice which was emplanted in every one by the Creator . . . He was a Roman Catholic and a French-Canadian, and, therefore, might have strong sympathy for the minority, but as he himself would not be coerced by anybody, so he would not consent to force coercion upon any one.
This is the same man who said in Quebec, that he would give a big measure of relief. In Massey hall he would not say whether it would he big or a small measure. At first sight there are many words in the Toronto speech which resemble the Quebec one, but mark the ending. The cry in Ontario had been * do not coerce Manitoba/ and we find on the lips of the Laurier of that time, the very same words, put there, no doubt, for a purpose. There was enough in that speech to allow the Griit press and the Grit speakers to go about and say all over the province: 'Look at the great man we have as our future Prime Minister, he will not coerce Manitoba.' The Grit candidates went upon the hustings with the Remedial Bill in their hands and said: ' If we are returned to power, we will take that Remedial Bill and tear it to pieces, shouting: ' Hands off Manitoba.'


Mr. TURRIFF.: Nothing the matter with that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not surprised at that. This is the same double-faced policy Mr. PELLETIER.
we have had for fifteen years. What, Sir, was the result of all this? Quebec sent a majority to put in power the man who promised to give a better measure of justice to the Catholic minority of Manitoba, and the English-speaking Protestants Sent a majority to bring to power the man who would not coerce Manitoba. Meanwhile, the Manitoba minority lay by the way-side knowing full well what they could expect from the government which the leader of the opposition did not wish to coerce.
A commission had been promised which would look into the question and solve it; instead of that, there was a conference between the Manitoba Grits and the Ottawa Grits, where sunny smiles and sunny ways, we were told, would produce important results.
What those results were, I need not mention. except to say, in a word, that, during fifteen long years, a great number of Roman Catholics in Manitoba have been obliged to pay for the maintenance of schools which their children did not attend, and have had to put their hands in their pockets a second time, to have other schools where, according to their belief, they could send their children for their education. Then we heard, falling from the lips of His Majesty's representative in this country, the Governor General, the following words, which were pronounced at the opening of parliament in 1897:
Immediately after the last election, the government of Manitoba was invited to hold a conference' with my ministers on the subject of the grievances arising out of the Act of that province relating to education. Three members of the Manitoba government came to Ottawa, and, after many and protracted discussions, a settlement was reached between the two governments, which was the best arrangement obtainable under the existing conditions of this disturbing question. I confidently hope that this settlement will put an end to this agitation which has marred the harmony and impeded the development of our country, and will prove the beginning of a new era to be characterized by generous treatment of one another, mutual concessions and reciprocal good-will.
Later, the question was asked by Mr. LaRiviere, now a .senator, who was then a member of this House, and reply was given by the then Prime Minister, who is now the leader of the opposition. Let me quote that also:
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked:
By whom was the settlement of the school question signed, after the same was agreed upon by both the federal and provincial governments, and why are not the names given in the copy brought down?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Laurier.) I have alrealy stated to the honourable gentleman that the negotiations -which took place between the Canadian and the Manitoba government were confidential. When they were

concluded, the terms of the agreement were communicated to the press and taken back to Manitoba by the commissioners of the Manitoba government, and afterwards embodied in the Act of the legislature.
However, it was discovered later that the agreement which was brought down without any signature, contained two signatures -those of Wilfrid Laurier and Thomas Greenway.
Before closing what I may call the historical part of my remarks, I wish, once again, in the year 1912, to put on ' Hansard ' something which was said in this parliament when the Liberal government came into power. Sir Charles Tunner, the man who went to the election, with his government, to have a judgment of the Privy Council and the constitution of this country upheld, who was defeated in that manly, courageous, and righteous attempt, stood up in the House, and spoke thus:
In the future, as in the past, the cardinal principle of the party to which I belong, will be:	Equal justice to all, without respect to race or creed. I am glad to know that the responsibility of settling this question-an important question-I am glad to know that the responsibility no longer rests upon my shoulders, but upon those of the honourable gentleman who is now the First Minister of the Crown. I can only say that I trust and hope that he will be most succes-ful in obtaining such a settlement _ of this question as will do justice and give satisfaction to al'l parties. I can assure the honourable gentleman not only that he ha9 my most cordial wishes for a happy, and early, and fair settlement of this important question, hut that anything I can contribute to that end will be at all times most cheerfully done.
A most noble and patriotic move, which has not, I think, its parallel in the history of this country. These words were uttered at a moment when the new leader of the new government, (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) could do alone what he had promised to Quebec, but, for fear that he might be handicapped in some way, this great statesman, who had just fallen in the accomplishment of his duty, turns to the man who had1 profited by the sacrifice, and tells him: "I will not do as you have done, on the contrary, I will help you for the sake of the cause."
I hope the right hon. leader of the opposition will not be offended if I now put him and Sir Charles Tupper side by side, and ask this country to make a comparison between the two. The comparison will be made anyway in the history of this country, and we may as well have it now.
You have now, Mr. Speaker, the facts of the past; they had to be stated in order to show the present state of affairs. These facts are so closely connected with the consideration of what we are told should have been inserted in this Bill now before us
that they must be recalled in order to thoroughly understand the position which I take in, this matter.
It is now suggested that this battle be' fought over again, in respect to the district of Keewatin. If it has to be, in the first place I may say, and say emphatically, with due respect and deference, that there are two things about which I am sure and about which I will not have one moment of hesitation. With my experience of the past, I am not prepared to leave the rights of any minority, either Protestant or Catholic, to the tender mercies of the leader of the opposition and his friends. I would rather leave them in the hands of the Rob-lin government. If future facts show that in doing this I have erred, I will stand the consequences. I am prepared to do so because I believe from the bottom of my heart that I am right. I shall have to again refer to that later.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Has my hon. friend any understanding with the Roblin government?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is too thin. I am going to answer the question fully by and bye. The Minister of Public Works has answered it and what the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) wants is to enable the Toronto 'Globe' to-morrow to say: Roblin has purchased the consent of the Roman Catholic members of the government. He will not have that chance.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I do not want it. All I want my hon. friend to do is to tell me the truth.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: You are going to have the whole truth. The other thing about which I am sure is that it would be most unjust to tell us here to-day that we will be just as bad as the leader of the opposition if we do not give the people of Keewatin more than he gave the people of Manitoba. In the first place, the cases are not alike, and moreover the settlement of the Manitoba school question on just and fair terms was a very easy thing in 1897. The then leader of the government was not only pledged to it, but the opposition offered to help in the settlement, but the present leader of the opposition refused to do anything fair and reasonable.
He decided not to fulfil the promises contained in his Quebec speech, but to stand by his Massey Hall ' no coercion ' programme, and to educate the people of this country on those lines. For the last fifteen years, this has been considered by the people of this country as a good and sound policy. The law of the land has been put to one side, dhe to that attitude of the leader of the then government and his party. The very constitution has been trampled under foot. A remedial order,

which the Privy Council has declared to be a valid and legal remedy, was ignored, and the Liberal party of this country is responsible for all this. Now, I am not here to say that this should be forever continued', and that this should endure forever. I would say: let us put an end to it now and come back to the sane and sound principles which obtained in the past, and which are the safeguard of every citizen of this country, but in the name of the most elementary principles of justice and fair-play. I ask those two questions: If there is to-day within easy reach, a possible way of settling this vexed question should we, in the first place, He asked to uselessly run upstream against the torrent which the Liberal party has set running from the mountain; should we give a chance to the Liberal party to set this eomtry ablaze a second time with one appeal to Quebec and another appeal to Ontario? 'Shall we thereby take upon ourselves the responsibility of asking our political friends to go down to defeat once more to the detriment of the minority, and for the benefit of those who have ignored1 it yesterday, and who would, to-morrow, continue that same policy?
Again, I say that if the purpose in view can be obtained in some other ways, this would be nonsensical and suicidal. I am not prepared to help the gentlemen opposite to continue their policy of setting race against race, and creed against creed in this country. Why, Sir, where would this end? Yes, where would it end? I put this question here as a good1 Canadian. I have been told that I must resign, that there must be a big crisis. Well, Sir, let me tell these gentlemen who speak thus, that there is not enough in that portfolio for a man to forget his honour and his principles, and were it not that 1 consider I have here a noble duty to perform, it is not one, nor ten portfolios winch would make me stand the torrent of abuse, organized and unorganized, which is showered upon me. There has been created, during the last fifteeen years, a certain state of public opinion, people have been educated to believe that, year in and year out, what is right shall be ignored, and what is wrong will triumph and that minorities have no rights. And when a part of the public mind has been so moulded during so many years, I am asked to undo all that in a few months, nay, in a few weeks. A certain part of the public mind misled by the men in power, and their newspapers has, in some respects, to be recast, and a new definition has to be made of what, in certain respects, is right or wrong, and it it the duty of the successors of the Fathers of Confederation to do it. Why, Sir, the Grit newspapers of this country will lie to raise a race cry about the name of a Mr. PELLETIER.
country post office. They will say that Bourassa has ordered the change, and they will organize indignation meetings. Other men will have the audacity to ask me to decide questions in a certain way, not because it is right, but because this or that man is a Catholic or an Orangeman! For the last four weeks the Grit press of Ontario shout that Borden will yield to Bourassa, and impose separate schools in Keewatin, and the Quebec Grit press say wi are going to betray the Catholics by not having separate schools.
Now, can this be? . And will it be tolerated by the people much longer? As I understand it, one of the noble aims of this government is to try and bring all the people of this great country together; to make Canadians love one another more and to make the people understand that if you are a Christian, one of the very first of the Christian principles tell you not to do unto others what you would not like done unto you. I am here to try and help in this most noble work. If 1 have to suffer for that, I will, and am prepared for it; but I am not going to be ' stampeded 5 by a temporary outburst of public opinion which should not exist and which I believe is most unfortunate. With my back to the wall, I shall face it like a man, and wait for better days and a more sober judgment.
Some very good people are very much concerned about the people in Keewatin. So am I, but it is a fact-is it not?-that what is involved in Keewatin at the present moment is a large area of territory with almost no population. I am more concerned about the people who are alive who are up and doing in Manitoba. There were two courses open to me; I might have gone and told Manitoba: * You will remain the postage-stam.p province of this country for all time, if you do not consent to have for Keewatin, school laws as I want them.' This is one course. What is the other? It is to expect from the people of Mani-toa themselves that the Catholics of that province, both for Manitoba and Keewatin, will not pay a double tax if they want to have their children educated as their conscience dictates.
The first of those two courses resembles somewhat what the Catholics tried in 1896, but it had a lamentable fate, because politics interfered in a question which ought to have been put on a higher plane and advocated from a broader point of view.
At that time, as I said a moment ago, the battle could have been won, and won easily. Up to that moment, the great political men of both political parties when enacting laws, had been mindful of the rights of minorities, and it was a very easy thing to have clauses put in any statute, protecting those rights. The fathers of

confederation put it in the British North America Act, and a long series of statutes have been adopted on the same lines.
The statute of 1875 relates to the terri

tories. There you find the same thing enacted in a law, at the request of a Liberal government, but of a government in which were such men as Edward Blake (who has just been called to his reward, and who was a great Canadian). However, all this came to naught and became a perfect wreck, when the people of this country were told that the pact of confederation could be ignored for the purpose of putting a certain political party into power. The people of this country know now that the government of a province can, in defiance of the clear terms of the constitution, enact a law which will do away with the very basis of that constitution, and the people of this country know now that this hitherto inconceivable attempt will be successful, if, thereby, a political advantage can be obtained. In view of all this, if the minority can be otherwise protected, the attempt to force educational laws on Manitoba does not appeal to me as being the best course to follow.
The other course is to expect that the men in power in Manitoba, who are the successors of the fathers of confederation, who have been the friends of the minority over there, will settle this matter once and for all, at home, as they have the power of doing.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: How are they going to do that, will the hon. minister tell us?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: How sorry the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) would be if this question were taken once for all out of politics, and if he no more had the op' portunity to raise cries of race and creed. But I will come back to the point later.
There is another important point to which I want to refer now. I said a few moments ago that I was more concerned with Manitoba than with Keewatin, because the needs of Manitoba are far greater and much more pressing than those of Keewatin. Let me now state the fact that I have made a careful study of the different problems which have arisen, and one of them, the most important, to my mind, is whether the school rights of the Manitoba minority which have been given away by the late government, can to-day be restored by this parliament? Let us look into the facts: Those rights unquestionably existed; the Privy Council has said so; and there is, consequently, no possible doubt in that respect; it cannot, be denied that they have been put aside.
There is no doubt that they could have been restored in a certain way, provided
for by the constitution; this is also undeniable, because, again, the Privy Council has so declared. The way they could have been restored was by an appeal such as the one which was made. Such an appeal was made, and it is precisely at this moment that the question goes through an interesting phase. The appeal was by the minority to the Governor General in Council, and it was then ' lis pendens ' between two welj-lknown parties; one of them, the appellant, was that same minority, and the other party, the respondent in the case, was the provincial government; the justices were the ministers of the Crown here. They were so to speak, constituted a court of justice to hear that appeal. The appeal was heard and decided in a certain way, and the constitution did not allow of an appeal from their decision, which was a final one. The ordinary courts of this country and every country have been invested with power to see that their judgments are executed and obeyed, but, in this special case, the law gave the Governor General in Council the right to decide in a certain way and the law went just a little further and said: ' When you have decided you will issue an order to the province ' which has lost its case, and there your powers will end.'
It is presumed that the men who enacted that law fully expected that that judgment or order would be obeyed, that there was a moral certainty that it would be; judging from a high sense of justice, they probably had reason to expect that a government would not set at defiance the judgment so rendered. However, the Manitoba government took upon itself this responsibility. What next? Did not the Governor General in Council become ' functus officio ' when the judgment or order was rendered and served upon the province of Manitoba? If so, that case, in which the litigants were the minority on the one side and the provincial government on the other, became a thing of the past, and the power of the Governor General in Council ceased. Another remedy was then provided for, but this remedy was no longer in the hands of the Ministers of the Crown alone, and it could be used only if the majority of the members of both Houses of parliament- were in favour of it. This was the remedial legislation, and when it came to remedial legislation, the parties in the case were the government of Manitoba on the one side, and the members of the government of Canada on the other; and parliament, was the judge, as the King's advisers in this country, the government submitted a Bill to implement the legislation which Manitoba refused to enact. The remedial order had been disobeyed, this remedial legislation had fallen through when the new government which was, constitutional-

ly speaking, the continuance of the preceding government, came into power in 1896. They could have done either of the two following things: Ask parliament to enact remedial legislation, or, by persuasion or otherwise, induce the Manitoba government to obey the remedial order, they had it in their power to do so, they were the only men, or body of men who could do so. What did they do? They decided that remedial legislation was not the proper thing. They thought they would sit down and settle this question by obtaining a partial acquiescence from the Manitoba government to the remedial order, and they decided to abandon the other part of that remedial order and throw it to the winds. Those are hard, historical facts. Can it be pretended at this moment that this settlement, unfair and inadequate as it is, can be legally and constitutionally set aside? Let us look at the way in which it was arranged. Members of the Dominion government called to their office the members of the provincial government; there, we have face to face the people who, constitutionally, issued the remedial order, and the people who disobeyed it.
There they make a hard and fast bargain which the Manitoba legislature put into the form of a statute, and of which the Governor General of Canada, speaking from the Throne in parliament says: * This question is now settled forever. Both Houses of Parliament assent to that.' The question I might now ask is: is it final or is it not final ? I am not going to say that it is or that it is not. I am not going to admit that it is final, because I do not wish to prejudice the case or anything which might crop up in future. I shall remember that I am one of the men who govern this country for a time; that I, like other men, will, some day or other, be called elsewhere as God will decide, and I shall not say anything which might prejudice any future claim, but I am bound to go so far as to say that this right of appeal, this remedial legislation which was a very easy weapon at hand in 1896, has now become much more involved and much more difficult of access.
Now, what is the upshot of all this ? It is clear that whatever is done here for Keewatin will not apply to Manitoba. Why not leave it to the government and legislature of Manitoba, where they can remedy the situation both for Manitoba and Keewatin ? Is this not the better course if there are hopes, amounting to moral certainties, that at this moment, when Manitoba becomes a great province, there will be a general desire that all the citizens, Catholics and Protestants, should be happy, contented, and that there shall exist between them brotherly love, mutual esteem and deep-laid gratitude. I will be told, and I have been told, that I only have Mr. PELLETIER.
hopes, and that hope often results in disappointment. It is true that there is no bargain. The government of Manitoba has not purchased the acquiesence of the Roman Catholic members of this government to the extension of their boundaries, but I have faith, because I believe that the Hon. R. P. Roblin is a fair, honest, righteous, broad-minded, patriotic Canadian, and this, I think, is of more value and importance than guarantees on paper, which experience has so often shown to be valueless.
Whilst the Manitoba law is a hard one for the minority, the men who have the confidence of that people, have administered that law, as far as it lay in their power to do so, to alleviate its hardships, to make the minority in Manitoba understand that they were not their persecutors. This statesman, Hon. R. P. Roblin, his late colleague and his friend, Hon. Robert Rogers, stand high in the opinion of the minority.
So you see my hope is a great one, it is abundant, it is without limit. I will stand or fall by it. I have faith, and we are told that faith, will remove mountains.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: When my hon. friend speaks of mountains, does he mean that the Roblin government is the mountain ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If it is, it is a mountain of good, but the member for Pictou will not make me say any more than what is true and I have told him that no promise has 'been made.


Edmond Proulx: Does the Postmaster General believe that the Manitoba government is not going to be changed ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend (Mr. Proulx) was about to make a speech when the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) rose, and now he has swallowed his contemplated speech. But there are other reasons which give us a right to hope in the justice of a good government. I understand that there are a certain number of public men in the province of Quebec and elsewhere who have taken the stand that the Catholics in Keewatin have certain vested rights in separate schools, and that this Bill ought to contain a clause making it clear that those rights shall continue to exist.
Now I am not resting my case only on hope for relief from Manitoba. There are other reasons which, it seems to me, make this, by far, the best course. I understand that a certain number of important public men from the province of Quebec and elsewhere, have taken the stand that there are vested rights in favour of separate schools in Keewatin, and that those rights would be thrown to the winds if this Bill did not contain a clause, making it clear that these rights shall continue to exist. Let us face

the situation squarely and let us meet it unhesitatingly. Are there such vested rights in Keewatin now? I may say that I have looked into this question with a great deal of care, I have read all the legislation on the subject, and I am bound to say that at a given moment I found a very strange state of affairs. The Northwest Territory Act, passed in 1875, provides for separate schools, but that statute excludes Keewatin from its operations. Moreover, this law of 1875 did not come into force until 1876, by proclamation of the Governor General in Council and before this Bill of 1875 came into force, there was another Bill passed by this parliament in 1876, containing all the enactments which the parliament of that time thought necessary for Keewatin. Whilst the Bill of 1875 contained a clause about separate schools the Keewatin Bill contained no such clause. If you read the debate in * Hansard ' of 1876 about this you will see that the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, then Prime Minister, declared that this was no oversight. Hon. L. R. Masson, one of the important members of parliament at that time, put the question to him. His answer was: It is not necessary to provide for education in Keewatin. I am not going to discuss whether his reasons were good or bad, I simply refer to Mr. MacKenzie's words to show that I made no mistake in declaring that there was no provision for separate schools in the Keewatin Act.
It is useless for me to dwell at any length on the consequences of that statute, because something else occurred. That Keewatin statute disappeared from what is admittedly the law of the country, viz.: The Revised Statutes of 1906. The manner in which it was done is indeed very strange. The Keewatin Act was never repealed by any special statute, it contained a clause which reads as follows:-
Provided always, that the Governor in Council may, by proclamation published in the ' Canada Gazette,' at any time when it appears in the public interest to do so, detach any portion of the said district therefrom and re-annex it to that part of the Northwest Territories of Canada not included in the said district, and the portion so detached shall then be subject to the same government and laws as that part of the Northwest Territories of Canada to which it is re-annexed.
It is to be noted that this clause gave the Governor General in Council the power, when it appeared to be in the public interest, to detach a portion from another portion of Keewatin. It is quite clear t-hat this clause never gave the power to annex the whole of Keewatin. In the year 1905, the then government had a Bill before this House, dealing with Keewatin, and providing that it should be part of the Northwest Territories. At that time, there
was a good deal of discussion and trouble about the Alberta and Saskatchewan Bills, and it is a fact of public notoriety that certain members of the government of that day were not great friends and that there were serious rows around the council table over the famous clause 16. At a given moment, the Keewatin Bill, which would' probably also have caused trouble, was withdrawn, and four days after the session had closed, that same government, which had withdrawn the Bill, and had told parliament that it was not necessary to deal with the situation in Keewatin, passed an order in council in which they formally said: We have, under the law, a right to detach from Keewatin some portion of it and in virtue of the power so given to us to divide Keewatin into two portions and annex one portion to the territories; we, the government, declare that we annex to the territories the whole of Keewatin. Here is the text of the order in council, as it appeared in the ' Canada Gazette ':
Whereas, in and by the Act, chapter 53, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, commonly known as the Keewatin Act, amongst other things, in effect enacted, that our Governor in Council may at any time when it appears to the public advantage so to do, detach ' any portion ' of the district of Keewatin ' therefrom ' and re-annex it to that part of the Northwest Territories of Canada not included in the said district, and that portion so detached shall become subject to the same government and laws as that part of the Northwest Territories of Canada to which it is re-annexed;
And whereas it has become expedient that the said district of Keewatin should he again annexed to and made subject to the same government and laws as the Northwest Territories;	_
Now therefore know ye that, by and with the advice of our Privy Council of Canada, and under and by virtue of the powers by the said in part recited Act, and of all and every powers and powers in that behailf in any manner otherwise in ns vested, we do by these presents declare and proclaim that on, from and after the first day in September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five, the ' whole ' of the said district of Keewatin shall be annexed to that part of the Northwest Territories not included in said, district;
Of all which our loving subjects and all others whom these presents concern, are hereby 'required to take notice and govern themselves accordingly.
In testimony whereof, &o. . . .
Is there a student-at-law who will say that this can be done under the clause which I have read to the House? Certainly not. The government have the right in the public interest, but the public interest has to be stated. However, we will not trouble about that for the present. If you have the right to take- a part of this table and put it outside, with a certain

number of books which are on it, are you going to take the whole of it?


Hugh Guthrie: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am going to finish my sentence. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Gujthrie), was going to be Minister of Justice at one time, and he knows he must wait. What is the legal effect of that? My hon. friend will pardon me


Hugh Guthrie: I thirtK that my hon. friend might have been a little more courteous in his reply.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Then go on.


Hugh Guthrie: No, i'll


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 

great history, when new territories were being added to the immense empire, over which to-day the sun does not set, the Mother country always took care to see that the national and religious aspirations of the people in the new territories should be respected. This is the great, broad policy which has made us loyal to the empire, and which has brought Louis Botha, one of the generals who had fought in the Boer war, to the council of the empire, at the foot of the throne. Strong and sturdy races will not disappear. It is useless to encroach upon their rights. Live and let live. Let this be the pass word of the future, and that future will be a great one.


Albéric Archie Mondou: I deem it my duty to let the House know the position I took upon the vote this afternoon on the amendment to the Bill proposed by the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I did not vote on that amendment for the following reasons: The Bill now before the House is an Act to provide for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba.	,
This Bill has its financial aspect and its religious aspect. So far as its financial aspect is concerned I have every reason to believe, so far as my information goes, that both political parties have agreed, except so far as immaterial matters are concerned. But when I heard the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) state, in moving his amendment that, so far as the religious question was concerned, he would stay within the lines of ' Torres Vedras,' I thought I had better wait a little and see whether there was a very strong position in ' Torres Vedras ' or not. I claim that the leader of the opposition has no right, after putting such an amendment as this before the House, to take the stand he took this afternoon. That is the reason I did not vote on the amendment because the financial aspect of the Bill is not directly under discussion now. It may be discussed when the Bill is considered clause by clause in committee. But now we are dealing with the principle of the Bill on the second reading. And I accept the authority of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), under whom at Laval I once studied the constitutional law of this country, and it has not been proven to me by the speeches so far made that there is such Federal authority in this House as has been contended. We may not agree absolutely upon the special conditions put in the Bill, but now we are called upon to vote on the principle of the measure which provides for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. And I state plainly here that I have no objection to the boundaries of Manitoba being extended. So I am proud to support the present government. Being a new member of this Mr. PELLETIER.
House, I was rather disposed to favour the amendment, if I could have found in that amendment elements of truth, faithfulness and a real desire to serve the minority in Keewatin. But seeing in it a double-faced policy in a djouble-faced amendment, I could not vote for it.
I wish to be very brief in my remarks, but to give my own statement of the position taken by the Postmaster General. I have some information in regard to the matter. In 1878, the Conservatives brought before the country the National Policy. In 1882, in 1887 and in 1891 they appealed to the people on that policy. And what was the policy of the Liberal party? It was a changing, an indefinite policy. But when it came to the election of 1896, the Liberals were in favour of a policy of reciprocity, but the Conservatives still stood before the people on the National Policy. The Liberals came into power with the present leader of the opposition at their head, but he knew, as everybody knew, that he had not the support of the country on his tariff policy. So, he stood by the National Policy, because he knew that elections were won for his party on a double-faced policy on the Remedial Bill. This was understood1 plainly in this House and in the country. So elections were carried by his party with one policy for Quebec and another for Ontario -a policy stated in Jacques Cartier hall for Quebec, and in Massey hall for Ontario. But favouring a policy of protection, they carried the elections of 1900, 1904 and 1908. And in 1911 they came before the country again on a policy of reciprocity. I state without fear of successful contradiction that for the last twenty years the public vote of Canada has pronounced unquestionably in favour of the protective tariff.
Now, all this may seem to be a digression. But it is only to show that behind the walls of Torres Vedras there is a man who is not sincere and who wishes to play a double game. Mr. Speaker, it has always been my sincere desire that I might have the opportunity to stand before the'present leader of the opposition and tell him plainly what I thought of the position he occupies in this raising of national and race cries in the province of Quebec. The seed of discord that had been planted came first to fruition in 1896. We perfectly know that the relations between the people of this country are not as they should be. We plainly understand our position. But, after the sincere explanations given to this House by the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General calling upon sincere and broad-minded people to stand by us in the present fight, to stand by the government, and I hope and trust


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh. oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Albéric Archie Mondou: Authorities have been cited before this House. But, Mr. Speaker, I still accept my professor on constitutional law. That hon. gentleman, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) stated that there were no vested rights at present in the Keewatin district. Of course, so far as my knowledge of legal science is concerned, it is not very considerable to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Albéric Archie Mondou: It is a good thing when you are ready to admit that what you have not very much learned you do not know. I plainly state that, after due consideration, I come to the conclusion that there are not vested rights in the Keewatin district. I hope and trust, however, that we will meet on certain questions with Torres Vedras, when the Bill goes into committee, and stand both in our fortresses with them.
Mr. LEMIEUX moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Borden, House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 6, 1912.