House of Commons, 6 May 1890, Canadian Confederation with Alberta and Saskatchewan

4449 [MAY 6, 1890.] 4450
[...]the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of Charles Herbert Mackintosh, Esq., to represent the electoral district of the city of Ottawa.


Mr. CASGRAIN. I would ask the Government whether we will soon receive the printed evidence in the Middleton and Bremner case. I understood it was to be printed as soon as possible.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. I think it has been printed.
Mr. CASGRAIN. It has not been distributed.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. My neighbor here shows me a copy he has received.
Mr. LAURIER. We have none.
Mr. DAVIN. It cannot have been distributed, for I did not get one.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. I will see that it is distributed.
Mr. BLAKE. I have understood that the hon. gentleman got many things in advance. A statement was made yesterday, that today we would be informed when the consideration of the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections would take place.
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. The Prime Minister is not here now, and the hon. gentleman might repeat his question when he is here.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. When I receive anything in advance, I do not desire to keep it to myself.


Mr. DEWDNEY moved second reading of Bill (No. 146) to amend the Acts respecting the North- West Territories. He said: The principal provisions in this Act are the following:—It is deemed advisable to define the Territories more particularly than they are at present defined and to change their name to the Western Territories of Canada. This is proposed to be done by section 3 of the Bill. Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 contain the provisions which are to govern the composition of the Legislative Assembly, the periods at which sittings thereof are to be held, and the mode of proceedings for electing a new Assembly, or for filling a vacancy. Section 10 defines the classes of subjects respecting which the Legislative Assembly may make ordinances. By section 13 of the Bill the powers of a single judge are to be extended and defined. By the same section the confirmation reversal, or modification by the Court of Appeal, of the decision of a single judge is to be provided for. By section 14 provision is to be made for the perform ance of the duties of a sheriff or a clerk in the event of a vacancy throu h death or otherwise. By section 18 provision is to be made to empower each judge of the Supreme Court of the Territories to be ex-ofiicio a district magistrate for the Territories, and also to sit as a criminal court to try and determine charges preferred against any persons for the offences which are specified in that section. By section 22 of the Bill provision is to be made as to the manner of indicting persons so charged. By section 23 provision is to be made for the transmission, by a justice of the peace or magistrate holding a preliminary investigation into any criminal offence, which may not be tried under "The Summary Convictions Act," of the records of such investigation; and for the notification of a judge, with the object of affording the person charged with the crime, a speedy trial. By section 24 those persons convicted of a breach of a municipal by-law and sentenced to imprisonment on account of such breach, are to be excepted from the provisions of section 79 of chapter 50 of the Revised Statutes, unless the municipality shall arrange with the Commissioner of the North- West Mounted Police for the maintenance of the person so convicted during the period of his sentence. By section 30 the wording of section 108 of the said chapter 50 is to be slightly changed, and two sub-sections are to be added thereto. The first of these sub-sections fixes the width of public highways, roads or trails which existed in the Territories prior to survey, and also provides for the improvement of the location thereof by the surveyor, if necessary. The second retains the title to the highways in the town for the public uses of the Territories, and provides that such roads cannot be altered and that the land cannot be sold except by consent of the Governor in Council. The amendment proposed by section 31 to section 110 of the said chapter 50 will give the Legislative Assembly which will be elected to succeed the present one the right to regulate and to decide the manner of recording and publishing its proceedings. By section 32 of the Bill it is to be provided that no change shall be made in the existing law of the Territories concerning intoxicating liquor until the dissolution of the present Assembly has afforded the inhabitants an opportunity of expressing their opinion with regard to the nature of such change. The other sections of the Bill contain no material alterations of the present law.
Mr. LAURIER. The hon. gentleman has only given us a synopsis of what the Bill contains, but no explanations as to the reasons of the alterations made in the Act. I think no more important subject could be brought before this House at the present time than a Bill legislating in regard to the North-West Territories, and the House, I am sure, will be disappointed at the more than dry manner in which the hon. gentleman has introduced this subject, but I cannot blame him very much for that, because the Bill itself is a very dry one, and the changes made in the present law are mostly technical, with the exception of section 13, which is clothing the Legislature of the North-West Territories With powers similar to those now enjoyed by the Provinces. In fact, section 13, as amended by this Bill, is largely borrowed from section 92 of the Confederation Act, which gives the powers now enjoyed by the Provinces. I do not find fault with the Administration for enlarging, to that extent, the powers now enjoyed by the Legislature, but it seems to me that while the Government was making that concession, it would have been opportune to supplement it with another concession by giving responsible government to the Territories. The Territories are not progressing very fast, but still the population which goes there is an advanced population, well educated, and already showing great powers of self-government. There are some subjects of a nature which had better be entrusted to them than kept in this House. They are the best judges of what is best 4451 [COMMONS] 4452 for them in their present condition. It is felt that the powers which they have already received are inadequate, and I question very much whether this small measure of reform, though it may be accepted for what it is worth, will meet the condition of the people of the Territories. If the Government had seen fit to give them a responsible government, or at least a larger measure of self- government, than they have at the present time, many of the difficulties which may come before this House at some time or another, and many of the difficulties which may arise in the Territories themselves, under the present system, would in all probability be avoided. All the difficulties that have arisen between the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature—and they have had some difficulties during the last Session—arose from the fact that the Governor had not a responsible body of advisers who were answerable to the House, and this fact shows the necessity for some larger measure of responsible government. Under the circumstances, I do not venture at this moment any further criticism of this Bill than to say that, in my judgment, it falls short of what should be the proper remedy for the difficulties which may arise, not only in this House but in the Territories themselves.
Mr. DAVIN. I sympathise, to some extent, with the remarks that have fallen from the leader of the Opposition. Those remarks are not couched in a spirit of hostility to the Government or to this Act. In fact, this Act is travelling along the road that the hon. and learned gentleman wishes it to go, but he would have it go further. I think that so long as the Act remained as it was there was a very large section of the people in the North- West who were well content. I may tell the hon. gentleman that though there was some difficulty in the Assembly last year, I believe as a fact that the weight of opinion in the North-West was with the minority of that Assembly. By the 11th sub-clause of section 10, that is to say, section 13 of the Revised Statutes, which has been put in by the Senate, all the powers that call for responsibility are given, as we find by these words:
"The expenditure of such portion of any moneys appropriated by Parliament for the Territories as the Governor in Council may instruct the Lieutenant Governor to expend by and with the advice of the Legislative Assembly."
I am afraid that unless some form of responsible government is given, that money will be worse than wasted; that money will be expended— how? It will be expended by the Lieutenant Governor by and with the advice of the Legislative Assembly. Why, Sir, What will happen? You will have that money log-rolled, as we know has often happened in the history of such Governments. Suppose moneys were voted here in Committee of Supply; if you allowed those moneys to be expended by the advice of this Parliament without any Government to be responsible therefor to the people, the result would be that vast sums that are now carefully expended, would be worse than wasted. With regard to the local fund which they raise now, amounting, I think, to some $16,000 or $17,000, that sum is log- rolled. The manner in which that sum is expended is this: It is divided by 22, and the quotient given to each member, and whether he needs it or not, he naturally takes it, although sometimes he may have to fall back upon his inventive faculties for ways of expending it. Yet, of course, he does expend it. One case happened where an hon. gentleman spent the money on purposes that never could have been contemplated when it was voted; and, therefore I think, as we have gone thus far, probably it would be as well to go still further and to give them a little government. I think there are some parts of the Bill that will be found an improvement; but, when we come to the clause dealing with the appointment of deputy sheriffs, I will ask the Committee to accept an amendment. It seems to me that is indefensible; it is vicious in principle. to have the Assembly provide for the appointment of deputy sheriffs; it would be much better to have the judges provide for the necessity of the appointment of deputy sheriffs, because if you have this work devolving on the Assembly, every member of the Assembly will be troubled with requests from every little town in his district to have a deputy sheriff appointed, because every little place would think it would obtain a certain importance if it had a deputy sheriff. The subject was discussed elsewhere, if I may refer to it in passing, and all the North-West opinion was in the direction which I now express myself. I will ask the Government to consider that point, because, as I say, you will have such a large number of deputy sherrifs that the receipts will not be enough to give them bread and salt. I think, on the whole, there are very good reforms in the Bill, and the North- West will welcome it.
Mr. BLAKE. I think it impossible to attach too much importance to the point on which the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) has just enlarged. We are proposing to make a departure from the principles of responsible government, as we understand them, in a most important particular. I admit that it is difficulty to deal with the exigency otherwise than it is dealt with by this Bill, without responsible govern ment. The principle, as I understand it, is that, with respect to the expenditure of public moneys, it is the Crown that initiates, not the Assembly. The Assembly is supposed to be a check, a guard, to keep the drag on; that is the function of the popular body. I quite agree that eminent statesmen, not theorising, but dealing with actual results in late years in the mother country, have pointed out how far the English House of Commons has departed from the ancient traditions; how far it has ceased to be a bulwark and support to the Administration in matters of prudence and economy in public expenditure. But, none the less, I hold it to be the most important ingredient in securing economy, and also good direction, in public expenditure, that there shall be an initiative somewhere else than in the popular assembly, and, deeply as I differ from the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) as to his characterisation of the expenditures that have taken place in this House, or rather with the sanction of this House, I say they are, beyond all comparison, better, more prudent, and wiser than they would have been if such a system as we are proposing to give the North- West Territories had existed here. We have had a few instances, I am glad to say only a few, of attempted departure from that system. There have been perhaps three cases, three only occur to my mind at this moment, in which select committees 4453 [May 6, 1890.] 4454 have substantially, though not nominally, been allowed to deal with old claims in order, I am afraid, that the Executive might escape the responsibility, with the inevitable result that the claims were allowed; but, subject to those trifling exceptions, which only mark the rule, we have observed the rule. We are not without experience in this matter in the old Province. In the early days of the old Legislature of Canada, prior to 1840, when, as you know, we had a system which was not a system of responslble government, although there were Ministers representing the Crown, at that time, as Mr. Bourinot says:
"All applications for pecuniary assistance were addressed directly to the House of Assembly, and every Governor, especially Lord Sydenham, has given his testimony as to the injurious effect of the system. The Union Act of 1540 laced the initiation of many votes in the Crown, and this wise practice was always strictly followed up to 1867, when the new Constitution came into force."
And we know the language of the present Constitution provides expressly:
"It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended by a Message of the Governor General, in the the Session in which such vote, resolution, address, or Bill is proposed."
A similar provision is inserted in the Constitution of each Provincial Legislature. Now, as I have said, I see the difficulty in which hon. gentlemen opposite were plunged when they came to deal with this question, because they have got one or two alternatives to adopt. They have to adopt the language we find here, which says:
"The expenditure of such portion of any moneys appropriated by Parliament for the Territories, as the Governor in Council may instruct the Lieutenant Governor to expend, by and with the advice of the Leglslative Assembly."
That is to say, the advice of the Assembly is to rule. They had that course open to them. Or the course was open to them of providing that the Lieutenant Governor should send down his Message, and without that Message it should not be competent for the Legislative Assembly to deal with the question at all. There you would at once be face to face with irresponsible rule. The Legislative Assembly cannot condemn the Lieutenant Governor, or dismiss him, or alter his position in any way, his advisory council is not responsible; and you are brought face to face with a difficulty which must subsist for the want of responsible government. But, on the other hand, what are we doing by the proposed plan? We are deliberately initiating that system which was deliberately abandoned in the early history of the old Province, where it was tried with injurious results, which has been deliberately rendered impossible by the constitutional Act, as to this Assembly and as to the Provincial Legislatures, and which is decidedly opposed to the spirit of the British Constitution. The hon. gentleman from Assiniboia has told us of the method of the expenditure of the scanty funds, which up to this time the Legislative Assembly has been allowed to expend. It is not an entirely new method of expenditure, because, I happen to know, that in the Province of Nova Scotia there are certain moneys called "road moneys," the disposal of which has been placed under the control of members; but, even there, the question of deciding as to how much shall go to each county is decided according to constitutional principle, while the detailed application has been left, with very injurious results, to the local members. But the hon. gentleman tells us, that in this case the total fund to be disposed of is divided by the number of constituencies, and each member is given his equal share. Of course, it is impossible to suppose, that in a territory like the North-West, in which, with the best possible desire, you cannot have equal areas with equal wants all over, that an equal division of money all over is a just division. Why, it is beyond all possibility that such an arrangement can be just, and it is important that what scanty funds are available should be expended for such objects as may on the advice of responsible Ministers, be submitted to the Assembly and as shall by the Assembly be deemed to be for the general good. It might be that a particular district might be infinitely more benefited in reality by the whole fund being expended outside of it, in an adjoining district; its own immediate local interests might be better served by a large expenditure on a ridge or other means of public communication, than by being frittered away in the district itself. Such a system as this is one which certainly does not encourage us in the scheme of placing more funds in this present fashion under the control of the Assembly. I think, therefore, we are face to face with a very serious question when we are engaged in the work commenced in 1875, that high and noble work for any Legislative Assembly, the task of improving, as we were engaged then in the task of inaugurating, the institutions under which a large territory, to be inhabited at some future day, we hope, by millions, may grow up and prosper.
Mr. LARIVIERE. In the early part of this Session, a question closely connected with the present legislation which we are now called upon to examine was raised in this House, and it was then stated although the population of the North-West Territories was largely composed of a class of people using the French language, it was astonishing that in the North-West Council, composed of 22 members, not one had been returned who belonged to the French Canadian nationality. This was due to the fact that the electoral divisions were so arranged, that the French population could not muster a sufficient number of electors to elect one of themselves to represent their interests in that Council. I expected that the present Bill would contain such provisions, as would alter the electoral divisions so as to give the French population of the North-West Territories a chance of having representatives upon the floor of their Council. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Macdowall) made at the time a suggestion, that when amendments should be framed to the North- West Territories Act, they should contain such changes as would help the French population to be properly represented; an if my memory serves me right, the promise was given to him, that when such legislation would be brought before this House, it would contain a provision whereby the desired change would be effected, and whereby the interests of those which are to-day unrepresented in that body, would be protected. I am sorry to see, that when a suggestion was made to the Senate to that effect, it was not 4455 [COMMONS] 4456 accepted by those who had the Bill in charge; and the Bill which now comes before this House is, consequently, without such provision. Out of 22 members composing the North-West Council, as I have said, not one belonged either to the French nationality, or even to the Catholic religion, although one-fifth of the North-West is French. The population of the North-West Territories, according to the last census, was 22,000 or 27,000 inhabitants, out of which 4,800 were of French origin, and these people, as I repeat, are without representation in the North-West Assembly. Before this Bill is adopted by the House, I hope that such an amendment as will rectify this state of affairs will be incorporated. When a Constitution was given to the Province of Quebec, at Confederation, the framers were very careful to set apart a certain number of counties which were called the English counties; and by the Constitution, the Legislature of the Province of Quebec could not interfere with the limits of these counties, so that the Protestant minority of the Province would have their representatives, and would thus be protected against the majority. I say that this was well done. Although there was no danger, still it was right, I believe, that the minority should be protected against the majority. If we had this protection in the Province of Manitoba, we would not have had to regret the legislation recently adopted in that Province. I maintain that it is within our duty, as representatives of the people here, to see that the minority is protected in the North- West Territories, as it is in the Province of Manitoba by the Constitution, and as the Protestant and English minority of the Province of Quebec is also protected by the Constitution. I repeat expressing the hope that, before this Bill is put through all its stages in this House, such provision will be incorporated as shall protect the minority of the North- West Territories, as far as their right to fair representation at least, is concerned.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I agree with a great deal which has been said by my hon. friend from West Durham (Mr. Blake), but I do not think he has quite stated the law; he has not stated it, at all events, as I understand it. The difficulty with the North-West Territories is, that the Advisory Council is not responsible as a Government would be; although it is stated that the Lieutenant Governor has to consult the Advisory Council with regard to the expenditure of moneys. It is a hybrid system. It is neither a system of responsible government, such as we are accustomed to understand it, nor is it a system by which the Executive—that is, the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Territories —is responsible, and, I suppose, solely responsible to his official head. But I think the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) was wrong in this respect. As I understand the effect of the amendment now proposed, it is this: that in addition to the moneys which the people of the North-West vote themselves, and which, according to the present practice, they are supposed to have control over; they are to have control over such further sums of money, under the 11th sub-section:
"As the Governor in Council may instruct the Lieutenant Governor to expend, by and with the advice of the Legislative Assembly."
My hon. friend will see that under another clause of the North-West Territories Amending Act of 1888, these moneys so expended will have to be recommended by the Lieutenant Governor; so, in point of fact, one of the mischiefs he pointed out, that that would be an expenditure without any responsibility, is, as I conceive, the result of the present scheme; the Lieutenant Governor is not responsible, as the hon. gentleman pointed out, but no money can be expended by the Council without his recommendation. To my mind, that is a most unfortunate condition of things, and I join with the hon. gentlemen of the Opposition in thinking that, if the day has not come, it is fast approaching, when responsible government might well be given to the North-West Territories, in some degree at all events. I do not mean to say that we should give them control of the public lands, but I believe that responsible government might well be given in a very large degree to the people of the North-West Territories. A Bill of a similar nature to this is now before the British Parliament with regard to West Australia, and although the population there is 65,000 only—not so much at the population of the North-West Territories, if my memory serves me right—the Imperial Government have introduced a Bill proposing to confer on West Australia responsible government, though not giving them absolute control over the great public lands of that country. With that exception, I do not know why our North- West Territories, with 100,000 inhabitants, as, I think, they claim themselves to he, should not be entrusted with responsible government, instead of the extraordinary system which is perpetuated to some extent by this measure. Any one who reads the difficulties of the last session of the North-West Assembly will see how important it is in the interests of that country that this question should be settled, and settled promptly. We find that in the early days of the last meeting of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Haultain's Administration resigned, because the Lieutenant Governor declined to account for the expenditure which had been voted by the Assembly the preceding session. Then we find that a new Advisory Board having been selected, the Council promptly voted want of confidence in them, and the Advisory Board having refused to resign on account of that, the Legislative Assembly refused to vote money which had been recommended by the Lieutenant Governor. There is a deadlock; it is a deadlock that this measure is certainly not going to get rid of in any way; the same difficulty will arise next session; and I really think that when the Bill is before us, some more adequate provision should be made for getting rid of a difficulty which is calculated to create uneasiness and disturbance in the North- West, the result of which we must all deplore- I notice, too—though it is perhaps not intentional— that the effect of the Bill is rather to limit the authority of the Legislative Assembly of the North-West. The 9th sub-section of section 13 simply gives power to the North-West Assembly to constitute courts of civil jurisdiction; but that Assembly has up to this time had power, which it will cease to have if this Bill becomes law, to constitute courts of criminal jurisdiction as well. I do not know the reason for that change. However, these are provisions which will, perhaps, undergo discussion in committee, and I merely refer to them now, Without in any sense opposing the second reading. I regret that this Bill has not been 4457 [MAY 6, 1890.] 4458 brought down earlier in the Session. Dealing as it does with a territory of such vast extent and with such a large population, I think it is not too much to say, that it is one of the most important, if not the most important measure of the whole Session, and I think it is a pity that it has been left to be considered in the dying hours of the Session. But, when the proper time comes, I will move with regard to one or two clauses—one clause which I see in the Bill, and another which I object to not seeing there, if that is not a Hibernianism. I propose to ask the Committee to reconsider the resolution which is now to be found embodied in the 31st clause 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 Territories and in the roceediugs before the courts; and both those languages shall be used in the records and Journals of such Assembly: and all ordinances made under this Act shall be printed in both those languages: Provided however. that after the next general election of the Legislative Assembly, such Assembly may, by ordinance or otherwise, regulate its proceedings, and the manner of recordingand 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 with the law, and thereafter shall have full force and effect."
Now, I submit that this clause does not at all dispose of the question of the dual language. I notice that the hon. gentleman who represents the Government in the other House calls it a compromise. If it is a compromise, I do not know who were the parties to that compromise. I do not know why the Upper House should have felt bound or precluded by some arrangement or compromise made with regard to this question. Who were the parties to the compromise? Were the people of the North-West consulted? Had they any notice of it, or did they assent to it?


CHARLES H. MACKINTOSH. Esq., Member for the Electoral District of the City of Ottawa introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald and Mr. Robillard.


Mr. MCCARTHY. I was pointing out that it had been urged in the other branch of the Legislature that this compromise had been agreed to, and that by reason of the compromise it was not in the public interest that this agitation, as it was termed, should be prolonged or renewed. What I want to know is, who were the parties to the compromise, and why should we be bound or precluded by an arrangement when we cannot even tell who were the parties to it. It was not stated on the floor of this House that there had been any arrangement; certainly no arrangement was agreed to on the floor of the House other than that found in the vote that was cast. Then, was the arrangement made outside of the House? If so, who were the parties to it? It was stated, I see, by the hon. gentleman who represents the Government in the fairly. What I feel, and what I think most people feel on this subject, is the mischief resulting other Chamber:
"The reason is precisely the one which my hon. friend from Ottawa stated, and it is the one which actuates probably nearly every man in this Chamber who votes or the proviso, namely, that by the introduction of the proviso it is intended not to prolong or increase or renew the agitation on this subject, but, by accepting it, to seek to put an end to the agitation on this subject, because it represents something. in the nature of a compromise which has been impliedly entered into and agreed upon by the leaders of all parties in politics in this country— with the exception of this new and small party which has lately sprung lip—as a solution of the difficulty which can reasonsably be accepted."
Well, I do not understand, and on endeavoring to recall the discussion, I cannot now derive from it, although I paid pretty close attention to it, how this compromise was agreed to. I do remember, that my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) moved a resolution proposing that the whole subject should be left to the people of the North-West after the general elections; I understood that a large proportion of the House were in favor of that; I heard the right hon. gentleman who leads the House applaud the sentiment, and I think, if I am not mistaken, that he spoke in favor of it. Shortly afterwards, the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) made a proposition, he not being satisfied either with the Bill or the amendment of the hon. member for West Assiniboia. Within twenty-four hours afterwards, this other amendment was suggested, but it was not suggested as the result of a compromise or anything of the kind. Perhaps the leader of the other House knows more about it than I do; all I know of it was what took place on the floor of this House. But what I protest against, is that Parliament should be supposed to be bound by any arrangement come to on that occasion. I ventured to say then, and I repeat now, that that is not going to settle the difficulty. If this dual language discussion is calculated to arouse passions and feelings which had better not be aroused, then the proper thing for Parliament to do is to settle the question once and for all. This is no settlement of it. What does it do? It merely leaves to the Assembly of the Territories the power to say that the Journals shall be printed in the way they think fit; in other words, they shall not be printed in both languages; and further, that but one language. if they please, shall be spoken in the Assembly. have not the slightest doubt that, without any law at all, any reasonable body of men—and I take it that the members of the North-West Assembly are reasonable men—would permit one of its members to speak in any language which suited him, in which they could follow him. I do not think they require any law for that. I do not think that is the grievance which was complained of. What the people of the North- West complained of, and what they still, if I read their press aright, complain of, is that this is a perpetuation of the system of dual languages, and, therefore, calculated to do a great deal of mischief, unless put an end to at an early day. That system is still maintained in the courts. I do not object, nor need anybody object, to the printing of the laws in as many languages as the Assembly thinks necessary; it is not necessary to impose by this Act imperatively upon the Assembly that the laws shall be printed in French and English, as that is a matter which reasonable men would deal with properly and from the policy of perpetuating the dual system of language. I do not propose to renew the discussion at any length upon that subject; but ask the attention of the House to an omission which is perhaps still more serious in this Bill, and that is with reference to the question of education. By the law, as it now stands, separate schools have 4459 [COMMONS] 4460 been, since 1875, absolutely imposed upon the people of the North-West Territories. The majority constitutes its school and then the minority, whether Protestant or Catholic, has a separate school. This system differs from the system prevailing in Ontario in this way, that in Ontario we have the public schools, which are the general schools, and then we have the separate schools which are the schools of the Roman Catholic minority. But in the North-West Territories the law is the same as in the Province of Quebec, I believe; at all events, it is that the majority having formed their school, the minority, whether Protestant or Catholic, are then entitled to form theirs. So that there are in most of the districts two schools—the school of the majority, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, and that of the minority. The intention of our Constitution is to give the Local Assemblies absolute and complete control over education. That is the scheme of our Constitution. In the cases of Quebec and Ontario, special restrictions were imposed on both these Provinces; but in all the other Provinces of the Dominion there is no restriction whatever, and the question is left to be settled by the local authorities, who are the most competent to deal with it. I propose to ask the Committee, when this Bill is in committee, to place the law in the North-West Territories exactly in that position. When this law was passed, it was said there were only five hundred people in the North- West Territories. It was passed, so far as the Senate was concerned, in opposition to a very large number of Senators. I have here the debate on the subject, and I find that this clause of the Bill was only carried by a majority of two, it having been opposed on a motion made by Senator Aikins and strongly supported by the Hon. George Brown. The late Mr. Brown opposed it on the ground that it was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, as the British North America Act gave the matter of education absolutely to the Provinces, and that, as at that time, the North- West Territories were being endowed with certain powers, the power should be given to them of dealing with this question. Mr. Brown spoke, according to the official reports of the Senate, as follows:—
"He held this provision was quite contrary to the British North America Act. Nothing was more clear that each Province should have absolute control over education. He held that was the only principle on which the Union Act could be continued. If the Dominion Government interfered in local matters we would get into inextricable confusion with the Provinces. The safe way for us was to let each Province suit itself in this matter. The country was filled with people of all classes and creeds, and there would be no end to confusion if each class had to have its own peculiar school system. It had been said this clause was ut in for the protection of the Protestants against the Catholics, the latter being the most numerous. But he, speaking for the Protestants, was in a position to say that we did not want that protection. In this case, it was proposed that the national machinery should be used for the imposition and collection of taxes upon persons of peculiar denominations for the support of schools of their kind. It was an attempt to enforce upon that country peculiar views with regar to education."
Now, what was the argument against this contention? It was that the system of separate schools and public schools was prevailing in Ontario and Quebec, and that it was the subject of very great regret that there was not in New Brunswick—because at that time the New Brunswick question was up—a similar law. Well, I have learned from members coming from New Brunswick that the school system there has acted satisfactorily, and that there is no substantial grievance complained of by the minority, who do not find that, in attending the ordinary public schools, they are suffering any great wrong. We know that in the Province of Ontario, in many places, all classes of religion attend the public schools. I know of one place in my own riding where the Roman Catholics have always refused to have separate schools, although they are a very large body in that particular township. They are quite content, rather more than content, to send their children to the public schools, confident that by joining with the others they would get a much better education than by dividing the schools into two smaller bodies. The suggestions, therefore, which were made in the Senate in support of this clause of the Bill, experience has shown to be not warranted by the results. It is urged that this and kindred questions should not be dealt with until after the next elections, and I propose to move an amendment in that sense. The Legislative Assembly has unanimously petitioned that the clause to which I refer should be amended in the direction I speak of. I find upon the 29th of October, on motion of Mr. Richardson, seconded by Mr. Brett, it was resolved:
"That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency, the Governor General in Council, the Senate and the House of Commons, praying that an Act he passed to amend the North-West Territories Act by repealing subsection 1, of section 14, after the word 'education' in the second line."
In other words, simply giving the North-West Assembly power to deal with the subject of education. A special committee was thereupon appointed to draft a petition, and both these motions were carried unanimously; and I find on page 65 of the Journals of the North-West Assembly, that a petition to the same effect was presented and again unanimously adopted. However, if there is any doubt about the propriety of asking the North-West Assembly to deal with this questlon at present, I am quite willing to yield to that doubt, because a year or two cannot make any great difference. Therefore, I propose to move in Committee that after the next election they shall have power to deal with this subject of education in an unrestricted manner.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. I regret I was not able to be present during the previous part of this debate, and that I had not the advantage of hearing all the argument of the hon. member for North Simcoe. This Bill, however, does not pretend in any way to be either a consolidation of the laws respecting the North-West Territories or to make any substantial amendments, except to remove the clause dealing with education and leaving to a future Parliament the discussion of the whole system of governing the North-West. I presume that, in a very few years, the population there will be such as to call for the division of the Territories into Provinces. Then I have no doubt a constitution will be adopted similar in substance to the constitutions that prevail in the the various existing Provinces of the Dominion. The Legislature of Canada has proceeded, with reference to the organisation of the North-West, With great care and caution. It will be remembered that at 4461 [MAY 6, 1890.] 4462 first that country was governed by a Lieutenant Governor with a council appointed, I think, altogether by the Crown, and afterwards with a council composed of a certain number of Crown nominees and a certain number of elected councillors. The governor was practically without responsibility to the Legislature, and I have no doubt that was designedly so, the Governor being responsible to the central Government, and that central Government or Cabinet being responsible to the Dominion Parliament. The amended measure which was introduced, I think, by my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) made a further advance and provided that when the population amounted to a certain number
Mr. BLAKE. That was introduced by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Mackenzie).
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon for the error. That provided that, when the number of the elected members amounted to 21, the nominated council should disappear, and it should be changed from a council to an assembly, and the Governor would then sever himself—if I recollect aright—from the council of which before he was merely a member, and would assume a more distinct political existence, in fact, would assume by degrees the position of the representative of the Crown in a Province. Still, there was no responsible government provided for in so many words in that Act. In 1888, the last Act was passed, by which without the Lieutenant Governor having a responsible government as we understand it, without having advisers selected from the assembly and obliged to go back to their constituents for re-election upon being appointed advisers of the Crown, it was provided that further steps should be taken towards the assimilation of the system there to that which prevails in the Provinces, so that the Lieutenant Governor should have an advisory board taken from the Assembly, and so on. The difficulty—if difficulty it may be called—the difference of opinion in the North-West arose from the fact that the Assembly at once assumed that they had a constitution similar to a Provincial constitution. As to the danger that was alluded to by the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), or rather the practice in the olden days—I am old enough to remember them—the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada did not look after the finances at all except those which were derived from Imperial revenues, such as Customs, for instance.
Mr. BLAKE. And the post office
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Also the post office and the Indian revenue quoad the Indians. The Lieutenant Governor managed those revenues autpcratieally, but, I believe, with a praiseworthy desire to meet the views of the people, though he was not obliged to do so. As to the revenues which came within the governance of the Legislature, I am afraid there was a great deal of what the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) calls log-rolling. At all events, there were Acts passed appropriating the revenue at the instance of any member who moved a Bill—something like the system which now prevails in the American Congress. There were ludicrous instances of Bills being passed for certain purposes when there was no money in the treasury to carry out the purposes for which they were adopted. Year after year statutes were adopted enabling the Province to borrow money when there was really no power to borrow, and when, if there had been the power, they had not sufficient credit to raise the money required by the Bill. You will find a semi-indignant, but somewhat cynical account of these proceedings in the report of Lord Sydenham. This state of affairs was cured in 1863. In this case no such action can be taken except on the initiative of the Governor, who is responsible to the Parliament of Canada as a Dominion ofiicer, but he had always the power in that country to act at first on his own discretion. In 1878, there was an attempt made to provide an embryotic Ministry or Council, to allow the Lieutenant Governor to select four advisers, from those he thought, from their commercial and financial experience, were best fitted to discharge that duty. That was all that was then done in the direction of establishing responsible government. Whether the time has come, or not, when responsible government in its fullest extent should be established in those Territories, I am unable to say, but I can say this, that almost every gentleman from the North-West with whom I have communicated, either personally or by letter, on the subject, has objected very much to the premature introduction of the system which now prevails in the Province of Manitoba. They say that they are warned by the results of Provincial Government in Manitoba; that, there not being included in the population of that Province men of political experience, men acquainted with constitutional principles; they say—I am not expressing my opinion on the subject—that the experience of Manitoba, and the enormous expenditure in that Province, has warned them against having that system prematurely extended to the North-West. I shall not enter into the discussion as to the dual language or the separate schools. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has promised to express his views by resolution when we are going into Committee of the Whole I hope, therefore, that the Bill will pass the second reading, and will be set down for an early day, when we can discuss those questions. I regret that my absence from the House at the time prevented my hearing the speech of the hon. gentleman, and, therefore, no doubt, my remarks are very much short of being an answer to that speech.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I agree with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), in saying that the measure now under our consideration is one of the most important, perhaps the most important, that has been before the House this Session, and I feel in my own mind that it is quite impossible at this period of the Session to give to a measure of this importance that full and exhaustive consideration which it ought to receive from this House. The principles involved in the measure are of very great importance, and ought to receive very full consideration, and ought to be discussed from every possible standpoint by the members of this House, before any final action is taken. Now, the hon. gentleman has stated that it is not proper at the present time that responsible overnment should be introduced in the North- West Territories. Well, it does seem to me an extremely unsatisfactmy condition of things that 4463 [COMMONS] 4464 you have given to the people of that country a representative Assembly, but that you should withhold from them executive responsibility. The hon. the First Minister has referred to the Lieutenant Governor as a party who is responsible for the executive government in those Territories. Well, he is only responsible in the same way that the Governor appointed by the Imperial Ministry for this country was responsible to Downing Street before responsible government was conceded. The Lieutenant Governor of the North- West Territories is responsible to the Administration here; he is not responsible at all in the sense in which we understand the expression. It is an Administration, or an Executive, that is responsible to the representatives of the people within the Territories for the purposes for which that representative Assembly is constituted. Now, there has been a good deal of discussion in the House, not on this question but on another question that preceded it this Session, which shows that to some extent there is confusion in the minds, I think, of the members of this House, and also perhaps, in public estimation, with regard to the differences that exist between a Territorial Government and a Provincial Government. We recognise this difference in every Bill that we introduce to this House, and we have recognised it in the measure that is now before us. But whether we give to the Territorial Legislature large power, or whether we give to it little power, whatever power is conferred upon it should be exercised, it seems to me, under the control of a responsible Administration. I do not see how it is possible that you can have anything like permanency in public policy in regard to measures which may be brought before that Legislature for consideration, unless you have an Administration controlling the legislation and responsible for its due execution. You may have measures carried through the Territorial Legislature to-day, which will be repealed next Session, because there is no Administration existing which will, in any proper sense, be responsible for the conduct of public affairs. Now, I admit that in a new country people must be content with narrower powers than we have in an older country, which is more densely settled, where the population has grown more wealthy, where their wants are more varied. We recognise this difference in the growth of Provincial establishments under responsible governments. We are not content to-day with the amount of power that was possessed by the old Legislature of the Provinces after responsible government was first introduced. Our population has become more dense, their interests have become more varied, they have external as well as domestic relations, and so they require and ask for a voice in controlling their external as well as their domestic affairs. This may make a difference between the extent of power which we confer upon a Local Legislature under a territorial system, and upon a Local Legislature that is constituted under a Provincial organisation. But all these matters are matters that require very careful consideration. I was astonished at the change of sentiment indicated by the speech of the hon. member for North Simcoe here to-day, in discussing the subject of the dual language. The hon. gentleman expressed sentiments to-day with which I, in a great measure, cordially agree; they were those which I enunciated in discussing this Bill at an earlier period of the Session. The hon. gentleman has had new light, and I am glad to see that the views which he expressed today are more nearly in consonance with those entertained by the majority of this House. Now, I am sure that some of the parties outside of the House will be disappointed. Let me tell the hon, gentleman this: A Frenchman and a countryman of his, in this city, were discussing this question of the dual language yesterday, and his countryman said to his French friend: "Ah, ye may use your French lingo to-day, but wait till the Great McCarthy has done wid ye, and ye will only be able to make signs then." I am sure if the hon. gentleman's countryman had heard his speech here to-day, he would be satisfied that the Frenchman, after all, might be able to do something more than make signs after the hon. gentleman had done with him. The hon. gentleman has recognised to-day the principle that language used for public purposes, like language used for private purposes, is a matter of convenience. The hon. gentleman said that we ought not to force two languages upon a population. Well, I do not think we are doing that. I was opposed to that in the first instance, but I never supposed for one moment that if the members of the Council were Frenchmen and could not speak English, they would be debarred from speaking French. That was their privilege. When that Council was first created the Crown appointed to the Council, upon our advice, a half-breed who could not speak a word of English, and we appointed him because he was a man of immense influence over the hall-breed population and one in whom they had the utmost confidence; and I am perfectly sure that we carried on the government of that country during the remaining period of our administration, with very much smaller police force to maintain peace in that country, than if we had appointed a member to the Council in whom the people of the Territories had not the utmost confidence I observe that the hon. gentleman has by this Bill, in section 3, provided that the "territories formerly known as Rupert's Land and the North-West Territories shall be" so and so. Well, the hon. gentleman will see, from looking at any old work on the subject of Hudson's Bay, or any old map representing that territory, that Rupert's Land embraced the territory east of Hudson's Bay as well as the territories on the west, and that the designation of the North-West Territories applied rather to the territories extending eastward from the Bay, and that Rupert's Land was, on most old maps, marked as the territory laying on the east and south-east of that Bay. The hon. gentleman will remember that the territory is not embraced in any Province at the present time; it is not embraced in the Territory of Keewatin, and so there ought to be some phraseology used to show what precise territories are intended to be embraced under the provisions of this Bill. I notice there are some provisions providing for the appointment of legal experts, for the appointment of a fixed number of members of the Territories, which is, no doubt, right and proper in the first instance; but the limits of the territorial districts and the number of members to be elected, ought to be left to the people of the Territories through the Legislature which they have constituted. I would just say one thing more with regard to the general principles embodied in this Bill, and that is with 4465 [MAY 6, 1890.] 4466 reference to any appropriation that may be made by this Parliament and placed at the disposal of the Legislature of that Territory. I think that an amount of money ought to be appropriated upon some principle such as was recognised in making an appropriation out of the revenue for the use of a Province, and it ought to be as absolutely under the control of the Legislature and its responsible executive as an appropriation that is made by this Parliament under the constitution is under the control of the Legislature of the Province to which it is made. It is impossible that the government of that country can be fairly carried on with the very small appropriation that is made, nor is it at all adequate when we compare the number of the population with the number of the people in any one of the Provinces. It does seem to me, when we look at the fact that the Territories have no resources whatever except those received by direct taxation or those derived from grants made by this House, that an appropriation ought to be placed at the disposal of the Legislature of the Territories for territorial purposes, and it should be as completely under their control and as free from interference as if it were made to a Province regularly constituted.
Motion agreed to, and House resolved itself into Committee.

(In the Committee.)

On section 3,
Mr. DAWSON. Perhaps the hon. Minister will allow me to direct his attention to a technical matter; it is that, I think, the description might be somewhat improved. It at present reads:
"All that portion of the Dominion of Canada which is bounded as follows that is to say: Beginning at the point of intersection of the western boundary of the Province of Manitoba and the international boundary line dividing Canada from the United States; thence westerly along the said international boundary line to the line of the watershed dividing the waters flowing into the Pacific Ocean from those flowing into the Arctic Sea or Hudson's Bay."
The international boundary line does not touch the watershed of the Arctic Sea at all, but it crosses the watershed separating the waters flowing into Hudson's Bay from the waters running to the Pacific Ocean. The description would be better in this way:
"Dividing the waters flowing into the Pacific Ocean from those flowing into the Gulf of Mexico and Hudson's Bay."
I believe that in the Rocky Mountains the international boundary line actually touches on the sources of the Mississippi, but certainly it does not touch on any river flowing into the Arctic Ocean. It also touches the head waters of the south branch of the Saskatchewan. The hon. Mister has officers in his Department who could draw up a very good description. As it stands now, it is not a great deal better than the description drawn by the Imperial Privy Council of the boundaries between Manitoba and Ontario, where a very large portion of the United States is given to one of the Provinces. I merely throw out the suggestion.
Mr. DEWDNEY. The officers of the Department have taken much trouble in preparing this description; but if the hon. gentleman will send to me in writing any suggestion he has to officer, it will be considered.
Mr. CHARLTON. I doubt very much whether it is advisable to change the name of the country from the North-West Territories to the Western Territories of Canada. The new name is not as convenient as the old one, because there are more words in it. The country has been for many years known as the North-West Territories, and it will very likely continue to be so known despite this legislation changing its name. I question very much the propriety of making any change, and I move that we retain the old name, North-West Territories.
Mr. BLAKE. It occurred to me that it is a very awkward name that is proposed. If you do not use a name that is easily spoken, it will not be used at all. I felt some difficulty about making a change, but it occurs to me that if a change is to be made it would be a much easier mouthful to say, Western Canadian Territories.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. The name might be changed to Western Territories. Objection has been taken to the word "North" as conveying to the general public the idea of an arctic condition, that the country was not very like the American North-West, but was further north, and possessed a more severe climate, a shorter summer and a longer winter, and for these reasons it was suggested to drop the word "North."
Mr. BLAKE. It seems to me that the old name, after all, was not devoid of truth, and the change proposed will not alter the thermometer in winter or in summer in any way whatever. My impression is that any announcement made to the world at large, and particularly to the immigrating public, with the view of persuading them that they are not going to cold winters in the North-West, will not have any effect on any sensible man.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). These Territories have been designated by the present name for half a century, and are known to the geographical world by that name, which we should retain. The name merely expresses its relation to the other portions of Canada. In 1787, the territories between the Ohio, Lake Erie and Mississippi, were called the North-West Territories of the United States, and they were so-called because of the geographical position of the territory to that embraced within the thirteen States of the Union. So I think those territories may very well retain the name of North-West Territories, considering their relation to the rest of Canada. This section would require to be somewhat altered so as to describe the Territory of Keewatin, and the north and west of the Province of Manitoba; otherwise you have not a proper description.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. As to the name, I do not suppose there will be any serious quarrel about it. My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills), as did my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Dawson), suggested that the description was inaccurate. My hon. friend said that Rupert's Land was understood to be the land that lay to the south and south-east of Hudson Bay. If that is the case, the North-West Territories, which was one time held under license, would be supposed to lie to the south-west of Rupert's Land. I would suggest that the clause should be allowed to 4467 [COMMONS] 4468 stand until the Minister of the Interior has time to consider the matter.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Rupert's Land lies east of the Territory of Keewatin. The hon. gentleman does not propose to embrace all that territory under this jurisdiction. All the territories this Bill deals with lie west of the Territory of Keewatin, and, therefore, it should not refer to Rupert's Land at all.
Mr. DEWDNEY. The simplest way would be to leave out "Rupert's Land" altogether.
Mr. O'BRIEN. I think it is a great mistake to change the name. There is a sort of historical interest attached to the name of the "North- West," and when you speak of the North-West in Dakota or the Western States, the people know at once that you refer to the North-West Territories of Canada. It is a more euphonious name than the one you now propose, and in all respects a better one in my opinion.
Mr. DAVIS (Alberta). I think we should call it the South-West Territories instead of the North-West, for there are plenty of lands which remain there which you can call the North-West if you so wish.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). In that case the hon. gentleman ought to propose to exclude from this Bill all the territories lying north of the Saskatchewan, but this Bill embraces all the territories to the mouth of the Mackenzie River, and the hon. gentleman will hardly call the territories lying around the Mackenzie and Copper Mine Rivers the "South- West."
Mr. CHARLTON. The change proposed by the hon. gentleman would lead to the supposition that we had been acquiring territories in Central America.
Mr. DEWDNEY There are a number of people throughout Canada who have a very strong feeling on this matter. The name of the North- West often leads to a confusion between our country and the United States. I saw, no later than a few days ago, in our local paper here, a statement as to a snowstorm in the North-West Territory, and people looking at the item though it referred to the North-West of Canada, and congratulated themselves that the snow would do good to the fields. I have frequently had letters from the old country, sympathising with us on account of storms and cyclones, which were experienced in the Western States of the Union, but the people thought they had occurred in our North-West. That is one of the principal reasons that we proposed to change the name. I do not think the name should be struck out of the Bill without consideration, and I think it is better to allow the clause to stand for the present.
Mr. AMYOT. I did not raise an objection that this Bill was not translated into French as I did not wish to delay the House at this late period of the Session, but I should like to know from the Minister of the Interior before I vote for this, what is the translation into French of the name he has suggested. If the hon. Minister cannot answer me, perhaps the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) can.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I decline.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. Nobody knows that better than my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot).
Mr. DEWDNEY. I am sorry I cannot give the hon. gentleman the name in French.
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot) is too good a French scholar not to be able to translate that himself, but no doubt he wanted to have a little joke on my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, who is not, perhaps, so fluent in French as he is in English. I suppose the translation Would be: "Territoires Occidentaux du Canada." That will be rather a long name, but I believe it will be a good translation.
Mr. AMYOT. I am glad this has drawn some compliments to my humble self from the Minister of Public Works. I am not used to them.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. We will let the section stand.
On section 5,
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I think this section is objectionable in this, that it ought to provide for a fixed number of members until the Legislature otherwise determines. The Legislature ought to have an opportunity of altering the boundaries of constituencies, or increasing the number of members. It may be convenient, on account of settlement going on more rapidly in one division than in another, to divide it and give it two representatives. Then, I can see no object in having three legal experts.
Mr. DEWDNEY. With regard to the twenty- two electoral districts, I may state, that that number was agreed to during my term as Lieutenant Governor, and a great deal of trouble was taken in the division of the electoral districts. The members were naturally jealous for their districts, desiring to get as many members for them as possible; but after a good deal of negotiation, the number of twenty-two was agreed to as a compromise. I am not aware whether there will be any objection to giving to the Legislative Assembly power to increase their number; I think they would probably know the position of affairs better than any one else. With regard to the legal experts, during my time they were of very great service in the Council, and I believe they are still felt to be of great service, and I think it would be a pity at present to make any change with regard to them.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). If it is found necessary that parties with legal knowledge should be in the Assembly to advise, the constituencies ought to do just as is done in regard to this House—they ought to return a certain number of legal gentlemen to the Legislature, who would give them the legal advice they require.
Mr. DAVIN. I do not think there is any substantial reason for changing this clause. It is only a temporary arrangement, and at present it works very well. I may say that the members of the North-West Council pretty well fixed on the number of the constituencies before we fixed on it here. I do not think there is any sense of grievance with regard to this clause at all.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. The Bill of my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Mills, Bothwell) made 4469 [MAY 6, 1890.] 4470 provision for twenty-one elected members whenever the population arrived at a certain point; and there was frequent request from the North- West to alter the constitution to allow of twenty- one elected members. When the Council met together, they found that it would be more convenient, that it would make a better readjustment—a better gerrymander, as the hon. gentleman would call it—if there were twenty-two elected members instead of twenty-one. That was their own deliberate recommendation, and I think we ought to leave the provision as it is until they ask for an alteration; because the House must remember that the expenses of the Legislature are defrayed out of the Dominion treasury. By-and-bye, when the North-West Territories become Provinces, they will, of course, have all the powers which Provinces have.
Mr. LAURIER. There are at present nineteen territorial divisions, two of which, Edmonton and Calgary, I think, elect two members each. I think it would be wise to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills), that as the population increases in any division, the Legislature should have power to increase the number of representatives for that division. Not later than yesterday, the hon. gentleman introduced a Bill which he hoped would very much increase the population in a certain section of the country, that is to say, the section which already returns two members, Calgary and Edmonton. Under such circumstances, it seems to me that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bothwell has a good deal to commend it.
Mr. DEWDNEY. The difficulty I see about it would be this: that if one district proposed to increase its number, every other district would also insist on an increase.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Why should you undertake, once you have created a representative body, to tie it up in this way. There is none of the Provinces tied up by the Constitution in that way. The hon. gentleman is just creating a difficulty similar to the one which was raised here during this Session over the clause relating to the dual language, a clause which was wholly unnecessary to secure the use of both languages. Now, you propose by this restriction to force these people to come here and occupy the time of this House in making a change which they could, if you gave them the power, better make for themselves, as they are better judges in that matter than we can be. Suppose one of these districts in the next few years increases in population while the others scarcely increase at all, that district will require additional representation; and that is a point which the Legislative Assembly is best fitted to pronounce upon. All that it is necessary is to say that the Legislative Assembly shall be composed, until the Assembly otherwise determines, of twenty-two members. There is no danger of the Assembly wasting its resources lightly by undertaking to increase the number of representatives beyond the actual requirements. If any such a thing were attempted, the people would send other men to represent them.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. The money does not come out of the local revenues, but out of the Dominion treasury.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). These people are contributors to the Dominion treasury. You give to every Province a certain revenue per head according to the population. Are you prepared to give them the same revenue to be at their own disposal? I think we should. I think, that as soon as they increase in numbers sufficiently to be entitled to have a competent representative Assembly, they ought to have control of the revenues required to carry on the Government, and those revenues should be voted by this Legislature on some intelligible principles recognised by the British North America Act as applicable to the Provinces.
Mr. DAVIN. I have always contended that we should have a revenue granted on the same principles as those on which revenues are given to the Provinces. But the reason I do not think it necessary that this clause should be changed, is that I have heard no desire expressed on the part of the members for a change, and have seen no evidence of grievance whatever in that connection. The only thing I have noticed in connection with this clause, is that there is a kind of defiance on the part of the members of three judges who are there. I do not know why they should dislike to have them there, since they cannot vote, and only one of them speaks.
Mr. MCCARTHY. He speaks very long.
Mr. DAVIN. No; he does not. He has only spoken once or twice. The experience, patience and labor of Judge Richardson, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior well knows, are invaluable to that Assembly; and Judge McLeod is a man of considerable experience and ability; and I cannot understand why there should be, among quite a number of the members, a certain impatience at havihg these gentlemen there. So far as I can see, they do nothing but good. They do not vote, and take no part in the discussions. There is only one subject on which the learned judge ever took a prominent part, and that is the subject of the dual language clause. I do not see much necessity of changing this clause; but if, later on, when you come to the clause giving the Assembly power in great part over the revenue, you should make a change so as to give it a little executive, then, on the third reading, you could recommit this Bill, and alter, as you logically should, this clause. The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) says that three or four years hence it may be found necessary to add to the number of the Assembly. Why, Sir, before three or four years pass, we shall require to have another North-West Territories Bill in this House. We shall have a census taken; and I venture to say that we shall find a far larger number in the North-West Territories than hon. gentlemen, who always speak disparagingly of that country, give it credit for; and that being the case, something will have to be done then in order to readjust the representation. If the hon. gentleman had proposed a practical plan, I should see no insuperablc difficulty in altering this clause; but, as a matter of fact, there is no grievance. I have never heard a single complaint about the number; I have never heard any of the members declare that they ought to be able to control it; and the only murmur I have heard— in fact they have petitioned was that they objected, for some inscrutable reason, to having the three legal experts, there. At present I think 4471 [COMMONS] 4472 it is an advantage to have them there. Our experience has shown that the members of the Assembly found it convenient to make use of these gentlemen's experience and legal knowledge.
Mr. BLAKE. As long as we have not decided to alter fundamentally the system which exists, and which it is proposed by this Bill to continue, I do not see, in the absence of any complaint from the Assembly, why we should interfere with the three legal experts who do not vote. The only complaint that can be made is that which the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) suggested, that their speeches are rather long.
Mr. MCCARTHY. There is a petition against them.
Mr. BLAKE. I was not aware of that; I did not find, on looking at the petitions, that there was any complaint against them. My own impression strongly is, that if a small executive council were granted to the Territories, which, I think, ought to be granted, the experts should disappear; and my opinion is that the people of the country themselves would find it necessary to elect to the Assembly a certain limited number of gentlemen experienced in the law, so that their Assembly might not be a parliamentum indoctum, as a well-known Parliament was, from which, I believe, the lawyers were altogether excluded. They would thus obtain as much trained assistance as they thought necessary; and if they chose to do without it, nobody but themselves would be the sufferers. With reference to the number of members, I was not in a position, of course, to hear the whispers of the North-West; but I heard what were not whispers here. I heard the hon. member for Saskatchewan, at an early period of the Session, declare that complaints were made with reference to the distribution of districts in the North—West, and particularly with reference to those in the region he represents; and, if necessary, some remedy ought to be applied to that. If there be a subject with which the Territorial Assembly might be supposed to be better competent to deal than any other, it is in what way the country should be divided for local representation. How is it possible for us to form an intelligent appreciation of that subject? We have to take upon trust the statement of the Minister who studies the subject, with his knowledge of the country from the maps, and the statements of the four members from the North-West Territories. We cannot judge how things are. We cannot give an intelligent vote upon the question of the arrangement of districts. They are, in a country of that description, arrangements which require an intelligent acquaintance, not merely with the census, but with the prospects of growth and with the particular regions in which those prospects are brightest. It is an evil to change frequently, and in this country we know that, in older days, when changes were made, we recognised the view that newer sections—as, for example, the County of Bruce and the County of Renfrew—should be, as regarded population, overrepresented for a while, because we expected that an influx of population would redress the difference. That is all a matter to be best considered by the Assembly itself, and, therefore, I think that the readjustment of the electoral districts might be well left to the Assembly. The only question is whether we should give them the power to increase the number of districts, and the only difficulty in regard to that is what the First Minister has suggested, that they may unduly increase the number of districts because it is a popular thing to do, because there are many who in small districts might thus obtain positions of prominence, and possibly of emolument, which they otherwise could not. If we think it necessary so far to hamper and restrain the action of the Assembly, that difficulty might be remedied by providing a maximum number which would cover all demands for increased representation for the next few years. We might say the number should be thirty. We might give the new Assembly, elected after the people have had that question before them, the power to readjust the districts, while not giving them the power to increase the number of districts beyond a certain maximum.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The advantage of not confining the number of the Assembly to twenty- two is that, if you have a large increase in population you have it met by a division of the districts, but, if you fix the number at twenty-two, it may entail a readjustment of the entire territory.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am entirely in favor of the view expressed by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills). It seems to me that we are treating the people of the North-West as if they were unfitted for responsible institutions. Most of these people come from the older Provinces, and they are generally well trained in regard to political institutions. From the short visit which I paid to the North—West, it appeared to me that they were particularly well fitted in that respect, though the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) seems to think that they do not occupy the same plane as members of this House.
Mr. DAVIN. No.
Mr. McCARTHY. That seemed to be the tone of the hon. gentleman's remarks. We ought not always to be tinkering with this question of the North-West. We cannot here be competent to reassign and readjust the boundaries of the districts in the North-West. If the Legislative Assembly there are to have the power to readjust the boundaries, we should give them the power to increase the districts when, in their judgment, it is necessary. It may be said that these 22 men have not the ability to do anything until after the next election. That, at all events, is the theory which has been already adopted by this Parliament. At all events, they might be given the power to do it after the next election. I dare say that, if you take many of the districts since the Act was passed two years ago, you will find the changes in population so great that the present representation is not a fair one. I press upon the Committee that a change should be made in the direction suggested by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills).
Mr. DAVIN. I wish to repudiate in the strongest manner the language of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). He said that I put the representatives in the Assembly on a lower plane than the members composing this Parliament. On the contrary, I have again and again asserted in this House that we have a representation in that Assembly which would do credit to any Assembly in the world. I congratulate the North-West on 4473 [MAY 6, 1890.] 4474 the sudden accession of popularity which it has obtained, because in 1887, 1888 and 1889, when I brought forward the question and moved for a representative government there, I found there was very little interest taken in the subject either by hon. gentlemen on the Reform side, or by hon. gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) must remember that he should not taunt me, who have been a veteran in the service of the North-West, because he is now animated by the warm zeal of a convert. I am glad to welcome him as a convert, but confessedly it is a recent interest on his part, confessedly it is a new love, and it has all the warmth and perhaps some of the imprudence of a new attachment. So he must not taunt me, who have been fighting the battles of this people, and have contended in this House for responsible government for them. If you give them representative government now, I want to be logical, and I think that clause should be changed. I think now, when you are going to give them control over the funds, you should do what the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) contends, namely, strike an average as to the population— you can easily find out what the population is, you can go far below what the actual population is, and still give us far more than we get now; you can give us an adequate income, loose our hands and set us free; give us our majority and let us do the best we can for our country; give us our executive, and then we can go back to this clause and change it, if necessary. But the reason why I desire not to change the clause now is that, after the census which is close at hand, is taken, you cannot deny us responsible government. My hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy) says he has been in that country, and he must know that the people of the North-West are, in intelligence, above the population of any other part of Canada. I mean that there is a greater average intelligence amongst them than there is amongst the people in any other part of the country. In fact we have had an immigration d'élite.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Dual language.
Mr. DAVIN. I do not feel anxious about this clause, but I congratulate the North-West, and I may say, I congratulate myself, on the deep interest which is shown in the North-West this year, because, when I came first in 1887 and in subsequent years to advocate their cause, my words fell on languid ears; but each year this House has taken more interest in the North-West, and I think nothing could be of more happy omen than this fact.
Mr. BLAKE. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davin) seems to think that until he came here no one took any interest in the North-West, but the fact is that the North-West owes whatever it possesses of responsible government to the wisdom and prescience of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Mackenzie), who, in 1875, proposed a measure which contained the germ of all the representative institutions the North-West has to-day. The hon. gentleman may learn, what he evidently does not know, that for many ears gentlemen on this side of the House pressed upon the Government, by speech and by vote, the necessity of extending the representative principle here to the North-West of responsible government: and I am sure that, whatever doubts and fears we may have had before, we may now congratulate ourselves upon the inestimable blessings conferred upon the whole of Canada, upon the North-West, and upon ourselves, in having introduced my hon. friend to this House. He says in the North-West there has been an immigration d'élite, and we here have the élite of the élite, and we may judge what is left there by the sample which they send us. But the hon. gentleman is quite right. So far as the emigration from Ontario is concerned, and I presume it is the same from the other Provinces, there can be no doubt that by a process of natural selection they have got amongst the best and most energetic men that were to be found among us; and I have no doubt whatever that that immigration, taken on the whole, is of a very superior character just as, upon the same principles, the upper Province was originally settled. I am old enough to remember the character of those settlers, at least of some of them, living at an extreme old age, and I can bear testimony that a great many of the earlier settlers who came to this country at a period when it was very different from what it is to-day, when there was no assisted emigration, no steamships, no cleared lands, when bears and Indians were supposed to be the attractions of that country, were men of the first rank. Those circumstances indicate of themselves that the early settlers were men of superior force of character, men, I am afraid, we must confess with humility, better, upon the average, than many of their sons and grandsons are. So, in degree, though not to the same extent, is the character of the immigration to the North-West; and we must not, of course, keep such people as that in leading strings; we must deal with them as men of capacity, as men of will, as men of resolution and ability; and we must trust them with their own fortunes, confident that if they make mistakes, as it is they who will suffer the consequences, so they will be able to repair their errors. Such is the general principle upon which we ought to deal with them, and in that view I am disposed—not forgets ting that we have certain responsibilities towards them and towards Canada until such period as we give them full Provincial rights—I am disposed largely to listen with great respect and attention and deference to the decided and clearly expressed voice of the Territories themselves as to what is for their advantage.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Perhaps an apology is due by me to the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) for the insinuation I ventured to make, but really, if I misunderstood him, he is himself to blame. In the observations he made on the second reading of the Bill, he rather intimated that the representatives in the North-West Assembly were in the habit of disposing of public moneys by lot, by some system of log-rolling, to use his own expression, dividing it amongst them and expending the money in some way, being even driven to imagine how they could expend it. Well, I should have not imagined that was the way in which the North-West Legislative Assembly were in the habit of discharging their duties. But if that was a true and correct statement, as no doubt it was according to the hon. gentleman's light, he does not represent them to be a very high class of legislators. That is what I referred to; therefore, I think the hon. gentleman should see that I was 4475 [COMMONS] 4476 not altogether to blame for the statement I made. Now, Sir, as to the new zeal that I am displaying in regard to the North-West. In admitting it is new, I hope it will be permanent, and I hope it will not be imprudent either, as the hon. gentleman seems to imagine. But I was astonished at the proposition that the people of the North-West were not able to govern themselves; perhaps I had judged the North-West too much by the Ă©lite of the Ă©lite they had sent to this House, and not enough by what was left behind. When I visited the North-West, from what I saw of the people up there, I am satisfied that this House would be making a very great mistake indeed if they do not realise that they are quite competent to manage their own affairs, and that we ought to give them the power to do it, instead of keeping them in leading strings, and dealing out authority piece by piece, as if they were children.
Mr. DAVIN. My hon. friend refers to the remarks I made on the second reading. Now, Sir, permit me to explain that what I meant by logrolling is a thing that any Assembly, that this Assembly, the hon. gentlemen around me, might fall into it.
Some hon. MEMBERS. No, no.
Mr. DAVIN. I do not condemn them for doing so; but let me point out my meaning by facts. What did one gentleman do?—and he is not the least intelligent member of that Assembly, not the least energetic, not the man with the least ambition. When he got his quotient of the sum divided by twenty-two, he had such difficulty in knowing how to spend that money that he took a legal opinion as to whether he could not spend it on sidewalks for his own town, and he spent it on sidewalks. Another gentleman, a member of that Assembly, told me frankly that as the roads and bridges had all been made in his district, he did not know what to do with the money. As the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) pointed out, when you have money administered by an Assembly like that, you will have it expended in one quarter where it is not needed, whereas the money of another man will be expended in another quarter where it is direly needed. As the hon. member pointed out, it would sometime be the proper way to govern the country, and best for the whole of it, that the great portion of the sum should be expended in one district. Suppose in one district there is absolute need of a first class bridge, the road of which would serve not merely that district, but half a dozen districts; is it not clear that the half a dozen districts would be better served if all the money that is given to the most of them, or the greater portion of that money, were to be spent in the one district where the work that related to the whole of them belongs? Now, I was not ignorant of the fact that the hon. member for West Durham and his colleagues have taken in the past an interest in the North-West. I have listened, from that gallery, to some of his very brief speeches on that subject; I have listened to that compressed and caustic eloquence of which he is master, when dealing with the North-West, and, of course, I have been proportionately struck. But I have noticed this in the speakers on the Opposition side of the House—although the hon. gentleman from North York (Mr. Mackenzie) did inaugurate a certain policy that is even now bearing fruit—I have noticed that there was not the same evidence of insight as to the needs of the North-West, and as to those things that are necessary to give to the North-West progress, that I have seen on the side of the House to which I belong, since the right hon. gentleman and his friends came into power. I do not forget those long and interminable speeches of the hon. member for West Durham, I do not forget all the eloquence that has been lavished upon the North-West; but, Sir, I say this, "nevertheless and notwithstanding," to use a locution of which the hon. gentleman is fond, that when I came forward in 1887 and proposed a motion to give the North- West responsible government, the Opposition benches were dumb—I got no support from them whatever. I got no support from the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). At that time he was not enlightened, at that time his eyes were not open, at that time he was in the gall of bitterness, in respect to true views regarding our great western country; but now his eyes are open, and he thoroughly understands the wants of the North-West. I am very glad of it; I do not care whether he assists me or I assist him; I do not care who does the work provided the work is done. For there is much work to be done for the North-West. I am sure that I am expressing the belief of every hon. gentleman who listens to me when I say that there is, to-day, more interest in this House in the North-West than there was in 1887. I do not say it is due to the humble voice—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. DAVIN. I do not say it is due to what my hon. friend from West Durham called the élite of the élite, or the creme de la créme—I do not suppose that, Sir, as the hon. member for West Durham seems to think. And let me congratulate the hon. member for West Durham, and congratulate the North- West, on the genial manner in which he has dealt with this question to-day. The North-West, that vast country, with its great capacities, its inspiring possibilities, has acted on his imagination and on his heart, and I never heard him speak more genially; because, Sir, I sometimes think that that hon. gentleman, so superior, so learned, is not merely the créme de la créme, but he is the cream of tartar as well.
Mr. WATSON. We are all gratified to listen to the hon. gentleman. He says the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) is cream of tartar; probably it is because he makes a fizz when united with another mixture. The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) is a kind of mixture, and it is very difficult for the House to understand what he wants and what were the requirements of the North-West from the hon. gentleman's speeches. He delivers himself on every occasion on any matter connected with the North-West that comes up for discussion. Only a short time ago, he told us that he had in 1887 and 1888, advocated a full measure of responsible government for the North- West, but that, after going home and visiting his constituents, he found out he had made a mistake, and he found only one man in his constituency in favor of such a step.
Mr. DAVIN. That is so.
Mr. WATSON. Still the hon. gentleman calls for responsible government for the North-West, 4477 [MAY 6, 1890.] 4478 when, on his own admission, the people do not want it. I would not have said anything on this question except for a reflection passed on the Province of Manitoba. The First Minister stated that nearly all the representations he had received from the North-West were to the effect that the people would be in a very much worse position than they occupied to-day if they were governed by the sort of Government they had in Manitoba. I consider that a reflection on the Government of that Province, whoever may be the right hon. gentleman's informants, whether members of this House or persons outside the House; and as a resident of Manitoba, and I know I am speaking the opinion of the great majority of that Province, I say the people are thankful we have a responsible Local Legislature there, and the right hon. gentleman no doubt would much prefer to have a Council similar to that in the North-West, and one subject to his dictation. But we have a Legislature which has protested against the unjust acts of the right hon. gentleman, and we are now reaping the benefits of responsible government. I do not think we should consider the individual acts of any member of the North-West Council to-day, as has been done by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin). It is sufficient for us to know that the Council is Composed of an able body of men, as has been admitted by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), and I am satisfied although I do not know the individual members of that body, that the representations of the North-West Council should have more weight in this House than the views of an individual member from the North-West; and if the North-West Council recommend to this House the granting of responsible government to that country, it is in the interest of this House to consider the advisability of granting it, and if they object to having legal advisers appointed, who must have certain weight in the Assembly, the gentlemen composing that Council are men who are quite competent to elect men who are able to fulfil the positions of the legal advisers. I have no doubt that if the North-West Council and the people, through their representatives in this House, were listened to by this Parliament, and if it would act on their advice, we would do very nearly what is right for the North-West. They are more interested in its welfare than are people 2,000 miles away. We should endeavor, as nearly as possible, to carry out the wishes of the North- West Council, and I repeat, if they wish to have the legal experts abolished, this should be done. In the North-West, as in Manitoba, we must have minorities, and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LaRivière) represents a class that think they must have all the rights and privileges which the majority possess in the Province and in the Legislature. We must expect these things to occur, but the rights of the majority under the British North America Act must prevail, and those constituting the minority must submit to such legislation as is carried by the majority.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. The hon. gentleman says that no doubt I would prefer to have Manitoba governed as the North-West Territories are governed, because it would bring the Province more under the power of the Government. The hon. gentleman must have forgotten that the Government of which I was a member gave the constitution to the Province of Manitoba. The hon. gentleman might, if he had looked back at Hansard of that day, have found that when I proposed there should be two representatives from that Province in this House, the proposal was opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, on the ground that the population of the Province did not authorise the returning of such a number, and I was laughed at when I said that I wanted more than one to come, as one would be lonely coming such a long distance. It is quite true, what the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) has said, that the credit of giving representative institutions to that Province is to a certain extent due to the Government of which the hon. member for East York (Mr. Mackenzie) was the head. But the hon. gentleman must not deprive me of my four lambs from the North-West, the four representatives from the North-West, and the fact that representation was given to the North-West Territories by the Government of which I was a member. But, speaking in regard to this measure now under consideration, the discussion has gone on as if we were settling a new constitution for the North-West, as if we were applying ourselves to the remodelling of that whole system. If that were so, it would require more consideration than can possibly be given to the subject at this period of the Session, and it must be remembered that this Bill was introduced for the purpose of making such amendments as were wanted for the present, and not for the purpose of arranging a new constitution for the North-Test, as when we were settling the Quebec resolutions giving a constitution to the Dominion of Canada. It is impossible that we can endeavor in the discussion of this Bill, which is a practical one, to discuss it with any such view. In order to do justice to the measure, we would be kept here for weeks and weeks. And, therefore, the Government must either ask the House to take such provisions as are unobjectionable and adopt them for the nonce, for this Session, or we must ask the House to support the majority, or we must withdraw the Bill. We cannot set to work and settle now a new constitution for the North- West.
Mr. BLAKE. The right hon. gentleman is quite correct in the two statements of fact he has made. It is quite true that the right hon. gentleman gave to Manitoba its present popular Constitution; it is also true that the right hon. gentleman gave the North-West Territories their representation in the House of Commons, and obtained his four lambs, as he called them, but I prefer to call them sheep, and I will not say of what color. Revenons Ă  nos moutons. I should like to tell the reason why the right hon. gentleman gave popular institutions to Manitoba, and gave representation in this House to the North-West Territories. That supervened which generally does supervene before a Tory reform. There was a rebellion first. The right hon. gentleman gave the people of Manitoba a paternal Constitution; he sent up there a Lieutenant Governor, who never got into the country; and an alien Council, which could not get in either. The people rose in rebellion against him; and then he came down here and gave them, forsooth, provincial rights. And he now claims credit for having given that which they obtained at the point of the bayonet. So much for Manitoba. 4479 [COMMONS] 4480 Then as to the Territories. Year after year we in this House, sitting on this side of the House, inveighed against the absence of representation from the Territories. We pointed out their distance, their remoteness, the murmurs of complaint which came from that country, and we said it was absolutely essential there should be a safety-valve, at all events, for them, and guidance for ourselves. We did not indeed know then how extensive, or expansive, or expensive,that safety-valve would be; but we called for a safety-valve for them, for light and information for ourselves. We asked for it, we called for it, we pressed for it, we moved for it. Deaf ears were presented to us on those benches. Another rebellion came, and the year after his second rebellion the hon. gentleman gave representation to the North-West Territories.
Mr. MULOCK. I understand the member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) to say, that there have been petitions presented from the North- West Territories asking for some changes in the system of Government. I think it is material that the Committee should know what were the views submitted to the Government by the representatives of the North-West Territories.
Mr. MCCARTHY. The papers were brought down, and are now before the House.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Are they printed?
Mr. MCCARTHY. They are printed in the proceedings of the North-West Assembly.
Mr. BLAKE. Are they printed in both languages?
Mr. MCCARTHY. I am afraid not. The Bill of the Minister of the Interior of last Session, which was submitted to the Legislative Assembly, was criticised by them, and they say that section 10 of the Bill should be amended, so as to dispense with the sitting of legal experts in the Assembly.
Mr. MULOCK. How does the Minister propose to get over that? I presume it is the expression of opinion of the people of the North- West Territories. I am glad to have the question introduced by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). I can congratulate him on his increasing light, for I think it is only a year ago since he professed to be a Tory of the Tories.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I am still.
Mr. MULOCK. At any rate, the hon. gentleman is repudiating some of the old Tory principles. I think we ought give effect to this expression of opinion of the people of the North-West.
Progress reported.


Mr. FOSTER presented a Message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the Message, as follows:—
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons, Supplementary Estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion, for the year ending 30th June 1891: and, in accordance with the provisions of "The British North America Act 1867," he recommends these Estimates to the House of Commons.
OTTAWA, 6th May, 1890.
Mr. FOSTER moved that the Message of His Excellency and the Estimates be referred to Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to.


Bill (No. 151) respecting Railways—(Sir John A. Macdonald.)
It being six o'clock, the Speaker left the Chair.

After Recess.


House again resolved itself into Committee of Ways and Means.

(In the Committee.)

Mr. FOSTER. I have moved the House into Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of moving an amendment to item 5 in the Tariff Bill, which now reads as follows:—
"Animals, living, viz.: cattle, sheep and hogs, 30 per cent. ad valorem."
I desire to take out the word "hogs," and to make another item, as follows:—
"Live hogs, 2 cents per lb."
The object of this is to equalise the duty on the live hog with the duty of 3 cents or 1 1/2 cents per lb. on the dead product of the hog, so as to prevent the live animal being imported and made up into meat here in competition with our own live hogs, at a lesser rate of duty than that imposed on the dead meat.
Mr. MITCHELL. I presume that the hon. Minister makes this change with the view of carrying out the National Policy, and encouraging the Canadian farmer. Now, as there is a certain class of hog that is not raised in this country, I mean the hog that makes the clear and mess pork, does he not think that it would be more in accord with the course decided upon when the duty was reduced from 6 cents to 3 cents per lb. on clear and mess pork, if we were to make a distinction between the hogs that make mess pork and the hogs that make prime and prime mess?
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I imagine 2 cents per pound live weight would be an enormous increase in the heavy duty which the hon. gentleman originally proposed. The average value of a hog could hardly exceed $6 or $8, so that this would be a duty of at least 50 or 60 per cent. It appears to me that this is practically a prohibitory duty, and a mischievous duty in every sense, inasmuch as it will probably lead to a suspension of trade, and expose our people to retaliation. Now, as far as the Province of Ontario is concerned, the practical result of this tax would be that, as we imported two live swine, our farmers would receive a protection to the extent of $4.
Mr. FOSTER. Then we would not get a large increase of duty in that case.
Mr. MITCHELL. No; but you would inflict serious charges on the lumbermen.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. You may possibly interfere materially with trade in other quarters. Of all that the hon. gentleman has said[...]


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



Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Isabelle Carré-Hudson.

Personnes participantes: