House of Commons, 14 August 1891, Canadian Confederation with Alberta and Saskatchewan

3901 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3902


Mr. DEWDNEY moved second reading of Bill (No. 126) to amend the Acts respecting the North- West Territories.
Mr. DAVIN. This Bill, as far as it goes, is a good Bill, and will meet certain desires of the people of the North-West Territories, but at the same time it leaves a good deal undone that many of us in the North-West would like to see done. When we go into Committee I intend to move the addition of a clause to the following effect:—
Section 7 of the amending Act is hereby repealed and the followmg substituted therefor:—
The persons qualified to vote at an election for the Legislative Assembly shall be the male British subiects by birth or naturalization (other than unenfranchised Indians and members of the North-West Mounted Police) who have full attained the age of 21 years, and so on.
It will be very important to have that clause inserted, which will prevent the members of the North-West Mounted Police voting for candidates for the Assembly. Take the constituency of North Regina, and at the last voting, Jelly had 227 votes and Brown had 135 votes, and there were 80 police votes polled for Jelly, so that Jelly won the election by a very small majority of the civil vote. If Brown had had a few more votes, the police vote would have decided the election, and I think that is very undesirable and creates a great deal of ill-feeling that the constituency should be watered by a vote that is not permanent, because the members of the force are moved from one place to another, have no special interest in the place, and have no reason for devoting their attention to the matters which might affect legislation in that Assembly. I need hardly say that I do not approve of that standpoint in politics which looks to the United States as having everything superior to ourselves, as if we had not as great natural advantages as they have, and as if we could not hope to build up as great a nation as they have built up: but at the same time there is no reason why we should not learn something from what has been done in the United States, and I should have been glad if this Bill had contained some things which it does not contain. However, 3903 [COMMONS] 3904 this Bill goes a great deal further in the direction of giving the Territorial Assembly the mastery of North-West affairs than any previous Bill. For instance, under this Bill the Assembly will have power to deal with its own elections, and there is a clause that gives the Assembly the power of deciding other important matters. I consider that the principle we should go upon is to give that Assembly, as far as we can, the power of dealing with all things which the British North America Act places within provincial control, always excepting the power of borrowing money which the people do not desire. I think that a great deal more might with propriety and with great advantage to the North-West be placed in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor and the Assembly. For instance, I have been pressing on the attention of the Government and of the Hon. Mr. Carling the propriety of placing funds at the disposal of the North-West Government to enable them to deal with immigration. There is no reason why a sum should not be given to the North-West Assembly to enable them to supplement the action of the Dominion Government in bringing immigrants into the North-West. The Dominion Government very properly takes control of the immigration for the whole of this country, but in addition to that the different provinces put forth exertions of their own. British Columbia can put forth exertions of its own, so can Manitoba, so can Ontario, and so can all the provinces, because they get a lump sum paid to them by the Dominion which is based on certain calculations. Probably we may have the census returns in our hands be fore we get through with this Bill, and I believe that, if you take the population of the North-West Territories and the fact that we have no public debt whatever and take all the circumstances into account, you will find that we are entitled to a far larger sum than we receive at present from the Dominion treasury. Therefore, there is nothing unreasonable in asking that a sum shall be placed at our disposal to enable us to put forth our energies for the encouragement of immigration. A few days ago, I was speaking with a gentleman who had been up in the territories looking at the development of the country in the interests of his friends in the old world. He said he was told in Winnipeg, that the country near Regina was barren. Now, no matter whether you go to Alberta or to Assiniboia or the Saskatchewan, you will find the country is rich in farming lands, and Mr. Duncan McIntyre and Mr. Angus, who have visited the delta of the Nile, found the same character of deposit in the Regina basin as they found there. Yet this gentleman was told that there was nothing but barrenness around Regina. We, therefore, ask that there should be at the disposal of the Assembly power of action and amounts to enable them to have immigration agents, some from the Saskatchewan, some from Assiniboia and some from Alberta, so that they may go either to Dakota, or to England, Ireland or Scotland, or to German or Scandinavia, and to supplement the work of the general Dominion agents in pointing out the advantages of the different North-West Territories. Now, I will call the attention of the House to what is done, and has been done in the states, when making territories. When Minnesota was organized into a territory on 3rd March, 1849, it had a population, according to the census of 1850, of only 6,077, con sisting in the main of French Métis in the employment of the American Fur Company. When Dakota Territory was organized, which took place on 2nd March, 1861, the population amounted to 4,837. Montana, which was lifted to the position of a territory on 20th May, l864, had only a population of 20,595 in 1870. Wyoming. which was organized on 25th July, 1808, had only a population of 9,000 odd in 1870. Now, if you look at the progress they have made you will find it set forth by the following figures:—
1880. 1890.
Montana ............... .. . 39,159 132,139
Wyoming ......... . .. .. . 20,789 60,705
Minnesota ................ 780,773 1,301,826
North Dakota ........... . . . 36, 909 182,719
South Dakota ..... . ....... 98,268 328,808
We know now, as a fact, that the attractions of the North-West of Canada are greater than the attractions of those places. If you take the North- West of Canada you will find that, compared with any of those territories, some of which have since become states, in farming land, in forest, in mines, in rivers, our North-West, in most all those points, are richer than the states I have mentioned. Now, I will call the attention of the Government to what has been done for a territory in the United States. It is given a governor, judges and executive officers appointed, and salaries paid by the Federal Government at Washington—that we do: a legislature chosen by the people—that we do; federal appropriations for legislative expenses for a session of 60 days, public buildings, and military and territorial roads—that we practically do: lands for schools and universities, one-eighteenth of the area of the territory—we have lands for schools, but no land has been set apart as yet for a university. Last year I was a member of a body that met together, persons who were supposed to have some fitness for speaking on educational subjects, and we passed a resolution which I think was sent. to the Minister of the Interior; we passed a munber of resolutions which, I fancy, the secretary of the school board, Mr. James Brown, sent to the Government, in favour of having land at once set apart for a university in the territories. I will say that that cannot too soon be done. Now, that is what we do not do, and I say it is a thing that should be done. The United States make land grants to the territory for 1,800 miles of railway, to be organized and controlled by the Legislature. And what is the advantage of that? At the present moment, in the State of Minnesota, at 3 per cent; on the gross earnings, those railways, organized by means of such help as that, now return an income of $600,000 per anmun to the treasury of the state.
Mr. TISDALE. Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that in the organization of a territory they specially set apart lands, of which the Assembly of the territory have control, for railway purposes?
Mr. DAVIN. I do.
Mr. TISDALE. In what territory have they given it? If it is so, I am informed otherwise. I merely want the hon. gentleman to name the territory.
Mr. DAVIN. I will name the territory—Minnesota.
Mr. TISDALE. When it was a territory?
3905 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3906
Mr. DAVIN. Yes.
Mr. TISDALE. And in the others, Wyoming and Montana?
Mr. DAVIN. When Minnesota was a territory it got 1,800 miles of railway, and after it had been a State for some time it got a large amount of its swamp lands.
Mr. TISDALE. Was not that part of the Northern Pacific, a transcontinental railway? I understood that the only roads built through Minnesota while it was a territory were a part of the United States system of railways.
Mr. DAVIN. My hon. friend says he understands that; but all I can tell him is that his understanding is not as sound on that matter as it usually is on other subjects, because he will find, if he looks into the history of Minnesota, which he will find in the Library—
Mr. TISDALE. What was the railway that received this aid?
Mr. DAVIN. I state, with the responsibility that belongs to my position here, that that was done, and that they are taking $600,000 a year at this moment, at 3 per cent., from the railways they themselves subsidized. Then there was a representation by delegates in Congress that bettered that. When we got representation we also got a vote. Now, there were subsequent grants, as I have said, to Minnesota that put it in possession of a third of the lands of the State. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that as we are giving the North- West a new start it would be well for the Government to consider whether they should not treat the territories of the North-West just as you treat a young man when you are setting him up in the world, giving him something on which to trade for himself. At present, what we do is to vote certain sums for specific purposes, and we may get, I assume, the power to deal with this; but what we should do is to give them some capital on which they can go on for themselves; we should give them some of the lands in the Territories that they may deal with themselves, and give them a subsidy to be expended on immigration, and on other purposes that may strike them as necessary for the country, give them a sum in addition to what you now give them. I do not want to give up voting specific votes, but to give them a sum in addition to that which will enable them, to use a colloquial expression, to go on their own hook in some matters, which will call forth the enterprise of their statesmanship. I think if these suggestions are adopted it will be found that immigration will increase, the population will go ahead at a greater ratio than it has in the past, and the territories will be more prosperous. I may say that the Bill is one that I think will satisfy the people of the North-West, qualified by the criticisms I have made.
Mr. O'BRIEN. This Bill which proposes to confer upon the North- West Territories very important rights and very extensive powers, leaves untouched one subject which is, perhaps, if not of the greatest importance, of very great importance, especially in view of what we may hope to see realized, a great extension of population, of wealth, of industry and of enterprise, in those territories—that subject is the subject of education. Now, I find that the 9th clause of the Act which is now being amended, is not referred to at all in this amending Act. that clause it is enacted that:
"The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall pass all ordinary ordinances in respect to education, but it shall therein always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories, or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor; and, also, that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof."
Judging from the wording of the Act and from there being no reference to this clause one might reasonably assume that it was intended that the power of dealing with the subject should be left in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I understand, however, that it is contended that by the interpretation clause this power, herein apparently given only to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, is also vested in the Assembly, to which new and extensive powers are given. I think, even if that is the case, it would have been better if the Act had been so worded that there should be no doubt as to that point, but that when we are giving this body the power to deal with property and civil rights and a variety of other subjects referred to in the Act, this subject of education, if it were to be dealt with by it, should be specially mentioned. However, that is not the subject to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. This clause which I have read establishes in the North-West Territories, whether the people desire to have it or not, the system of separate schools. The question that I wish to bring before the House to-day is, whether this legislation we are about to pass, giving these territories practically provincial powers, should contain an enactment, which, whether the people like it or not, will compel them to establish separate schools. I use the word "compel" advisedly, because, although the term is permissive, yet we know perfectly well from experience in other provinces that although the word "may" is used it is virtually as imperative as if the word "shall" was used, and therefore I am justified in saying that the intention of the clause is that there shall be in these Territories separate schools, and there is no option given to this, I will not say newly constituted body, but this body to which these extensive powers are given, to say whether they will or will not have them. In consequence of this restriction of the legislative power of this Assembly we shall have again within a very few years the same controversy and agitation which have recently occurred in Manitoba, and, we shall have in the North-West Territories, if I am not much mistaken in the temper of the people living there, and who may be living therewithin a few years, a determined effort made to get rid of this restriction and to assert the right to say whether or not they will have separate schools; and they may go perhaps further than the people of Manitoba have gone, and although in the present case there will not be the doubt as to their power, as in the case in Manitoba, yet certainly we shall have the attempt made to assert a right to which, under all the circumstances, they are entitled, namely, that they shall, at all events, have flower to say whether or not separate schools may be established. I do not propose to enter into the question whether 3907 [COMMONS] 3908 separate schools are advisable, whether experiences in the various provinces, especially in Ontario, where in regard to this matter we have had the largest experience, and where it has been productive of the most important results, would lead us to decide the question as to whether it was advisable or not that separate schools should exist in any of the provinces of the Dominion. We know very well what the result has been. We know very well that in several provinces an agitation in opposition to these schools has taken place and has generally been successful. We know perfectly well that if Ontario had the power today to say whether separate schools should be abolished or not there would be a very strong expression on the part of the majority that separate schools should be abolished. I do not speak of the subject as having myself any dislike to religious education. On the contrary, as far as my personal feelings and convictions are concerned, I would very much prefer a system of education which would be essentially a religious system. Unfortunately, under the existing circumstances of the country, no province has been able to devise a plan by which such system could be established; and we find the only result of the adoption of that principle is, that one particular denomination has established schools, by means of which it has sought in various ways to extend its influence politically or otherwise, and has never been content to stand in the position in which it was placed by the British North America Act, but in the various provinces it has extended its power until in Ontario there is a very general determination, which to some extent has been carried out, that that body shall be compelled to revert to the position in which it is placed in the British North America Act. I shall simply content myself on the present occasion with contending that as regards this question of restriction imposed by section 9 of the present Act it should be removed, and the Assembly should be given power and control over education, and no restriction should be imposed by this legislation as to whether separate schools shall be established in the North-West Territories or not. I do not propose to enter into the question as to whether it is advisable to have a separate school system, but I confine myself to the contention that this Assembly should have power to deal with the question. I go further, and say that as this Act makes no special reference to education, and as before very long there will be another opportunity of dealing with this question, and taking up the whole subject of education, which is virtually not taken up by this Act, and as no particular harm can result from postponing the question for a short time, I will not at the present time go further than to say that I trust the Government will take the subject into its serious consideration, and will decide, in view of all the circumstances of the case, considering the views of all the provinces, considering what the future of the country is likely to be, before next session whether or not in conferring these great owers, which they have conferred on this Assembly by this Bill, they will not go further, and give them perfect and absolute control over education. It maybe said there are no petitions from the North-West Territories asking for this. I think we have had some evidence that there is a strong feeling on the subject, but even were there not one member from the North-West  to rise in this House and endorse the view for which I am contending, it must be remembered that we are not legislating for the comparatively small handful of people in the North-West Territories, but we are legislating for the large number we hope to see there within a very few years, and I think we may fairly assume that the Bill giving these sive powers is intended, although there is no limit stated as to the period of its duration, to remain in force for a very considerable period of time. With the powers that are given to the North-West Territories under this Act there will be no reason for giving more extensive powers or for creating separate provinces for, very probably, a good many years to come. And, Sir, what will be the position of those who may then be prepared to contend, as I contend now, that this subject should be dealt with by the Provincial Assembly? Why, Sir, we shall have the cry that has been raised so often in reference to this question, as well as to kindred questions in the Dominion of Canada: we shall have the cry that those who were in favour of separate schools have had them established by law, that they have been existing for so many years, that a vested right has been created in them, and that this right ought not to be set aside. The difficulty placed upon those who feel as I do on this question will be very greatly increased if we allow this period of time to elapse without removing the restriction imposed by the 9th section of the Act to which I refer. I say that for this reason this restriction ought to be removed before this system becomes finally established in the North-West Territories I think the proposition is a reasonable one; I think it is a proposition which the Government ought to accede to, and it is a preposition which I hope they will accede to. I hope that now when they are establishing this principle, giving these extensive powers to this Assembly, they will give them the power of saying whether or not there shall be separate schools in the territories, if they are to have the subject of education in their hands at all. I repeat again that this is a reasonable proposition; it is a proposition which the Government ought to accede to, and it is a proposition which I hope they will accede to. However, under existing circumstances, I do not wish at this period of the session to raise a debate which probably would create a good deal of angry feeling, and which undoubtedly would produce a discussion which, considering the many pressing matters now before the House, and in the present condition of the Administration, it is desirable to avoid if possible. And I venture to say, in speaking on this subject, that I am giving expression, not only to my own opinion, but to the opinion of many other members of this House who hold the same opinion as I do in regard to this matter. Under these circumstances, I do not ropose, while the present Act is under consideration, to offer an amendment myself to the Act as it now stands; but I tell the Government—and I say it with all seriousness and all determination—that unless they either deal with the subject now, which is the proper time to deal with it, when they have the Act efore them, or unless they will, during the recess, consider the question, and before the next session bring forard an amendment to the Act in the direction I think it should be amended, then I can tell them that they have not heard the last of this question, and that at a time which shall be 3909 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3910 more convenient for raising this discussion it will be raised in this House, and they will be compelled to meet it, and to let the country understand distinctly whether or not they are prepared to remove this restriction. I think, Sir, there is nothing else I need say on this question now. I think I am making a reasonable request; I am making a request which I am very certain will be supported by a majority—I will not say only of those whom I represent—but a great majority of those who are represented in this House—at any rate, by the members from the Province of Ontario. I think that a similar expression of opinion would be given also by the electors in many other portions of the Dominion. The subject, of course, is one that is comparatively new, for all our dealings with the North-West Territories have been so far tentative, and experimental rather than absolute. We are now, however, going a step further. We are now giving to this Assembly powers which it has not hitherto possessed: and there is one thing which may be taken for granted, that with the acquisition of the new powers given under this Act the people of these territories will enquire why they should be restricted in this great and important particular. It is because I think such is the case, and because I do not wish on a future occasion, when this subject comes again before the House for further legislation, that those who think as I do on this system of education should be met with the objection that so many years ago this system was established by law and that, therefore, a vested right is created which the Legislature should not now interfere with. Why, Sir, it would be almost fair to argue that this would come within the provisions of the British North America Act. If not in reality it would by analogy, because the British North America Act secured to the provinces which came into Confederation whatever rights were enjoyed by the supporters of separate schools at the time of Confederation, and if we create new provinces out of these territories it may fairly be argued that the analogy of the British North America Act will apply, and that in creating new provinces and bringing them into Confederation there will be something like the same rights guaranteed to the supporters of separate schools which were guaranteed to the provinces having separate schools before coming in under the British North America Act. Sir, under all these circumstances, I think I am taking a reasonable course in calling the attention of the Government to this matter, and in telling them that unless they are prepared either to remove this restriction now when the Bill is before the House, or unless before next session they will make up their minds to remove it, the subject will again be brought up, and brought up with perhaps not, as I may say, the studied moderation with which I have brought it forward on this occasion. I can tell the Government that the whole subject of separate schools will come up, and possibly a demand will be made in this House and supported by public opinion in this country which will go a great deal further than the moderate proposal I now submit. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill. I am not going, as I said, to bring forward myself a resolution on this subject when the Bill is in Committee; but I hope the Government will take the course I suggested, and if they do not take it, then they must be pre pared at the next favourable opportunity, having had full time to consider this question, to state whether or not they will meet the proposal, which I think is a moderate and reasonable one.
Mr. MACDOWALL. Mr. Speaker, as one of the representatives of the territories I may say that I believe the people of the North-West Territories will be willing to accept this as a temporary measure. It can be nothing else than a temporary measure, because it is the hope, not only of the people of the territories, but I believe of the people of all Canada, that the condition of that country may alter and improve so materially that by the end of the next three years another form of legislature will have to be granted, or perhaps some legislative divisions will have to be made in the Territories. Just now Parliament has been devoting its attention to the question of immigration, and should the measures taken by the Dominion Government prove of use, and should a large number of immigrants come into the country, it is considered by the people living there that the population will have increased to such an extent that it may be advisable to divide the territories, and to perhaps carve out one or two provinces. I think, as the territories exist just now, it would be a mistake to alter the conditions affecting the schools. I, for one, am pledged to the maintenance of separate schools at present, and when my hon. friend the member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) warns the Government that if they do not next year bring in a Bill to place the question of schools, and the prohibition of separate schools, if necessary, in the hands of the Legislative Assembly, I may warn him that as one of the representatives of the territories I am pledged during this Parliament to oppose such a measure. I believe that the people of the North-West are very liberal in their opinions. The Protestants who live there have their own schools, and they do not in the least object to the Roman Catholics educating their children in the manner in which their conscience dictates. I believe at the same time that there is a very strong hope amongst the people of the North-West Territories that the children of Canada may know that there can be nothing very detrimental to religion in learning reading, and writing, and arithmetic, and other teachings such as that, in the common schools of the country. But they recognize that, as long as there is a strong prejudice on the part of a large section of the people throughout the country, arising simply from a good motive, it must be respected. During the last session of Parliament, when my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) introduced in this House a measure affecting the schools of the North-West, he stated that the different representatives of the territories did not represent the feeling of the people there. Well, Sir, we have had a general election since then. In my district there is not only a large number of Roman Catholics, but also a large number of North of Ireland Orangemen; there are Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and adherents of almost every denomination; and at every single meeting I attended, whether in a Roman Catholic settlement or an Orange one, when I was asked to state what course I would pursue in regard to this school question I boldly replied that I would pursue such a course as would be favourable to maintaining the separate schools and respecting the religious 3911 [COMMONS] 3912 opinions of the different sections of the people. There is really no hardship at all to the Protestants of the North-West in the separate schools as they are at present constitued, because the present Act, which I presume will be continued after this Bill passes, provides that Protestants shall be taxed for the maintenance of Protestant schools, and that Roman Catholics shall be taxed for the maintenance of Roman Catholic schools. No Protestant is taxed for the maintenance of Roman Catholic schools unless he chooses, and at the same time no Roman Catholic is taxed for the maintenance of Protestant schools unless he chooses to be taxed in that way. I do not think there is any great danger from a system of that kind; and if the hon. gentlemen who espouse so warmly the interests of the North-West would turn their attention to the material welfare of that country they will find that the people of the territories are able to take care of their own spiritual interests. Now, the hon. gentleman, in referring to this question, says he is not sure whether the British North America Act controls the question of schools in the North- West Territories or not. I can hardly believe that it does, for there is a provision at present on the Statute-book providing for the maintenance of separate schools in the territories. It, therefore, appears to be plain that this House regulates these matters; and I would warn the hon. gentleman, before he brings a measure before this House for the purpose of abolishing separate schools in the territories, to consider the constitution of this House. The hon. gentleman says I have misunderstood him—that he did not intend to abolish separate schools, but merely wished to give the people the right to say whether they would have separate schools or not. I may say that I am opposed to that while the constitution of the territories exists in its present form. When those territories are divided into provinces, then they may be given control of their schools; but while they continue to be territories it is better to leave the school question as it is. When they are divided into provinces there will be a sufficient population of the different denominations to guarantee that no one denomination shall be treated unfairly. But I believe, further, that when that happens the provinces must be given control of their own lands, and be given proper subsidies to ensure the efficient government of those provinces. I know that the hon. member for Bothwell will immediately say: Here are those North- West political highwaymen after our pockets again. But, Sir, it would be useless to establish Provincial Governments in the North-West unless we gave them the means of carrying out their purposes. I consider that the time is not ripe for establishing Provincial Governments in the North-West until you give them good and solid means to enable them to redeem their responsibilities. At the same time, I believe that this House has shown its responsibility in regard to that country. It has chartered railways throughout the North-West in every direction. This is practically the Provincial Government of the North-West as well as the Dominion Government; and when we who represent the North-West appeal to the Government, and the Government appeal to this House for subsidies to assist our railways, I think hon. gentlemen forget that whereas they who belong to the older provinces have power to obtain assistance from the Provin cial Governments, we in the North-West Territories have no such power: and, therefore, if we were to ask the Government, and the Government were to ask this House to grant double subsidies to railways in the North-West Territories, they would act on a sound basis; because they would grant one-half in their capacity as the Provincial Government and the other half in their capacity as the Federal Government. Now, Sir, there was one other question referred to by my hon. friend from West Assiniboia; that is the question of immigration. I do not think I need say very much on this question to impress upon this House still more strongly than it has hitherto been done that the question of immigration is one of the most material questions in the North- West. The hon. member of Assiniboia suggested that a sum of money should be provided by this Act to be given to the Government of the North-West to be expended on immigration. I think myself that that would be a very wise thing indeed, and I hope that when the Supplementary Estimates come down we shall find a sum in them for that object. But there is one defect in this Act which I hope will be remedied. The population of the North- West act was passed, and the electoral districts for the last Provincial Legislature were drawn out. Now, by this Bill you are cutting off the three legal experts of the Council, and I would ask the Minister not to increase the number of Assembly, but to provide for three new elected representatives to take the place of those three legal experts, one of those representatives to come from the district of Saskatchewan, and the other two I think my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Davis) is fairly entitled to claim, according to the population of his district. If this is done it will give the greatest satisfaction to the people of the North- West. I think the Bill will then be satisfactory to them as a temporary measure, because it can only be a temporary measure, if the North-West continues to grow as we hope it will.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. I do not intend to find fault with the Bill; but I would ask the Minister if subsection (f) of sub-section 2 of section 6 gives  power to the Assembly to establish the ballot in local elections?
Mr. DEWDNEY. Sub-section (f) gives power to    the Legislative Assembly to give the ballot. That is the intention.
Mr. LARIVIERE. I was rather astonished at the remarks that fell from the lips of the hon. member of Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) on this particular occasion. We have heard a good deal before on this question of education as well as that of the dual language, and in most of these instances the objections came from representatives of the Province of Ontario, who, being unable to impose their own ideas in their own province, are trying to impose those very ideas outside of the Province of Ontario itself. The question of education is one of those which have been well guarded in the constitution; and I may say that, upon reading the British North America Act one cannot fail to notice that the spirit, as well as the letter of the constitution, is in favour of separate schools. Clause 93 is as follows:—
"In and for each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions:—
3913 [AUGUST 14, 1391.] 3914
"First, nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege wrth respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the Union: Second, all the powers, privileges and duties at the Union bylaw conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools and school trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects of Quebec: Third, where in any province a system of separate or dissentieut schools exists by law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the province, an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any act or decrsion of any provincial authority affecting any right or privileg of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education.'"
Therefore, when a system of separate schools existed prior to the Union, or was thereafter established, it was provided that that system could not subsequently be altered: and I say that this being the case, the spirit of our constitution is in favour of the system of separate schools. In the case of the North-West Territorics, before we enacted legislation to govern those territories there were schools in existence, and those were separate schools: and when this Parliament, in giving a constitution to those territories, enacted that the schools to be thereafter established would be separate schools, we have only continued the system that was already in existence, and a system already under the pmteetion of the constitution. The British North America Act provided that what existed in the provinces that were then united should be extended also to the provinces afterwards taken into the Union and to-day form part of Confederation, and that provision applies also to the territories we have acquired since. Therefore, I may say. that in leaving what is well alone the Government is only carrying out the spirit of the constitution, as I have already explained. With regard to the feeling of the people in the Territories. I may say that the feeling out there is just as has been represented by the worthy representative of Saskatchewan (Mr. Macdowall). Last year a large number of petitions were addressed to this Parliament, asking that the same system which was in existence should be maintained, and protesting against any change such as was then contemplated by some hon. members of this House. This year, I may say, I have a certain number of similar petitions in my desk, which I did not deem advisable to present to this House, because I did not think that this question would he brought up for our consideration. I am glad, however, that the hon. member for Muskoka has only put in his remarks as a protest, and does not intend to raise otherwise this question during the present session. and I hope we will never hear any more of those very nasty questions, and that of education, which should not have been raised on this occasion.
Mr. McNEILL. I desire just to say a few words with reference to this matter. I would not have said anything at all had it not been for the remarks which have fallen from my hon. friend opposite; but I think it is well that I should at once remove what seems to he a complete misapprehension from the mind of my hon. friend. He says that some persons in Ontario, unable to carry their own views as to education into effect there, desire to impose those views upon people in other portions of this Dominion. Now, that is an entire misconception of what has fallen from the hon. member for Muskoka. Nothing more entirely opposed to the remarks which I, at least. had the pleasure of hearing from him, could well be imagined than that statement. What my hon. friend said was this— if I could state the exact logical opposite of what has been cited by the hon. gentleman opposite— not that he desires to impose the wishes of people outside the North-West Territories upon the people of the North-West Territories in reference to this matter, but that, on the contrary, he desires to take care that the wishes of no one outside the North-West Territories shall he imposed upon the people there with reference to this matter. He wishes to have safeguards taken lest at some time the wishes of other people should be imposed upon them. He wishes to take care now that we do not do something which will prevent the people of the North-West having the power to carry out their own views in reference to this matter: and surely it is scarcely fair to my hon. friend to represent that he has any desire to force the wishes of other people on the people of the North-West Territories. When my hon. friend understands what the hon. member for Muskoka really means I hope he will have the kindness to get up in his place and withdraw the observations he has made, which, I am sure, were not meant in unkindness, but, which really were not doing justice at all to what has fallen from my hon. friend. For my part, I should like to see the people of Canada if it were possible, educated in one school. I should like personally to see the young people brought up in the closest possible friendship with one another. I think that would be for the benefit of the people of Canada, but I quite recognize the fact that other people differ from me in that respect. I quite recognize the fact that they may be right and that I may be wrong, and all my hon. friend says and all I say in regard to this is that we should take care that those in Canada who think as we think in regard to this matter should have the opportunity of carrying out their wishes, and that those who think differently should have the opportunity of carrying out their wishes. We simply hope that we shall not now do anything which will prevent the people of the North-West Territories in the future from dealing with this matter in any manner they please. If they wish separate schools, let them have them; and if they do not wish separate schools, do not force them upon them. That is all my hon. friend says, and if that is not a fair and reasonable propositionl do not see where a fair and reasonable proposition can be found.
Mr. LARIVIERE. When I made my remarks I had in my mind the last fight that took place in Ontario, and from what I read in the newspapers and the speeches that took place I formed the opinion on which I made my remarks. As to leaving this to the Local Legislature the experience we have had in Manitoba is so sad that we cannot agree to leave our interests to a set of demagogues, who try to impose their own views on other people, without any regard to the interests or the welfare of the minority.
Mr. SPEAKER. I hope the hon. gentleman will not make a speech, as he has already spoken. He will have an opportunity to speak in Committee.
Mr. AMYOT. I am very glad to see that we will not have a repetition this year of the animated discussions on this subject which took place before, but I do not think the occasion should pass 3915 [COMMONS] 3916 without my stating my views in regard to this matter. I humbly submit that this is a very important question, that it has a great deal to do with some rights which we should not infringe upon, that it touches the constitution itself, and the consent of the parties to that constitution. When the question came up to incorporate Manitoba and the North-West in the Dominion some great troubles arose. Troops were sent there, and then, on the invitation of the Ottawa Govermnent, delegates were sent here. The Government of England took great care that the incorporation of that province in the Dominion would not be effected without the consent of the parties interested. The delegates came to Ottawa with a Bill of Rights. I hope that the hon. gentlemen who place themselves under the flag of equal rights will not desire to see any rights infringed, and they will see that the North- West would not have joined the Dominion if the claim made by the North-West generally, and not only by Manitoba, had not been accepted. Those delegates who were specially appointed, in conformity with the invitation of the Government of this country, came to Ottawa and presented their Bill of Rights. The seventh clause of that Bill of Rights says:
"That the separate schools be preserved and the money for those schools be divided between the different religious denominations and their respective populations, according to the system followed in the Province of Quebec."
Section 16 says:
"That the French and English languages be common in the Legislature and in the courts, and that all the public documents as well as the Acts of the Legislature be published in both languages."
And in a report elaborately prepared by His Grace Mgr. Tache, dated the 27th December, all the facts that occurred then are related, and it says at page 7:
"The question of separate schools as asked for in Article 7 of said Bill of Rights was taken under consideration. The delegates were assured that not only would they have the benefit of the clauses of the British North America Act, but that they might assure their people that in the Red River district the separate schools were guaranteed to them, and the usage of the French language as an official language was also granted as it had been asked in Article 16 of said Bill of Rights. Moreover, it was promised that we would receive what was asked in Articles 17 and 18."
I did not mention that Article 18 states that a judge of the Supreme Court will speak both French and English. The bishop goes on to say that these claims were all granted as a matter of course. If the granting of the same was not in terms identical with the demand which was made, at all events it was substantially granted in order to satisfy the interests of the different parties. That was one of the bases of the convention, and the Dominion of Canada has been allowed by England to acquire those territories on the special condition that the French language and the separate schools should be maintained. That is a contract. It is the basis of a constitution, and if we begin now to change that constitution we may shake the tree of Confederation in such a way that perhaps it may not live long; we may prevent it from having large branches which would shelter a large, a healthy and a happy population. The hon. gentlemen who look for equal rights must not at the same time try to take away from others the rights which are guaranteed by charters. I may be told that this is not a British charter. That is true. As far as Manitoba is concerned, the charter is British. As far as the North-West is concerned, it is a Dominion charter; but it results from the stipulations which were made when Manitoba was allowed to join the Confederation, that the same basis would be adopted by the Dominion for the North-West Territories, and we cannot now take away the rights and privileges which were granted to the minority in any of those two provinces without abusing our powers and without acting unfairly and unjustly towards those minorities. If there was something against the common good when a man worships his God according to the Catholic religion, if there was something against the public good when a man speaks French, then I would say: all right, you act for the common good; but where is the man of common sense who will say in this House of Parliament of Canada that it is wrong to worship God according to the Catholic religion? Where is the man who will say it is wrong to speak French? Do we not in our language teach our children to respect the property of their neighbour? Do we not teach them to be loyal to the Queen? Do we not teach our children all those rules of morals necessary for the welfare and safety of a people? If, then, in the Catholic religion, and in the French language, there is nothing against public good, you must respect the conditions concerning them, which were established when those parts of the Dominion joined the Confederation of Canada. I maintain that in our Confederation, under our system of Government, we must follow the constitution as it has been agreed upon; and if we go astray from it we lay down principles and make precedents which will bring us into a state of division and trouble, and which might demolish the whole work of Confederation. Those who look for unity instead of union do not understand the system under which we live. There is a great and essential distinction to be drawn between the two things. The essence of a Government by a King or an Emperor, as in England or France, is unity? The essence of a Confederation is not unity, it is union, and there is a wide distinction to be made between the two. On this point, I will quote from a high authority, "Lectures introductory to the study of the Law of the Constitution," by Dicey. I draw to this work the attention of the hon. member for Muskoka, whom I know to be animated with honest and honourable motives, who is sincere in his convictions, who acts in what he believes to be the real interests of the country. I ask him to look at that authority and to follow my quotation, and to learn how to respect the sentiments of those who have not the honour of speaking his language or of professing his religion. We respect his rights; we want equal rights for all—equal rights for the Protestant and for the Catholic religion, for the English and for the French language. Those rights cannot be infringed upon without troubling the harmony and the welfare of our commonwealth. On page 129 of his work Dicey says:
"A second condition absolutely essential to the founding of a federal system is the existence of a very peculiar state of sentiment among the inhabitants, of the countries which it is proposed to unite. They must desire union, and must not desire unity. If there be no desire to unite, there is clearly no basis for federalism: the wild scheme entertained, it is said, under the commonwealth of forming a union between the English Republic and the United Provinces was one of those dreams which may haunt the 3917 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3918 imagination ofpoliticians. but it can never be transformed into facts."
At page 130 he says:
"The sentiment, therefore, which creates a federal state is the prevalence. throughout the citizens of more or less allied countries, of two feelings which are to a certain extent, inconsistent—the desire for national unity and the determination to maintain the independence of each man's separate state."
At page 132 he says:
"From the notion that national unity can be reconciled with state independence by a division of powers under a common constitution. between the nation on the one hand and the individual states on the other, flow the three leading characteristics of federalism—the supremacy of the constitution—the distribution among bodies, with limited and co-ordinate authority, of the different powers of government—the authority of the courts to act as interpreters of the constitution."
Now, Mr. Speaker, under our system we have that constitution which must be our sole guide; we must not depart from it in any way. A part of that constitution has been granted by the Queen, and the other part has been granted by this Parliament, in virtue of the powers given to us by the Queen. The constitution as it stands is the consequence of the act and the direct will of the people at large. It follows that that constitution must be stronger than the courts, stronger than Parliament, stronger than any power in this world. We have consented to enter into Confederation under certain stipulations, and they must remain our rule. Of course, some human power will have to interpret some acts of the Legislatures to find out whether they are conformable to the constitution, but the constitution itself must always remain as our guiding star. What does the hon. gentleman, with a good motive, doubtless, ask us to do? He asks us to change that constitution. I say that he cannot receive the consent of those who look seriously to the future of this country. The generous spirit of all the parts of the Constitution, either Imperial or Federal, is that the two languages shall remain in the right of the different populations, of the different people composing the federation: secondly, that separate schools shall remain intact. Separate Schools are allowed under law to remain separate in the Province of Quebec, and if any member of this House, or any one out of the House came into the Province of Quebec and asked us to do away with separate schools, to keep only the schools of the majority, you would find the whole Catholic population of the Province of Quebec rising as one man and saying, No. The Protestants are entitled to their Protestant schools; they entered Confederation with that stipulation, and they will keep them. I was happy when I saw in the neighbouring province, the great and prosperous Province of Ontario—when I saw there a Prime Minister, to whatever party he may belong, rising up from his seat and, in the name of a great party, saying: "I will defend the separate schools because they are established by the constitution, and I must observe the constitution." I deprecate the Acts of Martin of Manitoba, to whatever party he may belong, when he got a law passed to change the constitution, which he had not the right to do, concerning the separate schools and the French language in that province. I will not for my part consent to be a part to any law entrenching upon vested rights. The people professing the Catholic religion in the North-West are in a minority to-day: who can tell us that in 100 years, or 200 years, they will not be the majority? Then if the majority becomes Catliolic, and if that majority is asked to establish separate schools and to do away with the Protestant schools, following the rules of the Catholic Church, the majority, then being Catholic, will say, "No; vested rights must remain vested rights, and nobody must infringe upon them." That is, Mr. Speaker, the general understanding, and we must not infringe upon it; that is my way of looking at the constitution of the country, it must be our guide and our only guide. It is the only way of forming a grand people in union under the British flag, of making everybody happy, feeling that his rights are respected, that the future of his children is assured, and that his religion, as well as his language, are not exposed to be taken away from future generations for whom he is responsible. Now, the same authority which I quoted a moment ago, gives general rules as to that constitution. He says, page 144:
"Under the federal system it is otherwise. The legal supremacy of the constitution is essential to the existence of the state."
The words are clear. He speaks thus of the United States:
"The glory of the founders of the United States is to have advised or adopted arrangements under which the constitution became in reality as well as name the supreme law of theland. This end they attained by adherence to a very obvious principle and by the invention of appropriate machinery for carrying this principle into effect. The principle is clearly expressed in the constitution of the United States. 'The constitution' runs article 6, 'and the laws of United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws in any state to the contrary notwithstanding.'"
The same authority, speaking of our British North America Act of 1867, page 153, says:
"Throughout the Dominion, therefore, the constitution is in the strictest sense the immutable law of the land. Under this law, again. you have as you would expect, the distribution of powers among bodies of co-ordinate authority."
Where is the consent, I will not say of the majority, but of the minority of the North-West, who joined the Dominion under a special compact, to do away with separate schools or abolish the French language in any part of the public or official proceedings either of courts or of Parliaments. If you do any man in the North-West the injustice of taking away from him vested rights in that respect, if you do him the injustice of not allowing him to speak in Parliament or read the Acts of Parliament, or the decisions of the court in his own language, you do not act with justice but with tyranny; you use force towards the minority in order to take away the rights belonging to them, and which the majority had given to that minority. You trespass on private rights, you deprive a body of people of their vested rights without their consent, and I do not believe it will be noble, fair and even excusable on the part of this enlightened Parliament to do any such action, when we boast of the great education and the great liberty which every one enjoys under the British flag. In the name of the constitution, in the name of vested rights, in the name of equal rights, because equal rights do not consist in taking away rights from others, in the name of the future of this country, of the peace, harmony and welfare of every part of this Dominion, I implore this Parliament not to infringe on vested rights and 3919 [COMMONS] 3920 to maintain for the North-West as for any other part of the Dominion, all rights granted to the people by the constitution, which has received the sanction of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. member for Bellechase (Mr. Amyot) seems to confuse a portion of the constitution with the constitution itself. That portion of the British North America Act referred to provided for a condition of things that was in existence in two provinces of the Dominion when Confederation was accomplished, and that is the reason those rights were given to those provinces by that Act. Among the exclusive rights given to a province, as stated in clause 93 of the British North America Act, was:
"In and for each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions."
These provisions were made to apply to a condition of things prevailing only in two provinces of the Dominion when Confederation was about to take place. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot) forgets that there are some provinces that have not the right to separate schools today, but which came in under the constitution, the same as the North-West Territories or Manitoba did; and it must be remembered that these provisions were applicable to a condition of things that existed in Ontario and Quebec alone, and they were framed to meet that condition, and not to apply to other provinces or territories that might come in hereafter. The member for Bellechasse says we have a right to maintain that provision. I believe we have the right to do so. We went into Confederation on the understanding that the British North America Act should be our future constitution. and there is no violation, when we are giving a constitution to the North-West Territories, in granting the new province the right contemplated to be given to all provinces, to deal exclusively with the subject of education. In New Brunswick the people have that right, in Nova Scotia they have it, but in Ontario and Quebec they have not that right, because separate schools were established anterior to Confederation, and they must be retained in accordance with the constitution. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LaRiviere) says those provisions have the sanction of law to-day in the North- West. The hon. gentleman refers to a section in the old Act. I should like to ask, when was that passed? It was not passed at the time we acquired the North-West Territories but was inserted in a provisional Act in order to give quasi-legislative power to the Lieutenant Governor in the North-West. If there is any force in the arguments of the hon. members for Bellechasse and Provencher, they must show that by law or usage the educational system of the country, anterior to the time we acquired Manitoba and the North-West, separate schools existed, and, if such were established, there might be some force in the contention that the people had the right to retain the power they enjoyed and exercised. But I do not understand that the clause of the Act that the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) read is part and parcel of the constitution, but simply a clause of the North-West Territories Act. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LaRivière) said that the people of Ontario should not force their opinion into legislation for the North-West Territories. He forgets that he is adopting that course himself, because he does not belong to the North-West Territories, but to the Province of Manitoba. But it is not a matter of jurisdiction limited to members from those Territories, when we are framing a constitution for that western country, but the right to take part belongs to every member of this Parliament. We are making that constitution. and it ought to be in harmony with the provision of the British North America Act, if I rightly interpret it, which is that every province that enters into this Union shall have certain exclusive rights as laid down in the British North America Act, and one of these rights is, that in and for each province the Legislature may make laws in relation to education. It goes on and says "subject to the following provisions:" but, as I before stated, the provisions were only made to provide for a condition of things that existed in two provinces, not all the provinces, and therefore we may fairly leave that part out of consideration. I must confess that I agree very largely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien). If it is possible for us in giving a constitution to the Territories to give it such exclusive rights that they may deal with education, as every other province in the Dominion has the right to deal with education, then I think it is fair and just that we should do so. Nor do I think we should be hammered in the discharge of our duty, notwithstanding the clause of the British North America Act which has been already cited, and a clause which was made long after we bought the North-West Territories.
Mr. LARIVIERE. I would ask my hon. friend to look at sub-section 3 of section 93. My hon. friend has only read up to sub-section 2, but he will find that sub-section 3 applies to the province where a system "will be thereafter established."
Mr. SPROULE. Sub-section 3 reads:
"Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the province, an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any act or decision of any provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education."
This provides fer where the legislation has provided for separate schools, or where separate schools existed when the province was brought into Confederation. I do not understand there was any law to provide for separate schools in the North-West Territories when they came into Confederation, and therefore I say that this cannot fairly apply.
Mr. LARIVIERE. My hon. friend knows that the British North America Act applies to all the provinces.
Mr. SPROULE. It certainly does, but I say that the sub-section which the hon. gentleman has asked me to read:
"Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law at the Union—"
I claim it did not exist thereby law at the Union.
Mr. LARIVIERE It says "or thereafter shall be established."
Mr. SPROULE. This is an Act that was passed long after the Union, and it did not exist by law at the time of the Union, and therchre I say that it cannot be fairly applied to this particular case. In view of the trouble we have seen in the Province of Manitoba lately in regard to this question, and 3921 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3922 in view of the troubles that have taken place in other provinces, I think we should be very careful in dealing with this subject here. If there is any one principle more than another by which we should be governed it is that principle that we have acknowledged, the principle which we have in every province in the Union, save and except the provisions that were made for conditions that existed by law anterior to the Union. I say it is right to give to the provinces the power to deal exclusively with education, as was contemplated by the British North America Act, if I correctly interpret it. I do not know whether at the time that this Act was written this provision for educational powers was overlooked, or that it was intended to allow the law to remain, but I think it would he better to give a free constitution to the territories, as they are about to organize a Legislative Assembly, and to give them the same rights and powers that are exercised in every other province of the Union to-day.
Mr. AMYOT. Without the right of changing anything as to education and language. We have been kept as a protection here.
Mr. SPROULE. I have not spoken about language at all. I have spoken with regard to the subject of education, and according to my interpretation of the British North America Act it allows every province to have exclusive right over that.  
Mr. DAVIS (Alberta). Mr. Speaker, before this Bill receives its second reading I wish to say a very few words upon it. I am satisfied that this Bill meets with general approbation in the North- West Territories, and I shall raise no discussion with regard to the stand that my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) takes in reference to it; but I will say this: That this question of education is one on which there is very little said in the North-West Territories, and had it been included in this Bill I, for one, would have stood up for separate schools. You may say that ever since the North-West has been the North-West and in fact when it was originally settled, the first schools that were established there were Catholic schools, and I cannot myself see why we should take any rights away from these people which they had. I believe in fair-play the world over. Even if the Roman Catholics are now in a minority, there is no reason why the majority should dictate to them, and say: You shall not have what was granted to you when you first came into Confederation, as we might say. I There will be time enough when we are divided into provinces, which will be, I hope, at no distant date, to discuss this question. Then, if we are to have a new constitution it will be good and seasonable time to discuss this question, but at the present time I say: Let it alone. Now, with regard to the provisions of section 2 of the Bill now before the House. That section provides that there shall I be twenty-two members in the Legislative Assembly, but when the Bill comes up in the Committee I shall move that the number be increased to twenty- five members. We have had taken from us three of the legal experts, two of whom came from the district of Alberta, and I shall give my reasons for saying that we should have two additional members in that district. When in 1888 the proportion of the members was granted it was taken from the number of names that were on the voters' lists at that time. Alberta was entitled to six members at that time, Assiniboia to eleven, and Saskatchewan to five. As we cannot yet get the proper estimate by the last census, it is only fair that. we should take the same proportion now as was taken three years ago—that is, by number of names on the voters' list. If the division was fair, then it is fair now. I find that in Alberta there were 6,492 on the voters' list, and that divided by six would give 1,082 voters which each member in the district. of Alberta represented. In Assiniboia, cast and west, there were 7,255 names, which, for eleven members, would give each a representation of 659 voters, as against 1,082 for Alberta. Now, I am only asking for two members, which will leave me still to the good, with each member representing 816 voters in Alberta as against 659 in Assiniboia. I think I have a just claim in asking for these two additional members, and if there were a redistribution according to the number of names on the voters' list at the present time I think Alberta would be entitled to four members instead of two. I may say that I have heard no complaints from any portion of Alberta with regard to the clauses of this Bill. They have not even found fault with the representation, as they thought I would look after that myself. I have my schedule drawn out in reference to the representation, and I will produce it before the Committee when it comes to the question of redistribution provided we are allowed the two extra members. I do not propose to detain the House any longer at this stage, but when the Bill comes up in committee I shall have something to say upon it.
Mr. DAVIES. (P.E.I.) Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just one. remark in reference to this question. I regret that the hon. gentleman should have debated at such length, and with, as I thought, unnecessary warmth, the subject of the introduction into the North-West of any provision with respect to education. My hon. friend to my left spoke about this subject as if an attempt were being made to interfere directly or indirectly with the rights which are secured by compact to the Province of Quebec, the Province of Ontario and the Province of Manitoba. I do not understand that any intimation was given in that direction, and if it was, it certainly should not, so far as I understand the question, have any sympathy or support from me. I think those rights are sufficiently guaranteed by the British North America Act, and I have not heard that any agitation exists in any of those provinces for the purpose of having any of those rights interfered with. I would not have said a word on this Bill except for the remarks made by these hon. gentlemen; and I desire that it should not he understood on this occasion that Parliament is bound by the silence of one or all of its members from expressing its views when those territories are erected into provinces. My opinion is now, and has been for years, that when that time comes you cannot withhold from the provinces so erected the right to determine for themselves the question of education in one way or the other. I would be the last to favour this Parliament imposing upon the people there any system of education, either free or separate. I only claim that when a Bill is introduced to erect those territories into provinces that Bill should contain a provision enabling the people of the dif 3923 [COMMONS] 3924 ferent provinces so created to decide what system of education they shall have. I do not discuss that question now. I only express this view, lest I might be supposed by my silence to give assent to some extreme doctrines which hon. gentlemen have propounded. In view of the remarks which have been made, I thought it necessary to disclaim that, in assenting to the passage of this Bill, I bound myself for all time on this question of education. I do not. Although we are giving powers almost equal to those conferred upon Local Legislatures, we are not erecting the territories into separate provinces. When that is done. I suppose it will he done by the Queen in Council under the 146th section of the British North America Act, and I simply claim the right when that time comes to determine for myself. In accordance with the view I have always held and hold now. I have no hesitation in expressing, respectfully, that the people of those new provinces should have the right to determine what system of education they shall have.
Mr. BEAUSOLEIL. (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the question of the representation of the minority in the Legislature of the North-West Territories was brought up last session of the last Parliament, by the reading of a letter from Mgr. Grondin, Bishop of St. Albert, in which is to be found the following passage:—
"Although in the minority, we might be able, nevertheless. to send two representatives in in the House, but they have succeeded in making this a thing impossible for us. I again charge the Dominion Government, who in marking out the electoral districts have divided up the two French centres in such a manner that it is impossible for us to secure representation."
During the debate on the Bill introduced by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy to abolish the French language in the North-West Territories, the question was again brought tip by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Macdowall), in a dialogue which took place between him and the hon. Minister of Justice, when the latter introduced his famous amendment. This dialogue is to be found in the last year's debates of the House, column 882. I will now read it:
"Mr. MACDOWALL. The hon. the Minister of Justice said. before he moved his ammendment the whole North-West should have fair representation in the Legislative Assembly before that question was dealt with by that Assembly. I should like like to ask him does the Government contemplate a re-distribution of seats in the North-West Assembly? because otherwise the population of the North-West will not have the fair representation they are entitled to.
"Sir JOHN THOMPSON. That is a matter which will have to be dealt with by Parliament, as the subject-matter of this resolution will be, should it be adopted. The Government will consider that subject before bringing down a Bill.
"Mr. MACDOWALL. I understand that there will be a re-distribution of seats for the North-West Territories. and the Wrench population will be, given a representation before this question has to be dealt with.
"Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The hon. gentleman will understand that if it is shown to the Government that there is not a fair representation in the present system of distribution this Parliament will beyond doubt remedy the evil."
I wish to know, Mr. Speaker, whether the Government has studied the question, and whether it is ready to say whether the French population of the North-West is to be represented in the Legislature, for it has been shown that there exists a just grievance, and the Government has promised to remedy this grievance when it should be shown. In section 2 of the Bill now before us the Government refers to a schedule containing a description of the electoral districts, according to which the elections shall he made. However, the Bill contains no new schedule, and before it be read for a second time I wish to know if the Government is ready to fulfil the promise which it niade, of giving the French population of the North-West a representation proportionate to its importance?
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I should have been better pleased myself if the measure we have before us had made some provision for the creation of an executive responsible to the Local Legislature, and controlling the expenditure of moneys placed at the disposal of the Legislature of those territories. I notice in the Estimates which we have before as certain sums of money voted by this House for certain specific purposes: and I think, when the territories have rrown in population to such an extent as to justify them in having a representative Assembly to legislate for them, that we ought to hand over a reasonable sum of money, such as we are voting here for specific purposes, to the control of that Assembly, and allow it to determine how and for what purpose that money shall be applied. When we undertake to confer representative institutions on the people of the territories we are assuming that they are in a condition to exercise the functions of self-government: and one of the earliest functions of self-government would be to apply the revenues placed at their disposal to those purposes which they think most necessary for the welfare of the territories. That, I think, is a matter of very considerable importance. I do not overlook the fact that the population of this vast area is not a homogeneous population, in the sense of being united together and capable of understanding each other's wants, in the same way that a population in a well-settled province could. It is highly probable that it may be found, in the interest of good government in those territories, that at no distant day they should be divided, and that it will be found that they will be capable of carrying on the local legislation in a way more satisfactory to themselves if they had separate districts, each of which is separately represented, than by undertaking to embrace nearly one million square miles within the area of one Local Government, and bringing together representatives of distant settlements, who cannot understand each other's wants and can know little or nothing about each other's circumstances. That fact alone will make any Assembly which may be called together there different from what a representative Assembly would be in a well-settled province. I observe, too, that by section 3 you give to the Lieutenant Governor the powers and prerogatives that belong to the Crown; you give him the power of dissolution. I think that is very questionable. You say that the Legislature, when elected, shall be elected for three years, unless sooner dissolved by the Lieutenant Governor; but why should the Lieutenant Governor have the power of dissolution, when you have not given him any responsible advisers? The advisers he may have are not responsible to the majority of the Legislature. It does seem to me that the evils which might arise from this power being held by an irresponsible officer are far greater than those which would spring from the continuance of the Assembly for the whole period of its election. The Assembly 3925 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3926 exists, under this section, for a period of three years, unless sooner dissolved. Why should it be sooner dissolved? Why should it not continue as a county council does, until the period for which it is elected expires? Why give an officer appointed by the Ministers here the power of dissolution? His Excellency the Governor General exercises that power, but he does so upon the advice of Ministers who are responsible to Parliament for the advice they give. But out there you have no Ministers, you have no advisers who are responsible to the Local Legislature and can be dismissed from their positions by the action of the Local Legislature for having given bad advice in this matter. I think that is a power which ought never to be vested in an officer appointed by the Federal Ministers, or His Excellency upon the advice of the Federal Ministers, unless surrounded by men responsible to the. Local Legislature for the advice they give. I especially invite the attention of hon. gentlemen to this section of the Bill, and when we go into committee I think we should amend this, and unless the Government are prepared to say that the time has come when the Lieutenant Government of the territories shall be surrounded by men responsible to the Local Legislature for the advice they give, and that the moneys given by this House shall be handed over as a subsidy to that Legislature to distribute as they may see proper, under the constitutional provisions which pertain wherever parliamentary government exists, we ought not to take this step, because it is one which ought necessarily to be accompanied by the others I have mentioned.
Motion agreed, and House resolved itself into Committee.

(In the Committee.)

On section 3,
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. There can be no doubt that the time has not come when the territories, as a whole, should be given the position and powers of a province; and, in all probability, this Parliament will entertain the view that those powers are not to be conferred upon the territories, as a whole, at any time, but that provincial powers should be withheld until the time comes for subdividing the territories. In the meantime, the provision is that the Legislature shall hold office for three years. Under the present system there was no power of dissolving the Assembly before the expiration of that period. The circumstances under which a dissolution of an assembly of that character, not possessing full constitutional powers and not guided by an executive, should take place, would be very rare indeed; but, the ower of dissolution, I think, ought to be given. It is proposed that that power should be vested in the Lieutenant Governor of the territories. Hon. grentlemen opposite are of opinion that that will make him a despot, who has power at any moment, at his will and pleasure, to dissolve the Assembly. I have only to say that, according to my humble opinion, if the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Territories should be a person of that disposition, who would dissolve the Assembly of his own motion, he ought to be dissolved himself as Lieutenant Governor before the election of a new Assembly, because the law provides that he shall govern the territories under instructions given him by the Governor in Council or the Secretary of State for Canada.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). That is the old irresponsible Colonial Office system.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Yes. While. the powers of the North-West Territories and the functions of their Government are limited, this Government is the executive for the North-West Territories. There must be an executive somewhere. We do not propose that there shall be an executive in the North-West Territories itself, and we have never yet conferred executive powers on any body there, although we have had an advisory council possessing a shadow of executive authority there. Nevertheless, even when the advisory council had its functions the Govermnent of Canada was the executive for the North-West Territories in the sense that the Provincial Government of the North-West Territories is, to all intents and purposes, the Government of Canada. Therefore it is that executive powers of that kind should be exercised, under the direction of this executive, by the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Territories. Is there no responsibility in this connection? If this Parliament is the Parliament which passes the laws for the North-West Territories, except in so far as we have delegated powers to pass ordinances on certain subjects, this is the Parliament that ought to control executive matters in the North-West Territories, and, therefore, the executive ought to remain the Dominion Government. I said a few moments ago, and I think everybody will agree with me, that it would very rarely occur that a power of this kind would have to be exercised. Nevertheless, anyone who has listened to or has read the debates which have occurred in reference to North-West matters during the last year or two can realize that an occasion might arise when the dissolution of the Assembly would be very convenient in the interests of the administration of the affairs of the territories. One of the subjects which might be referred to, as suggested by the debates which took place last year, might be the occurrence of the question as to conferring upon the North-West Assembly powers larger than they have hitherto possessed as to dealing with the liquor question. Last session this House would have been probably willing to agree that the power should be conferred on the North-West Assembly, but we were practically unanimous in the view that it should not be so conferred until the new Assembly should have been elected under a different system: and so, instead of being able to confer these powers at once, we were obliged to say that, although the interest of the North-West Territories might, in our estimation, induce us to confer such powers at once, such a proposition could not take effect until the expiration of the term of the present Assembly. It would have been more convenient for us to pass an enactment to come into force at once, and to leave the new members to exercise such enlarged powers as this Parliament could confer. This House will be continually hampered in dealing with the North-West Assembly and changing the limits of the districts, and matters of that kind, under the present system, because everything will practically lave to be deferred until the expiration of the period of three years. Suppose that, in the course of a year or two, by a large 3927 [COMMONS] 3928 increase of population, a considerable portion of the territories should be unrepresented in the Assembly, it would be practically beyond our powers to change the representation. Of course, this is not likely to occur, but I think the power of dissolution should be vested somewhere. It cannot be vested in the. Assembly itself, and I think it: should be vested in the officer who exercises executive powers under the direction of the Government here.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I am not. disputing the proposition that the power of dissolution ought to be vested somewhere, but I am simply pointing out that the mischiefs which might arise from the House sitting out its full period would be less likely to be serious than those which might arise from vesting this power in an irresponsible officer. It is true that the Lieutenant Governor is responsible to the Government here for his exercise of these powers, but that is simply in the same way as the Colonial Office, which was responsible to the Imperial Parliament, exercised large powers over this country in the past. For instance, Sir Francis Bond Head was responsible to the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Minister was responsible to the Imperial Parliament, but that did not prevent serious abuses, which led to an insurrection in what is now Ontario and Quebec. I think we might start with this proposition, that although it is not desirable, perhaps, to confer upon the inhabitants of the territories the same wide measure of authority that is conferred upon the Local Legislatures in the provinces, yet, as far as you do confer power upon them, that power ought to be exercised in connection with a responsiblc executive. You have got rid of the appointed members of the Local Legislature. You have an Assembly of persons representative of the people. Why should not the limited authority you entrust to that Assembly, and the executive authority in connection with it, be exercised upon the advice of men responsible to the Assembly for the advice which they give? Why, for instance, should we vote a considerable sum of money here, stating remotely the purposes to which it is to be applied, and not allow that money to be under the control of the Local Legislature of that territory and to be distributed upon the advice of the men who enjoy the confidence of that Legislature? I understand that some difficulties arose two or three years ago between the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly in regard to pecuniary appropriations. You expect that a portion of that territory may be organized into a province at no very distant day. It will then have full provincial rights. You will then have to determine, as in the case of Manitoba, with what amount of debt it may enter the Confederation and what you may charge against it. You may charge your public works, as you did against the older provinces, charge the expenditure on public works which took place before Confederation, and you admit that they are entitled to a certain subsidy for their Local Government. How are you goin to carry this out? Are you going to make up a bill against the new province by putting in the amounts of which you control the expenditure, and which you will not allow the Legislature of the territory to control? It seems to me that, while we should be careful, where people are not in that state of what I might call organic cohesion which exists in the older provinces, where they consist of a number of separate and distinct settlements, still there ought to be a corresponding executive power to which exists in the older provinces, and that power should be exercised under the control of the Legislative Assembly. At present we make no provision for that. We give them powers of legislation,which are of no great value as long as we withhold from them the power of control over their expenditure, which is made for the purpose for which they are allowed to legislate, and in this case I say we place them in a position of helplessness. We limit their authority in a way that we should not and which will cause dissatisfaction.
Mr. MACDOWALL. I do not think this will injure the North-West, because the power will be exercise in Ottawa, and I think the terriroties are safe, at all events, for three years to come. Had the Lieutenant Governor exercised the power of dissolving the Assembly within the last three years I think that would have ended the difficulty, because the difficulty arose from the existence of the Advisory Board, and if the Advisory Board had been able to advise His Honour to dissolve the House I believe they would have had a majority, and the whole difficulty thing would have been got over. In regard to creating an Executive Council, that is practically granting Provincial Government to the North-West.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). No.
Mr. MACDOWALL. It is one of the large steps towards granting executive government. The executive would have the power of direct taxation, the power to raise a revenue and some means of paying themselves. The sentiment of the people of the North-West is against anything approaching responsible govermnent at present.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) One remark with respect to the quotation the Minister of Justice made from the Act, and which seemed to the hon. member for Saskatchewan to answer the argument. The second subsection of section 4 says:
"The Lieutenant Governor shall administer the Government under instructions from time to time given him by the Governor in Council, or by the Secretary of State of Canada."
So far so good; there is not doubt about that. But as a general rule, and in cases which are not explicitly or expressly defined, where the powers are not expressly marked out by the statute, he is to be controlled by the instructions he gets from Ottawa. But that clause does not refer to powers which are expressly conferred by statute upon the Lieutenant: Governor himself, powers which we are conferring here, stating expressly that the Lieutenant Governor should have power to dissolve the Assembly and cause anew one to be chosen. Now, then, the explicit and express powers are not controlled in any sense by the general declaration in the statute, that, speaking generally, he is governed under instructions from Ottawa. The larger power does not minimize, or control, or negative, or override the specific power which we are giving here.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I beg to differ from my hon. friend. I think the very power which is vested in him is, by express terms in this statute, subject to the control of the Government here, and that the Government here is responsible for what he does in so far as he acts under our instructions. But the hon. gentleman can readily see that the 3929 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3930 The first step to take as regards statuary powers of the kind conferred by this Bill will be to give to the Governor instructions as to how he shall exercise powers of that character. Now, with regard  to the observations of the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills), indicating that this is virtually establishing, in regard to the territories, a parental control, such as the Colonial Office exercises, that is undoubtedly true; that is the system under which the territories have been governed ever since we acquired them, and it is the system which prevails now in every Crown colony, and the only alternative which my hon. friend can suggest is to have a small executive there with limited power, as he has mentioned. Now, I beg to assure him that this subject has received the greatest consideration, and the most careful thought that can be given it, and the experience of the past, as well as careful reflection from every point of view, has led us to the opinion that it is unwise to confer upon the executive there executive powers and responsibilities. If you do that you have, in the first place, a divided executive responsibility: you have an executive responsibility here and you have an executive responsibility there. You have a divided authority likewise. which is an evil of itself; but, above all, the effect of that is to create in the mind of the Territorial Government the impression that   while the principle is conceded to them of responsible government they do not enjoy a full measure of liberty.
Mr. AMYOT. With the right of appeal here.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Yes: and people entrusted in that way with partial powers, if the doctrine of self-government is established and the principle recognized, will never submit to be controlled by an appeal from their executive in executive matters: and the effect of it would be simply that you would create an impression that they were not put in the same position as the provinces were, and that only the shadow of authority had been given them. It is better, I think, to retain all the executive powers in one body, and I believe   the people of the territories will be better satisfied themselves, and there will be less agitation in the territories if the people are told in a straightforward way at the outset: The time has not come when you can have responsible government; for the present, the greater powers of legislation: must remain in the Parliament of Canada, the executive powers must remain in the executive of Canada, and when the time comes to give you provincial powers you shall have them in toto, and you shall stand on the same footing as any other province.
Committee rose: and it being six o'clock, the Speaker left the Chair.


House again resolved itself into Committee on   Bill No. 126 to amend the Acts respecting the North-West Territories.

(In the Committee.)

On section 6,
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). There does not appear to be any provision by which the returning officers will be appointed. The absence of such a provision is, in my opinion, a very serious defect in the Bill.
SiR JOHN THOMPSON. There are no officers in these small districts.
Mr. MACDOWALL. It is better to allow some latitude, and to leave the matter in the Lieutenant Governor's hands.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). That is a subject on which the legislature should have the power to legislate. If there is any doubt, we should not tie their hands, so that they cannot make provision legislatively for returning officers. I think the words "unless otherwise provided by the Legislative Assembly of the territories" should be added.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I have no objection to add these words, and I will consider the clause carefully.
0n section l3,
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). In that section, is it the intention of the Minister to give power to determine the succession of property and to determine the mode of registration?
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. It is all subject, as   you will see by the main section, to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. DAVIN. I would like to ask the Minister is there any difficulty in sub-section 4 about bonds issued by a municipality. Then irrigation companies are excepted, and I think it would he an advantage that they should not be excepted. It may be said that irrigation companies would have to do with the public domain, which is controlled by the Dominion Parliament: but I should think that the territories might have power, subject to certain conditions, to organize irrigation companies.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The incorporation of telephone companies in towns is far less important than some of the other powers we give.
Mr. DAVIN. This sub-section will prevent as giving a charter to a little street railway. I would suggest that the Government would permit the municipalities to have a charter from the Local Government for a short railway.
Mr. MULOCK. Is there any reason why the Government should not give them power, as the provinces have, to incorporate any railway company?
Mr. MACDOWALL. I think there is good reason, because this House has assumed the incorporation of railway companies in the North-West Territories. Railways in the North-West cannot be built without financial assistance, and this Parliament should have power to charter them until the North- West is able to give the necessary assistance.
Mr. MULOCK. The granting of a charter is one thing and the granting of aid to build railways is another. I should think that the people in the immediate locality would be the best authorities to pronounce in favour of a railway, and the corporation afterwards could appeal for aid to whatever source it liked. I am surprised that a member from the. territories should desire to prevent the Legislature incorporating a company. It is a great deal more expensive for men to come to Ottawa to obtain a charter than it would be if they could obtain it 3931 [COMMONS] 3932 within the limits of their own territory. I can see no possible harm in the territories having that power: they need not exercise it if they do not like. If I represented a constituency in the territories I would be in favour of having such power given to the territories, trusting to the wisdom of the people that it would be exercised for the public good.
Mr. MACDOWALL. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman. In the first place, it is not very much cheaper to get incorporation in the North-West Assembly than it is here. They can get a private Bill passed through here just a mut as cheaply as they could in the Assembly. One object I have in view in saying that this House should keep the power of incorporating these railways is thatI think it would teach this Parliament what its responsibilities and duties are to the North-West. The incorporation of railway companies is one of the most important things connected with these territories. and I think that when a Bill connected with the incorporation of railway companies passes through this House hon. gentlemen will perhaps appreciate their responsibilities to the territories more than at present.
Mr. TISDALE. There is another objection to this. If this power is given to them they would have to pass a General Railway Act, which would involve very heavy machinery, until they are incorporated into provinces, and we would have another set of railway Acts to come in contact with the Railway Act of the Dominion. I think that until the territories become provinces they should not have this power.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I think that the power to incorporate Railway Acts in that territory, as long as it remains an undivided territory, would be far more extensive than the power to incorporate a railway in the provinces. You do not know what extent of territory you will assign to a province in that country yet. Suppose you were to make a province of the Saskatchewan district at this moment, the majority of the people living in that district could incorporate a railway extending all the way to the North Saskatchewan, at the foot of the Rocky Mountains. A railway of immense extent could be incorporated in a territory although the vast majority of the inhabitants may reside in a very limited district. I do not think, however, that would apply to tramways, which are in their nature local, and extend to a very short distance; nor do I think it would apply to telephone companies in towns. I do not see why, if you confer any municipal institutions upon them, you should not confer the power to incorporate a telephone company. You have given them powers implying a much larger degree of responsibility, and it seems to me that powers relating to tramway and telephone companies might safely be entrusted to the Legislature of the territories.
Mr. DEWDNEY. I agree with the hon. member, and there is no objection to striking out the words "tramways and telephones." But I think it advisable that we should keep in our own hands the control of the water powers. That is a very important matter, and I believe that companies will be formed for the development of the water powers there. But until provinces are established in the territories I think we should keep the control of the water powers in our own hands.
Mr. WATSON. I think the arguments used by my hon. friend from North York (Mr. Mulock) should have some weight, especially with members from the North-West. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Macdowall express the opinion that we should curtail the powers of the North-West Council. That body represents the people of the territories, and I think they should have all the powers of a Local Legislature, which they ask for. We can easily understand that a North-West company might wish to orgamize for the purpose of building a tramway or short railway
Mr. MACDOWALL. Tramways are included now.
Mr. WATSON,—for the purpose of opening up a coal mine, for instance, or a steamship company for the purpose of owning a steamship. Under this Bill that Legislature will not be able to exercise such powers. What harm could arise from the representatives of the North-West having power to grant the privilege of constructing a railway? I do not agree with the hon. member for Saskatchewan that it is necessary to subsidize every railway in that country. I think men might have sufficient interest there, they might acquire sufficiently large tracts of land or coal-fields as to justify them in building a railway without coming here for a subsidy: and I would prefer seeing the hon. member for Saskatchewan, with his knowledge of the North-West, showing a disposition not to be tied to the apron strings of the Dominion for so many long years, but rather to have the people of the North- West depend on their own resources, and do their own business in their own way. The provinces have power to grant railway charters, though that power was interfered with for some time, we know with what result. I do not see why the North- West Assembly should not have the same power, and I am rather surprised at an hon. gentleman coming from the North-West wishing that it should not be granted.
Mr. MACDOWALL. I think I can remove some of the surprise of the hon. member. He represents the small Province of Manitoba, and, when I say the small province, I speak comparatively. The North-West Territories are immense, and, compared with them, the Province of Manitoba is of small area though thickly populated; and it has a much larger revenue, because the total revenue of the North-West Territories, from all territorial sources, does not exceed about $20,000. Therefore, it would be premature to grant the North-West Assembly those extensive powers. It is in the interest of the people of the North-West that we should make the hon. members of this House understand that they are the Provincial Government of the North-West Territories, that upon their shoulders rests the responsibility of aiding the construction of railways in those territories, that they must redeem the responsibilities of the Provincial Government, as well as the Dominion lovernment, so long as they continue to possess those powers.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). It seems to me that we ought to make provision for the constitution of the Legislative Assembly, for conferring upon it power over its own existence, power to provide for the division of the country into electoral districts, for 3933 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3934 the qualifications of members and for the qualification of electors.
On section 10,
Mr. DAVIN. I would urge upon the Government that they should consider sub-section 2. The next is a very useful sub-section, and will meet a difficulty which occurred in Calgary, but this subsection will work in this way: The Legislative Assembly is to have power to determine by an ordinance where a deputy sheriff may be appointed, and then it is provided that each sheriff "shall appoint a deputy or deputies at such places within the district" as are determined by the Legislative Assembly. I think the sheriff in Regina has jurisdiction as far as Moose Jaw in the west, and as far as Fort Qu'Appelle and Qu'Appelle Station in the east. Mr. Davidson represents Fort Qu'Appelle, Mr. Sutherland will no doubt again represent Qu'Appelle Station, and Moose Jaw will be represented by another member. Each of these places will urge the Assembly to pass an ordinance compelling the sheriff to appoint a deputy, so that you will have three deputies. Speaking subject to correction, I believe that all over the Dominion the sheriff is only obliged to have one deputy, but here you put this burden on the sheriff at Regina, who is not paid within one- tenth as much as most of the sheriffs throughout the Dominion. This will reduce his income, and the Minister of the Interior, who knows the North- West well, knows what the scanty income of the sheriff amounts to. It will reduce the income of the sheriffs to such a small sum that you cannot get a respectable man to take the office. Let me point out, further, that you are making a provision here for the deputy sheriff giving bonds. The sheriff has given bonds; he is to be responsible for himself, and he is also to be responsible for the deputy sheriff.
Mr. SPROULE. So he is in Ontario.
Mr. DAVIN. Ontario is a very much richer province, and he is only to appoint one deputy. Here he may have to appoint three.
Mr. SPROULE. The deputy gets constables often to do his work.
Mr. DAVIN. I dare say he does, but so does the sheriff get constables in the North- West to help him. But I want to point out that you will reduce the income of a sheriff to about $500 a year, and you will not get a respectable man to take it. Now, if there were four or five centres represented by a member in the Assembly you would have each one of them clamouring to have a deputy appointed. We know the state of things in the territories very well, and we know that if you lay before the members of the Assembly any means of increasing their patronage they will try to do it.
Mr. GILLIES. Would not deputy sheriffs be required?
Mr. DAVIN. Let me give an illustration: He will go to Fort Qu'Appelle, he will go down to Qu'Appelle Station, or to Moose Jaw, but at the same time without being compelled to do it. He has a deputy in Moose Jaw, he has a deputy at Fort Qu'Appelle, and at Qu'Appelle Station, and he can take a gentleman engaged in one kind of business or another, pay him a small commission, and the man is ready to act for him. But the minute you make it compulsory to appoint a deputy, then you place somebody in a position to exact a much larger remuneration from him. I never heard that there was any incoinvenience; I doubt very much if either of my hon. friends from Alberta (Mr. Davis) or Saskatchewan (Mr. Macdowall) has heard any complaints as to the way the work of the sheriffs has been done in their district. I never heard any complaint, and it seems to me to be almost wanton to try to remedy a grievance in regard to which there has been no complaint. I think the difficulty arose in regard to the sheriff in Calgary, who insisted, himself, in going long distances. I think there was some difficulty of that sort, and it was in order to meet that difficulty that this clause has been introduced. I think, myself, that you might devise a sub-section that would prevent any grievance occurring.
Mr. MULOCK. How are you going to get along with the incapacity of a sheriff?
Mr. DAVIN. There is a sub-section dealing with that afterwards, in case of a vacancy arising by reason of the sheriffs incapacity or otherwise.
Mr. MULOCK. It says his deputy may perform his duties until his successor is appointed. I am supposing that there is no deputy.
Mr. DEWDNEY. I have had a communication from the sheriff in my district since this Bill was printed, and he did not appear to object to the power of appointing deputies, but he did ask that the deputy should be compelled to give security. There is no particular object in that which I can see. I suppose the sheriff could take security from his deputy when be appointed him.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Because he is responsible.
Mr. DEWDNEY. No representation has been made to me, but I understand there have been requests made for more judicial districts. There was a difficulty in getting different processes and taking out registration papers, and they wanted more judicial districts, which meant more judges and a full court. That was thought to be advisable, but that if it was found necessary, in the interest of the country, that these deputies should be appointed, it would meet their wishes in that regard, and there will be deputy sheriffs in different points of the territories to get over that difficulty.
Mr. MULOCK. I think it is absolutely necessary.
Mr. FLINT. I think there is a great deal of weight in what the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) says. I think that it is almost too hard upon sheriffs to compel them to appoint deputies. I also observe here that the Legislative Assembly is given power to prescribe the duties of the deputies. I should think it would be better that each sheriff should appoint a deputy, leaving it to be inferred that the powers of the deputy are the usual powers of a deputy under the common law, or under any law of this Parliament. But here we give a legislative body power to confer powers upon deputies, which may possibly differ from the owers of the sheriffs themselves. There is no definition in this Act of the powers of the sheriffs and clerks, and I think we are going out of our way to allow the Legislative Assembly to define the powers of deputies 3935 [COMMONS] 3936 and clerks. I think myself that the sheriffs are probably the most poorly paid officials, as at rule, in the country, and legislation tending to diminish their revenues ought to be very carefully considered. If the Legislature provides that the sheriffs or clerks may appoint deputies it would be ample to protect them and also to protect the the public.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I understand the Minister of the Interior to state that there are some; very large districts over which the sheriff's duties extend, and it was found to be some inconvenience to go to the sheriff whenever it was necessary that   that official should be seen, or should be called upon to discharge certain duties, and it is proposed to divide his district into sub-districts, requiring him to appoint deputies in certain portions of the district over which he is sheriff. If that is so, and if it is a choice between requiring the deputy to act and the appointment of a new sheriff, then it might not be possible to leave it as a matter of option with the sheriff to appoint a deputy or not. It might be necessary in the public interest that a deputy sheriff should be named. In this subsection, if it is allowed to stand, I do not think these words are necessary:
"That such powers as are from time to time determined   by an ordinance of the Legislative Assembly."
Of course, there are no ordinances any longer. When the Assembly becomes a representative body its Acts are not ordinances, but Acts.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. They are all called ordinances still.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). That is simply because, as the Minister will remember, there were certain nominated members sitting in the Assembly. The distinction is perfectly clear in law between an ordinance and an Act.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. There is no doubt that that wouldbe a more suitable expression. For three years past there has been no Council, but an Assembly. We have not changed the original Act, which provides that they should be called ordinances.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). We should do it now.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Yes. Let me take a general view of the situation as regards sheriffs and clerks. Dealing first with the remarks of the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Flint), I may say that the sheriffs are a little better off in the territories than in some parts of the Dominion, for in the territories, in addition to the fees, which are very liberal, they each receive a salary of $500 a year. During a visit I paid to the North-West I had the same experience as was encountered by every Minister, namely, that at nearly every settlement I heard complaints of delay, of expense and inconvenience in litigation arising from the absence of deputy sheriffs and deputy clerks. They all said: "We want a sheriff: we want a clerk." I explained that the policy was to havea sheriff for each district; but I saw no reason why a deputy sheriff should not be appointed at each place. The North- West Assembly has to enact the sheriffs' fees and to pass an Act regulating the number of deputy sheriffs and deputy clerks, and to provide a scale of remuneration for the officers, and the whole thing is subject to our review. If the Legislative Assembly should insist on too many deputies and provide too low a scale of fees, the ordinance must be amended or disallowed. But the difficulty presented by the people is a very serious one. Take the district of Alberta, for instance. The sheriff lives in Calgary. If a person in Edmonton desires to have a writ issued he must send the writ down to Calgary to be issued. It is delivered to the sheriff at Calgary, the sheriff sends some one upto Edmonton, and he is paid travelling allowances for the whole distance. When the time comes for judgment he cannot get judgment at Edmonton, but he has to send to Calgary. He must get execution, and the officer must then travel to Edmonton again. There is no reason why there should not be a deputy at Edmonton capable of serving a writ the moment it is issued, or of issuing execution on the judgment. But to make it effective, there must be a deputy clerk who can issue a writ. When that is done the creditor at Edmonton having a debtor alongside him does not need to go to Calgary, but he can go to the clerk next door and have the writ issued, and can go to the deputy sheriff near by, and he can serve the writ on the debtor immediately. The whole proceeding could be accomplished in a few moments and at very little expense. There would be no cost to the sheriff, but the Local Assembly should provide the way the deputy sheriff should be compensated for the service rendered in serving. When the time came for the creditor in Edmonton to get judgment against a debtor in Edmonton. instead of going to Calgary he goes to the deputy clerk and has execution issued. The execution is enforced by the deputy sheriff. But in order to carry out that system we must give the Local Assembly power not only to say what they shall be paid, but to prescribe their duties, and unless this is done the deputy clerk would have no power to issue a writ unless he received instructions from the clerk, and the deputy sheriff would have no power unless he received instructions from the sheriff. But we enable the Legislative Assembly to introduce a system which is similar to that prevailing in the provinces.
On section 10,
Mr. FLINT. A sheriff or clerk may have several deputies, and the provision does not say which one shall perform his duties in case of death.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The object is to keep alive all their powers in their respective districts.
On section 80,  
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). These provisions of the North-West Territories Act were inserted at a time when the powers of the North-West Legislature were very much more limited than they are at present. When we propose to confer upon them the power for the administration of justice in the North-West Territories, as an incident of that power would be the power to establish gaols and lock-ups, and so on; and yet we retain here all the power of providing places of confimnent, the same as if the original condition of things was to continue. It seems to me that these provisions of section 80 ought to be considered, and that our legislation shouid be of a temporary character, and should provide for being superseded by the legislative functions of the Government of the territories.
3937 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3938
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The hon. gentleman will see that by section 13, sub-section 3, we give the Assembly power to maintain and manage prisons. By this section we simply take concurrent power with them, in view of the fact that they have not the means at their disposal of keeping up the prisons necessary. Besides, the question of expense, the duty devolves upon us for providing for long term prisoners. This section simply enables us to exercise concurrent powers in keeping up goals and establishing as penitentiaries any building that may be available for that purpose. We have one at Prince Albert and another at Regina, and under powers like these, we will make them both penitentiaries and we take power here to arrange as to the way prisoners should be kept.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The Minister will see that he is taking power here to provide places where prisoners may be detained for trial. That is an ordinary gaol and not a penitentiary. It seems to me that this legislation should be temporary, and that we ought to indicate that our powers are temporary.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. We must have power at present, because we must provide the accommodation.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Or give them the money to do it, which would seem to me to be the better way.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. We keep up the police prisons at present and we do all that kind of work. I fancy that for a good many years to come these are the powers under which the prisoners will be taken care of, and not the powers that we give to the Assembly. The whole Act is temporary of course, in view of the fact that ultimately the districts will be formed in provinces.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). But the Minister knows how much more easy it is to assume expenses of this sort than it is to shift the burden on some one else at a future period; and if we are going to shift the burden, it ought to be clearly indicated. I think it would be a more prudent course in the end tofurnish the North-West Assembly with the means of establishing gaols and lock-ups where the population is verysparse than it would be to undertake to provide them ourselves.
Mr. FLINT. I see that a change has been made in the wording of Clause 80. It formerly said that the Governor in Council "may cause to be erected" these buildings, and this clause simply says that he may direct that any building or buildings shall be a gaol or lock-up.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Instead of erecting a building for the purpose, we may want to use one already erected. But the mere power to erect buildings there is practically useless, because we shall have to come to Parliament for the necessary funds.
On section 17,
Mr. DAVIN. I do not see very well what advantage there is in making this change. It seems to me that it will lay entirely into the hands of the North-West Mounted Police. Suppose an informer goes to a policeman, and then the policeman goes and lays the information; the policeman will get half the fine and not the informer, although after all it was the informer who brought the guilty act to justice.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The matter has been brought to our notice by one of the judges in the North-West, who represents that there is great difficulty sometimes in ascertaining who the person is who is entitled to the moiety of the penalty. The informer, using the term in its ordinary sense, may be one person or several who give the information on which the proceedings are taken; and as there is often strife as to who should have the moiety, we think it better to say that the person who lays the information shall be entitled to it.
On section 18,
Mr. FLINT. Suppose the person has no money to pay the fine, should there not be some power of imprisonment?
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. That is provided for in the Summary Convictions Act, and the procedure follows that. The change made is simply this: In one of the districts a permit to A.B. to have five gallons of liquor enables C.D. to have it in his custody. If C.D. be a saloon keeper, as he often is, he may have a permit for every letter of the alphabet, and still no permit of his own; and this is to oblige the person who has the liquor to show a permit to himself. It is to make the law as to permits more stringent.
Mr. DAVIS (Alberta). I would like to explain a case which I have seen happen with my own eyes. Suppose a man has a bottle of brandy, and another man who sees it informs upon him, he will be fined this $200 or go to prison. I think the clause is extreme.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I suppose it is; that is the case with every law. It is easy for any person who is willing to do so, to fabricate evidence or commit perjury. But with regard to all these laws for the punishment of statutory offences, we have to make the possession of the forbidden article prima facie evidence of the guilt of the party. I do not see any other way of doing it.
Mr. DAVIS (Alberta). The way I see of doing it is to do away with the obnoxious law.
Mr. DAVIN. Of course the Assembly will have power now to deal with that matter; but it seems pretty hard that a hotel-keeper is liable to be punished if the liquor is found upon the person of a guest: The hotel-keeper might be pinished and not the man.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The man is on the premises, and the liquor is on the man.
Mr. DAVIN. The man might have liquor in his room, and it would be on the premises of the hotel- keeper
On section 20,
Mr. AMYOT. When I had the honour of addressing a few words to the House on this subject, I quoted some of the clauses of the bill of rights submitted to the Government of the Dominion, concerning the rights and privileges of the minority. I omitted, however, to quote section 10, which says that the transfer by the Hudson's Bay Company to the Government of this country would not prejudice, in any way, the rights of the people of the North-West. If I understood the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) rightly, he said that it 3939 [COMMONS] 3940 would not be contrary to the constitution to deprive to-day the French population, the minority in the North-West, of the right to speak French, because the statute incorporating that country to the Dominion is a federal statute.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman misunderstood me, because I never said anything about the French language.
Mr. AMYOT. Then I did not hear sufficiently from my seat what the hon. gentleman said. I am going to draw the attention of the House to a most important question. I humbly submit that we have no right whatever, under the present circumstances, to pass this clause. I admit that the governmnent, in respecting the rights of the minority as to education, have made a step in the right direction, and I fully endorse their action in that respect. I admit also that to preserve the right of the minority to the use of the French language before the courts, is another good feature of the Bill; but they are giving power to a local council to regulate, by ordinance or otherwise, what language they will be pleased to use in their proceedings and the reports of their proceedings. That amounts to saying that this Parliament de facto abolishes the French language, as far as that goes, for, as we well know, the majority there will, on the very first day, declare that the expense and trouble of having their proceedings recorded in both languages will be too great and the French language will be abolished. Moreover, we are admitting a principle I cannot endorse, and which I am sure a great proportion of the people of this Dominion will not support. That is the principle that, at any moment, we may grant to the majority of a province the right to take away the liberties, the franchise and the privileges of the minorities, with regard to education or religion, which amounts to the same thing, and to language. I am opposed to that principle. The hon. member for Queen's (Mr. Davies) said he was in favour of provincial autonomy, and wanted to leave to the provinces full control in these matters. I am also an autonomist but will not go so far as that. I hold that when interests are common, when it is a material question, when the question is one which relates to commerce or civil property, in which the interests of all are homogeneous, every Parliament should have full power, within its jurisdiction, to deal with such questions. But no authority should be given to Local Parliaments to decide upon questions of education and language, where the interests are not common, where they are often hostile, and in which it is only by the spirit of Christian philosophy and forbearance these hostile interests of religion and language can exist peacefully together. If you touch those questions, by giving the right to a majority to take away the rights of a minority, you are carrying the principle of autonomy too far. You are not only giving the power of preservation to the local authorities but you are giving them a power of destruction. You are giving them power to destroy vested rights, and acting in direct opposition to our censtitution, not only to the law of this Parliament but to the law as formulated by the English Parliament. I have already expressed the sentiment, and I am not ashamed to repeat it, and in doing so I speak the sentiment of a great many, that I am first of all Catholic, that I am, in the second place, an English subject speaking French, and that it is only in the third place that I am a politician. Whenever the interests of my religion are concerned, they take precedence over all other interests. The question of language occupies the second place, and it is only in the third place that I am a politician; and all the interests possible of party will never make me change one of my convictions with regard to the religion or the language of my forefathers. It is all very well to say that a motto of a party is such and such. My motto is, first, that the vested rights of religion and language shall be respected, and to no party in the world shall I submit my convictions in that respect. My religion teaches me to respect the rights and privileges of others, and I will do so; but in return I ask that the privileges, the vested rights, so far as we are concerned, shall be also everywhere respected. In the preamble of the British North America Act, I find these words:
"And whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the eventual admission into the Union of other parts of British North America."
Now, if we refer to clause 146, we find it is there provided that the future admission of provinces must be subject to the provisions of this Act. That is very explicit. It makes the British North America Act apply to the other parts of the Dominion, when admitted as provinces. Now, what do we find? I beg to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to the Statutes of Canada of 1872, in which he will find a copy of the Address of both the Senate and the House of Commons, praying Her Majesty the Queen to issue the proclamation necessary to bring these territories into the Union. We are today responsible for what was agreed to by the House of Commons and Senate then, and Parliament then said:
"We most humbly beg to express to Your Majesty that we are willing to assume the duties and obligations of government and 1egislation as regards these territories; that in the event of Her Majesty's Government agreeing to transfer to Canada jurisdiction and control over the said regions, the Government and Parliament of Canada will be ready to provide that the local rights of any corporation, company or individual—"
Company or individual—
—"shall be respected."
Do we respect those rights? I say we do not, when we give to the majority the power of taking them away in certain respects, and if we admit the principle once, we commit a wrong that will open the door for future abuses and expose this country to tremendous dangers. If we do that, we will change the spirit of the constitution, the entente formelle, the express agreement, the formal will of the people, and legislate against the interests there protected. We will then see every year claims, either through excessive zeal or other causes, to destroy, one by one, all the guarantees which have been given to us. For my part, I will not propose an amendment. If one is proposed I will vote for but I desire to register my protest, and to say that from my point of view we should in no way extend the principle of autonomy so as to give to the majorities the power to take away from the minorities privileges which they enjoy, where their interests are not common but are hostile. However, I have done my duty, and I will take no further responsibility in the matter.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The clause as it is inserted in the Bill and supported by the Govern 3941 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3942 ment is not based on any ground of autonomy in regard to the territories. On the contrary, as to the territorial Government, as it is established either by the original Act or by this Bill, the whole system is temporary, and the provisions of the law now being enacted are temporary. Parliament will have complete control over the whole subject when it lays down the constitution which may be given to any provinces which may be created in the North-West. In the meantime we are simply adopting the terms of the resolution on this subject passed last session, and the language which then received the approval of the House. In fact, this section carefully preserves the language of the resolution of last session, and after the most careful consideration it was then adopted with a degree of unanimity which was very satisfactory in view of the feelings which were likely to be evoked in dealing with a subject of this kind. In addition to the provision that the status quo shall be maintained for the present, there is the provision that, after the next Assembly is elected, the Assembly shall he allowed to regulate its own proceedings as to the language to be used in the Assembly itself, as to the language in which the proceedings shall he recorded and as to the language in which those proceedings shall be circulated. The hon. gentleman will see that, while it is only a reasonable concession, it is also an inevitable concession, because any legislative body will inevitably regulate the mode in which its business shall he conducted, and, if even there were no obligations resting upon any Legislative Assembly to listen to the views of a gentleman who desired to express himself in any other than the English language, I am sure that in this country and in almost any civilized country, the views he desired to so express would be heard with due respect. I cited to the House last session, when this matter was under discussion, instances which had occurred to my own knowledge in provinces where there had been no idea of preserving the French tongue by law and yet where that language was heard with as much respect and attention as the English tongue when any gentleman chose to use it. It is also to be observed that we still have a parental handover the territorial Government and Assembly, and that it is in our power, if at any time the Legislature should not think fit to print the Acts in the French or German or any language required to give complete publicity amongst the settlers in the North-West, to see that that provision is made in the most ample manner.
Mr. AMYOT. I am very much pleased with these remarks of the Minister. I am pleased with his statement that there will bea guarantee in the future, when we want to use the ideas of the framers of the present Bill, and I am not so prejudiced as not to recognize the peculiar circumstances which surrounded the discussion of the Bill of the member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) last session. It is not necessary for me to say now all that I think in regard to this matter, and I am glad to find that this Parliament remains as a safeguard for the rights of the minority. I think we sanctioned a false position last year, and I protested by my vote then, and I now protest by my words against the same error. In Manitoba, in spite of the constitutional principle; the statutes are no more printed in French, though a large number of the population are French. They were the majority a few years ago, but they are not so any longer er. Is it not the right of those people who contribute their share to the public purse to have the laws of the land published in their own language? I am sure that no court of justice which has any self-respect will declare that this law is not ultra vires according to the laws of this country and according to the laws of England. In the meantime, however, its provisions are carried out. Considering actual circumstances, the declaration of the Minister of Justice is a great satifaction to me, though I have lodged my protest against the present measure.
Mr. WALLACE. I think it is a matter of great satisfaction that this clause has been brought forward. I regret that the Government has not seen its way clear to have also provided that the proceedings before the courts should have been dealt with in the same way as the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly, and that full power in that matter should be given to the North-West Council as it is to the Local Legislatures. We have a much larger French population in Ontario than there will likely be in the North-West Territories for many years to come, and I believe we have found no difficulty or no serious inconvenience from the fact that we have only one official language in the courts in that province. In fact, every man, whether French, English or German—because we have a very large German population in this province also—has experienced no practical difficulty in regard to this matter in the Province of Ontario, and I apprehend there will be no serious difficulty whatever in the North-West. But this matter is one that the provinces have a right to decide for them selves, and the Government is wisely conferring the power upon the North-West Assembly after the next election to exercise that power so far as the proceedings of the Assembly are concerned. Another question which comes up in the same connection and which has been referred to this afternoon is the question of having separate schools, if it is the wish of the people in the locality. That is a question; as the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) said in his speech, which is a very large and important one, and I think cannot be fully and freely dealt with at the close of a session such as this. I am gratified by the statement of the Minister of Justice which if I understood it was that Parliament shall have complete and untrammelled power in the future to confer upon those territories the provincial rights which the other, provinces possess, to legislate on all those questions, not only as regards language but as regards schools and all other subjects over which   Local Legislatures have complete control. I am a little surprised at the action of the hon. member for Bellechase (Mr. Amyot), whom I have heard in this House on so many occasions, asserting the inalienable right of the provinces to legislate in their own interests without being trammelled in any way by the Dominion Parliament, and now taking a complete somersault, and advocating that the provinces should not be given those rights, but that they should be retained by the Dominion Parliament.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The hon. gentleman, I think, is performing a somersault too. He 3943 [COMMONS] 3944 forgets that he has just now made a tumble. Mr. Chairman, I will ask the Minister of Justice again to give his attention to the use of this word "ordinance." The expression is used all through the Bill, "ordinance" instead of "law," and "ordained" instead "enacted." Of course unless you define the word in the sense in which you use it, it would be really necessary to make the law conform to the present state of things, which it does not by the use of that word.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I will give attention to that before we go into Committee again.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Before the Committee rises I would call attention to section 93 in section 18 of the Bill, and to the words "in whose possession or on whose premises any intoxicating liquor or intoxicant of any kind is." The Minister will see that that is not a primâ facie presumption of guilt, it is a conclusive presumption, it is one that cannot be explained away by shifting the burden of proof from the party who will be inculpated. He has no permission to show that the liquor did not belong to him, or that it was brought on his premises by some other person. In the criminal law you have a provision that the party in whose premises counterfeit dies are found, is held presumptively guilty, but he is not conclusively guilty. He may prove that the dies were brought there by some other person. It seems to me those words would make the guilt conclusive, and the party would not be at liberty to show that the liquor was not his and that it was not brought here by him.
Mr. AMYOT. About the somersault, we may as well settle that question at once, seeing that we are not very much in a hurry. I am surprised that a love for the autonomy of the provinces has arisen so suddenly in the breast of the hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace). He did not seem to understand that question until he had an opportunity to attack the Catholic religion an the French language in the North-West. Then, suddenly he becomes an autonomist, and he understands the full obligation of this Parliament to grant all possible powers to the Local Legislatures. Before that he did not understand it at all. Heretofore he wanted this Parliament to retain every power, and he desired that the Local Legislatures should have as little power as possible. But when he wanted to give equal rights to the Catholics by taking away from them their right to separate schools, and when he wanted to give equal rights to the French people by taking away from them their right to speak French, then he began to understand provincial autonomy. When he perceived that in this Parliament he would have to face one-third of the members of the House, he would have to face the possibility of a division within each party, and that he might endanger his own party, then he found the splendid plan of the autonomy of the provinces, and he said Let us give to a majority in the North-West, favourable to the sentiments of my heart, a power that we cannot exercise at Ottawa; let us delegate to them such powers that they may be able to do to the Catholics and to the Frenchmen in the North- West that which we are not able to do at Ottawa. If ever there was a somersault performed, the hon gentleman has performed it very skilfully and very elegantly. I will tell the hon. gentleman what we understand by the word "autonomy." We believe that Confederation consists of diverse parts. There is a Government for the common interests of the whole, and there are local Governments for the diverse interests of the parts. Each Legislature has got special lights defined by the constitution, and within those rights each Legislature must be entirely free and all-powerful within the limits of its jurisdiction. That is the autonomy of the provinces under Confederation. One of the principles of Confederation was that the basis of union would not be infringed upon. What was the spirit of the Act at the opening of the conference? It was that the religion and the language of every subject should be respected. Would the hon. gentleman seriously tell us that if, in the beginning, we had been told that under Confederation some means could be devised and attempted to take away from us the right to speak French or to worship God in the way our conscience dictated—does he suppose that we would ever have consented to join the union? He knows bettet than that. It is only by hidden ways, by devices which are not avowed, that he tries to reach his object. I am sure that with his good heart, if he perceived that he was doing a real injustice, he would step backwards. I am sure he will not try to use his influence to take away from a fellow-subject the right to act, or to speak, or to pray as he pleases, and as the sentiment of his heart may inspire him. What would he say if we, in the Province of Quebec, endeavoured to take away from the minority any right that they enjoy as to language or religion? I may tell him that, whether we would be wrong or right, we shall not do it, because we are just. We have learned in our language the laws of nations and the laws of forbearance; and we have learned in our religion the laws of personal property, and that material property is nothing compared to spiritual property. If he loves Confederation, if he loves the British flag, if he desires to form a grand nation on this continent, let him learn to exercise forbearance. Let him tend to the union of the hearts, let him give to everyone the privileges he cherishes, let him grant liberty to everyone, and he will see that party differences will be no cause of harm, and that whatever may be the party to which we belong we will be all Canadians, loving each other and fighting in common for the welfare of the whole people.
Mr. WALLACE. If the hon. gentleman would practise a little more of the virtues he preaches he would be a little more consistent in his character. There was no preposition made by me that any rights and privileges should be taken from any person. On the contrary, I proposed a recommendation that the people should be given more power to control their own local affairs in accordance with the system prevailing in other provinces, and that a portion of the rights and liberties given to Quebec and other provinces of the Dominion should be given to the people of the North- West Territories. That is a reasonable proposition, and it is one the people will demand and obtain. Although the country is not ready for a complete system of self- government, and the population is not sufficiently numerous to have all the machinery of the Local Government as in other provinces, yet by this Bill the people of the territories will gradually get their rights, and the measure will have to be extended still further to give them the right of con 3945 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3946 trol over their local matters, the proceedings of their courts, and of their Legislature, and the conduct of their schools. That is all I advocated. If that is an example of want of liberality, of want of Christian spirit and of proper consideration for the feelings of others, I must plead guilty.
Mr. BEAUSOLEIL. I am perfectly ready to agree to the proposition made by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace). If Parliament will give to the North-West Territories the same laws as they have imposed on Quebec, we shall be satisfied. The hon. member must know that not only the Imperial Statute has not given to the Province of Quebec the right to prevent part of the population from speaking English, but it has gone further, and created a province within a province by enacting that the limits of 15 counties, in which at that time the majority of the people were English- speaking, could not be changed without the consent of the majority of their representatives. Even in the case that the whole of the other 50 members of the Legislative Assembly should consider the change necessary, such a change could not take place without the consent of the majority of those 15 members. Far different is the position in the North-West. Not only is there no French province within the province, but to this day we have been unable to obtain a pledge that any representation would be given to the French element in the territories. Such is the difference at present between the Province of Quebec and the North- West Territories, so far as language is concerned. So far as religious schools are concerned, is the hon. gentleman prepared to give to the territories the same rights and liberties we enjoy in the Province of Quebec? Then give us at once the widest law for separate schools that exists in the Dominion, for such is the school law of the Province of Quebec. The Dominion Parliament has no power to legislate on the question as to the language in which the laws shall be published, or the debates of Parliament conducted both in the Parliament of the Province of Quebec and in the Dominion of Canada. The Imperial Parliament has put these two questions outside of the limit of provincial legislation, and laid-down these two principles, which are at the basis of the constitution: the equalityof Roman Catholics and Protestants, so far as schools are concerned, and the equality of the French and English-speaking populations, so far as the official languages are concerned. These two fundamental principles we desire to maintain. We want it formally recognized all over the Dominion that those rights now existing, both by usage and by law, shall be preserved, and therefore we protest against the granting to the Legislative Assembly of the territories of the right to abolish the French language, which is established by the constitution, and which cannot be taken away without violating the constitution, and destroying the harmony, good-will and happiness of thepopulation of this country.
Mr. DAVIN. I do not desire to move the clause to which I spoke on the second reading, but I ask the Government to kindly consider it. The section I intended to move was as follows:—
The persons qualified to vote at the election for the Legislative Assembly, shall be male British subjects by birth or naturalization (other than unenfranchised Indians, and members of the North-West Mounted Police), who have attained the full age of twenty-one years, who have resided in the North-West Territories for at least twelve months, and in the electoral district for at least three months, respectively, preceding the time of voting.
The object of inserting such a clause was to prevent members of the North-West Mounted Police voting for any candidate for the Local Assembly, and I would impress on the Government the reasonableness of this suggestion. Remember, it is a quasi-military body—that the members are shifted from one place to another. These are not the only considerations; they will vote for a candidate for an Assembly which has no power whatever to make laws affecting them. They are outside of its jurisdiction, and yet they can come in and water, so to speak, the stock of the civil vote. At the election in North Regina there were 360 votes given, and of these 80 were police votes, and all were thrown for one candidate, not a single policeman voting for the candidate who was beaten there.
Mr. WALLACE (York). Is the vote by ballot?
Mr. DAVIN. No, it is an open vote; but by- and-bye it will be vote by ballot. The Assembly will have power to deal with that matter, but not as regards the next election. I do not press my clause, but I ask the Government, as I understand the Bill will remain in Committee, to consider the suggestion and decide whether this clause is necessary or not.
Mr. MACDONELL (Algoma). I am sorry to differ from the hon. member for Assiniboia. We all know the members of the North-West Mounted Police are the sons of either Ontario or Quebec farmers who go out there, probably, in the first place, to perfect themselves in militarv organization and in the next place, to become settlers in that district. If at legislative elections in Ontario farmers' sons have the right to vote, I think the Parliament of this Dominion should grant the North-West Mounted Police the same right; and indeed, I think it would be unfair to take away from them the right to vote they enjoyed in Manitoba, Quebec or Ontario. With all due respect to the member, for Assiniboia, I am obliged to differ with him in this respect.
Mr. DAVIN. My hon. friend will see that I am not very particular in pressing the matter. I do not think the members of the police care one pin about having the vote, and so far as I know it is of no advantage to them whatever. If it were any advantage to them I certainly should not wish to take it away. The reason I wish to take it away in regard to Dominion elections is, that it is of no advantage there at all, and they wish to be deprived of it. When they are farmers' sons in Ontario, as farmers' sons the Legislature of Ontario can pass Acts that will affect them; but as members of the Mounted Police, how can this Assembly pass any Act that will affect them? However, as the question is not to be pressed tonight, I will not speak further on the matter.
Mr. TROW. I think the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Macdonell) can speak feelingly in that respect, because I am aware that a very large proportion of those who voted for him were navvies, and have no permanent place of residence, and were from all parts of the Dominion, and many from the United States. I think he, certainly, above all other men should advocate that.
Mr. MACDONELL (Algoma). I say right here to the whip for the Grit party on the other 3947 [COMMONS] 3948 side of the House that he is entirely mistaken in what he says. The electors who voted for me were electors who were on the Dominion voters' lists; they were British subjects; they were twenty-one years of age, and they were entitled to vote.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Louder.
Mr. MACDONELL (Algoma). You need not say "louder," because you can hear me well enough. I defy any man in this House or any man in this country to say that anyone voted for me in the district of Algoma who was not entitled to vote. But, under your one-sided Ontario Election Act, one-half of these individuals were not entitled to vote, whereas under the Dominion Franchise Act any man who is a British subject, twenty-one years of age, in receipt of an income of $150 a year in our district—it is $300 every place else—was entitled to vote. The hon. gentleman says they were navvies; a navvy, as I understand it, and I have some experience in that way, is a man who delves for a living. He is a man who delves with the shovel, and puts it into a wheelbarrow, and wheels it off to a dump on a railway. That constitutes a navvy, and there was not a navvy in the whole district of Algoma during last election, because there were no railways building there. The men who voted for me were railway men, fishermen, farmers, lumbermen and miners. I tell the hon. the chief whip (Mr. Trow), on the other side of the House, that he is mistaken when he makes the statement that he did just now.
Mr. TROW. The lists were made out years before—
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I would point out that this Bill does not apply to Algoma.
Mr. DEWDNEY. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment that is proposed by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) will be considered between now and when the Committee meets again.
Committee rose and reported progress.


Sir JOHN THOMPSON moved the adjournment of the House.
Sir RICHARD CARTWIGHT. Before that motion is carried, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word or two with respect to an incident in the debate yesterday. The House will remember that an offer was made to me across the floor, by the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue, that I should appoint a couple of persons, if I liked, to investigate the names of the persons who had subscribed to a testimonial to him. I desire to say, explicitly, that I made no reference to the Minister of Inland Revenue, or to the testimonial presented to him, because I did not regard the testimonial presented   to him as coming substantially within the lines of my resolution. It may have been—I was not aware of it until he mentioned it himself —that there were a small percentage of those who subscribed to his testimonial who would have been embraced in the resolution that I moved; but I do not think myself that his was a case similar to the others, nor do I believe that he was influenced to the detriment of the service by the subscriptions that he might have re ceived. Therefore, I did not then deem it necessary, nor do I think it necessary now, in any shape, for the clearing of the hon. gentleman's character from imputations—which I beg to say I did not at all level at him—that any investigation should be made. It was very right and proper of him to offer it; but I, for my part, did not intend at all to include him within the scope of my remarks.
Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. Speaker, I think after the statement made by the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) it is proper that I should express my gratification that he has made this statement. Not only do I consider it satisfactory to myself and my friends, but I think it is one of those incidents that every man in this Parliament must feel pleased at the occurrence of. I think it is a pleasant thing that the hon. gentleman, occupying the position that he does on the other side of the House, and during a session of Parliament ofcousiderahle excitement and acrimony, should have the fairness to make the statement freeing me from any charges of having been improperly influenced on account of such testimonial. I thank him for the very candid expression he has given, clearing me from any imputations which might be made.
Motion agreed to; and House adjourned at 10.45 pm.


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: