FR
🔍

House of Commons, 5 July 1905, Canadian Confederation with Alberta and Saskatchewan

8777 JULY 5, 1905

HALF-BREED SCRIP.

Mr. FOSTER. The right hon. gentleman promised to give me some information today.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I have conferred with the Minister of Justice and we are dealing with the matter. We shall select somebody to carry on the investigation.
Mr. FOSTER. Does that go so far as granting the request I made ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I cannot say that. I will tell my hon. friend to-morrow when the Minister of Justice advises me.

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved third reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta.
Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia). Before this Bill finally passes, I wish to refer at some length to a very important matter of detail, namely, the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption. In committee upon this Bill I proposed an amendment to section 23 and my amendment was as follows :
Provided that the foregoing shall not prejudice the right of the parliament of Canada, by expropriation or otherwise, to obtain the relinquishment by the said company of the company's rights under section 16 of the contract aforesaid.
I am sorry to say that in Committee of the Whole my proposition received very scant attention. The failure of hon. gentlemen opposite to give more attention to it would have been a matter of surprise if any one really thought that these hon. gentlemen were sincere in the talk they have been indulging in for the past five months with regard to provincial autonomy. 0n the question of education, they have been disturbing the whole of Canada with the exception of the Northwest Territories. They failed, however, to disturb the people of the Northwest Territories on the matter of education and upon the subject they have been seeking to create a disturbance about practically nothing. As a representative of the Territories I tell them here and now that the Bills creating the new provinces are granting to these new provinces, in relation to education, all the 8778 freedom they desire. The Bills leave the provinces free to do exactly as they please in that matter. The Bills leave them free to retain their existing admirable school system, and I think the House and country have been given the most ample proof that what the people of the Territories desire to retain and maintain their present school system. But if any one is seriously concerned in the question of provincial rights he should devote his attention rather to section 23, which concerns the matter of tax exemptions than to section 16 regarding education. In the matter of tax exemptions involved in section 23, the provinces are not left free. If the school districts and municipalities and legislatures were left free to tax the Canadian Pacific Railway, they would without doubt, use that freedom. The failure of members on this side and members of the government to support my proposed amendment was to me a matter both of surprise and regret. In any case I had the right to expect from the government at least a moment's consideration of the proposal and a statement of their reasons for rejecting it, if any good reasons exist. The extremely casual way in which my amendment was rejected in committee may have been due to my own failure to make sufficiently plain my position in the matter, the intrinsic importance of the subject, and why the amendment ought to be adopted. If I fail to make these points plain now, it will not be my fault. To make my meaning plain, I must refer to the autonomy question in a general way. Prior to my first coming to this House in 1901, I was an advocate of immediate autonomy for the Territories. In 1901 and 1902, I urged my opinions in that direction strongly in this House. In March, 1903, the Manitoba courts gave a judgment on certain test tax cases, to which I shall refer later. That judgment was such as to lead me to revise my views as to the desirability of the Territories immediately obtaining autonomy. The Ottawa correspondent of the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' obtained interviews upon that judgment from most of the Northwest members. In my statement to that correspondent, I spoke as follows :
As a Northwest citizen I was disappointed last year when autonomy was not granted, but today I am exceedingly thankful that parliament then found it inexpedient to grant our demand. We will now wish for no constitutional change until judgment on the contention raised by Mr. Howell has been obtained from the Privy Council, and if the judgment of the Manitoba court is upheld, then the Northwest before becoming a province will have a very important arrangement to be arrived at with the Canadian Pacific Railway relating to this matter of exemption from taxation.
Towards the end of the 1903 session, the House was called upon to vote on a motion presented by the leader of the opposition 8779 COMMONS relating to autonomy, and one of the reasons I advanced for voting against that motion I stated as follows, as will be seen on referring to the ' Hansard ' of 1903, page 13931 :
Let me say, in conclusion, that in face of the position of this Canadian Pacific Railway tax matter, in view of the millions of acres of the land that are involved, of the millions of value in railway property of the company that are involved, it appears to me that the people of the Northwest would be simply crazy at present to accept autonomy unless driven to it as a last resort—and we are not driven to the last resort this year, because our immediate financial needs are fairly well met; the lack of borrowing power remedied by the capital advance method ; and little room for complaint is left us as regards railways. Such being the case, I certainly approve of delay until all doubts of the Canadian Pacific Railway tax question is removed. I hope this doubt will not exist very long. I hope the case will soon be settled by a judgment of the Privy Council. Possibly it may be too much to hope that it may be settled before next year, because the law counts move slowly. But the position I take is that the government should obtain from the Privy Council a final decision upon this Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption, and that as soon as it is obtained the people of the Northwest should be granted provincial autonomy.
This view thus expressed in the newspapers and in the House, I also expressed very distinctly to my electors in West Assiniboia, particularly during the election contest last autumn, and I have every reason to believe that the majority of the electors of West Assiniboia concurred in the view. I declared explicitly in the contest that I should oppose any constitutional change until the tax exemption matter became more clear, and until the people of the Northwest learned definitely that they would not as provinces stand in danger of the burden of that perpetual limitation upon their taxing power which was imposed upon the added portion of the province of Manitoba in 1881. The situation in January last when the autonomy negotiations opened was that no final judgment had been obtained. It is true that. since January. the Supreme Court of Canada has given judgment overturning the Manitoba court's decision, of March, 1903. But, until the case has been carried to the Privy Council and judgment, obtained there. the matter cannot be considered as finally settled. I need not repeat to the House that in January last I was opposed to proceeding with the autonomy measures. Now, I shall explain briefly the reason why the Manitoba court judgment led me to revise my view on the question of autonomy. The Northwest test case was that of a school district, the Springdale school district. It was not a case brought by a municipality, nor a case directly raising the question of the powers of the local legislature to levy a tax upon the company. The case was taken for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation of the disputed question of the 8780 twenty years' land tax exemption, without reference to the roadway. But the arguments made by the government's counsel, Mr. Howell, of Winnipeg, were such that, if concurred in by the court, as was the case in the Manitoba court, they necessarily applied as well to the feature of the exemptions relating to the roadway. Mr. Howell raised the contention that a tax levied by any body or power within these Territories did not come within the class of taxes from which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were exempted by the contract, these classes of taxes being such as might be levied ' by the Dominion, by any province hereafter established or by any municipality therein, in other words the contention was that, as long as we remained Territories the Canadian Pacific Railway had no right to exemption of taxation in the Northwest, either upon lands or upon toadbed; and that it was not until the Northwest was created a province that any exemption rights became existent. The contention was a new one. Until it was raised by Mr. Howell. no one ever thought of questioning the company's rights to freedom from taxation on the roadway or freedom for at least twenty years on the land. Let me quote from Chief Justice Killam's judgment to show that the judgment meant just what I have stated.
The case from the Northwest Territories raised another question. Does the exemption apply to the enactments of the legislature of the Northwest Territories or to the taxation by subordinate bodies created by that legislature ? . . . . Evidently these words— ' taxation by the Dominion '—did not mean taxation by any government or authority in the Dominion having the power of levying taxes. Taxation by a province or by a municipal corporation was recognized as something different from taxation by the Dominion. In my opinion the expression ' taxation by the Dominion ' did not, either from the import of the words themselves or by reference to other portions of the clause or the contract, include taxation by the government of the Territories or any body to be established by it, within its then powers.
I repent that. when I became aware of the purport of that judgment I at once made up my mind that the Northwest had better accept no constitutional change until we had ascertained finally whether Chief Justice Killam's view was the right one, because, in my opinion, any loss to be occasioned by delay of two or three years in gaining autonomy would be light and temporary in comparison with the permanent loss to the province involved in the perpetual inability to tax the Canadian Pacific Railway roadbed. If the Privy Council were to uphold the Manitoba judgment and if it were finally found that the Canadian Pacific Railway must pay taxes as long as we remained Territories, it needs no argument to show that to obtain prior relinquishment by the company of the exemption rights that would otherwise become effective with the erection of 8781 JULY 5, 1905 provinces would be a comparatively easy task.
I now ask the House to consider the intrinsic merits of this question. There is a railway mileage involved in the two provinces of 750 miles, with six divisional points. Assume that this has a taxable value of $100000 for each three miles—and it is stocked and bonded for $193,500 for each three miles—and you have a total taxable value of $25,000,000 to-day. A tax of 5 mills on the dollar which is only 1/2 of 1 per cent, would amount to $125,000 per annum. But it is not particularly for to-day or for the immediate future that we are concerned. To-day it is the custom at least in the newer parts of the country, to give aid to railways rather than to levy taxation upon them. It is to the future that we have to look. If that property is worth $25,000,000 to-day. it will be worth—everybody will admit—some day, $100,000,000. While it is not our policy to tax railways to-day, yet when more stable conditions come and the country is more fully developed it will be fair that railway properties equally with the other properties shall contribute toward the cost of school, municipal and general government. I say that the loss involved to these two new provinces if they should be subjected to perpetual inability to tax this property is a loss simply beyond calculation. The exemption of the land is the least momentous, because it is only temporary, but it is still serious enough. I will give the House figures showing the land that the company owns at present in the Northwest Territories. The company has earned land grants as follows:
Acres.
Main line construction.. .. .. .. .. .. 18,206,986
Souris branch.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1,408,704
Pipestone extension.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200,320
Manitoba and South Western colonization lines .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1,396,800
On account of Gr. N. W. Central Ry. 320,000
Total.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21,532,810
Total taken in Manitoba.. .. .. 2,720,300
Total taken or to be taken in N.W.T.'s 18,812,510
The company has made sales up to date of approximately 10,000,000 acres—for about $33.500,000, I may say—of which as nearly as can be learned upwards of 7,500,000 acres were out of the lands in the two new provinces, leaving roughly 11,300,000 acres still owned, by the company in the Northwest Territory, or about 70,500 quarter sections, which if taxed at $10 per quarter section would yield annually $705,000. Now, you may cut my calculation in two, and still have a very large amount. You will still find that by this exemption at this moment you are leaving each province shorn of a resource of a value about equal to what you are going to pay each province in lieu of its public domain. Instead of attempting myself to characterize in fitting language what has been very properly 8782 termed the incubus of these exemptions, I am going to ask the House to listen to words far more forcible than any which I could utter, which were spoken in this chamber some twenty-five years ago. They should appeal especially to hon. members on this side of the House. The experience of twenty-five years, the bitter experience of twenty-five years has shown the truth of everyone of these words. I shall quote the words of Hon. Edward Blake, spoken in this chamber on December 15th, 1880, and to be found in 'Hansard.' 1880-1, page 97. Mr. Blake was referring to the Canadian Pacific Railway contract and particularly this exemption feature :
They have perpetual exemption from taxation on their enormous property, a most monstrous provision in my opinion. Why ! This monstrosity is not to last merely twenty years, which is to be the period of bondage in other respects, it is to last for ever. No matter how wealthy the company may be, how enormously lucrative, this institution is to be, for all time to come it is to be free from taxation in every place in which this Dominion can free it from taxation, and it is to be free everywhere from Dominion taxation in all the territories both from Dominion and territorial taxation whereever the Dominion can give it freedom and that is through all of the fertile belt at any rate. . . . Then, sir, there is freedom from taxation for the lands for the long period of twenty years, and that term of twenty years is from the time they acquire the lands and, therefore, is for longer than twenty years from now ; it is perhaps on the average twenty-five years— nay, more than that, I am not at all certain that it may not be very easy to arrange to make it longer, because by a convenient arrangement by which they are not to take out the patents until they want to sell they can keep them free from taxation until they want to put them on the market, indefinitely, indeterminately—until it suits them to dispose of them.
As long as the Conservatives were in power these words were perfectly true.
The hon. gentleman says, perhaps, it does look awkward at first sight. . . . All their lands are exempt from taxation for a generation to come. What a discouragement this is to the settlers on the line of railways, to those who are settled on homesteads and pre- emptions alternating with these blocks of land which are to be the property of the syndicate. . . . There can be no greater obstacle to the progress of that country by the encouragement of other settlers than that large spaces of unoccupied lands should alternate with settlers' farms. Now add to the difficulty which exists in that respect, which the largeness of that area will enhance, at any rate, in a large degree, the fact that there is no power to impose municipal taxes on 25,000,000 acres of the choicest lands, those nearest to the railway. and you place a bar to progress and render it impossible to overcome the difficulty. You say that the cost of roads and bridges, schools and other municipal taxes are to be imposed on the settlers to enable the worthy syndicate to hold their lands until the reduced labours of those settlers have been sufficient to increase the unoccupied areas in value to induce the 8783 COMMONS millionaires, the holders of the lands in the Northwest, to turn them into money. . . . Talk to me of this thing standing ! It will not stand. If you pass this law and if the country of which you speak so glowingly is what you depict it, and if its prospects of settlement are such as you hope they are, I say you are blighting these prospects by passing this law ; and if these prospects are measurably realized, notwithstanding the passing of this law, I say the people of that counltry would be less than men if they suffered such a law to exist.
Again, Mr. Blake, on January 18, said :
Do you want that your hands should be tied, or that they should be free to act as the public interest may require ?
Mr. Blake was here referring to the alternative contract which had been offered.
If you want to tie them, take the contract ; if you want to keep them free, take the other proposal. The choice is yours, the responsibility of choosing is yours. Choose, then, and choose wisely. The contract frees from taxation the railway, its property, and its stock. That exemption is contrary to the general rule in the United States. A little book which contains the report of Charles Francis Adams and others on the subject of railway taxation in the United States, and elsewhere, summarizes the law upon this subject and makes it to appear that in the whole of the states of the Union there is no instance of general exemption from taxation. There may be one or two isolated cases in particular states of partial and temporary exemption from taxation of particular railways under special circumstances ; but the general rule of almost universal application is that there is no exemption in one form or another from taxation. The instances which the hon. Minister of Railways quoted in other places in Minnesota and Wisconsin, are instances of exemption from taxation by one statute and the imposition of taxation by another—a license tax, a tax upon gross receipts, is imposed in lieu of other taxes, and it may be that this is the fairest mode of taxation. Some hon. gentlemen have said that it is of very little consequence, that the road-bed is taxed very lightly in Ontario, that some of our legislatures have declined to tax railway companies at all. But what kind of railway companies were these ? They were railways built by private capital, and were not paying interest on their investments. I do not say that a rule of this kind does not apply to a railway that is built at public charge and that is given a monopoly to secure it in obtaining good rates for its traffic. But this is no temporary exemption, it lasts for ever ; no matter how bloated this corporation may become, no matter how magnificent may be its network of railways, no matter how blooming its country, no matter how prosperous the towns which are tributary to it, no matter how exaggerated its dividend, for ever and for ever and for ever you free it from Dominion, new provincial and municipal taxation. In considering that, you have to look at the general result of taxation. Some of the United States railways you find paying a tax of $300 or $400 per annum, and $600 or $800 per annum is paid as taxes by the English railways. You find, therefore, that the possibilities of railway taxation are very great. You find the Illinois Central Railway paying almost the whole expenses of the government of that state, 8784 and You find the people so nervous lest the legislature should be corrupted and should dispense with that, that they have actually put a clause in the constitution providing that the taxation of the Illinois Central Railway shall not be modified by the legislature, but shall be referred to the general voice of the people. But you do not keep your hands free, you tie them, and you say for all time we will never charge this railway company any taxation upon its property, its stock, or its capital. I say that I can well conceive a time when a tax on the gross receipts of railways might be a very satisfactory tax and a very satisfactory source of revenue to this Dominion. A tax for transportation would apparently be a very equal taxation, and if the necessity arose of adding to the revenue, it is quite possible that we might wish to avail ourselves of such a tax. There is another point in which this exemption is objectionable. It places this company in the position of a monopoly by itself, because it places at a disadvantage all competitors who are to raise the funds themselves to build their railways. The contract requires perpetual exemption, the other offer does not demand any exemption at all. Choose ! The choice is yours ! Take the perpetual exemption in the contract or take the liability to taxation in the offer. Yours is the choice ; for it you will be held responsible. Then the contract provides that the land grant shall be exempt from taxation for twenty years, unless sold or occupied from the date of the grant. The money gain to the company is enormous, there can be no doubt about that. There can be no doubt but that the burdens which this company are freed from are most serious. Hon. gentlemen opposite have said so. They have said they could not use this land grant otherwise, that nobody would buy if they supposed the syndicate was to be subjected to the same taxes as the rest of the world. They get the choice of land and they are not to pay the same taxes as the rest of the community. Why should they not ? Is it because they get a large profit ? Because they are getting altogether four prices for building the prairie section, that, therefore, they are to be untaxed and free ? Then the indirect loss is still greater by this mode of settlement, by the burdens it imposes on the adjoining settlers for the benefit of the railway company itself, by the imposition of double taxes on those who go in for the benefit of this great corporation. I do not know of anything that will more interfere with the development of the Northwest than this clause of exemption from taxation. Will you free the lands, or will you make them subject to taxation ? Will you give the company the benefit of exemption from taxation, or will you let the lands be subject to taxation, and let the progress of the Northwest country be advanced by those lands, like other lands, being subject to taxation ? The choice is yours ; choose.
Other members of the Liberal party of that date uttered equally strong language upon this feature of the contract. The late Mr. M. C. Cameron, who sat for one of the Hurons, said on January 4, 1881 :
We are allowing the company to select the best lands in the whole territory. We exempt them from all taxation, and the immigrants we induce to settle there pay every farthing of provincial and local taxes. This company and all of their property and land, stock and roadway, with all their appurtenances are exempt 8785 JULY 5, 1905 from taxation for all time to come. We are inviting immigrants to settle our boundless prairies and then tell them they must pay taxes to keep up the provincial and local governments, they must build the roads and construct the bridges, but the poor syndicate must pay nothing—they are altogether exempt from taxation. Every December the tax collector will call on the farmer there, but he dare not call on the syndicate. And so we are building up a gigantic monopoly, we are giving them huge privileges that no company should get ; we are doing more than that, we are giving them all these privileges and advantages so that they may be in position to harass and oppress the people we are settling there. . . . I say, sir, that this is no small matter ; I say that parliament should not, even if it had the power, deprive the people of that country—formed into provinces as it will be—of the power of exacting from this company taxes upon lands which they will hold for the purpose of making the most of, and thus throw the burden of local improvements on the actual settler. Sir, I never heard a proposition so monstrous as this one ; I never heard one justified upon such grounds as have been advanced to support this proposition and no such proposition was ever before submitted to a free parliament.
Mr. John Charlton, on the 27th of January, moved an amendment on behalf of the Liberal opposition as follows :
That the contract respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway exempts perpetually the railway and all stations, &c.; from taxation by the Dominion, &c.; that the property of the corporation will be in substance a gift from the public and its exemption from taxation is unjust; it creates an unfair incidence of taxation and gives an undue advantage to the company over other railway companies calculated to prevent the construction of competing lines ; and the contract is in this respect objectionable.
In support of that amendment Mr. Charlton said in part :
It is not a principle which can he controverted that for the payment of the expenses necessary to be incurred in the maintenance of law and order all property should bear its equitable and due proportion; that no property whatever should be exempt from payment of its share of the expenses of maintaining law and order. . . . A settler in addition to paying the railway tax must pay a portion of the debt created for the benefit of the railway. The first item is the $31,000,000 incurred in building the portion of the line to be handed over to the company and cost of surveys, that amounts to $7 per head for every man, woman and child in the Dominion; in the next place he must pay a proportion of the taxes for the $25,000,000 to be paid over to the company, which amounts to over $6 per head for every man, woman and child in the Dominion ; in other words the amount per capita is over $13 in addition to a fair proportionate share of the ordinary taxes of the country which should be borne by the company. In addition to all this a settler on the alternate blocks is to labour for the benefit not merely at himself but for the benefit of this company who will be enabled by the advantages given them in this contract to withhold their lands from the market as long as they please. For every two blows that he strikes he is to feel 8786 that he is striking one blow for a soulless corporation which quietly awaits his efforts, knowing that it has only to wait to realize results to which they do not contribute in the slightest degree.
It is 25 years ago that these words were uttered in this House with rare prophetic insight. I have quoted them here to establish my proposition that section 23 involves a limitation upon provincial autonomy of no trivial character. I trust that I have said enough now to show the House clearly my own position in the matter in its relation to the Autonomy Bills and as well the intrinsic importance of the subject. I propose next to show particularly why I think my amendment should be adopted. Probably it is not necessary for me at this stage to say that I am not proposing repudiation. I am not proposing to take away from the company any of its contract rights. I stand in that regard just as my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) who when referring to this subject some weeks ago said that no right thinking person would propose to deprive this company of any rights which the parliament and people of Canada 25 years ago with their eyes open gave to them. I admit, as any right- thinking person must admit, that the contract must be respected. But I ask, whose was the contract ? Was it not a contract made between the Dominion of Canada and the company ? The Canadian Pacific Railway was and is a federal undertaking. These exemptions were and are a part of the cost of the undertaking. Then, why shift part of such cost price upon these new provinces more than upon the province of Nova Scotia or any of the other provinces of the Dominion ? The new provinces are, without these exemptions, bearing their fair share of the undertaking with the other provinces of Canada. Then, why place them under a double burden? Let me quote a little further from the debates of 1881, when the contract was first before parliament. I will quote from a gentleman whose name is fairly well known and respected throughout the Dominion of Canada, the Hon. George W. Ross, who was a member of this House in 1881. He spoke as follows :
What does it mean? It means that the people of the Northwest as far as the railway company is concerned must tax themselves extra to the extent from which the company is relieved in order to procure such advantages as schools, highways, sidewalks, and other advantages of civilization. . . . There is another grievance to which I must refer and that is when a new province is erected and we come to confer upon it those advantages which it can claim under our confederation we will be bound to consider the exemption from taxation of the lands and property of this company ; this will mean that the whole Dominion must be taxed in order to provide a larger subsidy for the maintenance of looal institutions of such new province or provinces. We pay Manitoba already 80 cents a head and 8787 COMMONS several other perquisites. If we handed over to Manitoba her wild lands the subsidy to that province from the exchequer would not need to be so large. When we come to form a province in the Northwest and when the people come to find that the public lands are exempt from taxation with all the railway company's property and that the means for maintaining the municipal institutions in that province are closed against them, they will say : If we are going to be erected into a provincial government we must obtain a larger subsidy from the Dominion exchequer because we have not the advantages of taxation which other provinces have.
Mr. TAYLOR. Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ?
Mr. SCOTT. Certainly.
Mr. TAYLOR. Is the hon. gentleman aware that the Hon. George W. Ross withdrew that and every other statement that he had made opposing the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway in a public speech that he made a few years ago? He said that he had opposed it at every stage, but that he took it all back, that he approved of the bargain and contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway, saying that the Canadian Pacific Railway had built up the great Northwest, that without it our country would have been practically nothing, and that he withdrew every statement that he ever made.
Mr. SCOTT. If my hon. friend will have the patience to listen to the whole of the extract from Mr. Boss's speech that I am reading
Mr. TAYLOR. I heard it in the House when it was made.
Mr. SCOTT I am certain he will not find a single word of opposition to the Canadian Pacific Railway in it.
Mr. TAYLOR. He opposed it, as Mr. Blake and every other Liberal did.
Mr. SCOTT. I will have to read this again for the hon. gentleman.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Take it as read.
Mr. SCOTT. Let the hon. gentleman point out one single word of this extract which means opposition to the Canadian Pacific Railway :
What does it mean? It means that the people of the Northwest as far as the railway company is concerned must tax themselves extra to the extent from which the company is relieved in order to procure such advantages as schools, highways, and other advantages of civilization. . . . . There is another grievance to which I must refer and that is when a new province is erected and we come to confer upon it those advantages which it can claim under our confederation, we will be bound to consider the exemption from taxation of the lands and property of this company ; this will mean that the whole Dominion must be taxed in order to provide a larger subsidy for the maintenance of local institutions of such new province 8788 or provinces. We pay Manitoba already 80 cents a head and several other perquisites. If we handed over to Manitoba her wild lands the subsidy to that province from the exchequer would not need to be so large. When we come to form a province in the Northwest and when the people come to find that the public lands are exempt from taxation with all the railway company's property and that the means for maintaining municipal institutions in that province are closed against them they will say : If we are going to be erected into a provincial government we must obtain a larger subsidy from the Dominion exchequer because we have not the advantages of taxation which other provinces have. For instance, if one-quarter of Ontario or Quebec were exempted from taxation, in what position would they be ? Evidently in order to maintain prosperity they would have to draw freely from the exchequer of this Dominion and the whole Dominion, from Vancouver's Island to Halifax, will need to be more largely taxed because of the exemption we are now considering under this contract.
Is there a word involving opposition to the building of the railway in that ? Not a word. The Liberal party of that day were not opposing the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. On the contrary the Liberal party when in power in the seventies were undertaking the building of that railway. I cannot conceive what my hon. friend is referring to. There is nothing I can find in Mr. Boss's words which involves any opposition to the principle of the undertaking, but the Liberal party of that day as a unit stood in opposition to some of the iniquitous features of this contract and particularly to the one which is going to place a limitation upon the provincial rights of the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan. George W. Ross. twenty-five years ago, when that contract as being debated, recognized and admitted that it was a federal undertaking, the cost of which ought to be borne by the Dominion. When the Dominion makes a payment every province contributes its equal share. If these provinces are left under these particular exemptions you are placing a double burden upon them—they are paying equally with the other provinces the money subsidies and the price of the $27,000.000 worth of completed road that was given the company— they pay almost the whole of the land subsidy—they bear equally with you the loss involved in the exemption from taxation by Dominion—and in addition to their full and equal share of the whole cost and burden, you leave them to bear alone a substantial piece of the cost of this federal undertaking beyond that share which the other provinces are carrying. Is there any fairness in that ?
Look at it closely. The $25,000,000 cash subsidy to the company is looked on as a heavy charge to Canada. What is it actually ? Three per cent on $25,000,000 is $750,000 a year. If my calculations are correct, the provincial tax exemptions will cost these two provinces easily as much. What then are you doing? You are asking the 8789 JULY 5, 1905 provinces to bear alone a portion of the cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway equal to the item of cost which the whole of Canada bears by its $25,000,000 cash subsidy. I ask again, is there any fairness in that ? Mr. Ross saw in 1881, if the exemptions were made an item of the contract, that when provinces were created it would be improper and unjust to leave them saddled with the burden of the exemptions. Mr. Blake in 1881 declared that the people of the Northwest would be less than men if they suffered such a limitation upon their autonomy to exist. In January, 1905, when confronted with the declaration of the government that provinces were to be erected this year, I took the position that if it was intended to leave the provinces under these exemptions I must oppose the measures, in particular view of the possibility that by waiting for the Privy Council judgment on the test cases a comparatively easy way might be found of obtaining relinquishment by the company of the provincial exemption rights. The Prime Minister intimated to me his recognition that these exemptions, both Dominion and provincial. would have to be abrogated in the interests not alone of the provinces but of the Dominion. With that intimation that the provinces need not fear that they would be left under the exemption perpetually I consented to take my part in discussing the autonomy terms and voted for the second reading of the Bills.
Mr. SPROULE. If you had not got that you would be on strike I presume.
Mr. SCOTT. You can have your own opinion about that. The Prime Minister has publicly repeated the assurance which he gave to me. What I ask now is that the government and the House shall concur in that assurance in a tangible way by putting in black and white in these provincial charters the notice of intention to cancel these exemptions,—a notice to all concerned, to the company, to the people of Canada and especially to the people of the new provinces. Is it unnecessary ? I say it is no more unnecessary than your section 23. Section 23 does not say that the province cannot tax the Canadian Pacific Railway road or lands. It is not section 23 of these Bills, but section 16 of the contract of 1881 which imposes the limitation. Section 23 merely states that the provinces are subject to that contract—to the degree that the contract is good or bad in legality or constitutionality, weak or strong, doubtful or perfect, to that degree the provinces are bound. If you deem it proper and imperative to thus give notice to the provinces that their autonomy has been invaded by a previous parliament, then I say that it is not only equally proper, but doubly imperative, if there is sincerity behind the assurance given by the Prime Minister, which I do not for a moment question, that you shall give notice at the same time and in 8790 the same manner that parliament will in good time remedy that invasion, and that the provinces will not be left for ever under the unfair burden of these exemptions.
I appeal to the Liberal party on the strength of the principle of provincial rights ; on the statement I made here in 1901, that entire equality as between the provinces is the only sure guarantee of the permanency of confederation ; on the sound doctrine preached in this Chamber 25 years ago by Blake, Cameron, Charlton, Mills, Paterson, Cartwright, Laurier, and other Liberal leaders ; and particularly on the declaration made in 1881 by Hon. G. W. Ross, which I have read. I appeal to the Conservative party in this matter because the difficulty is of their creation. It is not these Bills, it is not section 23 which limits provincial autonomy, but section 16 of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. Whatever substantial or serious lack of autonomy there is against which these provinces will have to complain, is not the deed of the Liberal party, but of the Conservative party. Let me tell my hon. friends opposite that they need not think so far as the people of the Northwest Territories are concerned, that by raising a school question dust or a land question dust they are going to hide from the people of these Territories the knowledge of the fact that it is the Conservative party that is responsible for the only material limitation upon their autonomy which is being granted by these Bills to the new provinces. In every other respect where there is a departure from the strict plan of confederation it is a departure with which the people of the new provinces are entirely content. There is a departure with respect to representation ; provision is made in these Bills for redistribution upon a census to be taken midway between two decennial censuses and there never has been any such provision made for any other province. That departure is in the interest of the people of these new provinces. There is a departure in connection with the debt or capital account. When I raised that question my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) took the position that it was much better in the interests of the people of these provinces that they should be put in a different position from the other provinces with regard to their capital or debt account. For instance, several million dollars stand to the credit of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and it is in the power of the governments of these provinces to withdraw that capital and use it immediately in any way they choose. But by these Bills the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan are not going to be left at liberty to withdraw their capital; all they will be able to do is to take from year to year 5 per cent interest on the capital account.
Mr. SPROULE. Where does the hon. gentleman find authority for saying that 8791 COMMONS the other provinces could withdraw their capital account?
Mr. SCOTT. I refer my hon. friend from Grey to his friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who, when we discussed this matter, stated that one of the maritime provinces had withdrawn a portion of its capital and acted very foolishly in doing so. There is a very material difference in these Bills from the confederation plan with regard to the land, but my opinion is that the people of the new provinces are quite content with that. I do not think I can quote any better authority on that point than Mr. Haultain, who in a formal letter to Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated he was quite willing to admit that the plan adopted in these Bills would work out more advantageously to the people of the provinces than had the actual confederation plan been followed. I hope I have said enough—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. SCOTT. I hope I have said enough to convince the House.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friends opposite evidently think I have said enough, but they will have to hear more of this and some other questions out in the new provinces. I have no doubt that these gentlemen would be pleased indeed if these questions were never heard of again either here or anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. Have I left anything to be said ? I trust that I have been able to put the case in a way to prove that this is no light matter—that it is no immaterial limitation upon Northwest autonomy that is at issue—that a real and substantial matter of provincial rights is involved. I trust that I have left no room for doubt as to my own position. On last 3rd November, in last January, on the 3rd of May when I voted for the general principle of autonomy and for the principles bound up in the main details of the measures, I deemed myself in honour bound, and at this moment I deem myself in honour bound, to oppose any autonomy scheme which will leave the Northwest provinces for ever under these exemptions. As a whole, I believe the Bills provide not only fair but generous terms. On that account, and further because of the other vexed and complicating difficulties which have arisen and which would almost necessarily have led to a contrary vote by me being misconstrued, I have not deemed it fair nor right to oppose the Bills nor to withdraw my support from the Prime Minister on the measures. But in view of the position which I held on this question before my electors, I have open to me only one alternative. If the government and the House can see their way clear to adopt my amendment, I shall have redeemed the pledge upon which I accepted election in West Assiniboia. I therefore beg to move, seconded by Mr. Talbot, of Strathcona :
8792
That the words after ' Now ' be left out, and the following substituted: ' That the Bill (No. 69) be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House, with instruction to add to Section 23 the following sub-section :
Provided that the foregoing shall not prejudice the right of the parliament of Canada, by expropriation or otherwise, to obtain the relinquishment by the said company of the company's rights under section 16 of the contract aforesaid.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Mr. Speaker, I regret, as much as my hon. friend himself who has spoken with a good deal of warmth on this subject, the necessity under which the government has found itself impelled to introduce the section in the Bill to which he has taken such strong exception. My hon. friend is aware, and the House is aware also, that the party to which he and I belong did everything we could to prevent parliament from accepting that clause of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract when it was submitted to parliament in the year 1881. Unfortunately the efforts we made at that time were unavailing ; parliament thought differently. That parliament made a mistake on that occasion I do not think is susceptible now of any discussion. However, even though parliament did make a mistake on that occasion, it is a rule which has never been violated, and which my hon. friend himself admits, that, even under such a sense of mistake which would be shared by the parliament of this day, there is nothing to do but to abide loyally by what has been done ; and I understand that my hon. friend himself does not propose that parliament at this juncture should with a rough hand attempt to repudiate the engagement which was entered into in 1881. His amendment does not go that length, nor did he imply in his argument that we should attempt to give to the new provinces which we are now creating the power of taxing the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in face of the exception which was made in its favour when the contract was entered into in 1881. The only amendment which my hon. friend wants to have made is a declaration to the effect that this clause which we insert in the Bill giving effect to the exemption contained in the Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, ' shall not prejudice the right of the parliament of Canada, by expropriation or otherwise, to obtain the relinquishment by the said company of the company's rights under section 16 of the contract as aforesaid.' The only answer I have to make to my hon. friend on this point is that the government do not think it advisable to complicate this Bill further than it is at present by the unfortunate necessity of inserting in the Bill the section which he wants thus amended. The parliament of Canada made a solemn contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and this contract cannot be done away with except in one of two 8793 JULY 5, 1905 ways, that is to say, by mutual agreement between the contracting parties, that is, between the parliament of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or by the parliament of Canada exercising its power of eminent domain, and expropriating from the company the privilege which was given to it by parliament. I appeal to my hon. friend on this matter. I do not see that this right of the Canadian parliament would be made any stronger than it is by applying to it a declaration of this kind. It would simply amount to a declaration, and nothing else; it would have no more effect than the passing of the section in silence. It would simply complicate this Bill and put a blemish on it, and the people on whose behalf my hon. friend has spoken with great effect and warmth, would not be benefitted in the least. I said on a previous occasion that in this matter we are partners with the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan; we are in the same boat with them. The exemptions from which they suffer this parliament also suffers from ; and our interests being common, the people of the Northwest Territories can rely that the Canadian government, in protecting its own interests, must likewise protect those of the new provinces which we are creating. I have only to repeat that in my opinion this is a blemish which has been placed, not only on the people of the new provinces, but on the people of Canada generally, and that the time has come, I am not prepared to say when, when the parliament of Canada must address itself to this question. Therefore I do not see that we can accept this amendment.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. A two-hours' speech delivered after nearly five month's of debate on this Bill, and followed by a motion that had some effect or meaning might have been excused to the hon. gentleman who has taken up the time of the House this afternoon ; but inasmuch as his amendment means absolutely nothing, does not alter to the slightest extent the effect of the clause as it is at present, one can only conclude that this is a very pretty piece of byplay and comedy on the part of the hon. gentleman. Here is the clause he proposes to amend :
The powers hereby granted to the said province shall be exercised subject to the provisions of section 16 of the contract set forth in the schedule to chapter 1 of the statutes of 1881, being an Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
To which the hon. gentleman by his amendment desires to add this :
Provided that the foregoing shall not prejudice the right of the parliament of Canada, by expropriation or otherwise, to obtain the relinquishment by the said company of the company's rights under section 16 of the contract aforesaid.
8794
A more absolutely irrelevant proviso could not be imagined. It is utterly absurd. The words in section 23 do not in the slightest degree affect the power of the parliament of Canada to deal with that question, and there is not any lawyer in the House who would venture for one moment to stake his professional reputation upon the contrary assertion.
The parliament of Canada is giving notice to the new provinces of the contract entered into by the Crown with the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is not withdrawing anything from its own power. 'It is dealing with the powers of the provincial legislature. It does not purport, in any word or syllable of this section, to be taking away anything from its own power, and it will have, if this section be passed, exactly the same power to do that mentioned in this proviso as it had before the section passed. Therefore, I propose to vote against the amendment. I shall vote against it because it has not any effect or meaning, and I cannot see that it adds anything to or takes anything from the meaning of the section, as now proposed, in the slightest degree.
I do not know what assurance of the First Minister the hon. gentleman referred to this afternoon when he spoke of some assurance of the right hon. gentleman. I only heard some rather vague prophecy as to what parliament might or might not be obliged to do at some time in the remote future. So far as the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption from taxation is concerned, the question remains to be determined whether or not the legislature of the Territories will or Will not under this act have full jurisdiction to deal with provincial taxation. In good faith that jurisdiction must be exercised subject to the terms of the contract, just as this parliament, if it saw fit to attempt the expropriation referred to by the hon. gentleman, would be obliged in good faith to have regard to the terms of the contract. As I gave my views in committee, it is not worth while detaining the House by repeating them. I might add that one of the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, in dealing with this question under exactly similar conditions, said this:
I think Manitoba was granted and received these lands with this special exemption attached and has not attempted to repeal it, if, as was argued, it could repeal this provision, and, in my view, the later taxing statutes of Manitoba do not purport to repeal this provision.
He leaves undecided the question whether Manitoba could repeal that provision or deal with this matter, as far as provincial taxation is concerned, in exactly the same way that the parliament of Canada can deal with it so far as Dominion taxation is concerned.
Furthermore. I pointed out to this House on a previous occasion that Mani 8795 COMMONS toba has asserted the right to tax the earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and has collected the sum of $50,000 or thereabouts during the past year under that head. Manitoba exercised that right, because section 16 of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract does not exempt its earnings from taxation. That section is as follows:
The Canadian Pacific Railway and all stations and station grounds, workshops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances required and used for the construction and working thereof, and the capital stock of the company, shall be for ever free from taxation by the Dominion, or by any province hereafter to be established, or by any municipal corporation therein; and the lands of the company, in the Northwest Territories, until they are either sold or occupied, shall be free from such taxation for twenty years after the grant thereof from the Crown.
There is no exemption therein of the earnings.
Mr. SCOTT. In very much the larger part of Manitoba, there is no exemption at all. It might be that the company had not considered that what the Manitoba government has done in relation to taxes on earnings covered the small exempted strip.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have read carefully the terms of the Manitoba statute. They are general. They do not deal with the Canadian Pacific Railway alone but with all railway companies, and it is under that general provision that the tax to which I have alluded has been collected. All the railway companies, I believe, have protested. as they always do under the circumstances; but neither the Canadian Pacific Railway nor any other company has seen fit to test the. validity of the tax imposed. For those reasons I shall vote against the amendment of the hon. member. I cannot see that it adds to or takes from the meaning of the section as now proposed in the slightest degree.
Mr. GALLIHER. I dealt with this question for a short time about a month or two ago and propose to say but very few words on it at present. I do not think my hon. friend from West Assiniboia goes far enough or I would support his motion. In my opinion, section 28 should not be enacted at all. If the parliament of Canada had full power to enter into the contract it did with the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1881, there can be no necessity for our continuing the exemption therein provided by any new enactment now. If it was intra vires of the government at that time, it holds good now. even after the new provinces are created. But if it was ultra vires of the government to continue that exemption beyond the time when the Territories became provinces, we should not do so by an enactment now. Either this section is for the purpose of securing such a defect as may have existed by reason of it not having 8796 been within the power at the Dominion parliament to continue the exemption beyond the time when the Territories became provinces, or there is no need for it. If this section were left entirely out of the Bill. we would not be in any way ignoring a contract that was legally made by any preceeding government. If that contract were not legally made, we should not be called upon to makeit good by this enactment: and if my hon. friend had moved for the expunging of this section. I would have supported him.
Amendment IMr. Scott) negatived.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. This Bill, which is now under consideration for its third reading, has been so elaborately discussed, both on the second reading and in committee, that I propose to occupy the time of the House but a few minutes in moving an amendment to refer the Bill back to the Committee of the Whole House.
So far as the main features of the Bill are concerned, those to which I am particularly opposed are pretty well known. I will briefly enumerate them and content myself with just summing up a few ideas which have been elaborated on more than one occasion during the discussion of the Bill.
I object to the policy of the government as far as the lands are concerned. In my opinion, as I have expressed it on a great many occasions during the past three years, the true policy for the government to adopt in regard to the lands in the Northwest Territories would have been to entrust the administration and control of these lands to the people and the legislatures of the new province, and not. to retain that control and administration at Ottawa. The government, by adopting that view, would have followed the analogy of the British North America Act, section 109 of which provides that each province shall retain its lands and shall control and administer them. In the next place, it would have followed the British practice which has prevailed as between the government of Great Britain and the dependencies of the empire during the past sixty or seventy years. Every argument which has been advanced for retaining the control and administration of these lands in the central government would have availed equally in favour of retaining the control and administration of the lands of this country in the imperial government at London. There is no doubt about that. The British government attempted to enforce that principle. They did enforce it for a time, with results so absolutely unsatisfactory to themselves and to the people of the various dependencies of the empire that it was found necessary to make an absolute change. Further than that, the policy of the government in this regard is absolutely opposed, as I believe to the wishes of the people of the Northwest as expressed by the legislature in the Bill 8797 JULY 5, 1905 presented by Mr. Haultain, which had been unanimously adopted by the legislature of the Northwest Territories. It is also opposed to many expressions in the public press of the west during the time of this debate. And it is not unwise at this moment to recall the circumstances that, with respect to the boundary, with respect to many details that have been dealt with by this Bill, the wishes of the Northwest have been put forward as the true test. But when we come to the question of administering and controlling the lands we have departed from any consideration of the wishes of the people of the new provinces, and have decided to withhold the control and retain the administration of these lands.
Another argument in favour of entrusting these lands to the people is that the lands can be better administered and controlled in the province than at Ottawa. They can be better administered and controlled by officers of the provincial government in touch with the people and comparatively near at hand than by the officers of the Dominion government. What reason is there, as I have said before, why a citizen of Ontario should have the right and privilege to deal with the minerals and public lands of his own province at Toronto, while the citizen of the Northwest must be obliged, for the same purpose, to write or send to the city of Ottawa ? I am not going into an extended argument on this subject. The matter has been dealt with in detail by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) and my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), as well as by other hon. gentlemen ; and for me to indulge in an elaborate argument at this stage of the discussion would be weariness to the House as well as to myself.
The arguments of the government on this subject are threefold. The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) bases his main contention on the necessity of controlling the lands that they may be used as a means of promoting immigration. He says there must be free homestead entries, and therefore there must be control of the lands at Ottawa. This consideration seems entitled to no great weight. I dealt with it on a previous occasion. Another hon. gentleman seemed to be under the impression that there would be less corruption if the administration of the lands were in the hands of the central government than if they were administered by the provinces. The Prime Minister adduces on this subject the example of the United States, where the federal government has retained the control of the public lands —although he took good care not to follow the United States with respect to certain other features of the Bill to which public attention has been called. The example of the United States has not been a happy one, if we test this question by the possibility of corruption. Those who have investigated 8798 the political affairs of the United States, know that some of the greatest scandals which have occurred in that country have been in connection with the public lands. The additional reasons which influenced the administration are those which they do not openly state—the desire for preserving patronage, for retaining power over the electorate of that country. In respect of these matters, no doubt, there were influences which were exercised upon the administration. But looking at the matter from the standpoint solely of the public interset, I venture to say that the policy should have been to hand over the lands to the administration and control of the provincial executives and provincial legislatures.
The next proviston of the Bill to which I have specially referred is that which deals with the division of the province for the purpose of the election of a provincial legislature. Now, I am not going over a twice-told tale. I shall not review the provisions of clause 12 of the Bill and of the schedule which forms part of that clause. These matters have been discussed very elaborately in the committee of the whole House. But I will just point out one object lesson in this distribution which seems to me to afford a guide to the principle, or lack of principle, which has guided the administration and its friends in framing clause 12. The population of the province of Alberta is estimated by the government at 250,000. The number of members in the new legislature is to be twenty-five. Two constituencies are to be established in the northern part of the province in communities which have not, up to the present time, been given any representation either in the parliament of Canada or in the provincial legislature. Hon. gentlemen on the other side are now extremely solicitous about the persons who inhabit these portions of the province. They are extremely solicitous that those people should be represented in parliament. But up to the present time I have not heard a murmur of protest, either in this parliament or in the territorial assembly, on account of their lack of representation in parliament or in the territorial assembly. We have certain sources of information which have been pointed out by the government as those which guided them in making this distribution. One source of information is the census of 1901. According to that census the electoral division of Peace River contained 92 whites and 677 half-breeds, or a total population of 769 among whom electors might be found. The constituency of Athabaska, according to the census of 1901, contained 117 white persons and 824 half- breeds, or a total population of 941 among whom electors might be found. In addition to this, the Peace River district contained at that time 955 Indians and Athabaska contained 735 Indians. There is one post office in the entire territory comprised in the two ridings, and the income from that one post office is $90 per annum. You will 8799 COMMONS therefore realize the extent and importance of the population to which has been given a representation of two members in the new provincial assembly.
Well, we need not perhaps stop at that; it is not fair perhaps to stop at that, because we have certain further information derived from my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior. Some one told some persons who told the Minister of the Interior that there is a population of 5,000 souls in these two ridings exclusive of Indians—or perhaps it may be that some one told my hon. friend that directly. I think that was the way he put it to the House—some person, at some indefinite time, at some unknown place, the person being also unnamed and unknown to this House, has informed the Minister of the Interior that these two combined electoral divisions contain at the present time 5,000 persons exclusive of Indians. Well, I venture to think that if you look at the other sources of information upon which reliance has been placed by the government with respect to other portions of the constituency, we might discount that statement a great deal. For my part I should be extremely surprised if it could be proved by any evidence worth the name that there are more than 2,500 persons at the present time in those two electoral divisions, not including Indians. But let us take the statement of the Minister of the Interior; let us take his statement, which it was not even worth while to put in writing, of which it was not worth while to give any details; let us assume that there are in these two electoral divisions at the present time 5,000 people outside of Indians, and what have you? You have 245,000 people in the new province of Alberta to whom is allotted a representation of 23 members in the new legislature, and you have a supposed 5,000 people in the northern portion of that constituency to whom two representatives are allotted. That is to say, to one-fiftieth of the assumed population of the province of Alberta a representation of two is given, and to all the rest, to the other forty-nine-fiftieths of that population, a representation of 23 is given. Now, there can be no excuse for that ; there can be no justification for it ; here can be no apology for it. I do not know the motives which influenced the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister in forcing this upon the House. We can only guess at them. But it seems to be a transaction which is worthy of being characterized in the strongest possible terms that parliamentary usage will permit. It seems to me to be indecent and indefensible that 5,000 persons in the northern part of that constituency should be given a representation of two members, while to 245,000 persons 23 members are allotted, and that this should be done by hon. gentlemen in this House who stand up and state that they are solely desirous of distributing the representation of that province according to the standards of fair-play, according to 8800 equality of population and other similar considerations. It is perhaps inadvisable to express our opinion as to why this is done, why a population hitherto absolutely unrepresented in the provincial legislature should be given four times the voice in the new province that any similar number of persons in any other part of the province receive under the terms of this distribution.
Another provision to which I desire to call attention for a few moments is that contained in section 16. This has been discussed very fully. I will sum up what I have to say with regard to that in a very few words. The argument has been made not only by private members on the other side of the House, but by ministers of the Crown as well, not, I think, by the right hon. gentleman, but by some of his colleagues, that an obligation is imposed upon parliament to pass this legislation because of a compact which was made in 1870 at the time the Territories came into the confederation. That argument was disposed of by the right hon. gentleman the other evening, and it was disposed of by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice on the same evening. If there was any compact such as that which has been relied upon, it extended not only to separate schools in the Northwest Territories, but to the use of the French language. A disclaimer was made by the Solicitor General, concurred in by the Prime Minister, both of whom declared that no such compact existed under anything that took place in 1870; therefore, so far as that is concerned we come down to what the Minister of Justice quoting from the judgment of a court, calls a parliamentary compact, and we find the obligation to enact this legislation, if we find it anywhere. in the statute of 1875. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have taken away from themselves that argument; they have taken it away deliberately, with their eyes open, in answer to the motions of my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), be cause they say that there is no compact by reason of the Act of 1877, and I challenge any distinction between the Act of 1877 and the Act of 1875 in that regard. Therefore, I am free to state upon the authority of the Prime Minister himself, upon the authority of his Minister of Justice and of his Solicitor General, upon the authority of every member of the government who combatted this motion, that there was no compact contained in the Act of 1875, because otherwise the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues would have felt themselves obliged to accede to the motions which they voted down. Therefore, we come down after all to the question of constitutional power, of constitutional right, and as to whether it is sound policy in this regard to limit the rights of the new provinces. I do not admit that there is any constitutional power; I deny that there is any constitutional right, and I deny further 8801 JULY 5, 1905 that it is sound policy to limit in this respect the rights of the new provinces. I say that so far as the distribution of the legislative power between parliament and the legislatures of the new provinces is concerned we should content ourselves with adopting that code which is contained in sections 91, 92, 93 and the two following sections of the British North America Act. These constitute the code of distribution of legislative power between the parliament of Canada and the legislatures of all the provinces, including those provinces we are now creating, and I say it is wise for us, from all standpoints, to abide by the constitution in that regard.
I pointed that out a little more in detail the other evening than I shall do at the present time. I pointed out that in the interest of the minority in this country as well as in the interest of the majority, it is right and wise that we should abide by the constitution, because, that constitution, if it is invaded to-day for one class, may be invaded to-morrow for another class. I deny that there is any intolerance in asking that we should abide by the compact and the constitution which were deliberately adopted in 1867. Any argument as to tolerance is an argument which ought to be addressed to the people and to the legislatures of the new provinces. I think that all of us on this side of the House may at the same time treat with some disdain the arguments of those who throw the taunt of intolerance in our teeth and at the same time turn to their friends and colleagues and say : We may grant this after all to the minority because it is absolutely useless to them; these are not separate schools ; the privilege granted is absolutely worthless and in a few years the name of separate schools will disappear from the Northwest. That is a very high exemplification of tolerance ! If it is so regarded by some hon. gentlemen opposite, I do not so regard it. If there was any compact, if there was any agreement, why grant separate schools are to be of no value at all to those who demand them ? It seems to me that a different policy should have been pursued.
Now there is this one thing more. I do not think enough has been said in this House in regard to a certain motion which the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont) moved the other evening. Perhaps some members of this House and a great many people in this country do not thoroughly realize what the import and effect of the amendment are. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) and my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) proposed certain motions when this Bill was in committee. I will not weary the House perhaps if I state the reasons for these motions, as I understand them. The amended clause 16 of this Bill provides that :
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to 8802 separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act, under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed in the year 1901.
The Protestant or Roman Catholic minority in any school section in the Northwest Territories, if they saw fit to establish separate schools, could elect their own school trustees, and if they did so then the powers of these trustees in respect to religious instruction would be controlled by section 137 of chapter 29 of the ordinances which is as follows :
No religious instruction except as hereinafter provided shall be permitted in the school of any district from the opening of such school until one-half hour previous to its closing in the afternoon, after which time any such instruction permitted or desired by the board may be given.
Now, inasmuch as the Catholic minority or the Protestant minority could establish separate schools and could elect their own trustees, they would, in respect to such separate schools, control the religious instruction. But in respect of schools which were not within the designation of separate schools, the legislature of the new province was not in any way controlled by the provisions of section 16. I am trying to state this proposition in as simple and distinct terms as I possibly can. Inasmuch as these public schools—I may call them that to distinguish them from separate schools—were not within the designation of separate schools, contained in clause 16 of this Bill, the provisions of section 16, to which I have just referred, would not prevent the legislature of the new province from interfering with the power of the trustees or from vesting that control over religious instruction in the Commissioner of Education, or in the council of public instruction. or in any other body which it may designate at any time in the future. That was the position and my hon. friend from Labelle, in the first instance, and my hon. friend from Beauharnois afterwards proposed motions in Committee of the Whole House, which in their opinion, guarded the rights of the Catholic minority when that Catholic minority happened to be a majority in anyparticular school district. These motions were voted down. They were voted down without very much discussion by the government and without very much reason being given by any member of the government. They were regarded as unnecessary or inexpedient—I do not know which— perhaps both ; at all events, they were very summarily disposed of and the matter was supposed to end there. But, it did not end there. Then came a very pretty little piece of by-play. That which had been proposed by my hon. friend from Labelle and by my hon. friend from Beauharnois and something more to which I will call attention was proposed by the hon. member for Sas 8803 COMMONS katchewan evidently by reason of an understanding between himself and the members of the administration. What was proposed by the hon. member for Saskatchewan was this : He proposed to add to clause 16 as it had been amended these words :
Or with respect to religious instruction in any public or separate school as provided for in said ordinances.
So that the section as it now stands before us to receive the sanction of the House upon the third reading is as follows:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or pnivilege with respect to separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act, under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed in the year 1901, or with respect to religious instruction in any public or separate school as provided for in the said ordinances.
Now, I regard those words which I have just read and which are embodied in the amendment of the hon. member for Saskatchewan as an unnecessary and unwarranted attack upon the legislative power of the new province. They embody what my hon. friend from Labelle and my hon. friend for Beauharnois had in mind but they embody something more. They embody an absolute restriction of the powers of the provincial legislature at all times in the future in regard to the control of religious instruction in the public schools. There can be no doubt about that. The words are very distinct and very explicit. If you omit the immaterial words you have this language :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to religious instruction in any public or separate school as provided for in said ordinances.
It might be proper if the policy of the government were one in which we all agreed to go as far as my hon. friend from Labelle and my hon. friend from Beauharnois proposed to go, but it is absolutely unnecessary to go beyond that and to limit and restrict the powers of the legislatures of the new provinces in respect to religious instruction in all public schools. What is the provision relied upon? I have already read it, but I will read it again :
No religious instruction except as hereinafter provided shall be permitted in the school until one-half hour previous to its closing in the afternoon, after which time any such instruction permited or desired by the board may be given.
Whatever right or privilege is embodied in that provision, whatever power is vested in the trustees, under that provision, so as to create a right or privilege, must remain at all times in the future as part of the organic law of the new provinces. That is to say, if the legislature of the new province 8804 should for any special reason in any district desire to divest the tustees of that power and to vest it in the commissioner of education or the council of public instruction or any other body, it would find itself unable to do so. This is a specific and definite provision ' that no right or privilege with respect to religious instruction in any public or separate school ' shall be prejudicially affected. When this section first came down I called attention to this. The Prime Minister differed from me on the construction of the section. I was not able to precisely gather exactly what the view of the administration is with respect to the clause, but I am giving to the House my view as to what the difficulties would be. If the government have any different opinion it should be expressed in this House at the earliest possible moment in such distinct, definite and specific terms as will leave no room for misapprehension and misunderstanding. In view of the provisions contained in section 16; in view of its restrictions on the legislative freedom of the new provinces, once more I desire to test the opinion of the House upon that section. and I therefore move in amendment to the main motion :
That all the words after 'now' to the end of the question he left out, and that the following words he inserted instead thereof:
Recommitted to a committee of the whole House with an instruction that they have power to strike out section 16 of the Bill and to substitute the following section therefor :
16. The provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said province in so far as the same are applicable under the terms thereof.
I make the motion now as I made it in committee for the reason that I believe it is wisest to adhere to the terms of the constitution. It is wisest, because the observance of the constitution is a protection to all of us ; wisest, because the provisions of the constitution will leave these matters to be dealt with by the legislature of the new province ; wisest, because that will in the end tend to better relations among the people of all Canada ; wisest, because it will confine within the restricted provincial area differences and difficulties of an essentially local character. It will leave. the wider area of Dominion politics free from questions which concern only a particular province, a particular district or a particular territory. All of us who have had experience of the far reaching and harmful effect of such differences when they overpass provincial bounds by such differences; all of us who have strong opinions on the desirability of not lighting fires which are so easily spread ; we all believe that in the end it is better to leave such matters to be dealt with within the restricted area which is most directly concerned. The motion which I propose will have that result. It is a result that is not likely to be fraught with any injustice to the minority. That feeling of tolerance of 8805 JULY 5, 1905 which mention has been made so often in this House is just as strong in the people of the Northwest of Canada as it is in the people of any province of Canada. The people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have been cited as examples of the good fellowship which exists in the maritime provinces between people of different races and different religious belief. There is no reason for apprehension that any different result will obtain in the Northwest of Canada it these matters are restricted to the provincial area and it the provincial legislature is left to deal with these questions. The people of the west are not less broad, they are not more narrow than the people of eastern Canada. than the people of Nova Scotia, of New Brunswick and of Prince Edward Island who, even without the sanction of legislative enactment, have been broad enough to grant rights which are appreciated by the minority. For what reason are we to conjecture that the people in the Northwest of Canada would exercise the legislative rights conferred upon them in any less reasonable or fair manner ? I hope that the government, even at this late hour, may accept this motion to leave the constitution untouched, and to let the new provinces be governed by the exact provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, unimpaired and unaltered.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice). I am absolutely certain that I give expression to the view, not only of every member of this government, but of every member of this House who is supporting the government on this legislation, when I say that it has been proposed with only one desire and that desire is to respect the true principles of the constitution, not only in its spirit but in its letter. So far as we are concerned there is no desire to antagonize any element of the community, any more than there is a desire to single out any class in the community for special favours. We have, however, to bear in mind that there are obligations on this government which the government cannot refuse to accept the responsibility of. It would be very poor statesmanship, it would be a very paltry thing, if, by simply shutting our eyes to the duty cast upon us we would attempt to get rid of it. I shall not detain the House at any length; I shall merely deal with the question of the land and clause 16, and leave the question of the distribution of seats to the Minister of the Interior and other hon. gentlemen. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has said that with respect to the land we are departing from the principle laid down by the British North America Act. I take direct issue with my hon. friend on that, and I submit to the House that there is absolutely no analogy between the case we now have in hand and the case of the provinces as they came into confederation in 1867 and after. 8806 These provinces were separate political entities in existence when they decided to enter confederation. At the time they came into confederation, these separate political entities had vested in. them their public lands; all their public properties were the property of these federated provinces; and when in the British North America Act we proceed to deal with the question of lands and properties, what do we do ? We re-vest in the provinces those lands a part of which have been taken by this Dominion. That is What we did at confederation. Let me draw the attention of the House to sections 108 and 109 of the British North America Act, which deal with this question. Section 108 says :
The public works and property of each province enumerated in the third schedule to this Act shall be the property of Canada.
We take from these provinces, as they came into confederation, the public works and property therein enumerated. Then, section 109 goes on to say:
All lands, mines, minerals and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the province in the same.
That is, simply a revesting, in so far as a revesting is necessary of those lands which are their property, or which, by the terms of this section, are declared to be their property. What are the facts in regard to the public lands in the Territories ? The facts are that in 1870 they were almost entirely the property of the Hudson Bay Company; and what occurred ? The Dominion of Canada, acting in concert with the imperial authorities, contracted to pay to the Hudson Bay Company £300,000 sterling for the purpose of acquiring these properties, they to become the property of the Dominion; and can any man to-day dispute our title to those properties? Now, where is the analogy between the case of a province which has its property vested in the province, coming into confederation and retaining control of that property except the part which it gives up to the Dominion of Canada, and the property of the Northwest Territories, which to-day is the property of the people of the Dominion of Canada ? How can you compare the two ? How can you draw any argument from the British North America Act to make it applicable to the case in hand ? That is not all, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend says we ought to observe the constitution. The constitution of this country is not only, strictly speaking, the terms of the British North America Act, but is, as I conceive it. the written constitution together with that 8807 COMMONS intangible constitution which has grown up by practice and usage. We have a precedent for what we are doing to-day. How were the public lands in Manitoba dealt with ?—which public lands occupied, quoad the Dominion of Canada, absolutely the same position which the public lands of the Territories occupy to-day, except that in the interval we have spent enormous sums of money to develop that country, in connection with immigration, irrigation, and other matters. How did we deal with the case of Manitoba ? We dealt with it absolutely in the way in which we are dealing with the Territories. Were we to do otherwise and Manitoba were to come to us, are we to say to her : We have given these lands to the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, but so far as you are concerned lands occupying the same position are not to be dealt with in the same way ? Why should we distinguish between the two ? But, Mr. Speaker, we have more than that. This question has not been raised here for the first time. It was the subject of much consideration by the government in power in 1884, and a report to Council was made by gentlemen, members of the government, who had been appointed to consider the whole of these questions, and chiefly the question that was then raised, as to the right of the province of Manitoba to the control, management and sale of the public lands within its limits—the same question that is now being considered. How was that question dealt with by the report of Council of May 20, 1884 ? I have made a few extracts from that report, which I will read :
The lands of Manitoba hold a very different position in relation to the Dominion government, from the lands of the other provinces. Shortly after the union of the old provinces, the government formed from that union purchased at a large price in cash, all the rights, titles and interests of the Hudson Bay Company in and to the territory out of which the province of Manitoba has been formed, it incurred further a very large expenditure to obtain and hold this territory in peaceable possession, and at a still further cost which is continuous and perpetual, is extinguishing Indian tioles and maintaining the Indians, so that the Dominion government has a very large pecuniary interest in the soil which does not exist in respect to any other of the confederated provinces.
Is there a reason advanced in support of the position taken by the government at that time which is not applicable to the conditions existing in the Territories today? But that is not all. My hon. friend thought there was not much in the argument with respect to immigration; but let me point out to him what the views of the government of 1884 were on that point. The report says :
Parliament pledged its faith to the world that a large portion out those lands should be set apart for free homes-tends to all coming settlers, and another portion to be held in trust for the 8808 education of their children. No transfer could therefore be made without exacting from the province :the most ample securities that this pledged policy shall be maintained. Hence in so far as the free lands extend there would be no monetary advantage to the province whilst a transfer would most assuredly seriously embarrass all the costly immigration operations which the Dominion government is making and mainly in behalf of Manitoba. and the Territories.
The great attraction which the Dominion government now offers, the impressive fact to the mind of the man contemplating emigration, is that a well known and recognized government holds unfettered in its own hands, which it offers free, and that that government has its agencies and organization for directing, receiving, transporting and placing the immigrant upon the homestead which he may select.
These are the reasons which were given then, and these are the reasons which apply under existing conditions to the lands in the Northwest Territories.
My hon. friend dealt afterwards with section 16, the school clause. I shall not go over the position I have already taken with respect to that section or the arguments which I have already advanced. Briefly, I think I may put it in this way. You have to provide by this constitutional Act for the distribution of a legislative power as between the Dominion and the province. Sections 91, 92 and 93 of the British North America Act must be made applicable, section 91 being the section which is applicable to the Dominion, section 92 the one applicable to the province, and section 93, the one applicable to both. Neither the province nor the Dominion can deal exclusively with the subject mentioned in section 93. The Dominion can deal exclusively with the subjects mentioned in section 91, and the province can deal exclusively with the subjects mentioned in section 92.
But when we come to deal with this question of education, we find by section 93 that it is a subject over which both the Dominion and the provinces exercise legislative jurisdiction. Section 93 provides for this condition of things, that if a school system has grown up in a province under which any class in that particular province has acquired a right or a privilege, then that right or privilege is guaranteed that particular class for all time to come. That is the restriction placed upon the powers of a province to deal with the subject of education. It can only deal with that subject under the restriction that all the rights and privileges therefore vested in any class in that province cannot be interfered with. There can be no doubt on that point because it has been irrevocably settled as the result of two judicial decisions. If these Territories were a province now in existence, the school system there existing would be of necessity perpetuated, and whatever rights and privileges are conferred on the minority under that school system would be guaran 8809 JULY 5, 1905 teed them for all time. My hon. friend says, however, that these Territories are not provinces and conseqently this section does not in terms apply to the new provinces. Conceivably that is true. There is a doubt in my mind as to whether or not these Territories, not being provinces, come within the wording of section 93 ; and in the technical meaning of the term, the minority might not have those rights and privileges which they enjoy under the School Ordinance. That is the letter of the law, but what is the spirit ?
Mr. SCOTT. Was that point ever raised in the Manitoba case ? Manitoba was not a province either.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. It could not be raised in the Manitoba case because in that case there was a special section which provides that the minority shall have not only the rights and privileges which exist by law but also those which exist by practice.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Manitoba became a province at the moment it entered confederation.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I am charging no narrowness or fanaticism to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I believe the view he has given to be his conception of the spirit of the British North America Act, and that he is seeking to apply that Act, but I put this question to him ? Have we not at present in the Territories conditions which are practically analogous to those which exist in a province ? At the time the Territories came in, did we not petition the home authorities to give us the power to legislate with respect to them ? And did we not, at the same time, give the undertaking that we would give them institutions similar to those which existed in the provinces ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If we had power, under the Act of 1871, to absolutely disregard section 93 of the British North America Act, then of course there is no further question. We cannot make a new section 93. If, on the other hand, we are bound to observe section 93, it does not seem to me that we can increase our power by passing any Act restricting the powers of a territorial legislature, and then, the following year, when creating a province, say : there you have restrictions operating upon the territorial legislature and the provincial legislature must also be governed thereby.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My answer is cadit questio. Proceeding on the assumption that we are dealing with these Territories, under the Act of 1871, as Manitoba was dealt with and British Columbia and Prince Edward Island and every province brought into the Dominion since confederation, we are applying to these new provinces the same principle we applied to those provinces. If these Territories were coming in as provinces, created previous to this time, there 8810 would be no question as to the application of section 93, and all the rights and privileges guaranteed the minority under existing legislation would be continued ; but because they do not come within the word 'province ' my hon. friend says : your door is barred and section 93 of the British North America Act does not apply. My answer is that when these Territories were brought into confederation, they were brought in under a compact entered into between the people of Canada and the imperial authorities. We find in the petition to the imperial authorities the following language :
That the welfare of the sparse and scattered population of British subjects of European origin, who inhabit these remote and unorganized territories, would be materially enhanced by the formation therein of political institutions hearing analogy, as far as the circumstances will admit, to those that exist in the several provinces of the Dominion.
That was the allegation of our petition. We asked for legislative control over these territories on conditions that we would give them institutions similar in principle to those existing in the provinces. That prayer was granted. In the Order in Council it was provided :
It is hereby ordered and declared by her Majesty, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, in pursuance and exercise of the powers vested in her Majesty by the said Acts of parliament, that from and after the 15th day of July, 1870, the said Northwest Territories shall be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions set forth in the first hereinbefore recited address.
The terms and conditions were that we would give these Territories political institutions bearing analogy, as far as the circumstances would admit, to those existing in the provinces. That was in 1870 or 1871. What then did we proceed to do ? In 1875 we gave these Territories a constitution in accordance with the solemn compact entered into with the imperial authorities. In that constitution what did we provide ? We provided for separate schools, or rather we provided, under section 11 of the Act of 1875, for a system of education. That is the letter of our constitution. At the time that constitution was given these Territories, in the execution of our solemn undertaking towards the imperial authorities, the man who was responsible for section 11 of the Act of 1875 stood up in this House and gave expression to the hope that by that Act we had settled for all time this vexed question of education in so far as these Territories were concerned. I need not repeat his words. Mr. Blake then said to the people of Canada : We are taking out of provincial politics and out of municipal control this vexed question of education and are settling it for all time in so far as these Territories are concerned. Those great men who then sat in parliament. those men who had been 8811 COMMONS framers of the Act of confederation, who had started Canada on its triumphant wave,—those men declared, without a dissentient voice, in adopting this measure : yes, we are settling the question for ever ; and those who shall hereafter go into the Territories to establish there homes for themselves and their children will know the conditions under which they take possession of the land. They will know that their children will be educated under the system we are creating to-day, which provides for a separate school system.
Mr. SPROULE. With the hon. minister's permission, I would like to ask him a question. Is he strictly keeping faith with those to whom promises were made prior to confederation that they would have institutions similar to those of other provinces ? Did not the other provinces have freedom of choice in their educational system?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Absolutely none. The other provinces have no choice where rights have been guaranteed.
Mr. SPROULE. Never had ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Never had. A province coming into confederation with a separate school system is bound to maintain that system. And if after coming into confederation they establish a school system under which rights and privileges accrue, they are absolutely precluded from interfering with them.
Mr. SPROULE. Do not they exercise the same rights—
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I fear I am wandering from the point to which I was addressing myself. Without being offensive to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) I will claim my right to proceed. I feel that he cannot convince me, and I fear that I cannot convince him. Now, that system was given to this country at that time, and at that time those who were opposed to the principle of separate schools so far as the Northwest Territories are concerned, through Hon. George Brown, voiced this sentiment : You have passed this legislation ; you have settled the question for all time ; it has passed out of the domain of Dominion controversy. I gave you the views of those who promoted this legislation and were favourable to it. Here I give you also the opinion concerning it and the construction put upon by the man who most bitterly opposed it. So there, friend and foe alike, joined to say that this question was settled for ever. And, as I have said, it passed beyond our domain. Subsequently, in 1891, an attempt was made to settle this question, otherwise. That is when the Act was being consolidated, if I remember rightly, and at that time the attention of the House was again drawn to this section 11, to this provision in the constitution we had given 8812 to this territory. We were told : You must repeal that provision, you must not consecrate that principle by your positive legislation ; because if you do, the system will be continued under which rights and privileges will be acquired, which, when you come to deal with these Territories and make them into provinces, you will find in existence and you will not be able to get rid of them. Not only that, but, if I remember rightly, it was in 1880, that a statute was passed by this parliament with respect to the constitution of these Territories in which we made the provision of the British North America Act with respect to education, that is to say, section 98, expressly applicable to the Northwest Territories. Now, in the light of these facts, we are called upon to deal with these provinces. and we have to remember the pledge we gave to the imperial authorities that we would give to these Territories institutions similar in principle to our own. We have to bear in mind the fact that we have by our own Act created in the province a certain condition of things with respect to schools, that by our positive act that school system has been continued up to the present time. And, when we come to apply section 93, what do we do ? The rights that have grown up in that territory under the present school system, if these rights and privileges have been brought in by reason of the legislation of the Territories, go on in spite of anything that could be done. But, because they have been created and have grown up not by reason of the Act of the territorial authority, but by reason of our Act, we are to repudiate, and say to these people : It is true, we have created that system, true we are responsible for it ; true if these had been provinces and the legislation had been their work, we would not have had any right to deal with it;—but because these things have grown up under our Act, we have the right to repudiate them. That is a position this government refuses to take. So far as this government is concerned, there will be no repudiation, either with respect to the contracts entered into with the Hudson Bay Company or the implied parliamentary contract entered into with the minority of the Northwest Territories.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has accurately stated the conditions which exist in the Northwest Territories as the result of section 16, No. 2. The minority—and I do not want to use the word 'Roman Catholic ' or the word ' Protestant,' I speak of the minority—the minority in any school district would have guaranteed to them all the rights and privileges they enjoy at the present time under chapter 29 of the ordinances. With respect to the minority in general, when they happen to form a majority in a school district, they would not have a guarantee of the continuance of these rights which they now have. 8813 JULY 5, 1905 The intention of this amendment is to continue to the majority in number in a school district, where it happens to be a minority in the province, the same rights and privileges with respect to religious education that they now enjoy. That is, we are not depriving them of one iota of the benefits of the provisions of the Northwest Territories ordinances. We are giving to the minority in general. whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, when they are a majority in a school district, the same privileges that they now enjoy. Now my hon. friend says that the result of this is to impose restraints on the action of the legislature. That is true ; there is a restraint upon the action of the legislature. But here is the condition we have : My hon. friend says that we are vesting this control of religious education in the hands of the trustees. My construction of the Bill —I am not dealing with it otherwise than as I construe it—is that which is placed upon it by the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Secular education, for which the state pays, is under control of the statute ; but religious education, which is essentially that which concerns the parents themselves, remains under the control of the parents. The trustee is the representative of the parent, for he is elected by the parent. I take all the responsibility for saying that I have no desire to see the control of religious education vested in any other person or authority than the parent. I have no desire to see it vested in the superintendent of education or any person who is under the control of the state. I wish to see it vested in the person elected as representative of the parent. That is what I think my hon. friend's amendment carries out, and that. I think, we ought to give effect to.
Mr. BOURASSA. There is a point which is not very clear and which I would like to have explained, if the minister will allow me a question. Under clause 137, the minister has just stated, the trustees would decide what kind of religious instruction would be given. It is perfectly clear so far as that is concerned. But suppose a school section in which the majority is not Protestant or Roman Catholic—say, for instance, of the Greek Orthodox church. And suppose they decided to devote the half hour for religious instruction to instruction according to that church. Then, I suppose the minority would either have to simply prevent their children from attending the school during that half hour of religious instruction or form a separate school. In that case, which would be the minority to have the right to form a separate school under section 41 ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I am not able to answer that question. I am not giving offhand legal opinions to-day.
8814
Mr. BOURASSA. But, if the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will allow me, I think I put my question courteously. In case the majority is neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic, would the minority have the right to establish a separate school? That is a simple question.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. It may be a simple question, but it is a question to which I have not given consideration, and I do not want to commit myself to anything that I have not considered. The leader of the opposition also referred to the right to use the French language, and as I understood him, he said that the right to use the French language was as sacredly guaranteed to those who speak that language in the Northwest Territories, as the right to separate schools.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I said there seemed to be as much of a parliamentary compact in the one case as in the other, because both depended on the statute.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I will deal with that question when we have to consider the amendment which will be moved in that connection.
Mr. STOCKTON. I was unfortunately absent from the House when the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont) moved his amendment, which was adopted by the government and passed. Therefore, I wish to make one or two observations upon section 16, subsection 1, as it is affected by the amendment of the member For Saskatchewan. I do not object to the interpretation put upon section 93 by the Minister of Justice. We know that a province has an absolute right to legislate with respect to education. I ask this question : What legislative authority outside of the legislative assembly of the province of New Brunswick has a right to legislate for that province in respect to education ? No legislative authority whatever, Sir, except the assembly of the province of New Brunswick. But with the interpretation that has been put upon section 93 by the Minister of Justice, I agree. If the legislative assembly of the province of New Brunswick, to-day, or to-morrow, passed a law giving certain rights to the minority, and next year sought to withdraw those rights by which withdrawal they were prejudicially affected, then I entirely agree with the Minister of Justice that there might be an appeal to this parliament to interfere.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. That would be a case for remedial legislation.
Mr. STOCKTON. Yes.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. And it would be subject to an appeal.
Mr. STOCKTON. It would be subject to an appeal. Under that explanation, I entirely agree with the interpretation which 8815 COMMONS the Minister of Justice has put upon section 93 of the British North America Act. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will very briefly show in what respect the Bill as now before the House is a departure from the Bill as originally presented by the Prime Minister, and as afterwards amended by him. Separate schools, under section 41 of the ordinance 29, can only be established by a minority of the ratepayers. Under the Act of 1875, section 11, the majority of the ratepayers can establish a school district and provide for education. After the school district is established then the minority can ask for and have separate schools. The question was asked the Minister of Justice by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), under what circumstances could a school be established if there were neither Catholics or Protestants in the district. Now if you put a construction upon section 11 of the Act of 1875, that ratepayers mean only Catholics or Protestants, then a difficulty might arise. But under section 2 of the ordinance 29, a meaning is given to the word ' ratepayer,' such as you would expect to be given it, that is, a person who pays rates, with the limitation of a certain residence within the district before he casts his vote for the election of a trustee. Now, the First Minister provided in his Bill for the minority but not for the majority. The amendment of the member for Saskatchewan, following the amendment moved by the member for Labelle, and following to a certain extent the amendment moved by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), sought to cure this defect, with the exception that the amendments of the member for Labelle and the member for Beauharnois were summarily voted down at the instance of the government and afterwards, when the member for Saskatchewan, under the inspiration I imagine of the First Minister, or some member of the government, moved his amendment, it was accepted by the government and adopted by the House, under the authority of the First Minister. What is the effect of that amendment ? I think, Sir, that many members of this House do not fully understand the element that has been introduced into the organic constitution of the province by this amendment. At the end of subsection 1, section 16, these words are added :
With respect to religious instruction in any public or separate school as provided in the said ordinances.
Now, under section 137 of the ordinance 29 religious instruction can be given from 3.30 p.m. to 4 o'clock, under the direction of the trustees in separate schools. But what if you apply it to all the schools ? As the law now stands it can be changed, it can be amended by the provincial authorities, because the amendment does not form part of the organic law ; but by introducing this amendment into the constitution you make 8816 it a fixture, you make it part of the organic law. and it puts the trustees for the time being above the educational authority of the province, it puts them above the Minister of Education, above the government of the province, and it makes them for all time supreme with respect to their action on this matter. It takes the control away from the provincial authorities, and it makes the amendment, as I have said, a part of the organic law, incapable of amendment or repeal by any authority in Canada, either in the Northwest or in this House, incapable of amendment except by an appeal to the imperial authorities. I think the Minister of Justice will agree with me that that is the effect of the amendment which was moved by the member for Saskatchewan and adopted by the government ; it places the provincial authority for all time to come in a position of servitude to a law which they have not asked for, and which they do not want. But the irony of the situation is accentuated by the fact that this is an amendment, moved by the hon. member for Saskatchewan, which, at the instance of the government, puts shackles upon the freedom of action of the people of the west, an amendment moved by a gentleman from the west, who should have been solicitous to look out for the freedom and liberty of the people of the west.
House divided on amendment Mr. R. L. Borden) :
YEAS:
Messieurs:
Alcorn, Lake,
Barker, Lalor,
Barr, Lennox,
Bennett, Macdonell,
Blain, MacLaren,
Borden (Carleton), McCarthy (Calgary),
Boyce, Martin(Queen's, P.E.I.),
Chisholm, Northrup,
Christie, Ratz,
Cochrane, Roche (Marquette),
Cockshutt, Schaffner,
Crocket, Sproule,
Daniel, Staples,
Elson, Stockton,
Gunn, Taylor,
Haggart, Tisdale,
Henderson, Walsh,
Herron, Wilmot,
Hughes (Victoria), Wilson (Lennox & Add.),
Jackson (Elgin), Wright (Muskoka).—41.
Kemp.
NAYS:
Messieurs:
Adamson, Kennedy,
Archambault, Lachance,
Beauparlant, Lamont,
BĂ©land, Lapointe,
Belcourt, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Bergeron, Laurier (L'Assomption)
Bickerdike, Lavergne (Drummond &
Black, rth.),
Borden (Sir Frederick), Lavergne (Montmagny),
8817 July 5, 1905
Bourassa Law
Brabazon, LeBlanc
Brodeur, Lemieux
Brown, Leonard,
Bruneau, Macdonald
Bureau, Maclean (Lunenburg),
Burrows, Macpherson,
Caldwell, McColl,
Calvert, McColl,
Campbell, McIsaac,
Carney, McKenzie (Bruce)
Carrier, McKenzie (Cape Breton,
Cash North)
Clarke, McLennan
Conmee, Marcile (Bagot)
Copp, Marcil (Bonaventure),
Costigan Martin (Wellington)
Crawford Mayrand,
Cyr, Meigs,
Delisle, Miller,
Demers, Monk
Debyshire, Oliver
Desjardins, Parmelee,
Devlin, Paterson
Dubeau, Paquet,
Dugas, Parent
Emmerson, Perley,
Ethier Piche
Finlayson, Pickup
Fisher, Power,
Fitzpatrick, Prefontaine,
Fortier, Proulx,
Galiher, Reid (Restigouche),
Gaureau, Riley,
Geoffrion, Ross (Rimouski),
Girard Ross (Yale-Cariboo).
Gladu Schell (Oxford),
Grant, Scott,
Greenway, Sinclair,
Guthrie, Smith (Oxford)
Hall, Talbot (Bellechasse),
Hughes, (King's P.E.I. ), Talbot (Strathcona),
Hunt, Telford,
Jackson (Selkirk) Turgeon,
Johnston (Cape Breton Wilson (Russell),
(South) Wright (Renfrew). - 109.
PAIRS:
Government, Opposition.
Gordon, Clements,
Harty, Reid,
German Ganong
Mulock White,
Logan Lefurgey,
Tobin McLean (York)
Sloan Osler
Lanctot, Lancaster,
Savoie, McLean (P.E.I.)
Fielding Foster
Turriff, Ward,
Watson, Avery,
Dyment Ingram,
Finlay, Broder,
Smith (Nanaimo), Porter,
Stewart, Armstrong,
Zimmerman, Bristol,
Bole Bland,
Sifton, McCarthy (Simcoe)
Carvel, Fowler,
Amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden) nega tived.
Mr. TAYLOR. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) did not vote.
8818
Mr. FOSTER. I am paired with the hon. member for Shelburne, the Minister of Finance. If I had a voted I would have voted for the amendment.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess

House resumed at eight o'clock.

PRIVATE BILLS.

VANCOUVER, VICTORIA AND EASTERN RAILWAY AND NAVIGATION COMPANY.

Mr. DUNCAN ROSS moved third reading of Bill (No. 139) respecting the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company,
Mr. FOSTER. I understood that there was a question raised by the Minister of Justice with reference to the fourth clause. I do not see the minister in his place, but I believe that the objection he raised was sufficiently important to lead the First Minister to say that it would be looked into before the third reading.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The point raised by the Minister of Justice was that the clause with refernce to the amalgamation was rather vague, declaring that certain roads are for the general advantage of Canada when they are all put together. I have not spoken to the Minister, but I have had the matter looked into for my own information, and I find that the companies here referred to are Canadian companies and the roads Canadian roads. Therefore, it is only a question of degree how far the government should permit the amalgamation and should declare these roads to be for the general advantage of Canada. If they are all amalgamated, they are for the general advantage of Canada, and if only a part of them are amalgamated, they are for the general advantage of Canada. These questions have all, I am sure, been considered by the Railway Committee, and I have always made it a rule to support the report of the Railway Committee unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.
Mr. SPROULE. I understood that provision was made for the amalgamation of some roads which are not specified.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. They are all specified.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, when the Bill was before the Railway Committee I objected to the third clause and desired to have it amended, but my amendment was laid over on the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that it would be considered by the government. I, therefore, did not test the efficacy of that amendment in the committee as I otherwise would have done, and l propose new to submit it to the House. My amendment is as follows: [...]
8831 COMMONS
[...] cause the Prime Minister himself has intimated that he is not aware of what the amendment is, although it was previously placed before the House. This is a question which not only affects the province of British Columbia, but the whole of the Dominion of Canada. British Columbia is not a province in which you can build a railway wherever you please, because its topographical conformation makes that impossible.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Nine o'clock.
Mr. LENNOX. I suppose the Speaker will know when it is nine o'clock.
Mr. SPEAKER. The hour for private Bills being exhausted, the House will resume the order of business.
Mr. LENNOX. I have something more to say at another time.

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

House resumed debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the third reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta.
Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois). Mr. Speaker, on the motion for the third reading of this Bill I desire to propose an amendment similar to that which I have already proposed in Committee of the Whole. When I proposed this amendment in the committee the Minister of Justice criticised its wording more than the principle which it contained. I have therefore tried to meet his views by making a more perfect translation into English of this amendment, which I originally wrote in French. I have modified the wording slightly, and have added a few words at the end of paragraph D. I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Paquet :
That all the words of the amendment be struck out, and the following substituted therefor : 16. Section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said province as if at the date fixed for the coming into force of this Act, the territory included in the said province were already a province, the word union in the said section meaning the said date :
2. The legislature shall have the right to pass laws with reference to education, but it shall always provide for, (a) the existence of separate schools and their enjoyment by the minority, Protestant or Catholic, who may claim them ; (b) the effective control of said schools in matters of teaching by the said minority ; (c) the full liberty for the majority in any school districts to have such schools as it may desire ; (d) the equitable and proportionate distribution between the majority and the minority of all moneys appropriated for education by the legislature of the province and of all moneys arising from the school fund established by the Dominion Lands Act.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Bergeron) :
8832
YEAS:
Messieurs.
Bergeron, Monk,
Bourassa, Morin,
Lavergne (Montmagny), Paquet.—7.
LĂ©onard,
NAYS:
Messieurs.
Adamson, Lalor,
Alcorn, Lamont,
Archambault, Lapointe,
Barker, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) ,
Barr, Laurier (L'Assomption ),
BĂ©land, Lavergne (Drummond &
Belcourt, Arth.
Bennett, Law,
Bickerdike, LeBlanc,
Black, Lemieux,
Blain, Lennox,
Borden (Carleton) , Macdonald,
Boyce, Macdonell,
Brabazon, MacLaren,
Brodeur, Maclean (Lunenburg) ,
Brown, Macpherson,
Bruneau, McCarthy (Calgary) ,
Bureau, McColl,
Burrows, McCool,
Caldwell, McIntyre,
Calvert, McIsaac,
Campbell, McKenzie (Bruce) ,
Cash, McKenzie
Chisholm, (Cape Breton, N) ,
Christie, McLennan,
Carrier, Marcile (Bagot) ,
Clarke, Marcil (Bonaventure) ,
Cochrane, Martin (Wellington) ,
Cockshutt, Mayrand,
Conmee, Meigs,
Costigan, Miller,
Crawford, Northrup,
Crocket, Oliver,
Cyr, Parmelee
Daniel, Paterson,
Delisle, Parent,
Demers, Parley,
Derbyshire, Piché,
Desjardins. Pickup,
Devlin, Porter,
Dubeau, Power,
Dugas, Préfontaine,
Elson, Proulx,
Emmerson, Ratz,
Ethier, Reid (Restigouche) ,
Finlayson, Riley,
Fisher, Roche (Marquette),
Fitzpatrick, Ross (Rimouski ),
Fortier, Ross (Yale-Caribou) ,
Galliher, Rousseau,
Gauvreau, Schaiffner,
Geoffrion, Schell (Oxford) ,
Girard, Sinclair,
Gladu, Smith (Oxford) ,
Grant, Sproule,
Greenway, Staples,
Gunn, Stockton,
Guthrie, Talbot (Bellechasse) ,
Hall, Talbot (Strathcona) ,
Henderson, Taylor,
Herron, Telford,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.) , Turgeon,
Hughes (Victoria) , Turriff,
Hunt, Walsh,
Jackson (Elgin) , Wilmot,
Jackson (Selkirk) , Wilson
Johnston (Cape Breton (Lennox & Addington)
8833 JULY 5, 1905
Kemp, Wilson (Russell),
Kennedy, Wright (Muskoka),
Lake, Wright (Renfrew),
Lake, Zimmerman.—138.
Amendment (Mr. Bergeron) negatived.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I beg to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has not voted.
Mr. SCOTT. I came into the chamber after the question was put. Under these circumstances I understand that the rules do not permit my vote to be recorded. If I am properly informed as to the amendment, I would have voted nay.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, each of the provinces of the Dominion of Canada when it entered the confederation came in with a school system of its own manufacture. That is all that is asked in relation to the elevation of the Northwest Territories into two provinces of the Dominion. I hold in my hand a motion which reads as follows:
That all the words after ' now ' to the end of the question be left out and that the following words be inserted instead thereof :
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, with an instruction that they have power to strike out section 2 of the Bill, and to substitute the following section therefor :
2. The provisions of the British North America Act, 1867 to 1886, shall apply to the province of Alberta in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the other provinces heretofore comprised in the Dominion, except such provisions as in terms or by reasonable intendment are specially applicable to or affect one or more only and not the whole of the said provinces.
I shall not detain the House with any remarks on the motion further than to point out that if under the British North America Act the provinces are entitled to absolute control of educational affairs subject to the restrictive clauses of the British North America Act, well and good; but if under the British North America Act these new provinces would be subject to the legislation of 1875 and subsequent legislation, then we are satisfied that it should be so construed, and if separate schools are to be attached to the Northwest Territories which are now being erected into provinces, all we ask is that we stand by the British North America Act.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. We might take the same division on this as was taken on section 16.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I cannot see the object of this motion at all. What is proposed ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I thought I might save the taking of a division. The object of the motion I can explain to the right hon. 8834 gentleman at considerable length if he would like to hear it.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. We had better have a vote on it.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Sam. Hughes :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn, Kemp,
Barker, Lake,
Barr, Lalor,
Bennett, Lennox,
Blain, MacLaren,
Borden (Carleton), McCarthy (Calgary) ,
Boyce, Northrup,
Chisholm, Porter,
Christie, Roche (Marquette) ,
Cochrane, Schaffner,
Cockshutt, Sproule,
Crocket, Staples,
Daniel, Stockton,
Elson, Taylor,
Gunn, Walsh,
Henderson, Wilmot,
Herron, Wilson (Lennox &
Hughes (Victoria) , Addington) ,
Jackson (Elxgin), Wright (Muskolm).—37.
NAYS :
Messieurs
Adamson, Laurier (L'Assomption) ,
Anchambault, Lavergne (Drummond &
BĂ©land, Arth. ) ,
Belcourt, Lavergne (Montmagny) ,
Bergeron, Law,
Bickerdike, LeBlanc,
Black, Leonard,
Bourassa, Maodonald,
Brabazon, Maclean (Lunenburg) ,
Brodeur, Macpherson,
Brown, McColl,
Bruneau, McCool,
Bureau, McIsaac,
Burrows, McKenzie (Bruce) ,
Caldwell, McKenzie (Cape Breton
Calvert, north) ,
Campbell, McLennan,
Cash, Marcile (Bagot) ,
Carrier, Marcil (Bonaventure) ,
Clarke, Martin (Wellington) ,
Conmee, Mayrand,
Copp, Meigs,
Costigan, Miller,
Crawford, Monk,
Cyr, Morin,
Delisle, Oliver,
Demers, Parmelee,
Derbyshire, Paterson,
Desjardins, Paquat,
Devlin, Parent,
Dubeau, Perley,
Dugas, Piché,
Emmerson, Pickup,
Ethier, Power,
Finlayson, Préfontaine,
Fisher, Proulx,
Fitzpatrick, Ratz,
Fortier, Reid (Restigouche) ,
Galliher, Riley,
Gauvreau, Ross (Rimouski) ,
Geoffrion, Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Girard, Rousseau,
Gladu, Schell (Oxford) ,
8835 COMMONS
Grant, Scott,
Guthrie, Sinclair,
Hall, Smith (Oxford),
Hughes (King's, PE.I.), Talbot (Bellechasse),
Hunt, Talbot (Strathcona),
Jackson (Selkirk), Telford,
Johnston (Cape Breton Turgeon,
South), Turriff,
Kennedy, Wilson (Russell),
Lamont, Wright (Renfrew),
Papointe, Zimmerman.—106.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
PAIRS :
Gordon, Clements,
Harty, Reid,
German, Ganong,
Mulock, White,
Logan, Lefurgey,
Tobin, Maclean (York),
Sloan. Osler,
Lanctot, Lancaster,
Lavoie, McLean (P.E.I.),
Lemieux, Tisdale,
Sifton, Haggart,
Smith (Nanaimo), Pringle,
Hyman, Macdonnell,
Fielding, Foster,
Borden (Sir F. W.), Ward,
Watson, Avery,
Dyment, Ingram,
Findlay, Broder,
Stewart, Armstrong,
Greenway, Bristol,
Bole, Bland,
Carvell, Fowler.
Amendment (Mr. Sam. Hughes) negatived.
Mr. H. BOURASSA (Labelle) moved:
That the Bill be referred back to a Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to strike out clause 16 of the said Bill and substitute the following therefor :
16. The provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act of 1867 shall apply to the said province as if, at the date upon which this Act comes into force, the Territories comprised therein were already a province, the expression ' the union ' in the said section being taken to mean the said date.
2. In the appropriation by the legislature of public moneys in aid of education, or in the distribution by the government of the province of any money arising from the school fund established by the Dominion Lands Act, there shall be no discrimination against the schools of any kind organized according to law.
He said: I need not explain that the object of this clause is purely and simply to enact the provisions submitted by the government in their first clause No. 16—that clause which was qualified by the hon. the Minister of Justice as an ideal one. The only difference is that I leave out the middle paragraph, which the Minister of Justice said was absolutely unnecessary. The position I take upon this question is the same as that which the government is taking upon the question of the taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway lands. If this parliament is pledged by contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway, it ,is equally pledged to the Catholic or Protestant min 8836 ority in the Territories. I do not see how we can respect one pledge and not the other. Moreover, clause 16, as it has been amended by my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont), to my mind, will create a very strange position indeed. Of course, I voted for the amendment of my hon. friend when that amendment stood by itself before the committee because it was based on the true principle that it is the right of the ratepayer and the father of a family to decide what kind of education his children shall receive. But when that amendment is connected with clause 16 it brings about a state of things which should be well put before the House and the country before a final vote is given. According to clause 16, as now before the House, it will be the right of the majority of every school district in the new provinces to decide what kind of religious teaching shall be given in the public schools. The legislatures will have no right whatever to interfere; and the result will be that if the majority should happen to be of any denomination other than Protestant or Roman Catholic that majority may decide that the religious education given in the public schools will be one that will suit neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants, and neither this House nor the legislature will have any power to interfere. In that case, where will be the minority ? My hon. friend to my left says they will not send their children to the schools. Then what becomes of the right of the minority to have the school teaching such as we are promised by this amendment? The government press have been saying that the effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont) will be to secure to the Catholics the right of having everywhere such religious teaching as they desire. But in a district where the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Mormons, or Jews, or others who are neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic, are in a majority, they will be able to dictate what kind of religious teaching will be had in the public schools, and a separate school cannot be formed by the secession of either the Protestant or Catholic minority. If the majority should be neither Catholic nor Protestant, you will deprive the Catholics of any religious instruction in the public schools, and they will be deprived of their right to secede under section 41 of the ordinances. So that their position would be worse than it is now. This answers the argument of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition who said the amendment of my hon. friend from Sasktchewan covered my point and something more. What he should have said is that the amendment, connected with clause 16 of this Bill and with clause 41 of the ordinances of 1901, does not cover my point, although it covers something never asked for by me or anybody else. It will prevent the local legislatures from dealing with the matter of religious education in the public schools. 8837 JULY 5, 1905 Neither the local legislatures nor this parliament will be able to protect the Protestant or Catholic minority in any district where they both may be in a minority. I may be told that I am predicting an imposslble state of things; but I would point out that there is now litigation before the Supreme Court of Canada as to the relative rights of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Catholics on church matters, and we may expect before long the same condition will exist with respect to schools. Certainly be» fore ten or twenty years will have elapsed that state of things will exist in a large portion of the school districts of the new provinces.
I need not explain further the purport of my amendment. Its object is to guarantee what this government and parliament have acknowledged to be a pledge given to the minority, that wherever they are in a majority they shall be authorized to have schools of their own, and wherever they are in a minority they shall be authorized to separate from the public schools. Clause 16, No. 2 does not cover that point, and the amendment of the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont), although good in its spirit, does not cover it either, so that I shall record my vote on this motion as protesting against the abandonment of the pledge which this government and parliament have acknowledged as binding upon them.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition respecting the legal aspect of the clause, and on further consideration, I think that my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) will find that if the majority in any district should happen to be either Catholic or Protestant, the right for the Protestant or Catholic ratepayers to establish a school undoubtedly exists. As to the right of the Mormons to teach their peculiar tenets in the Territories including the unsavoury one of polygamy, I submit, with all deference to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). that no such right exists in view of our Criminal Code.
Mr. BARR. But what about the Galicians and other denominations ? What position will they occupy ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I am not familiar with the doctrines of the Mormons any more than those of the Galicians. I assume that the Mormon doctrine goes in the direction of polygamy, and that cannot be taught in Canada.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Bourassa) :
YEAS:
Messieurs
Bergeron, Monk,
Bourassa, Morin,
Lavergne (Montmagny), Paquet.—7.
Leonard,
8838
NAYS:
Messieurs
Adamson, Lalor,
Alcorn, Lamont,
Archambauult, Lapointe,
Barker, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid).
Barr, Laurier (L'Assomption).
Beauparlant, Lavergne
BĂ©land. (Drummond & Arth.).
Belcourt, Law,
Bickerdike, LeBlanc,
Black, Macdonald,
Blain, Macdonell,
Borden (Carleton), MacLaren,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Maclean (Lunenburg),
Boyce, Macpherson,
Brabazon, McCarthy (Calgary),
Brodeur, McColl,
Brown, McCool,
Bruneau, McIntyre,
Bureau, McIsaac.
Burrows, McKenzie (Bruce),
Caldwell, McKenzie,
Calvert, (Cape Breton, N.),
Campbell, McLennan,
Carrier, Marcile (Bagot).
Cash, Marcil (Bonaventure),
Chisholm, Martin (Wellington),
Christie, Mayrand,
Clarke, Meigs,
Cochrane, Miller,
Cockshutt, Northrup,
Conmee, Oliver,
Costigan, Parmelee,
Crawford, Paterson,
Crocket, Parent,
Cyr, Perley,
Daniel, Piché,
Delisle, Pickup,
Demers, Porter,
Derbyshire, Power,
Desjardins, Préfontaine,
Devlin, Proulx,
Dubeau, Ratz,
Dugas, Reid (Restigouche),
Elson, Riley,
Emmerson, Roche (Marquette),
Ethier, Ross (Rimouski),
Finlayson, Ross (Yale-Cariboo).
Fisher, Rousseau,
Fitzpatrick, Schattner,
Fortier, Schell (Oxford),
Gauvreau, Scott,
Geoffrion, Sinclair,
Girard, Smith (Oxford),
Gladu, Sproule,
Gunn, Staples,
Guthrie, Talbot (Bellechasse),
Hall, Talbot (Strathcona),
Henderson, Telford,
Herron, Turgeon,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Turriff,
Hunt, Walsh,
Jackson (Elgin), Wilmot,
Jackson (Selkirk), Wilson
Johnston (Lennox & Addington)
(Cape Breton, South) Wilson (Russell),
Kent Wright (Muskoka),
Kennedy Wright (Renfrew),
Lake Zimmerman—132.
Amendment (Mr. Bourassa) negatived.
Mr. O. E. TALBOT. Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the fact that the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) has not voted.
8839 COMMONS
Mr. LEMIEUX. I am paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale). Had I voted I would have voted 'nay.'
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved:
That the said Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be sent back to Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to add the following paragraph after clause 2 of the Bill :
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the legislative assembly of the province and in the proceedings of the courts, and both these languages shall be used in the records and journals of such assembly, and all laws made by the legislature shall be printed in both languages : provided, however, that the said legislative assembly may by law or otherwise regulate its proceedings and the manner of recording the publishing the same and the regulations so made shall be embodied in a proclamation which shall be forthwith made and published by the Lieutenant Governor in conformity of the law and thereafter shall have full force and effect.
He said: Just one word of explanation. This is the law of the Territories at the present time, and, under the terms of the Bill, that law would be continued until altered by the provincial legislature. The law was enacted in 1891. Previous to 1891 the scope of the law was wider. The French language had the same status as the English language in the Northwest assembly. This amendment, passed in 1891, permits the assembly of the Territories to regulate its proceedings as it thinks fit and to adopt the English language. It has done so. Under this amendment, if adopted by the House, the legislatures of the two provinces would be free to regulate their own proceedings absolutely and to adopt the English language. The only right that is safeguarded by this amendment is the right to use the French language in the courts and also in the debates if a member of the House sees fit to use that language, and it provides for the translation of the statutes. It maintains to that extent, and to that extent only, the agreement to which I referred at length when I proposed this amendment in the first instance.
Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville). (Translation.) When this question came up for discussion last Friday, I was obliged to be absent ; hence my desire to take advantage of this opportunity to say a few words in order to explain the vote that I will be called upon to give upon this amendment. To begin with, I must remark that this proposition coming from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) emanates from a source that we should not and could not have anticipated. In truth, when that hon. member delivered an address on the constitutional question affecting the schools in the new provinces, we did not differ in opinion, and we all were unanimous in recognizing that his speech was evidence that the hon. member had thoroughly studied 8840 the question. During the debate on the second reading of this Bill, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier defined the principles that should guide us in the exercise of our powers, as a parliament, regarding the constitution of the new provinces created in the west. At page 3071, the hon. member expressed himself thus :
My interpretation of section 2 of the Imperial Act of 1871, is that that Act clearly gives us the creative power. It enables us to decree the establishment of a province, to constitute it by defining its limits and entering into other details which are absolutely necessary for the purpose of such creation, but the moment that act has been performed our power is exhausted and the new province comes under the control of the different clauses of the Act of 1867, and these clauses apply in their entirety to it.
The hon. member therefore stated that, in his opinion, this parliament has not the right to change the provisions of the constitution, nor to alter it in any way, when we apply it to these western territories ; all that which we could do, to his mind, was merely to create those provinces, to define and limit their powers, and that from the moment we have defined their powers, the federal parliament has exhausted its own legislative power. Such is the theory advocated by the hon. gentleman. If the hon. member for Jacques Cartier decided to vote for clause 16, such as proposed by the government, it is because that principle was consecrated and recognized by the constitution as the one constructed by the hon. gentleman himself, and that he considered it opportune to remove all doubts. But the hon. gentleman is not the only one to claim that this parliament had not the right to limit the powers of the new provinces. The hon. member for Beauhrarnois (Mr. Bergeron) followed in his footsteps, and at page 3496, I read the following in his speech of March 30 last :
In speaking of the position taken by my leader, I wish to say openly that, to my mind, he made an admirable speech to which nobody can take exception. We may not all share the conclusions to which he came, but every man on this side, and I believe on the other side as well is convinced that the leader of the opposition spoke in all sincertity without any bias, and influenced solely by a desire for the welfare of Canada. So much is that the case, that if in that amendment of his, ten words were struck off at the end, I would be disposed to support it. And in doing so I would be standing on a good principle, namely, provincial autonomy and provincial rights ; and in my opinion clause 93 of the British North America Act would give the new provinces the school system they have to-day. But as a doubt has been expressed by the Minister of Justice, I would have clause 16.
As will be seen, the hon. member for Beauharnois did affirm the very principle formulated by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). As I said a moment ago, there is ground for surprise at seeing 8841 JULY 5, 1905 the hon. member for Jacques Cartier laying down a proposition to restrict the rights of these provinces, rights that are evidently recognized as theirs by the British North America Act.
The hon. member stated also that we were abolishing the French language ; but we are not doing away with the French language, and it will continue to exist by law. But that is not the issue before us ; what we are dealing with now, is whether or not we should place a restriction upon the liberty of the provinces. That is the question. It is now a matter of formulating the principle that this parliament has not the right to enact without any necessity, special provisions, when making a constitution for the new provinces.
Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier after having upheld that position and having also supported his leader, even to the school question, was obliged to abandon him. The hon. leader of the opposition had, likewise, followed the hon. member as long as he could do so, he paid him back, he supported him down to the moment of voting exclusively, but there his zeal stopped.
The hon. gentleman having advocated the principle that we had not the power to give the new provinces the constitution we wanted to give them, exclaimed: ' Why, if you restrict the power of the provinces on the school question, why not also do the same as to all their powers ' ? We made answer to this, that it was necessity alone that could justify the government in defining more clearly clause 93 of the constitution.
Now, the hon. member for Labelle stated that, in his opinion, this motion did not go far enough, and he moved an amendment to the amendment. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier claimed that the legislature should have the power to abolish the French language in its proceedings, as enacted in the motion passed in 1890. He considered that it was a question of policy and that the legislature should be left free to deal with the question as it deemed fit. The hon. member for Labelle wished to take that power away from the legislatures, and yet the hon. member for Jacques Cartier supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Labelle. But if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) was of the opinion that it was but fair to leave it in the hands of the legislatures to abolish or to maintain the French language, what are the grounds which have compelled him, since he moved his amendment, to change his mind ?
In 1890, the hon. member for Beauharnois voted in favour of a proposition similar to that of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, allowing the legislative assembly of the Territories to abolish the use of the French language in their proceedings, whenever they shall deem it opportune to do so. He voted for that resolution, with all the Conservative members of the day. How, 8842 then, could he vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Labelle, as he did the other day ?
Mr. MONK. (Translation.) Does my hon. friend believe that we are not bound by clause 16 of the ' Bill of Rights ' submitted by the delegates from the Red River settlement in 1870 to the government of Canada, which provides for the use of the dual language throughout the whole extent of the Northwest ? Does not the hon. member believe that the pledge is being now broken by the abolition of the French language.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) I think the hon. the Prime Minister, amongst others, has demonstrated in a most absolute manner that the contention of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier was indefensible. I do not wish to go now into the merits of that question. This question had been discussed by this parliament in 1900 and this House has allowed the abolition of the French language in the Northwest. The legislature of those Territories had been authorized by a vote of this House to do away with the French language. A most significant fact, that cannot escape the attention of most members is this, that when the Bill was submitted to this House the vast majority of members approved of it. Take the speeches that were delivered during the debate on the second reading of the Bill, and you will see, Mr. Speaker, that not one of all those who spoke has found fault with the government for not providing for the use of the French language in the legislatures of the new provinces.
I would like to know if among all those members, who then spoke, there was to be found one single speaker who made the slightest reservation in favour of the French language. For my part I did not hear any. Did not my hon. friend the member for Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne), give his unqualified approval of the Bill to the 21st February ?
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. (Translation.) 0n the school question, I did approve of the Bill, but not on the use of the French language.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) I say that there was no question of the French language, that no complaint was made that its use was not prescribed, and I aflirm that no member, before voting on the second reading, had made any reservation on that point, nor blamed the government for not having provided for the use of the French language. Moreover, how comes it, that the ' Club Jacques-Cartier ' of Montreal, which showed so much zeal in regard to this Bill, that had petitions circulated, did not think of that omission of the government ? And the Conservative newspapers, I will say further, the opposition newspapers such as the ' Nationaliste,' for example, did not think of that slip. The correspondent 8843 COMMONS of that paper, Pont Bernard, on the 26th February, referred to the debate raised by this Bill, and to the speech made by the Premier, but he did not say a single word regarding the omission concerning the use of the French language. No person, at that time, had noticed that awful omission, and it was only later on that, for the purpose of having a vote, it was thought of.
As I said, it is a most remarkable fact, that, after the second reading of the Bill, no person had stated that the French Canadians, in the Territories, had an absolute right to the maintenance of the French language. As a matter of fact, I have not heard of any representations having been made to the government on the matter, up to that date.
Mr. BOURASSA. (Translation.) Why?
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) On the grounds that were so ably set forth by the hon. the Prime Minister ; on this ground, namely, that under the constitution, we have a right to the use of the French language in the Dominion parliament, before the federal courts, and before the courts and in the legislature of the province of Quebec, but nowhere else. That is the right provided for by the constitution of 1867. But, I may be told that there was a law passed in 1877, which provides for the use of the French language. We do not repeal that law.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. (Translation.) Does my hon. friend pretend that when this Bill is passed, the law of 1877 will not be repealed ?
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) The law of 1877 will be repealed ; but by that very fact, the French language will not be abolished. I maintain that under this Bill, we are not doing away with the use of the French language. I hold, moreover, that under the constitution, we have no right to impose that restriction. We have the power to do it. You may have the power to do a thing without being bound to do it ?
Mr. MONK. (Translation.) We have the power ?
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) Does my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier state that we have not the power ?
Mr. MONK. (Translation.) Have we that power ?
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) I have maintained that we have the power. The hon. member for Labelle has stated the same. He could then bring forward this motion, without stultifying himself.
Mr. MONK. (Translation.) The hon. member should not forget that I grounded myself upon the statement made by the Minister of Inland Revenue, who declared that, for us, the Bill of Rights of 1870 was 8844 sacred. I argued that if we are bound by the Bill of Rights on the school question, we are also bound as concerns the use of the French language.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) My hon. friend is now abjuring the principle which he has laid down.
Mr. MONK. (Translation.) I have been enlightened by the argument made by the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) Precisely, but it is regrettable that the hon. member did not allow himself to be enlightened upon other points by the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue. The school question is one thing and the use of the French language is another thing.
We should be very solicitous about the autonomy of the provinces. We are bound to give them all the rights conferred upon them by the constitution. That constitution restricts the powers of the provinces, as to the educational question, but not as to the language. That restrictive provision is to be found in article 93, with which we are all familiar. The provision relating to the French language is limited only to the province of Quebec, and to the federal parliament, and it applies nowhere else. Could the government impose this new restriction on the western provinces, the more so as our French speaking fellow-countrymen are so few in numbers there that they would not even speak French in the legislature, were they given that right ? The French Canadian population in the west represent but about four per cent of the total population ; such being the figures laid before the House without being challenged by anybody. Each legislature will have 25 members, making 50 in all. According to that ratio of 4 per cent. there would only be one French member in each legislature. That there may be an assembly, at least three people are needed, and as that French member would be alone, he would have to speak French to himself.
To my mind it is not a matter of sentiment, but it is one of principle. I do not call in question the good faith of any hon. member. I am quite willing to believe that the mover of this motion is a sincere convert. To my mind, this is a constitutional matter, and I say that we should not impose, without an absolute necessity, any restrictions on the new provinces. This view of mine tallies with the statement I made on the first reading of the Bill. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), is of a different opinion, and I regret very much that I cannot see this matter in the same light as he does. For us, it is a very delicate duty to be obliged to vote against the binding use of the French language, but we have to follow the wise dictates of reason rather than those of sentiment.
The present circumstances recall to my mind an anecdote. A great Greek orator one day declared at a public meeting in 8845 JULY 5, 1905 Athens that he had devised a great scheme for the good of his country, but that he could not inform his audience of it. He begged of them to point him out a person to whom he could communicate his plan. Socrates was the person selected. Socrates, being informed of it, returned to the Greeks and told them that nothing would be more useful than the project in question, but he added that nothing could be more unjust. The people, then, with one voice, refused at once to be a party to the scheme. Their example should be a guide for us. It is regrettable that public men should have to pronounce upon delicate matters that touch their national pride and dignity. I, therefore, consider that this motion, under the circumstances, is inopportune.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA. (Labelle.) (Translation.) Before moving an amendment to the amendment, moved by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier—that is to say before making the same motion that I made on Friday—I wish to offer a few remarks in reply to my hon. friend the member for St. John and Iberville. (Mr. Demers), I congratulate the hon. gentleman on the language that he has used, which contrasts happily with the stump-speech wherewith another hon. gentleman honoured me last Friday on the same subject. No more today than last week do I propose replying to that language, but I will take the liberty of saying that I was surprised at the applause with which certain French Canadian members, so-called Liberals, received those passages in the speech of the member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) which insulted the memory of a man whom the Liberal party had long claimed as its founder and as the most illustrious of its leaders.
Mr. ETHIER. (Translation.) Who?
Mr. BOURASSA. (Papineau). (Translation.) It is scarcely necessary that I should strive to refute an old time calumny long known to be false, not only by the disciples and admirers of Papineau, but even by his opponents. To that colleague who deemed it fit to unearth that calumny and to those who cheered him, I will simply recall the words used by a great French writer in reply to the insult launched by an obscure calumniator against the memory of an illustrious man. ' A filthy insect may soil his statue; but the wind that blows carries off the insect and the stain, and the marble remains intact in its imperishable beauty.'
The first argument brought forward by the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers), and that upon which he most depended to oppose the motion of the member for Jacques Cartier, is that no one here—referred to the maintaining of the French language, during the debate that preceded the second reading of this Bill. I agree that from the standpoint of narraw logic, that argument might have some weight; but I do not think I shall have much trouble in 8846 reputing it and in explaining why I did not deal with this question, at the beginning of the discussion. It is needless to recall to the House the explosion of fanaticism that greeted the attitude taken, in the first place, by the government in connection with the educational clause. From the outset of the debate, the leader of the opposition laid down a proposition that narrowed the discussion to the consideration of the principle of the interference of the federal power in educational matters. When I spoke during that debate, I squarely opposed the proposition of the leader of the opposition and the policy of his party on that subject, and gave a loyal support to the position taken by the government. I did not then think it wise to introduce into the discussion the consideration of the subject which we are now dealing with. I had, however, decided to move an amendment similar to that of the member for Jacques Cartier, or rather to move the amendment that I submitted to the House on Friday, and that in a moment I will repeat. I have, moreover, no fault to find with my colleague who has got ahead of me, and I do not hesitate in any way to give him my support, while yet proposing to impart a more complete scope to his amendment.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier is accused of seeking to make political capital out of this question. It is strange that the government members and newspapers should so treat the hon. member. When he supported the policy of the government, the ' Herald ' and the organs of the cabinet could not find language sufficiently eulogious to sing the praises of his patriotism. To-day, when he is not in harmony with them, but while he continues to uphold the rights of the Catholic and French minority in the west, of which the Liberal party pretends to be the champion, they have only insults to heap upon him. As to me, I am in accord with him on this question which affects our national honour, as I was in accord with him on the school question, the solution of which affects to such a degree the minority of the west and the prosperity of the whole country. I decided from the very start, to take in all these questions a stand in conformity with my convictions, without any regard for the interests and the intrigues of the cliques.
I was sufficiently liberal to consider all propositions submitted to this House according to their intrinsic merits, and to give them my support, no matter from whom they emanate, if I find them in accord with my principles and convictions. This, perhaps, is in what my liberalism differs from that of a number of my colleagues on the right.
Upon the constitutional ground, whereon the hon. member for St. John and Iberville. based his second line of defence, he will allow me to tell him that he entrenches himself too easily behind the general and absolute proposition that the Prime Minister 8847 COMMONS has completely disposed of the theory of the member for Jacques Cartier. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Demers) attaches no importance whatsoever to the Bill of Rights which the delegates from the Red River presented to the Federal government in 1870. He denies the existence of the contract that arose from the acceptance of that document by the Federal authorities. He does not agree with his leader on that point. The Premier recognizes the existence of the contract, but he denies that the obligations born thereof extend beyond the province of Manitoba.
The hon. gentleman further wholly disagrees with another of his leaders, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur), who not only admits the existence of the agreement, but has recalled it in the course of his argument as made on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories, as well as on that of the people of Manitoba.
I have already clearly defined my position on the subject. I entirely agree with the Minister of Inland Revenue. I believe in the existence of the agreement, and I do not find anything in the records of this House to warrant the contention of the Prime Minister. I cannot bring myself to believe that in tracing the boundaries of Manitoba, the Dominion parliament have thereby shown their intention of denying to the French speaking people settled in the remainder of the Territories, the guarantees which they granted to that part of the population comprised within the limits of the new provinces. Now then, if the Minister of Inland Revenue and myself are right, would not the compact whereby the Dominion government is bound to guarantee to the Catholic minority in the Northwest their separate schools, bind them to maintain at the same time the official use of the French language, since these two constitutional rights were both included in the Bill of Rights presented by the delegates from the Red River and accepted by the Dominion parliament ? I willingly acknowledge the ability of the member for St. Johns in all legal matters ; but, with all due respect, I think I may, in a matter of this kind, abide rather by the opinion of the Minister of Inland Revenue, who is also an eminent lawyer.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation) Will the hon. gentleman state what paragraph of the constitution would warrant the enforcing of the use of the French language on the western provinces ?
Mr. BOURASSA. (Translation.) On this point as well as on the other, my colleague will allow me to stand by the opinion of another of his leaders, a legal authority of still greater eminence than the Minister of Inland Revenue, I mean the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). That hon. gentleman has clearly set forth the difference which exists between the letter and the spirit of the constitution. Of course, the 8848 Confederation Act has no provision which defines the powers of the Dominion parliament in this transaction. But, as stated by the hon. Minister of Justice, beside and above the written law, there is a constitutional doctrine, which it is diificult to define, growing out of the gradual and reasoned carrying out of the very principles embodied in the constitution. The Act of 1867 provided at the outset solely for the organization of the provinces then constitutional. Even before entering confederation, these provinces enjoyed self-government ; they had their parliament, their official tongue, their rules of parliamentary procedure. The idea did not occur to the fathers of confederation to alter that condition of things ; but in establishing the Dominion parliament, they did so on a basis in harmony with the rights and traditions of the two elements which make up the Canadian nation ; and that is why they provided that the French and English tongues would be, on equal terms, the official language of Canada. Later on, the Dominion parliament acquired those immense western territories out of which were carved the province of Manitoba and those of Alberta and Saskatchewan. These territories were acquired in the name and with the money of the whole Canadian people, French as well as English, Catholic as well as Protestant. And when parliament established the former of these provinces, they did not forget the rights of the French Canadian people, they deemed it fair and reasonable that the two official languages of Canada be also declared to be such in the province of Manitoba. Does the hon. member for St. Johns contend that the legislators of 1870, that the Macdonalds, the Cartiers, the Holtons, the Huntingtons, that all those eminent statesmen who were then at the head of both parties, broke the constitution of 1867 when, in 1870, they recognized the rights of the French language in Manitoba.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) Circumstances have changed.
Mr. BOURASSA. (Translation.) In what respect ?
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) As the Prime Minister has explained, the French Canadians were numerous enough at the time to warrant the official recognition of the French language in Manitoba ; that reason does not exist in the Territories to-day.
Mr. BOURASSA. (Translation.) That is not at all the contention set forth by the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman acknowledges the existence of the moral agreement entered into in 1870. But he suggests that its scope is limited to the province of Manitoba and that it would not be possible to make it applicable to the other western provinces. I contend that the right hon. gentleman has not adduced 8849 JULY 5, 1905 the slightest evidence in support of that statement. However, the fact remains that the makers of the Manitoba constitution have enacted section 23 provided for the official use of the French language in that province; and if they had the right to do so, why should we be debarred from imposing the same terms on the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I shall go further : I contend that not only have the promoters of the Act of 1870 not violated the constitution of 1867, but they have, on the contrary, been inspired by its fundamental principle, in granting to the French language in Manitoba the same rights which the constitution itself grants to the Dominion parliament. And if we wish ourselves to remain faithful to that principle, we should follow their example and provide that the French and English tongues will be for ever, and on an equal footing, official in Alberta and Saskatchewan, two provinces cut out, as was Manitoba, from those vast territories which are the property of the whole Canadian people. What I claim, is the carrying out of the same principle which was applied in connection with the establishment of the Dominion itself. It is the principle which Sir John Macdonald advocated when he proclaimed that there were no longer in Canada victors and vanquished, but two allies whose rights, equal by virtue of the constitution, are not measured by the numbers and riches of the various groups. That is the principle which is embodied in the constitution of Manitoba. That is the principle which I would have recognized and applied to-day. I am not breaking the constitution, but parliament will be breaking it, should they reject my proposal and that of the member for Jacques Cartier.
The hon. member for St. John's has referred to the small numbers of French speaking people in the Territories. The Solicitor General argued on the same lines, when he stated that we had no right to claim the official recognition of the French language in the Northwest Territories, because the French speaking people were not as numerous as the Germans, the Doukhobors or the Mormons. The Prime Minister spoke in a similar strain, when he stated that the French Canadians in Massachusetts have stronger claims to the official recognition of their tongue in that state, than the French speaking people have in our western provinces. Have we really reached that point ? Are we, with one stroke of the pen, to blot out 150 years of our history; and on this Canadian soil, which our ancestors opened up to civilization, under the British flag which we twice saved from the savage onslaughts on the part of Anglo-Saxon Protestants from the neighbouring republic, under this constitution which is the mere outcome of the compact entered into by the two great groups of the Canadian nation, are we to be told 8850 that we are entitled to no more consideration than our fellow countrymen who have drifted to a foreign land? Is that really the reward coming to us after a century and a half of unfaltering loyalty to British institutions ? Is that the result of the compact loyally gone into in 1867 between English and French speaking Canadians ?
In order to do away with a proposal resting on the wide and solid foundation which I have mentioned, subterfuges are resorted to. It is argued that the original compact and the rights of the French language in the west have already been interfered with by parliament in 1890. That is only a pretense. l have a higher notion of the duties and responsibilities devolving on the representatives of the Canadian nation. If the parliament of 1890 has made a mistake, that is no reason for us to repeat it and aggravate it. If parliament in 1890 misapprehended the work of the fathers of confederation and of the makers of the Manitoba constitution, it is our bounden duty to correct that mistake. Parliament in 1890 abolished the use of the French language in the legislative assembly; and now that injustice becomes an argument for those who wish to carry through that sinister work and do away with the printing in French of statutes and legal proceedings. An effort is made to palliate that wrong by covering it up with a further crime. To that I answer boldly: Instead of resuming the work initiated by parliament in 1890, let us retrace our footsteps and take the stand taken formerly by the promoters of the Act of 1870.
In this connection there has been some quibbling. It has been contended that we are not doing away with the French language, but that we are simply leaving to the legislature in the new provinces the right to act as they think fit. That is another attempt at hedging. We all knew what fate is reserved to the French language if provincial legislatures are granted full sway. Past experience is sufficient to enlighten us in that respect. When, in 1890, Sir John Thompson moved that the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories be granted the right to decide in what tongue its proceedings would be carried on. the then leader of the opposition, to-day Premier of this Dominion (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) seconded his motion. He drew attention to the fact that there was not at the time a single French Canadian member in the legislative assembly. He added that if the French minority should elect a single representative, the English-speaking majority would, no doubt, refrain from abolishing the use of the French language. What was the outcome ? In 1892. Mr. Haultain moved the abolition of the French language. At the time there were two French Canadian representatives in the legislature. One of them, Mr. Prince, spoke on behalf of the rights of the minority, appealed to the spirit 8851 COMMONS of fairness of the majority, claimed equal rights for the two great Canadian nationalities ; but his efforts were in vain, and the French language was done away with. So, then, we are in a position to know what are the feelings towards us of the English- speaking majority in the west; and if we are anxious to perpetuate in these provinces the conditions of the compact of 1867, if we are anxious to carry on the work of the makers of the Manitoba constitution. if we are anxious to maintain the constitutional basis which I have referred to, let us introduce in the Bills submitted to us a clause guaranteeing the rights of the minority against any interference similar to that of which the English majority has been guilty in 1802. Instead of seeking in our past experience an excuse for our present inactivity. I find therein a lesson which should induce us to define clearly the rights of the minority and safeguard them by means of a precise and unmistakable enactment. Let us not delude ourselves in the matter! If the House rejects my proposal and that of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, then let us give up all hope as to the rights of the French language in the west. French Canadian members who are fighting us are making for the downfall of our nationality: and should parliament reject our amendment, I say an essential principle of our constitution is being violated.
Let each one of us consult his conscience and realize what responsibility he is assuming just now. As for me, I refuse to take a hand in this unpatriotic work.
The Prime Minister recalls the obligations which parliament has assumed towards the Canadian Pacific Railway company. He does not hesitate to go counter to the letter and spirit of the constitution in order to secure the rights of that powerful corporation ; and in this connection he has the support of the whole House ; the agreement is considered sacred ; and all enactments, all constitutions are bound to disappear in order to secure its full carrying out. Why, then, should the no less sacred obligations which parliament and the Canadian people have assumed towards the French people of the west be violated ? Is it because that powerful Canadian Pacific Railway Company commands a greater number of votes than the French minority in the west ? I refuse to measure or weigh by such a standard my moral responsibilities and obligations. I give my support to the government when they wish to compel the western provinces to respect the rights of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company ; but I regard as still more sacred the rights of my fellow-countrymen ; and that is why I am movng in this House a provision which guarantees those rights still more completely than the amendment introduced by the member for Jacques Cartier. I wish to 8852 blot out the wrong committed by'the legislators of 1890, and to revert to the constitutional basis laid down by parliament in 1870.
I therefore move. seconded by Mr. Lavergne, member for Montmagmy, that the amendment introduced by the member for Jacques Cartier be amended by striking out the last clause beginning by the word 'provided.'
The Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. (Translation.) The hon. member for Labelle, knows that there is a principle which all Liberals, and particularly French-speaking Liberals have always held sacred, and that is the absolute right of the provinces to make their own laws. It is an historical fact, well known to all, that if we have today a federal, instead of a legislative union, that is due to the persistent efforts of the French Canadians, who, in order to secure self-government, in order to he in a position to legislate for themselves, and to settle all questions of internal economy have insisted on having that division of powers implied in a federal union. Well, among the rights embodied in section 92 of the constitution, there are some which are perhaps more important than all others ; I mean property and civil rights. The language question is one of civil rights.
I deny the statement which has just been made by the hon. member for Labelle. that. under the constitution enacted in 1867—I am mistaken, to which we freely gave our assent in 1867—the French language was put on an equal footing in the various provinces.
Mr. BOURASSA. (Translation.) I think the right hon. Prime Minister is mistaken; that is not what I said. I said that each of the original provinces had preserved its rights; but that the French language had been put on an equal footing with the English in the Dominion parliament, and that I considered we should do the same as regards the new provinces.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. (Translation) I am very much pleased to hear that statement ; in the heat of the debate the hon. member seems to have gone beyond what he intended to say. At any rate, if, in this House, we have the right to use both languages, it is not simply a theoretical right. It is because the great majority of the province of Quebec send French Canadian representatives to parliament.
I am now coming to the principle expressed by the hon. member for Labelle—and I trust he will recognize it as I do on all occasions—and that is that the rights of the provinces are absolute within the limits of the constitution, and that among these rights there is the freedom to legislate as regards the language to be used in the counts and the legislative assembly.
Now, if the House agreed to that amendment, as desired by the hon. member for Labelle, and if we inserted it in the consti 8853 JULY 5, 1905 tution which we are enacting for the province of Alberta and for that of Saskatchewan, we would be interfering thereby with one of the rights of these provinces, that of deciding in what language the proceedings will be carried on in the legislatures. There is one other thing which he will recognize. In the constitutions which we are giving to Alberta and Saskatchewan, we have deliberately restricted the rights of the provinces to legislate on educational matters. We have done so under the authority granted by section 93 of the constitution. For, in matters of education, the rights of the provinces are not absolute ; they are restricted by the powers of interference of the Dominion parliament. We have done so with a view to remaining faithful to the principle laid down, whereby in matters of education the fundamental right of the provinces is limited, in order to safeguard separate schools. My hon. friend stated a moment ago that we had refrained from dealing with the French language question, on account of the commotion which the discussion on separate schools had given rise to. Does my hon. friend think that the excitement has now subsided ? Is he of opinion that the agitation is about to cease, and that he may safely today do what he considered unadvisable two or three months ago ? I ask him, is he any more justified in taking that stand just new than he would have been a few weeks ago ? No ; we would have been grievously amiss if we had given further cause to the agitation already on foot.
If my hon. friend were able to point out in the constitution a single clause stating that the French language shall have official recognition in every province, I would be ready to agree with him. But he will seek in vain in the whole British North America Act a provision dealing with the French language in the same way as schools are dealt with. Schools have been put on a different footing. Exception has been made for them ; but no such exception has been made as regards the French language.
I need not tell my hon. friend of Labelle that I am as proud of my tongue as be himself may be. that I am as proud of my race as he is, and that I am anxious to see it respected in the other provinces. If the French Canadians, however, are desirous that their rights be respected in the other provinces, they, should always be the first to abide by the constitution.
As a matter of fact, I do not at all agree with my hon. friend for Jacques Cartier (Mr Monk) as to the guarantee which he claims to find in the Bill Of Rights. But another question comes up here : Is not that merely an illusory right ? Of what use would it be, following on the enactment of 1890 ? According to the member for Labelle, parliament committed a wrong, in 1890. In my opinion, parliament did not do anything of the sort. If there had been a number of 8854 French-speaking members in the Northwest legislature in 1890, if there were a number of these French-speaking members in that legislature today, he would have no reason to fear-the emergency he refers to. But I need not recall to the hon. member for Labelle that the hopes he entertains regarding the development of the French idiom in the Northwest will not materialize.
I remember—I was not here then, but it is an historical fact—that Sir George Cartier speaking from the very seat which I occupy at present, stated, in 1870, that the province of Manitoba, which was then being created. would be a second Quebec. Sir John A. Macdonald made a similar statement. but these hopes have not materialized ; the tide of French Canadian emigration did not flow towards that province. as was then expected.
In 1890, two Acts were passed by the Manitoba legislature, one abolishing separate schools, and the other abolishing the official use of the French language. Enormous efforts were made to prevent the abolition of separate schools, but as regards the French language, what steps have been taken ? Sir John Thompson stated in a memorandum, that the Act doing away with the official use of the French language was entirely ultra vires. Nevertheless, no steps were taken to have it repealed. Why ? Because the French-speaking people out there did not care to undertake the tight, being too weak, and, I imagine, realizing that there was no need for the use of that language in the legislature. Well, today, in these territories where French Canadians are so few, of what avail would it be to grant a right which would limit the power of the legislature on that point.
I regret that it should be so, but I for one intend to vote against these amendments. I am not ignorant of the consequences which may result therefrom : but even in face of these. I do not hesitate to say that I trust French Canadians will be the first on this occasion, as on any other of the same kind, to respect the constitution which guarantees their rights in the province of Quebec.
House divided on the amendment to the amendment.—(Mr. Bourassa.)
YEAS.
Messieurs
Bergeron, Monk,
Bourassa, Morin,
Lavergne (Montmagny), Paquet.—7.
LĂ©onard,
NAYS:
Messieurs
Adamson, Lamont,
Alcorn, Lapointe,
Archambault, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Barker, Laurier (L'Assomption),
Barr, Lavergne
Beauparlant, (Drummond & Ath.),
8855 COMMONS
BĂ©land, Law,
Belcourt, LeBlane,
Bickerdike, Lemieux,
Black, Lennox,
Blain, Macdonald,
Borden (Carleton), Macdonell,
Borden (Sir Frederick), MacLaren,
Bourbonnais, Maclean (Lunenburg),
Boyce, Macpherson,
Brabazon, McCarthy (Calgary),
Brodeur, McColl,
Brown, McCool,
Bruneau, McIntyre,
Bureau, McIsaac,
Caldwell, McKenzie (Bruce),
Calvert, McKenzie
Campbell, (Cape Breton, N.),
Carney, McLennan,
Carrier, Marcile (Bagot),
Cash, Marcil (Bonaventure),
Chisholm, Martin (Wellington),
Christie, Mayrand,
Cochrane, Meigs,
Cockshutt, Miller,
Conmee, Northrup,
Costigan, Oliver,
Crawford, Parmelee
Crocket, Paterson
Cyr, Parent
Daniel, Perley
Delisle, Piché
Demers, Pickup
Derbyshire, Porter
Desjardins, Power
Devlin, Préfontaine
Dubeau, Proulx,
Dugas, Ratz,
Elson, Riley,
Emmerson, Rivet,
Ethier, Roche (Marquette),
Finlayson, Ross (Rimouski),
Fisher, Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Fitzpatrick, Rousseau,
Fortier, Schaffner,
Galliher, Schell (Oxford),
Gauvreau, Scott,
Geoffrion, Sinclair,
Girard, Smith (Oxford),
Gladu, Sproule,
Grant, Staples,
Gunn, Talbot (Bellechasse),
Guthrie, Talbot (Strathcona),
Hall, Taylor,
Harty, Telford,
Henderson, Thompson,
Herron, Tobin,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Turgeon,
Hunt, Turriff,
Jackson (Elgin), Walsh,
Jackson (Selkirk), Wilmot,
Johnston Wilson
(Cape Breton, South), (Lennox & Addington)
Kennedy, Wilson (Russell),
Lachance, Wright (Muskoka),
Lake, Wright (Renfrew),
Lalor, Zimmerman.—140.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Bourassa) negatived.
House divided on amendment (Mr.Monk).
YEAS.
Messieurs
Bergeron, Monk,
Bourassa, Morin,
Lavergne (Montmagny) Paquet.—7.
LĂ©onard
8856
NAYS:
Messieurs
Adamson Lamont,
Alcorn, Lapointe,
Archambault, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Barker, Laurier (L'Assomption),
Barr, Lavergne
Beauparlant, (Drummond & Ath.),
BĂ©land, Law,
Belcourt, LeBlanc,
Bickerdike, Lemieux,
Black, Lennox,
Blain, Macdonald,
Borden (Carleton), Macdonell,
Borden (Sir Frederick), MacLaren,
Bourbonnais, Maclean (Lunenburg),
Boyce, Macpherson,
Brabazon, McCarthy (Calgary),
Brodeur, McColl,
Brown, McCool,
Bruneau, McIntyre,
Bureau, McIsaac,
Caldwell, McKenzie (Bruce),
Calvert, McKenzie
Campbell, (Cape Breton, N.),
Carney, McLennan,
Carrier, Marcile (Bagot),
Cash, Marcil (Bonaventure),
Chisholm, Martin (Wellington),
Christie, Mayrand,
Cochrane, Meigs,
Cockshutt, Miller,
Conmee, Northrup,
Costigan, Oliver,
Crawford, Parmelee
Crocket, Paterson
Cyr, Parent
Daniel, Perley
Delisle, Piché
Demers, Pickup
Derbyshire, Porter
Desjardins, Power
Devlin, Préfontaine
Dubeau, Proulx,
Dugas, Ratz,
Elson, Riley,
Emmerson, Rivet,
Ethier, Roche (Marquette),
Finlayson, Ross (Rimouski),
Fisher, Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Fitzpatrick, Rousseau,
Fortier, Schaffner,
Galliher, Schell (Oxford),
Gauvreau, Scott,
Geoffrion, Sinclair,
Girard, Smith (Oxford),
Gladu, Sproule,
Grant, Staples,
Gunn, Talbot (Bellechasse),
Guthrie, Talbot (Strathcona),
Hall, Taylor,
Harty, Telford,
Henderson, Thompson,
Herron, Tobin,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Turgeon,
Hunt, Turriff,
Jackson (Elgin), Walsh,
Jackson (Selkirk), Wilmot,
Johnson Wilson
(Cape Breton, South), (Lennox & Addington)
Kennedy, Wilson (Russell),
Lachance, Wright (Muskoka),
Lake, Wright (Renfrew),
Lalor, Zimmerman.—140.
Amendment (Mr. Monk) negatived.
8857 JULY 5, 1905
Mr. LEONARD. (Translation.) moves :
1. That the Bill be not now read a third time but be recommitted to a committee of the whole House with an instruction that they have power to amend it. by adding the following as subsection 2 of section 2 :—
2. Such rights to separate schools and such educational privileges as are guaranteed or granted to the Catholic or the Protestant minority in the Northwest Territories, under chap. 50, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, shall be continued by this constitution to the minorities of the said provinces.
I do not deem it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to go again at any length over the grounds which I gave to the House last week to justify the passing of this amendment, but let it suffice to state that I intend to embody in the constitution of the two new provinces the provisions which I find in chap. 30 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, section 14.
Mr. BRODEUR. (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I call your attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman having seconded the motion of the hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), he has no right to speak again to the motion.
The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) has already spoken on the motion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). He has no right to move an amendment, because he has already seconded a previous amendment.
Mr. SPEAKER. I think the point is well taken.
Mr. LEONARD. (Translation). I never spoke on the motion ; but in answer to the objection raised by the hon. minister, I may say that if my name has been given by the Speaker, as having seconded the motion, it was altogether without my knowledge.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. SPEAKER. I think the point has been well taken. If the hon. member desires to appeal from the ruling of the chair of course, he may.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY (Calgary). I have an amendment which I desire to make to the motion of the right hon. the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to read the Bill a third time. The motion which I propose to offer in amendment is similar to the one which I had the privilege of introducing when the matter was under discussion in the committee. The intention of that motion was that the distribution of the local seats in the province of Alberta should be referred to a commission of Judges of the Supreme Court residing in that province. While this matter was being discussed in the committee I assigned then reasons which I had hoped would have induced the government to have looked at the proposal in a 8858 favourable light and to have referred this matter to a commission of judges. I do not propose to repeat the arguments that I then assigned or the reasons Why I thought that this matter should be referred to a commission of judges. I therefore will move, seconded by Mr. Herron :
That all the words after 'now' to the end of the question he left out, and that the following words be inserted instead thereof :
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with an instruction that they have power to strike out section 12 of the Bill and to substitute the following section therefor:
12. Until the said legislature otherwise provides the legislative assembly shall be composed of twenty-five members to be elected to represent the electoral divisions hereinafter mentioned.
(a) Such division shall be made by a board of commissioners consisting of at least three persons resident in the said province and being judges of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories who shall for that purpose be appointed by letters patent under the great seal immediately after the coming into force of this Act, and who shall divide the said province into twenty-five electoral divisions.
(b) The letters patent appointing the commissioners shall require the. commissioners in making the divisions to have due regard to the distribution of population, the public convenience, the existing local divisions and such other considerations as appear to them best calculated to do substantial justice.
(c) In case of the death or resignation or refusal of any one or more of such commissioners to act a successor or successors shall in like manner be appointed ; and in the event of their being no resident judge or judges available any judge or judges of the said Supreme Court may be appointed such successor or successors.
(d) Within a time to be limited by the said letters patent the commissioners shall complete such divisions and report the same to the Lieutenant Governor of the said province setting forth in such report the boundaries of the electoral divisions to which such report refers, and the ranges, townships and sections comprised therein and shall assign an appropriate designation to each electoral division. Upon receipt by the Lieutenant Governor of the said province of the report of the commissioners completing the divisions aforesaid the respective territories described as constituting the respective electoral divisions into which the said province shall have been divided as aforesaid shall become and be the electoral divisions of the said province as if the same had been so set apart and established as such by this Act.
(e) The commissioners shall also Within the said time limited forward a duplicate of their said report to the Secretary of State.
(f) The said report and the said duplicate thereof shall be signed by the commissioners or in case of a disagreement by the majority of them and the report of the majority of the commissioners shall be the report of the commissioners.
(g) The said report shall be published in the 'Canada Gazette' and in the ' Official Gazette ' of the said province forthwith after the receipt thereof.
(h) The commissioners may frame rules and orders for regulating the conduct of their pro 8859 COMMONS ceedings and generally for carrying into effect the provisions thereof.
(i) The letters patent appointing said commissioners shall confer upon them the power of summoning witnesses before them and of requiring such witnesses to give evidence on oath orally or in writing, or in solemn affirmation (it they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters) and to produce such documents and things as the commissioners may deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to inquire and the commissioners shall have the same power and authority to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories in civil cases.
House divided on amendment (Mr. M. S. McCarthy).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn, Lennox,
Barker, Leonard,
Barr, Macdonell,
Bergeron, MacLaren,
Blain, McCarthy (Calgary),
Borden (Carleton), Monk,
Boylce, Morin,
Brabazon, Northrup,
Chisholm, Paquet,
Christie, Perley,
Clements, Porter,
Cochrane, Roche (Marquette),
Cockshutt, Schaffner.
Crocket, Sproule,
Daniel, Staples,
Elson, Taylor,
Gunn, Walsh,
Henderson, Wilmot,
Herron, Wilson (Lennox &
Jackson (Elgin), Addington)
Lake, Wright (Muskoka).—42.
Lalor,
NAYS:
Messieurs
Adamson, Kennedy,
Archambault, Lachance,
Beauparlant, Lamont.
BĂ©land, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Belcourt, Laurier (L'Assomption),
Bickerdike, Lavergne (Drummond &
Black, Arth.),
Borden (Sir Frederick), Lavergne (Montmagny),
Bourassa, Law,
Bourbonnais, LeBlanc,
Brodeur, Macdonald,
Brown, Maclean (Lunenburg),
Bruneau, Macpherson,
Bureau, McColl,
Caldwell, McCool,
Calvert, McIntyre,
Campbell, McIsaac,
Carney, McKenzie (Bruce),
Carrier, McLennan,
Cash, Marcile (Bagot),
Conmee, Marcil (Bonaventure),
Costigan, Martin (Wellington),
Crawford, Mayrand,
Cyr, Meigs,
Delisle, Miller,
Demers, Oliver,
8860
Derbyshire, Parent,
Desjardins, Piché,
Devlin, Power,
Dubeau, Préfontaine,
Dugas, Proulx,
Emmerson, Ratz,
Finlaylson, Riley,
Fisher, Ross (Rimouski),
Fitzpatrick, Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Fortier, Rousseau,
Galliher, Schell (Oxford),
Gauvreau, Scott,
Geoffrion, Sinclair,
Girard, Smith (Oxford),
Gladu, Talbot (Bellechasse),
Grant, Talbot (Strathcona),
Guthrie, Teltord,
Hall, Tobin,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Turgeon,
Hunt, Turriff,
Jackson (Selkirk), Wilson (Russell),
Johnston (Cape Breton Wright (Renfrew),
South), Zimmerman.—97.
PAIRS :
Government. Opposition.
Bole, Ames,
Stewart, Armstrong,
Burrows, Avery,
Copp, Bennett,
Dyment, Bland,
McKenzie (Cape Breton), Bristol,
Boyer, Broder,
Clarke, Clare,
Fielding, Foster,
Findlay, Fowler,
Gallery, Forget,
German, Ganong,
Gordon, Clements,
Mulock, White,
Harty, Reid (Grenville),
Hyman, Pringle,
Lemieux, Tisdale,
Logan, Lefurgey,
Lavoie, McLean (P.E.I.),
Sloan, Osler,
Parmelee, Worthington,
Greenway, Haggart,
Ethier, Hughes (Victoria),
Laurence, Ingram,
Sifton, Kemp,
Lanctot, Lancaster,
Loggia, Lewis,
Paterson, Maclean (York),
Smith (Nanaimo), Martin (P.E.I.),
Gervais, Stockton,
Watson, Ward.
Amendment (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) negatived.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette). I desire to move, seconded by Mr. Perley, the following amendment :
That all the words after ' now ' to the end of the question he left out, and that the following words be inserted instead thereof :
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with an instruction that they have power to strike out section 12 of the Bill and to substitute the following section therefor :
12. (1) Until the said legislature otherwise provides the legislative assembly shall be composed of twenty-five members to be elected to represent the electoral divisions hereinafter defined.
8861 JULY 5, 1905
(2) The expression ' federal electoral district' where used in this section means an electoral district as establishd by and under the provisions of 3 Edward VII, chapter 60.
3. (a) The federal electoral district at Alberta shall be divided into five electoral divisions each of which shall return one member.
(b) That portion of the federal electoral district of Calgary comprised within the limits of the province of Alberta shall be divided into six electoral divisions each of which shall return one member.
(c) That portion of the federal electoral district of Strathcona comprised within the limits of the province of Alberta shall be divided into six electoral divisions each of which shall return one member.
(d) That portion of the federal electoral district of Edmonton comprised within the limits of the province of Alberta shall be divided into six electoral divisions each of which shall return one member.
(e) That portion of the provisional district of Assiniboia included within the limits of the province of Alberta and not included in any of the federal electoral districts above mentioned shall return one member.
(f) That portion of the unorganized territory of Athabaska which lies west of the 4th meridian shall return one member.
(4) Where under the foregoing provisions any federal electoral district is to be divided into more than one provincial electoral division such division shall be made by a board of commissioners consisting of at least three persons resident in the said province and being judges of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories who shall for that purpose be appointed by letters patent under the great seal immediately after the coming into force of this Act and who shall divide each such federal electoral districts into the number of electoral divisions in this Act assigned to it.
The letters patent appointing the commissioners shall require the commissioners in making the divisions to have due regard to the distribution of population, the public convenience the existing local divisions and such other considerations as appear to them best calculated to do substantial justice.
In case of the death or resignation or refusal of any one or more of such commissioners to act a successor or successors shall in like manner be appointed ; and in the event of there being no resident judge or judges available any judge or judges of the said Supreme court may be appointed such successor or successors :
Within a time to be limited by the said letters patent the commissioners shall complete such divisions and report the same to the Lieutenant Governor of the said province setting forth in such report the boundaries of the electoral divisions to which such report refers and the ranges, townships and sections comprised therein and shall assign an appropriate designation to each electoral division. Upon receipt by the Lieutenant Governor of the said province of the report of the commissioners completing the divisions aforesaid the respective territories described as constituting the respective electoral divisions into which the said federal electoral districts shall have been divided as aforesaid shall become and be electoral divisions of the said province as it the same had been So set apart and established as such by this Act.
The commissioners shall also within the said 8862 time limited forward a duplicate of their said report to the Secretary of State.
The said report and the said duplicate thereof shall be signed by the commissioners, or in case of a disagreement, by a majority of them and the report of the majority of the commissioners shall be the report of the commissioners.
The said report shall be published in the ' Canada Gazette ' and in the 'Official Gazette ' of the said province forthwith after the receipt thereof.
The commissioners may frame rules and orders for regulating the conduct of their proceedings and generally for carrying into effect the provisions thereof.
The letters patent appointing said commissioners shall confer upon them the power of summoning witnesses before them and of requiring such witnesses to give evidence on oath. orally or in writing, or on solemn affirmation (if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters) and to produce such documents and things as the commissioners may deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to inquire and the commissioners shall have the same power and authority to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories in civil cases.
Amendment (Mr. W. J. Roche) negatived on the same division last recorded.
Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle). I propose to move an amendment which, if adopted, would have the effect of granting to the new provinces the lands, mines, minerals within their boundaries. To give to the new provinces those rights and powers in regard to the public domain as are declared by the British North America Act to come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces of the Dominion. I have already spoken at considerable length in advocacy of this principle, first on the second reading of the Bill and subsequently on more than one occasion when the Bill was in committee. 1 have nothing to add to the arguments which I then used. They are before the House and it is not necessary that I should repeat them. I believe that if the House refuses to accept this amendment and passes the Bill in its present form it will be doing a great wrong not only to the new provinces, but to the whole Dominion. The provincial ownership of the public domain is one of the basic principles of confederation ; to disregard it and the other fundamental principles of the British North America Act is to undermine the whole structure of confederation and to lay up a store of trouble in the days to come. The struggle for provincial rights will only begin when this Bill comes into effect on the 1st September next, if it remains in its present form. The culmination of that struggle may not be reached this year or next year, but it must inevitably come some day in the future and it will be due to the action of this parliament if that struggle does injury to our common country. I said 8863 COMMONS in the first words that I uttered about this Bill that the action of Canada in dealing with what may be called her own colonies in the matter of self-government, would be watched with interest not only in the mother land but throughout the empire. Comparisons will be drawn between the treatment accorded to the north American colonies when they become self-governing colonies by Great Britain on the one hand and the treatment accorded to her new provinces by Canada on the other hand. Those comparisons will not be flattering to the Dominion parliament if the Bill goes through in its present form.
No satisfactory reason has been offered to this House for disregarding the clear and definite provisions of the British North America Act in regard to provincial ownership of the public domain. The arguments adduced by the Prime Minister and others in respect to this matter will not be regarded either by the country at large or by the new provinces as adequate or indeed even as quite worthy of the great principle involved. In the argument he used this afternoon surely the Minister of Justice did not intend to suggest, although his words sounded like it, that Canada had purchased from the Hudson Bay Company, through the medium of Great Britain, the absolute title to one-third of the North American continent for ÂŁ300,000. That sum, as I understand it, was paid for the surrender to the Crown of certain claims and privileges which the Hudson Bay Company had over this vast area. The claims and privileges of the company being thus removed, the property itself was vested in the Dominion, the title being in the Crown. The very fact that Great Britain having thus procured a surrender of the Hudson Bay Company's rights over this area then handed it over to the administration of the Dominion of Canada with the evident view of its ultimate formation into provinces is the very strongest argument that could possibly be used that the Dominion should hand over the area comprised in the new provinces to the administration of those provinces. I hope that even at this stage it is not too late, and that the House will be induced to reverse the policy it has up to this time sanctioned. I beg to move, seconded by Dr. Schaffner :
That all the words after ' now ' to the end of the question be left out and that the following words be inserted instead thereof :
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with an instruction that they have power to strike out subsection 1 of section 20 of the Bill and to substitute the following therefor :
All lands, mines and minerals and royalties incident thereto situate or arising within the limits of the province and now vested in the Crown and all sums due or payable in respect of the same shall belong to the province subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to any interest other than that of the province in the same except those portions 8864 thereof now used or occupied for the public works, the public buildings or otherwise for the public service of Canada which are more fully set forth and enumerated in schedule ' C ' to this Act and which shall continue to be the property of Canada.
Amendment (Mr. Lake) negatived on the same division, last recorded.
Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton). I have an amendment to move. It is in the exact words of the amendment I moved last night in committee on the Saskatchewan Bill and I therefore do not intend to occupy the time of the House in reading it. I might say that its purport is to recite as the foundation for the action we are taking in constituting these provinces, not merely the Act of 1871 as the Bill does, but the British North America Act of 1867, the Act of 1871, the final Act of 1886, and also the Rupert's Land Act. Every one who has listened to this long debate must be aware that the very foundation of the constitution both of the Dominion and the various provinces is contained in the British North America Act, and although that is the case there is not a word in the preamble referring to that Act as the ground work of our action on this occasion. Without further remark I move, seconded by Mr. Henderson :
That the preamble be struck out, and that the following preamble be substituted therefor :
Whereas, in and by the British North America Act, 1867, being chapter 3 of the Acts of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed in the session thereof held in the thirtieth year of the reign of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, it was, among other things, enacted that it should be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council on an address from the Houses of parliament of Canada, to admit Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory into the union on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen should think fit to approve, subject to the provisions of the said Act ; and that the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf should have effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
And whereas in and by the Rupert's Land Act, 1868, of the parliament of the United Kingdom, it was, among other things, enacted that it should be competent to Her Majesty, by Order or Orders in Council, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, on address from the Houses of the parliament of Canada, to declare that Rupert's Land should from a date to be therein mentioned be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada.
And whereas, pursuant to such powers and authority, and to such addresses, by and with the advice aforesaid, the Queen by Order in Council on the 23rd day of June, 1870, did order and declare that from and after the 15th day of July, 1870, the said territory should be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions set forth in schedule ' A ' to the said Order in Council, and that the parliament of Canada should from the said date of admission have full power and au 8865 JULY 5, 1905 thority to legislate for the future welfare and good government of the said territory ; and it was thereby further ordered that, without prejudice to any obligations arising from an approved report therein recited, Rupert's Land should from and after the said 15th of July, 1870, be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions in that behalf in the said Order in Council also set forth.
And whereas, in and by the British North America Act, 1871, being chapter 28 of the Acts of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed in the session thereof held in the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth years of the reign of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, it is enacted that the parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provisions for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province and for its representation in the said parliament of Canada :
And whereas, in and by the British North America Act, 1886, being chapter 35 of the Acts of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed in the session thereof held in the forty-ninth and fiftieth years of the reign of Her said Majesty, the parliament of Canada was empowered to make provision for the representation in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, of any territories which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada but are not included in any province thereof ; and it was thereby also enacted that the said Act, and the British North America Act, 1867, and the British North America Act, 1871, shall be construed together.
And whereas that part of the said land and territory hereinafter described has not been included in any province of the Dominion and has heretofore been provisionally governed by and pursuant to legislation of the parliament of Canada.
And whereas it is expedient to establish as a province that part of the said land and territory hereinafter described, and to make provision for the constitution and administration of such province and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government thereof and for its representation in the parliament of Canada.
Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows :
Amendment (Mr. Barker) negatived on the same division, last recorded.
On the question for the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. H. BOURASSA. I rise to offer a word of personal explanation and to give the reasons why I do not feel disposed to vote either for the third reading of the Bill or against it, so that I may not be accused of shirking the vote. My reason is this : I am in favour of the principle of the Bill; that is, I am in favour of giving the Northwest Territories their autonomy, but the Bill does not contain what in my opinion is a sufficient guarantee of the rights of the minorities that we are bound to protect, and therefore I cannot vote with those who 8866 are opposed to any kind of guarantee to the minorities, nor can I vote for a Bill which in my opinion does not give a sufficient measure of guarantee.
Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE. Mr. Speaker, I suppose I shall not surprise any one in the House by saying that I take the same position as the hon. member for Labelle. I therefore leave the House before the vote is taken.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time, on division, and passed.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved third reading of Bill (No. 70) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Saskatchewan.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, before this motion passes I would ask the House to allow me to occupy a few minutes further on the subject of the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption. I have no hope, after the reception that was given to the amendment I moved this afternoon, that I shall succeed with a similar amendment moved to the Saskatchewan Bill, but I feel that I would not be doing my full duty to the proposed province in which I live, and to the electors in that proposed province which I have the honour to represent, if I did not utter on this motion a further word of protest with regard to this feature of the measure; and I do this notwithstanding that I am probably bringing again upon myself the severe disapprobation of the hon. leader of the opposition. In face of the fact that that hon. gentleman has for three or four months been responsible for a waste of the time of this parliament, and responsible for a great deal of disturbance throughout the Dominion of Canada upon these autonomy measures, he rises to censure a representative from the Northwest Territories who has the hardihood to ask the House to listen for thirty or forty minutes to a protest with regard to a limitation on the autonomy proposed to be given to the people of these two provinces, which is a very serious matter in comparison with the comparatively trifling matter that he is responsible for causing to be discussed at such great length and disturbing the country to such an extent. The hon. leader of the opposition said that the words I used in my amendment were meaningless—that the power of expropriation was inherently in this parliament, and that, therefore, it was meaningless to put in this Act words giving notice to the people of these provinces and to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that this parliament intends to exercise its inherent powers of expropriation if it were not able by some other means to obtain the relinquishment of these exemptions.
Mr. LALOR. What construction did the hon. gentleman's leader put upon the resolution ?
8867 COMMONS
Mr. SCOTT. I would ask my hon. friend what construction he places on the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon when he proposed to strike out section 16 and substitute this:
The provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said province in so far as the same are applicable under the terms thereof.
What is the meaning of that?
Mr. LALOR. May I ask the hon. gentleman if that is the way he answers a question—by asking another ?
Mr. SCOTT. I venture to say that my hon. friend cannot tell me, nor can the hon. leader of the opposition himself tell me what that means. It means about the same thing as the amendment he proposed formerly in relation to education. The hon. leader of the opposition admitted, when the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue questioned him on the floor of the House of Commons, that he did not know how it would work out, and that he did not know what it meant. Does the hon. leader of the opposition think when he speaks before the people of this country and before the members of this House that he is speaking to children ? Let him go to the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway or to the head of the Canadian Northern Railway and ask these gentlemen if they think these words specifying the intention of parliament to exercise its inherent power of expropriation do not mean anythng.
Mr. HENDERSON. I rise to a point of order. I submit that the hon. gentleman has no right to refer to a previous debate.
Mr. SCOTT. I propose, Mr. Speaker, to move an amendment, and I trust I am not out of order in discussing the amendment which I propose to move. It concerns the Canada Pacific Railway exemption feature and the inherent right of expropriation possessed by this parliament with regard to that exemption feature. I was proceeding to remind the House that a couple of years ago we granted certain rights to the Canadian Northern Railway, and it was proposed at that time that it should be specified in the Bill that parliament retained the right to expropriate. I can tell the hon. leader of the opposition that Mr. Willam Mackenzie, the president of the Canadian Northern Railway, did not think these words meaningless, because he opposed the proposition strenuously, and whenever the same proposition has been made with regard to a railway which is being chartered, it has been opposed by the promoters of the charter. It is not so long ago that discussion took place in this House on the Grand Trunk Pacific proposition, and if my memory serves me rightly, we had an amendment moved on the other side of the House that the Bill should specify that under such and such conditions parliament would expro 8868 priate the undertaking. Am I stating the fact correctly ? I put that squarely to the hon. leader of the opposition. Silence, I suppose, gives consent; but we may as well have the actual proof. On May 26, 1904, the hon. leader of the opposition summarized certain resolutions which he had in the previous months presented to this House with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific proposition. Some of these amendments, I suppose, were not entirely meaningless, but so many were presented that I venture to say that no single person in the whole of Canada can tell at this moment whether the hon. leader of the opposition faced north, south, east or west on the Grand Trunk Pacific question. Here is what the hon. gentleman said on May 26, 1904, as found at page 3558 of ' Hansard ':
We then moved an amendment that if the Grand Trunk Pacific should exercise its right to force on the government any unprofitable branches at the end of fifty years, the government might take all or any of the remaining branches. In this way we desired to prevent this country being placed in the position of having to take and operate unprofitable branches without having the option of controlling the situation by taking also all the branches this company might find profitable.
That surely was a meaningless proposition, because parliament had the inherent right of expropriation. The hon. gentleman was needlessly taking up the time of parliament when he discussed that proposition at great length.
We further moved that the government should have haulage rights and running powers over the western division for the same period granted to the company over the eastern division. Both these amendments were rejected.
Then we proposed that the government should be empowered to expropriate the railways from ocean to ocean, upon paying fair compensation, and in addition we moved a further amendment empowering the government to do so in case these railways should not carry out the true intent of the agreement, or should combine or conspire to divert traffic to foreign ports.
By the vehicle of these words of his own I hand back to the leader of the opposition all the criticism and sarcasm which he applied to the proposition I took the responsibility of presenting to the House this afternoon. What was the main purpose of the remarks of the hon. gentleman and what has been the main purpose of many of the remarks of the hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to members from the Northwest Territories sitting behind the government ? From day to day, by means of sneers and other references, they have attempted to lead the country to believe that the Liberal members from the Territories have been entirely dominated by the government and ready at any moment to sacrifice the interests of the Territories.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
8869 JULY 5, 1905
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friends opposite applaud the remark. I am, therefore, giving an accurate discription of what they have attempted. We had some reference here a few days ago to a Northwest conference called by Mr. Haultain and to the matters discussed there. I proposed a motion at that conference with regard to the redistribution schedules. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) arose here and declared that the motion made by me was not as I stated, but was that we should hold out together to get our land and minerals for the new provinces.
Mr. HERRON. I state now that you did make that statement, and it is the only statement that you have made.
Mr. SCOTT. I state now deliberately to my hon. friend that the matter of lands was not discussed at that conference at all, and I say it in the hearing of several gentlemen who were present. There were three conferences in all. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) attended the first two, but was not present at the third, and the matter of lands was not mentioned at the third conference concerning which we had the discussion on this floor. I tell the hon. gentleman now that there never was any such motion made at any of the three conferences.
Mr. HERRON. I repeat positively what I have said.
Mr. SCOTT. Regardless of what my hon. friend says, I say that no such motion was presented at any conference.
Mr. HERRON. And I reiterate my statement.
Mr. SCOTT. I will tell the hon. gentleman more, if he wants to know it, about those conferences. We had three altogether. It has been already explained that the invitation was issued by Mr. Haultain to all the Northwest members to attend conferences at Ottawa and a part of that invitation reads as follows :
My colleagues and I are very anxious to have the co-oporation of the Senators and members from the Territories at the very outset of these negotiations with a view to, if possible, presenting a case for the Territories which in its broader features, at least, shall be approved by all the Northwest representatives.
I ask any of the hon. gentlemen opposite who were present at these conferences if he ever heard any mention by Mr. Haultain or any one else at any of them with regard to the subject of education. Let them say yes or no, here and now. Did Mr. Haultain bring up the subject of education ? Was that one of the large and broad subjects which we were brought together to discuss ? I say that the subject was never mentioned. In that fact alone we have the complete proof that the Northwest 8870 government and the Northwest people generally were not asking for any change in their educational constitution.
Mr. LALOR. Does the hon. gentleman make the statement that Mr. Haultain called the conference ?
Mr. SCOTT. Yes.
Mr. LALOR. Did you not make the statement on a previous occasion in this House that it was the Prime Minister who called this conference ?
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend is quite mistaken. The Prime Minister suggested to Mr. Haultain that he should furnish to the government the schedules of redistribution, and Mr. Haultain called a third conference partly for the purpose of getting assistance from the Northwest members and senators generally with regard to redistribution and two or three other matters. I repeat that no motion was made at any conference as is described by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) either by myself, himself or by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) or by Mr. Haultain to the effect that we should stand out for the absolute transfer of our public lands. What I did at that conference however, was to attempt to get it to take the position—not by motion, but by suggestion ; and that is doubtless what has misled the hon. member for Alberta—that we should unitedly and resolutely stand out for the principle that the public lands belong to the people of the Territories and that we should have their actual transfer or a fair price.
Mr. HERRON. The hon. gentleman has acknowledged just now that he was wrong.
Mr. SCOTT. It is my hon. friend who admits the mistake. I suggested that we should unitedly take the position, and hold to it resolutely, that the lands were ours, and that we should get an actual transfer of them or a fair price. And in my opinion, and in that of the majority of the people of the Northwest, even of Mr. Haultain himself—because he has said so in a public letter—we have got a fair price for the lands. Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite, from their leader down, that in view of the history of the last two years with regard to the subject of autonomy, it does not lie in the mouth of any Conservative anywhere in the Dominion to charge any Northwest Liberal—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. SCOTT. Let my hon. friends be patient and I will give them plenty of proof. I say it does not lie in their mouths to charge any Northwest Liberal with a willingness to sacrifice any Northwest local interest at the behest of any party leader. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) knows very well to what I am referring. He and I and the Liberals and many Con 8871 COMMONS servatives in the Territories up to two years ago were of the belief that, in view of early autonomy negotiations entered into with the Ottawa government, it was essential that the people of the Territories should be united and not have party divisions in their local affairs, so that we might come down as one man, with the whole strength of a united people, in the presentation of our case to the government here. I think I am stating the thing fairly. But what has occurred in the last two years ? At the instigation of the hon. the leader of the opposition, the Conservatives of the Territories were called into convention in April, 1903, at Moosejaw, for the purpose of reorganizing for the next federal election. What was one of the most important actions taken by that convention ?
Some hon. MEMBERS. Question, question.
Mr. SCOTT. These hon. gentlemen are getting a little tired of the subject.
Mr. GALLIHER. Take your medicine.
Mr. SCOTT. One of the most important resolutions adopted at that convention called for the purpose of reorganizing for the next federal election was this :
That in furtherance of the objects of this convention be it resolved, that Conservative candidates as such be placed in nomination in every constituency, at the next general election of members to the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories, and kept in the field till the close of the polls.
Since the moment of the passing of that resolution, since the moment of the holding of that Moosejaw convention, Mr. Haultain and his Conservative friends in the legislature—of whom my hon. friend was one—have been dominated in their management of local affairs by considerations of federal party interest.
Mr. LAKE. I deny that statement, so far as I am concerned.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend (Mr. Lake) will have a good deal of trouble to successfully deny it in the Territories. We had the matter of the capital advance. Mr. Haultain stated that on certain conditions he wanted the capital advance—that on certain conditions he would be satisfied to have it. And on these conditions it was granted. Is that not true? It was granted on the very conditions that he himself had set out. I make the statement to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle Mr. Lake, that on the first day of the meeting of the succeeding legislature in the fall of 1903, he told a man in Regina that the capital advance was not going to be accepted. I make the further statement that Mr. Haultain did not disclose to his Liberal supporters in the legislature, until practically the closing week of the session the fact that the capital advance was not going to be accepted.
8872
Mr. LAKE. I have no knowledge of that.
Mr. SCOTT. I will give my hon. friend (Mr. Lake), privately, information that will recall it to his memory. I do not wish to mention publicly here the name; but I will give my hon. friend privately the name of the gentleman to whom he gave that information on the first day of the sitting. And it was three weeks later before the Liberal supporters of Mr. Haultain were told by Mr. Haultain that he did not intend to accept the capital advance. And my hon. friend (Mr. Lake) knows perfectly well—1 know he knows—that over that capital advance matter the unity which had prevailed in the assembly was very nearly broken; and if it was not broken it was not because of any excessive desire on the part of these Conservatives, or on the part of my hon. friend, or on the part of Mr. Haultain, that means should be taken to preserve it. Any sacrifice that was made was made by the Liberals in the Assembly, and to preserve that unity in local affairs that was so important, the Northwest Liberals have for two years past been putting up with slights and humiliation and insult, —having their every confidence abused, their every action mis-used,—they have been feeling the knife of the traitor in every way. But, for the purpose of preserving the unity that they considered essential for the presentation of the autonomy matter to this government and to this parliament, they put up with this kind of thing. But Mr. Speaker, thank God, that condition need no longer continue.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. SCOTT. The autonomy matter is now settled, and the question is removed from the field of controversy. It no longer furnishes a reason for that sort of party self-sacrifice, and from this time forward the Liberals of Saskatchewan will not find their party interests conflicting with the interests of the province.
Mr. BOYCE. I ask that the motion before the House be read.
Mr. SPEAKER. Any hon. member has the right to ask that the motion be read, but not so as to interrupt the hon. gentleman who is speaking.
Mr. SCOTT. So much for that, at all events. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) declares that the amendment I moved this afternoon is meaningless. It is no more so than is section 23 itself. Does the hon. gentleman say that section 23 in this Bill has any meaning; that the Bill will have any different efiect whether section 23 is retained or is left out of the Bill ? That is a fair question. Will the taxing power of the province be the same if section 23 were not in the Bill as it will be with the section in the Bill ? My 8873 JULY 5, 1905 hon. friend the leader of the opposition is not prepared to answer that question.
An hon. MEMBER. No.
Mr. SCOTT. Evidently not. Well, in my own opinion, section 23 in these Bills means absolutely nothing—or at all events very little. But I say that if section 23 is put in the Bill, then it is fair, it is right, it is imperative that further notice be put in the Bill that parliament intends, as the Prime Minister says, to negotiate the surrender of these exemption rights from the company—that further notice be put in the Bill, so that the provinces, the people of Canada and the railway company will understand that parliament, at some future day will take away these rights by expropriation or by negotiation. But, as I have had no success with the amendment which I moved to the Alberta Bill, it is useless to repeat that proposal. I beg with regard to this Saskatchewan Bill to move :
That all the words after ' now ' be struck out and the following inserted :
That the Bill (No. 70) be recommitted to Committee of the Whole House with instructions to expunge section 23 thereof.
Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton). I only desire to say that I have no sympathy with any motion in this House that has for its purpose the violation of a solemn compact made many years ago by the parliament of Canada. Therefore, I cannot recognize in any form the motion that has been moved by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott). I do not believe for a moment that this parliament will stultify itself by accepting the amendment the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has presented and so violating a sacred contract made many years ago.
Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Kootenay). I fully agree with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that this government and this parliament should hold sacred the contracts made with the former government and parliament by any party or corporation. But, as I stated this afternoon—and I do not intend to repeat my remarks—I contend that if the government in 1881 had power to make this contract and to pass that law, there is no necessity for this section in the Act, for that law would apply, and it cannot be overridden by local legislation afterwards. On the other hand, if this law was ultra vires the parliament of Canada in 1881, then this parliament is not called upon to confirm any portion of a contract that was ultra vires of parliament when it was made. There is a vast difference between carrying out a contract made with a former parliament which contract was within the powers of that parliament, and carrying out a portion of a contract made that was not within the powers of parliament. If it was within the power of parliament to make it, then the rights of the other party will be safe in any case, 8874 whether section 23 is put in or not. And if it is not within their power, it is no part of the duty of this parliament, or any other, to carry out an arrangement which was ultra vires of the authority that made it. For these reasons I support the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Scott).
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). There is absolutely nothing new in this question, which was discussed fully in committee. And, for the same reasons that I gave my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) before, I must tell him that we cannot accept this motion.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has covered a very wide range in his speech, including the convention in the Northwest Territories, Mr. Haultain's secrecy as to capital advances, the conferences held between members from the Northwest Territories during the recent session, besides formulating a number of questions, which no one, himself included, seemed able to answer, with regard to certain alleged opinions of the president of the Canadian Northern Railway. These questions seemed to be particularly irrelevant to the matter we have been discussing this evening. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) says this is a serious matter. It certainly is a serious matter, but he did not treat it in a serious way. It is a serious matter. But any one who looks over the volume of ' Hansard ' during the last four or five years and observes the gyrations the hon. gentleman has indulged in on this question can form a pretty good opinion as to how serious he is in taking up the time of the House in discussing it at this stage.
Look at his motion as he defines it, a motion in respect of which he has taken up 40 minutes of the time of this House. He says that section 23 means nothing, therefore he takes 40 minutes to ask us to strike it out. If it means nothing then striking it out means nothing. That is the position of the hon. gentleman according to his own statement. That is his own definition of the position which he occupies in taking up the time of the House to-night. If it means anything at all it means that a right which has been made with the Crown, confirmed by the parliament of this country in 1881, may be taken away without compensation. If it has any meaning at all I would suppose it to mean that, or that it was an attempt to accomplish that result. I do not know what the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) means by discussing the question as to whether it was within the competence of the government to make this agreement in 1881.
Mr. GALLIHER. If it was not within the competence of the government to make it we did not need this section, because that right will pass on to them notwithstanding 8875 COMMONS that they are formed into provinces ; and if it was not within the right of this government to make such an agreement, then I raised the question whether it was incumbent upon us to carry out the contract.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It is not a question of their right to make a contract, it is a question of the effect of a contract when made, it is a question as to whether the government of this country, by virtue of an Act of parliament passed in 1881, can make a contract which shall have effect in the Territories after they are created into provinces. I suppose that is what the hon. gentleman means. I have already expressed my opinion with regard to that, but the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) does not seem to be able to understand it. I have expressed in committee the view which I entertain with regard to it. I say the contract is binding upon the Crown because it was ratified by parliament. The question of legislative jurisdiction respecting Dominion taxation remains in the parliament of Canada ; the jurisdiction over provincial taxation goes to the provinces. But in both cases there is a contract to be observed, and neither in the one case or the other could the parliament or legislature properly interfere without compensation. That is the situation as I regard it. But however that may be, the motion of the hon. member for Assiniboia does not commend itself to my judgment because it does not accomplish what, after all, I presume, he wishes to accomplish. He referred to a provision for expropriation which we proposed to introduce into the National Transcontinental contract. We were not doing what he is doing now, or what he did this afternoon. We prepared a clause providing for and authorizing expropriation and stating the terms of it. The hon. gentleman has done nothing of the kind. If he had made any such motion as that with regard to section 23, or introduced it by an independent Bill, I could understand it : but his motion this afternoon was obviously meaningless for the reason I have stated.
Mr. SCOTT. It was open to the hon. gentleman to help improve it.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, there are some motions conceived and framed in such a form that no human agency could possibly improve them. The hon. gentleman has apparently accomplished that result in this case. If expropriation is desired, the parliament of Canada can act in the future, and with all deference to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, I think the legislature of the province can act also in respect to exemption from provincial taxation. But neither the motion which the hon. gentleman proposed this afternoon nor the motion which he proposes now seems to me to deal with the matter in the way in which it should be dealt with. If his motion means 8876 nothing, because it strikes out something which means nothing, surely that does not improve the situation. If his motion means to disregard a contract into which the government of this country entered in 1881, his motion means something, but it means something with which I certainly cannot agree.
Mr. SCOTT. In the hon. gentleman's opinion, does section 23 mean anything ? Does it change the situation ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It is a notice to the provinces of this contract, it has at least that operation ; and it is proper that at least the provinces should be notified of a contract into which the Crown has entered, and in respect of which the action of the Crown has been ratified by parliament.
Mr. SCOTT. Is there or is there not a possibility that by leaving out section 23 the provinces might be free to tax ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. That the provinces might be free to tax—I would not think that would improve the situation at all, because even if by inadvertence a provision of that kind were left out of the constitution and an attempt were made to expropriate without compensation that which was a vested right in either the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other corporation, surely the hon. gentleman knows that over and over again the executive of Canada has been called upon to disallow provincial legislation in cases of that kind.
Mr. GALLIHER. Would not the question whether that was a vested right or not, depend upon the question whether parliament in 1881 had power to legislate beyond to the time when these Territories were formed into provinces ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The parliament of Canada at that time was the only parliament that had power to enact this legislation. But it the hon. gentleman believes what he says he does to-night, does he not recognize that he has been voting against his conscientious convictions on section 16 of the Bill ? If he does not recognize that, then it is useless for me to argue with him.
Mr. GALLIHER. Argument of that kind is no answer to a legal question.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, it would seem to me to be very much an answer.
Mr. GALLIHER. Supposing even I was wrong, would that strengthen my hon. friend's argument ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman, on clause 16, has taken the position that the parliament of Canada in 1875 could deal with a similar matter, and that there was an obligation on us in future for all time to be governed by that provision. He has distinctly taken that position, if he has taken any position at all. On the other hand 8877 JULY 5, 1905 where we have not any such shadowy or vague understanding as was relied upon for clause 16, but where there is a distinct, binding agreement made by the Crown at a time when these provinces were Territories, he denies that parliament has any right to legislate. He says that in the one case there is an absolute obligation in 1905 to continue legislation with regard to the schools, but there is not any obligation whatever to continue the contract made with regard to this tax exemption.
Mr. GALLIHER. I have not argued that it was ultra vires of the parliament in 1881 to make this law and to enter into this contract. But I say that if it was within their power to do so, that right goes on, and we can absolutely leave that alone and dispense with section 23 entirely.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am afraid that I cannot appreciate or even understand my hon. friend's argument when he talks about this contract being ultra vires, a contract ratified by the parliament of Canada in 1881, when this parliament had the absolute right to deal with the Territories. I am not able to follow that.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My hon. friend (Mr. Galliher) means to say, I think, that in 1881 we had power, but when these Territories became provinces then that power would be restricted.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It is a suflicient answer to say that the legislation which we are passing in clause 23 cannot have a greater operation than that which we passed in 1881. It seems to me that if it is ultra vires in the one case it necessarily follows that it is ultra vires in the other case.
Mr. GALLIHER. I think not.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.Well, that is my argument at all events.
Mr. GALLIHER. I think not for the reason that by the virtue of the British North America Act the provinces are entitled to absolute control in regard to taxation, but we are limiting that control of taxation by this section 23. At the time we are granting them powers as provinces we are limiting the power of taxation by section 23 which says that it shall be subject to the existing agreement.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, I do not see the distinction of the hon. gentleman. Perhaps he can see it; I do not. It seems to me that the parliament of the Dominion in 1881 had the absolute right to deal with this contract in respect to a railway running through the Territories which were subject absolutely to the legislative jurisdiction of Canada.
Mr. GALLIHER. That may be true.
8878
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman says that we have not the right to limit the constitution of these new provinces
Mr. GALLIHER. I do not say that at all.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, I do not know what the hon. gentleman does say then.
Mr. GALLIHER. I have not said that the parliament of Canada had not the right to make the law in 1881. If they had the right to make that law the instant that these Territories became provinces that right passes without this section 23 of this Act.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Very good. Then, in that view section 23 is absolutely harmless.
Mr. GALLIHER. Not harmless, because I say that by section 23 we are going further now. We are forming these Territories into provinces by this Act. We are giving them the right to exercise the power of taxation, but we are limiting that right by section 23.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, the hon. gentleman will have to be content with his own opinion. It seems to me to be absolutely clear that we had the right to make that contract in 1881. It became a contract binding upon the Crown in the right of the people of Canada and that binds the Dominion and the provinces after the Territories have been created into provinces. On the very lowest position that can be taken it is proper to insert in his Bill a notice to the provinces of the contract so entered into by the Crown ratified by parliament at a time when parliament had power so to legislate. I do not want to take up the time of the House, because this is a matter between the hon. member for Western Assiniboia, the right hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. 1 am not responsible for section 23. I think it is right to give notice to these provinces, but after all the Minister of Justice is responsible for this measure as he is responsible for a similar clause in the Bill in regard to the Hudson Bay Company. I have stated my view as to what should be done. The contract should be observed. There should be no expropriation without compensation. I think upon that we can all agree. It seems to me, as I have stated over and over again, that the right of the Dominion to legislate and the right of the provinces to legislate within their respective spheres of jurisdiction continue subject to the contract in both cases. I might, in conclusion, refer the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) to some language of his upon a motion in regard to this same tax exemption which was introduced in 1901. The hon. gentleman then said:
If I thought this resolution would do the slightest good, I would vote for it.
8879 COMMONS
It was a resolution declaring that in the opinion of parliament the tax exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway should extend only to a period of 20 years. The hon. mem ber for West Assiniboia said :
If I thought this resolution would do the slightest good, I would vote for it.
Mr. MACLEAN. It will not do any harm if you vote for it.
Mr. SCOTT. It might not directly, but indirectly it would be an encouragement to hon. gentlemen to come forward with demagogic and buncombe resolutions, and I do not propose to encourage anything of the kind. I do not think there will be any practical value in the House declaring for this resolution and shall, therefore, vote against it.
I would say to my hon. friend that I do not see any good whatever in either of the resolutions which he has moved to-day. I refer him to his word which I have quoted. If I was a little warm in any of my expressions this afternoon I trust he will understand that I did not intend to be offensive to him in any way. I do not think either of his resolutions has the merit of being practical. As far as this one is concerned I shall vote against it with the same goodwill as I voted against the one he moved this afternoon.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, the opposition intended to assist the government in every way they could in passing these two Bills before the early hours of the morning. But the hon. member for West Assiniboia occupied an hour and twenty minutes this afternoon and 40 minutes more to-night with speeches and with resolutions similar to one moved by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) a few years ago on this very same question which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) then characterized as a buncombe resolution. But I only intend to deal with one of the many reckless statements that he made this afternoon. He made the statement that the Liberal party had always been in favour of building the Canadian Pacific Railway through the Northwest. Does he know the history of the Liberal party in regard to the building of that railway that created that country and made something of it? A contract was made by the Conservative government previous to 1873 to build that railway, but by the opposition then offered in the House, the government of the late lamented Sir John A. Macdonald were driven from power on account of having entered into that contract. The Liberals came into office. Did they make a contract to build that railway or did they attempt to build that railway? They attempted to use the water stretches and to connect Port Arthur with Winnipeg by a part water and part rail route. They built the Fort Francis lock, squandered a lot of money, but did not do anything towards the building of the railway. Then the Conservative party came in again; they entered into negotiations, and in 1881 this contract was made. The Canadian Pacific 8880 Railway, under the contract, spent millions and millions of money in attempting to construct the railway in that country. When they had spent the last dollar they had and when they had exhausted the last dollar of credit they could obtain owing to the opposition of the Liberal party and of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, they came down to this parliament and asked for a loan of $30,000,000 to save them from going into bankruptcy. If they had gone into bankruptcy, what would be the position of the Northwest Territories to-day? The government of that day said: We will assist you, we will grant you a loan of $30,000,000 and take ample security. The hon. member for Western Assiniboia to-day quoted the words of Mr. Blake, Mr. Ross and Sir Richard Cartwright. What did these gentlemen say? They said that if this railway were ever built it would not earn enough to pay for the axle grease, and every Liberal in the House at that time—and there are a few of them left, as there are only a few on this side of the House who supported that measure—opposed the granting of this assistance. The supporters of the government of that day stood up and voted in favour of loaning the Canadian Pacific Railway $30,000,000, because, notwithstanding the fact that under the contract they had the lands and they had the exemption from taxation that my hon. friend is now complaining about, they could not raise a dollar to go on and complete the road. Yet, the hon. gentleman makes the reckless statement that the Liberal party were always in favour of building this road. A few Conservatives who are here now were in the House then and they stood up and voted to loan the Canadian Pacific Railway $30,000,000. The measure was carried notwithstanding the opposition of every Liberal in the House at that time, and there are only a few of them left. We loaned them $30,000,000: the road was completed; the company paid back the $30,000,000, and yet the hon. member for West Assiniboia will say that the Liberal party were always in favour of building the road.
Mr. COCHRANE. Did he say that ?
Mr. TAYLOR. He did say it this afternoon. He had the assumption to make a statement of that kind. There are many of us in the House to—day who know that the Hon. G. W. Ross, when the hon. gentleman quoted against the Canadian Pacific Railway, was man enough to get up and say in recent years that he had opposed the Canadian Pacific Railway at every stage, but he regretted he had ever done so, and he withdrew every statement he ever made against it. It is not so with the other Liberals who opposed the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway and who now try to get credit for building it and making that western country what it is. Why, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) would have no country were it not for the policy 8881 JULY 5, 1905 of the Conservative party in these days. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is evident that hon. gentlemen opposite do not want to transact public business when one of them occupies two hours time talking about nothing. The opposition here were anxious to facilitate the despatch of business, but these gentlemen opposite seem to want delay and I therefore move that the House adjourn so that we may get out of this heated atmosphere.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Withdraw.
Mr. TAYLOR. I will withdraw if the supporters of the government keep quiet and allow business to be transacted.
Motion to adjourn the House (Mr. Taylor) withdrawn.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Scott).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Adamson, Schaffner,
Cash, Scott,
Galliher, Staples,
Herron, Talbot (Strathcona),
Lake, Turriff.—11,
Lamont,
NAYS :
Messieurs
Alcorn, Lapointe,
Archambault, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Barker, Laurier (L'Assomption),
Barr, Lavergne
Beauparlant (Drummond and Arth.)
BĂ©land, Lavergne (Montmagny),
Belcourt, Law,
Bergeron, LeBlanc,
Bickerdike, Lennox,
Blain, LĂ©onard,
Borden (Carleton), Macdonald,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Macdonell
Bourassa, MacLaren,
Bourbonnais, Maclean (Lunenburg),
Boyce, Macpherson.
Brabazon, McCarthy (Calgary),
Brodeur, McCool,
Bruneau, McIntyre,
Bureau, Mclsaac,
Caldwell, McKenzie (Bruce),
Calvert, McKenzie (Cape Breton, N.),
Campbell, Marcile (Bagot),
Carney, Marcil (Bonaventure),
Carrier, Martin (Wellington),
Christie, Mayrand
Cochrane, Miller,
Cockshutt, Monk,
Conmee, Morin,
Costigan, Northrup,
Crawford, Oliver,
Crocket, Parmelee,
Cyr, Paterson,
Daniel, Paquet,
Delisle, Parent,
Demers, Perley,
Derbyshire, Piché,
Desjardins. Pickup,
Devlin. Porter,
Dubeau, Power,
Dugas, Préfontaine,
Elson, Proulx,
Emmerson, Riley,
8882
Ethler, Rivet,
Fisher, Roche (Marquette),
Fitzpatrick, Ross (Rimouski),
Fortier, Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Gauvreau, Rousseau,
Geoffrion, Schell (Oxford),
Girard. Sinclair,
Gladu, Smith (Oxford),
Grant, Sproule,
Gunn, Talbot (Bellechasse),
Guthrie, Taylor,
Hall, Telford,
Harty, Tobin,
Henderson, Turgeon,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Walsh,
Hunt, Wilmot,
Jackson (Elgin), Wilson
Jackson (Selkirk), (Lennox & Addington)
Johnston Wilson (Russell),
(Cape Breton, South) Wright (Muskoka),
Kennedy, Wright (Rentrew),
Lachance, Zimmerman—126.
Lalor,
Mr. J. E. LEONARD (Laval). (Translation). Moves:
1. That this Bill be not now read a third time but he recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with an instruction that they have the power to amend it by adding the fol— lowing as subsection 2 to section 2 :—
2. Such right to separate schools and such educational privileges as are guaranteed to the Catholic or to the Protestant minority of the Northwest Territories, under chap. 50, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, shall be continued by'this constitution to the minorities in the said provinces.
My object in moving this amendment is to have embodied in the Bill section 14 of the Revised Statutes, which reads as follows :
14. The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education ; but it shall therein always be provided, that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories, or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor; and also that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or, Roman 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.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Leonard).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Bergeron. Leonard,
Bourassa, Monk,
Lavlergne (Montmagny), Morin—6.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Adamson, Lake,
Alcorn, Lalor,
Archambault, Lamont,
Barker, Lapointe,
Barr, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
8883 COMMONS
Beauparlant, Laurier (L'Assomption),
BĂ©land, Lavergne
Belcourt, (Drummond & Artha.),
Bickerdike, Law,
Black, LeBlanc,
Blain, Lennox,
Borden (Carleton), Macdonald,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Macdonell,
Bourbonnais, McLaren,
Brabazon, Maclean (Lunenburg).
Brodeur, Macpherson,
Bruneau, McCool,
Bureau, McIntyre,
Caldwell, McIsaac,
Calvert, McKenzie (Bruce),
Campbell, McKenzie
Carney, (Cape Beton, N.),
Cash, Marcile (Bargot),
Chisholm, Marcil (Bonadventure),
Christle, Martin (Wellington),
Carrier, Mayrand,
Cochrane, Miller,
Cockshutt, Northrup,
Conmee, Oliver,
Costigan, Parmelee,
Crawford, Paterson,
Crocket, Parent,
Cyr, Perley,
Daniel, Piché,
Delisle, Pickup,
Demers, Porter,
Derbyshire, Power,
Desjardins, Préfontaine,
Devlin, Proulx,
Dubeau, Riley,
Dugas, Rivet,
Elson, Roche (Marquette),
Emmerson, Ross (Rimouski),
Ethier, Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Finlayson, Rousseau,
Fisher, Schaffner,
Fitzpatrick, Schell (Oxford),
Fortier, Scott,
Gauvreau, Sinclair,
Geoffrion, Smith (Oxford),
Girard, Sproule,
Gladu, Staples,
Grant, Talbot (Bellechasse),
Gunn, Taylor,
Hall, Telford,
Harty, Tobin,
Henderson, Turgeon,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Turriff,
Hunt, Wilson (Lennox & Add.),
Jackson (Selkirk), Wilson (Russell),
Johnston Wright (Muskoka),
(Cape Breton, South) Wright (Renfrew),
Kennedy, Zimmerman.-124.
Lachance,
Mr. BOURASSA. I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron), the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce), the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) and the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Walsh) voted, though they came in after the question was put.
Mr. SPEAKER. It will not be proper to record their votes if they came in after the question was put. I would ask the hon. members whose names have just been mentioned if they were in the House when the question was put.
8884
Mr. BOYCE. I may say, so far as I was concerned, that there was a very imperfect ring of the bell.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. SPEAKER. The names of the hon. members for Algoma, Alberta, Calgary and Huntingdon, will be struck out.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Before the motion is put, I desire to make the same motion in amendment with regard to clause 16 which I made with regard to the corresponding clause in Bill No. 69, seconded by Mr. Cochrane :
That all the words are ' now ' to the end of the question be left out and that the following word be inserted instead thereof :
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with an instruction that they have power to strike out section 16 of the Bill and to substitute the following section therefor :
16. The provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said province in so far as the same are applicable under the terms thereof.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. With the consent of the House we might have the same vote recorded with the same motion.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I had already suggested that, and I concur. Where the provisions of the Bill are exactly the same and the motion in amendment is exactly the same, surely we need not come trooping in to vote again.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Instruction might be given to the clerk to have the same motions and the same votes recorded on this Bill as on the other Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER. On the understanding that that is the unanimous wish of the House, I direct the clerk to record the same motions in amendment and the same votes on this Bill as those on the previous Bill, with the names of the movers and seconders entered.
Amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden) negatived.
Mr. SPROULE. I beg leave to move, seconded by Mr. Lennox :
That all the words after ' now ' to the end of the question be left out, and that the following words be inserted instead thereof :
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with an instruction that they have power to strike out section 2 of the Bill, and to substitute the following section therefor:
2. The provisions of the British North America Act, 1867 to 1886, shall apply to the province of Saskatchewan in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the Dominion, except such provisions as in terms or by reasonable intendment are specially applicable to or affect one or more only and not the whole of the said provinces.
8885 JULY 6, 1905
This is a similar motion to that presented by Mr. Sam. Hughes with reference to the other Bill. I do not propose to accompany it with any remarks, as the argument has been made on the other Bill and will apply with equal force to this.
Amendment negatived, and Bill read the third time, on division, and passed.

THIRD READINGS.

Bill (No. 156) to amend the Northwest Territories Representation Act—Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Bill (No. 159) to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act—Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Bill (No. 163) to amend the Census and Statistics Act—Mr. Fisher.
Bill (No. 161) to amend the Northwest Irrigation Act, 1898.——Mr. Oliver.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 1.15 am Thursday.

Source:

Canada. House of Commons Debates, 1875-1949. Provided by the Library of Parliament.

Credits:

.

Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Gordon Lyall.

Participating Individuals: