Mr. A. A. MONDOU (Yamaska).

(Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I beg leave to amend the Bill now before the House by the insertion, after section 5, of the following section:-

Nothing in the present Act shall affect prejudicially the school rights of the minority,

Roman Catholic or Protestant, which inhabit the territory now annexed to Manitoba.

And beg leave to withdraw the notice of motion in amendment which I have given on a previous occasion.

It is with great pleasure, Mr. Chairman, that I address this House for the first time in the language that is dear to me, and I have a special motive for doing so, considering that the English reporters, in the report of the remarks I made the other night to explain the stand 1 was taking on the amendment to the Bill, on the first reading, and to explain the reason -why I did not vote, have not given to my words the meaning I intended them to convey.

I consider that this report, owing no doubt to my imperfect knowledge of the English language, does not give the exact meaning of what I intended to say, when I first addressed the House in English.

At first I declined to vote on the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, and later on, I voted for the second reading of the Bill, but it was after the remarks of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) who had stated that when the Bill was drafted, the minority in the district of Keewatin had no vested rights safeguarded by the constitution.

My own opinion, after a fairly thorough study of the law, was not in accord with the one given by the hon. minister. Notwithstanding, since the hon. Minister of Public Works was stating positively that, under the constitution, the minority was not entitled , to claim school rights, I saw nothing in the way to prevent me from voting for the second reading of the Bill as it was.

There was nothing in it that I did not approve of; it rather sinned by omission. I considered the Bill to be incomplete; but if the intention of those who drafted the Bill was such that it did not admit of vested rights for the minority, there was nothing according to my views to prevent the addition of a saving clause on the lines of the one I am proposing by this amendment. If the minority, Catholic or Protestant, of Keewatin have no vested rights, the adoption of this amendment can do no wrong, but if the minority have rights, they will be put in a position by this amendment to claim those rights before the proper tribunal.

By voting this amendment parliament would be giving due regard to the minority who have a perfect right to be respected and are entitled to live.

For my part, Mr. Chairman, I do not conceal that the stand I am taking on this question is rather strong and resolute. For the last fifteen years, in the province of Quebec, this question has been causing a considerable amount of agitation. It is

probably for the last time in the political history of this country-certainly, for a great number of hon. gentlemen who are in this House to-night-that we are called upon to legislate on such matters.

I say again that the rights of the minority in Keewatin, be it Roman Catholic or Protestant, must be respected.

My intention is not to intensify the agitation that is going on on this question, nor do I wish to stand on narrow grounds. In all my business relations and in the discharge of my professional duties, I have given ample proof that I am free from prejudices, political, racial or religious. In submitting this amendment, I am moved by a sense of duty and loyalty; .my only *motive is to secure to the minorities the constitutional rights that are theirs.

In my. opinion, this question is not so intricate as it might be supposed to be in some quarters, and perhaps I will be allowed to give my personal view on the subject. I am possessed of more light today than I had at the beginning of this discussion. I have .been studying that question with great caution and with the sole aim of arriving at a practical result, and also with the object of discerning who are those in this House who are really seeking the welfare of the minorities. I want to have an expression of opinion, clear and straight, and I think that my amendment leaves no loophole on that score. What are we doing at this very moment? We are studying a deed-I am a practising public notary of the province of Quebec, and as such, I am fairly well acquainted with such matters-we are studying a deed between the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. I liken the situation to that of two private individuals who have decided, the one to sell and the other to buy a property. They both go to the notary, quite decided to close the bargain.

When the Bill -was first brought before the House, nobody objected to a deed between the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. For my part, I thought it my duty to ratify the principle of the Bill and to uphold the govex-nment in all that relates to financial and other arrangements in the Bill. Following my comparison, let us suppose that we are now in the notary's office and we are examining the clauses of the deed by which we are giving to the province of Manitoba a territory that is under our jurisdiction. We have the right to impose the conditions that we deem proper. Consequently, I ask that we put in the deed the clause that I have just moved. If the province of Manitoba . which is invited to submit to that condition declines to, accept it as too burdensome, the deed will be put aside and the whole thing will have to be started ' over again.

Negotiations on that boundary question have been going on for a long time between the two governments. Everybody seems to agree on the principle, but it is "not so when we come to the conditions of the deed. As a member of this House, I ask that the minority in the added territory be protected, and in doing so I am sincerely convinced that I am discharging a sacred duty devolving upon me. I came to the conclusion long ago that the majorities in this country don't want any protection, and that those who take an interest in the common wealth would be putting their time to better use in caring for the weak and those who are not in a position to uphold their rights and privileges. We are bound to champion all legitimate claims, to show spirit and energy; we are bound to stand erect and prove that our constitution is as immovable as a rock; that it is the foundation of our social life, if wre want to see harmony and goodwill between races and creeds in this country. * Under the circumstances), in accepting this amendment, we would be doing a commendable thing and would demonstrate that, true to its duty, the Canadian parliament is ready to extend its solicitude to all, without stopping to inquire if those who are seeking redress represent only a few individuals or a million of people; the number does not affect the principle. If vested rights do exist, they must be upheld by a guarantee.

Relying on that principle, I hope that my amendment will receive the endorsement of the majority of this House, or at least will induce the House to have the Bill stand until we have ascertained if the province of Manitoba absolutely rejects all arrangements upon those lines.

' Let us examine for a moment the stand taken by the other party to the deed. Has that party always abided by the constitution? In all transactions there must be honesty. Cannot that province be taxed with contempt of court?

Are they not still ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and even of the highest court of the empire, His Majesty's Privy Council? No effect is given to that decision because it runs against the will of a majority who refuse to accept it. So long as this situation will endure, the decision of the Privy Council will remain a dead letter. Even if my presence in this House should result in nothing else than giving me this opportunity of upholding the rights of the minorities and the respect of the constitution, I should feel that I have not been sent here for nothing, because we are not entitled! to be called legislators if we disregard the constitution; unless that by mutual consent, after thorough consideration and for very serious reasons- Mr. MONDOTJ.

that this parliament will have to discuss -the conclusion is reached that we have no constitutional right to modify the British North America Act. I raise all these objections because we have good reason to be on guard when dealing with Manitoba. The situation would be quite different if we had any guarantee that the Manitoba government would deal generously and fairly with the minorities. It is an admitted fact that the provinces in which the rights of minorities have been upheld, never had any trouble of that kind in the administration of their public affairs. Difficulties and troubles on that score are found to exist only in those provinces where the majority has been unfair towards the minority.

There is no doubt in my mind that vested rights exist in the territory of Keewatin, and I can find the proof of it in what has been said in this House during this debate. The Northwest Territory Act that is to be found in the Revised Statutes of 1906, ch. 62, is my authority for the stand I am taking. Section 10 of this Act relates to the minority and says:

The Commissioner in council if authorized to make ordinances respecting education, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect thereto; but in the laws or ordinances relating to education it shall always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories, or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor; and also that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and in such 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.

I come from the province of Quebec, and I pray to God that I will never see the day when the rights of the Protestant minority will be in jeopardy, but if that day must come, I give my solemn word that I will be seen in the front ranks of those who will fight for those rights whoever may be the party on which we will have to rely to give fair play to that minority. I am free from all political faction. I stand on higher grounds and I say it is high time that all that agitation comes to an end. It is high time that those who wish to remove all causes for discord and bad feelings stand and raise their voice to affirm that the time has come for the recognizance of such rights as we deem dear and sacred.

It is said, Mr. Chairman, that the counsel to the commissioner of Keewafin has never been appointed and the responsibility

for that is put on the late government. I concede that the late administration has a great part of responsibility, but I do not admit that the present ministers of the Crown are justified in taking refuge behind the wrongdoings of their predecessors This tu quoque argument is played out.

' I hold the principles far above the maintenance of any government; we are in duty bound to stand! up and to unite to safeguard what we deem most sacred: individual, civil and religious liberty.

Can it be contended that because a Canadian government has not appointed a counsel to the commissioner of Keewatin, the parliament is to-day debarred from legislating on this question? In my opinion there is absolutely nothing in that contention, as can be seen by section 3 of the Imperial Act of 1871 amending the constitution of 1867:-

3. The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the Legislature of any province of the said Dominion increase, -diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may he agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any eueh increase or diminution elaboration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.

I am well aware that if we were creating new provinces we would have the right to impose any school system we deemed proper; but the question is quite different. We are engaged at this moment in the discussion. as the Bill puts it, or ' such terais and conditions as may be agreed to by the the legislature,' and such terms and conditions as the parliament of Canada may exact.

This section 3 leaves no doubt in my mind as to the right of this parliament to exact the condition contained in the amendment I submitted to the committee. That right exists virtually if not in the. actuality; and if it does not exist in the actuality it is because certain proceedings have not been taken that can be taken. We have plenty of time yet to act; the parliament can order the Bill to stand for a time to allow the Governor-in-Council to pass the necessary ordinances. I say again that this right exists virtually if not in the actuality.

I am free to admit that for some years past. I have not given much time to the study of legal questions and it is my intention in future to devote more of my time to the law, and more especially to the study of constitutional law, but at the same time I submit the above remarks to the committee as my humble opinion upon this question. I will say further that if there is some doubt as to the existence of constitutional rights for the minority in

Keewatin, whait wrong can be done by having this amendment added to the Bill? 'If no rights exist, the clause will amount to nothing, but if rights do exist the minority will be protected. It goes without saying that the question is worth studying. The right hon. leader of the government himself expressed a doubt on this point when ho said in his speech of March 6, at page 4582 of the unrevised edition of the Debates: ' But whether I am right or wrong in believing that that 'is constitutionally impracticable."

Everybody knows that when it comes to 'the construction of the text of a law, we have very often conflicting opinions. :Every day judgments of the Superior Court are invalidated by the Court of Appeals, and after having gone through all the courts of the country, a case often goes to the Privy Council in England.

For my part, I hold that the deed with the province of Manitoba which the parliament is asked to confirm, cannot he accepted unless there is added to it the clause contained in the amendment that I have the honour to submit to the committee.

I do not propose to say anything more at this moment; I had no time to prepare a long speech, and I just gave expression to my sincere conviction. I hope that the House, after full consideration, will accept the amendment and will give ample justice to those who are entitled to it.

The position is thus: If this clause was inserted into the Bill it would prevent the government of Manitoba to do any injustice to the minority if it were so disposed.

Do not let us forget that the man who enters a house with the intention of appropriating to himself certain articles which are not to be found in that house, is committing nevertheless an act that in law is called robbery. This clause of mine puts a gate in front of the door of the house and this gate is needed all the more because those who are dwelling in that house are more than one thousand miles away from those from whom they can claim assistance.

I have voted for the Bill as a whole, I have accepted the financial arrangements, because I trust the present government, and that I have no doubt that in drafting this Bill they gave due weight and consideration to all its sections. When I was speaking on the address. I stated that I had confidence in the government, because it was composed of business men. Now I think it is the time to settle that question in a business-like way and not from the viewpoint of religious and racial prejudices. If the amendment is carried it will be up to Manitoba to conform the school system actually in force in that province to the school system of the added territory. The

other night, when speaking on this very question, I said that it was more than fifteen years old and that it was at the root of all the agitation that had been going on since, and those who are responsible for that situation are exactly the same people whom we are dealing with to-night. For any one who will study that question, not from the viewpoint of a political party -it is far above such considerations.- but from the loftier viewpoint of the union 'between the- different races and the different creed's, it is quite evident that the government of Manitoba could settle this question in an instant. The only thing to do is to give effect to the Manitoba Act of 1870, and if that is done nobodv will hear any more about the ' Manitoba school question.'

We all agree upon the necessity of having union and harmony between the different nationalities and creeds of this country, and if the Manitoba government would give effect to that Manitoba Act of 1870, it would go a long way in the direction of that ideal situation we are aiming at and We could then bend our energies toward the development of our resources in peace and harmony.

Every day members of this House are pressing upon parliament the claims of other people. That is exactly what I am doing at this moment, and I say that now '[DOT]is the time to act, because we are now discussing the very last sections of the 'Bill. It is the time, now or never, to take a strong and well defined stand.

' I listened the other day with great attention to the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition on that Bill. I have always professed a great admiration for his personality, but instead of taking example from the Duke of Wellington fighting the French at the gates of Lisbon and remaining within the lines of Torres Vedras, he should have taken example from Henry of Navarre saying to his men-as the hon. gentleman himself said to his friends during the last election in the province of Quebec-' Follow my white plume, it will lead you to victory.' It is true that Henry of Navarre came back victorious, while the right hon. gentleman has been completely routed.

In concluding I say that I feel the full responsibility of the stand I am taking and I am quite willing to assume it, Even if I had done nothing else in all my public career, I would still feel that it is sufficient to atone for all the political 'sins that I might have committed.

Mr. ,T. A. M. AIKINS (Brandon). I have the greatest respect for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mondou) who has moved this amendment, and I appreciate the sincerity and honesty which has actuated him in Mr. MONDOU.

presenting it to the committee, but I cannot agree with the propriety of the conclusions at which he has arrived. His amendment reads as handed to me by the clerk:

Nothing in this Act shall affect /prejudicially in any way the rights of the minority, either Protestant or Catholic, to separate schools, as they now exist in snch part of the territories, now annexed to Manitoba.

This amendment assumes that there are separate schools existing; it assumes that there may be a Protestant minority or a Roman Catholic minority which has a right in respect to separate schools. But, I submit that this parliament should not legislatively decide that there are existing now in the territory to be added to Manitoba any separate schools or separate school rights. It becomes a matter for consideration (having regard to the wording of the resolution) before we can intelligently vote upon it. What educational system does exist there? On the 15th of July, 1870 Rupert's Land, the Territories, including Keewatin, and the province of Manitoba, were added to confederation. By the Manitoba Aot there was created for Manitoba a constitution, and power was given to it to govern and legislate according to that constitution and subject to its limitations. That Act was confirmed by an Act of the Imperial parliament. The same Act provides for the union of the territories, as well as Manitoba, to the Canadian confederacy. It was also necessary to create for the territories a constitution, a government and a legislature to enact the necessary laws respecting those territories. This parliament passed, in 1871, an Act under which the Lieutenant Governor and a council to assist him were authorized to pass ordinances necessary for the government of these Territories. Keewatin was made a separate district from the Territories. The Lieutenant Governor of the province of Manitoba, under the instructions of the Governor in Council of the Dominion, governed the district of Keewatin, and continued to do so from that date until 1906, when it was added to the territories. In 1875 this parliament passed an enactment which empowered the government of the Northwest Territories to enact legislation respecting schools subject to limitations, but it was amended in 1880, and again in 1885; these provisions practically continued in the Northwest Territories till 1905. But, that legislation was not legislation creating school districts or creating school rights in this territory. It only enabled the government of the Northwest Territories to legislate in respect of separate schools, but with that enabling power there was a limitation. The section passed in 1875 reads:

When and so soon as any system of taxation shall he adopted in any district or portion'of the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of the council or Assembly as the case may be, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education, but it shall therein be always provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any distriot or portion of the Northwest Territories, or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit and may make the necessary assessment and collection of rates theiefor. And further, that the minority of ratepayers therein, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, may establish separate scho ols therein, and that, in such latter case,' the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools, shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof. . . , '*7*

As you see it was simpiy a clause enabling the government of the Northwest Territories to establish schools, should they pass any legislation respecting education. Therefore, as I have said this legislation did not create separate schools in the territories. It merely enabled or empowered the government of the territories to do so, but when that government did so it was to be subject to the limitations mentioned in the section I have read. That section was amended in 1885 by striking out the first words as follows:

When and so soon as any system of taxation shall be adopted in any district or portion cf the territory.

So that the government oi the territories were authorized and empowered to pass school legislation at any time, subject to certain conditions. The form of the government of the territories was changed from time to time until it stood in the position in which it was prior to the passing of the Act of 1905 creating Saskatchewan and Alberta and making new provision for the territories. Therefore until the Act was passed in 1905 creating Alberta and Saskatchewan and making a new government for the territories, no government was empowered to pass any school legislation for the Northwest Territories except the Governor in Council, or the Governor with the Territorial Assembly. The question then is, what legislation did they pass? They did pass legislation such as the Ordinance of 1901, but under the Ordinance of 1901 no separate schools were established in the portion to be added to Manitoba. The government that existed in the Northwest Territories did not act under their power to establish any separate schools or any other schools in the Northwest Territories. At that time the Northwest Territories, included a strip of land of about fifty or seventy-five miles in width immediately adjoining to the east the present

province of Saskatchewan. It did not include the district of Keewatin. Therefore, when on the 20th of July, 1905, the new Northwest Territories Act was passed, the only government authorized to legislate in respect of education was the government of the Northwest Territories and it did not make this legislation effective in that strip of land or area and no government had passed any effective legislation or created any school district or given any school lights in ^ that strip of land originally in the territories which is now proposed to be added to the province of Manitoba. Another point, for serious consideration, in this connection is that the district of Keewatin, under the old Keewatin Act, was governed by the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba under the instructions of the federal authority and there were no educational ordinances or law for the district of Keewatin, at all events until 1906. I am aware of the fact that the late administration, purporting to act under the Keewatin Act of 1876, did make a proclamation, lhat proclamation recited the Act of 1876 and recited that that legislation had authorized the government to detach amongst other things-but I had better read the words of the Act:

The Governor in Council may at any time when it appears to the public advantage to do so, detach any portion of the district of Keewatin therefrom and re-annex it to that part of the Northwest Territories of Canada included in the said district, and that nor-tion so detached shall then be subject to the same government and Jaws as that part of the Northwest Territories of Canada to which it is re-annexed.

It seems to me perfectly clear that the authority given to the Governor in Coun-was only to detach a portion and to add inat detached portion to other territory. -Now, it I understand anything aright, it is that the whole is greater than a part and therefore the interpretation that has to be put on that language of the sect tion is not that it is a power to take the whole of Keewatin and attach it to the Northwest Territories, but only to attach ' according to the words of the Act, that portion so ' detached ' from Keewatin. No reasonable interpretation of this section would, it seems to me, justify any attempt on the part of the federal government to attach the whole district of Keewatin to the Northwest Territories, and yet that is what the late Liberal government did. I submit that what was said by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) in that respect was correct, and that the proclamation made hy au authority which was simply authorized to ' detach ' a portion, did not enable them to ' attach ' the whole Therefore that action of the late government was unconstitutional and had no

authority in law. Consequently the laws of the Northwest Territories did not apply before the new Act passed in 1905 respecting the Northwest Territorities. In other words, the ordinances of the Northwest Territory that were passed by the Lieutenant Governor and the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories never applied to the district of Keewatin.

In 1906, however, the revised statutes declared that the Northwest Territories should include Keewatin. At that time there was no provisional government created by this parliament with the power to legislate with respect to education for Keewatin; consequently the limitation concerning education in the territories was not in force in Keewatin. We have to look to the Northwest Territories Act, chapter 27, of 1905, to see what the law was when the new government of the Northwest Territories was established. Remember, the government of the old territories had, by virtue of this Act, ceased to exist, and the new government and legislative power was established. That government was given power to legislate in respect to schools, but with the same limitation as was on the government of the Northwest Territories. That government might have passed school legislation, but it did not. Therefore, there never existed, and I submit does not now exist in Keewatin, any legislative enactment making school districts, or giving educational rights either to the minorities or the majorities, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. This resolution assumes that separate schools do exist, because it says: 'Nothing in this

Act shall affect or prejudice in any way the rights of the minority, either Protestant or Catholic, to separate schools.' In other words, it assumes that there are rights to separate schools. I submit, on a consideration of the law, that there are no separate schools existing in that territory; therefore, there can be no rights affected. If that be so, the amendment proposed is entirely inapplicable and inoperative, and it would be dangerous for this House to pass it.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

I should have translated it to read: ' school rights that the minority, either Protestant or Catholic, may have.' There is no mention of separate schools.

Mr. AIKINS.

I would like to have the proper translation. If the Chairman will give it to me in French, I can understand it.

Mr. MONDOU.

' School rights,' means either public schools or separate schools. The law with regard to the schools must remain as it is.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

The translation reads now as follows:

Mr. AIKINS.

Nothing in this Act shall affect prejudicially in any way the school rights of the minority, either Protestant or Catholic, as_ they may now exist, in such part of the territories now annexed to Manitoba,

Mr. AIKINS.

The argument that I was making in respect of the translation that was given to me is applicable to about the same extent to that. This resolution would make the parliament assume that there do exist school rights of some nature. It would be dangerous, it seems to me, for the parliament to adopt such an amendment. As I have pointed out, the Northwest Territories Act simply enabled the Territorial government to pass enactments relating to education. The Dominion parliament never created by legislation private schools, or public schools, or separate schools, or denominational schools. All that the parliament did was to create a body, a government which might legislate in respect to education, but which did not act thereunder to create school rights in any part of the added territory. Another important point which' I wish to consider is that if this amendment could constitutionally pass, then the government of Manitoba, to which this territory is to be added, would not have power to pass any reasonable legislation with respect to schools, because there would be no legislation which would be passed in subsequent years by the province of Manitoba that would not in some manner affect somewhat school rights if any exist there. Could the province of Manitoba assess the property of the people for the support of schools of any class? That right does not exist now. The people might very well say: You cannot assess our property for schools, because we have a right to carry on our schools without any assessment, our right now is not to be assessed. It could not make any regulation in respect of schools, because the people educate by right there without regulation. The proposed amendment is intended to be such a limitation on the legislative power of the province of Manitoba in respect of this added territory, that it, could not possibly pass any enactment which would affect present school rights, which right is to teach as people please without taxation, or regulation, or teacher qualification. It is true, it says, * shall not prejudicially affect school rights.' Who is to decide whether those rights I have mentioned, are prejudicially affected or not? You pass an Act respecting schools, either public or private, giving the right to tax and the right to apply the money, and any person affected might say: That prejudicially affects me, because I have a right to be free from taxation, from regulation, and I can employ any teacher, qualified or unqualified, as I please.

Consequently such an amendment passed in such wording as that would certainly create contusion, because indefinite-and would lead to litigation. Now there is a constitutional point that has to be considered. As I have said the Northwest Territorial government was given the Northwest Territory to govern, including the westerly portion of the area that is to be added to Manitoba, to legislate under the instructions of the Governor in Council, in respect to education. But the power to legislate was subject to certain limitations. The parliament of Canada itself as I have said did not legislate to create school districts, did not pass any school law and apply it to that territory. It never purported to enact any law immediately applicable to school districts of the people in respect of education. It empowered the Commissioner in Council in the Northwest Territories under the Act of 1905 to do so, if empowered to do so by the Governor in Council, but the Governor in Council never gave them the authority to do so and the Commissioners in Council never purported to pass any *school law relating to education. Therefore, I submit that there does not exist now any legislative rights in respect of education in the Northwest Territories, except the one right that the peoiple there have to educaate their children as they please. But that does not create a public right at all, it is a private right, and they can carry on that education in any way they may; there is no system of school, separate or sectarian or general. Is it right or proper that we should say to the province of Manitoba: You have no right to interfere with the way in which education is now carried on in the area to be added; a go-as-you-please system. Of course the laws in force there will continue until altered by competent legislative authority. There [DOT] must be adopted some system of education such as is applicable in all the provinces, and the province of Manitoba should have the right to inaugurate that system subject to the limitations of its constitution. Remember one thing: That this Act is not creating a new government for the province of Manitoba. It is simply adding territory to come under that government and under the constitution of that province. It was quite different when the late government created the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. There they created governments and they put limitations on the governments, and on the power of legislation. But what right has this parliament to put limitations on the power of legislation or alter the constitution of a government already created and existing, the constitution and the government of the province of Manitoba? I submit that, as

was stated by the Prime Minister only the other night, this parliament has not the power to change the constitution of that government or to put limitations on the power it has in respect of education, other than those now existing. As was stated very clearly section 22 of the British North America Act gave to the Manitoba government the power of legislating in the matter of schools subject to limitations. Those limitations were practically the same as the limitations in the British North America Act. That was stated very clearly by the judgment in the Privy Council in these words:

In the case of Brophy vs Attorney General of Manitoba:

The second section of the Manitoba Act enacts that after the prescribed day the British North America Act shall

Here the judge read the section:

It cannot be questioned, therefore, that section 93 of the British North America Act (save such parts of it as are specially applicable to some only of the provinces of which the Dominion was in 1870 composed) is made applicable to the province of Manitoba except in so far as it is varied by the Manitoba Act. The 22nd section of that statute deals with the same subjeot-matter as section 93 of the British North America Act. The second subsection of this 'latter section may he discarded from consideration, as it is manifestly applicable only to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The remaining provisions closely correspond to section 22 of the Manitoba Act. The only diSerence between the introductory part and the first subseotion of the two sections is that in the Manitoba Act the words ' or practice ' are added after the word ' law ' in the first subsection. . . In view of this comparison, it appears to their lordships impossible to come to any other conclusion that that the 22nd section of the Manitoba Act was intended to be a substitute for the 93rd section of the British North America Act.

So that we have in the province of Manitoba the same limitations in respect of education, the same rights and privileges protected in respect to education, as in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The province of Manitoba, therefore, has this limited constitution in respect to education. That constitution was confirmed by an Imperial Act, and I submit that this parliament has not the power to change Manitoba's constitution as it would be affected if this parliament passed the section suggested by the hon. gentleman who has just moved his amendment. Section 3 of the British North America Act of 1871 says:

The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish, or Otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and

conditions as may be agreed to by tbe said legislature

Those terms and those conditions, must be terms and must be conditions within the competence of this parliament to pass and not otherwise. But has it the right to change the constitution of Manitoba ? Look a little further on at section 6:

Except as provided by the 3rd section of this Act, it shall not be competent for the parliament of Canada to alter the provisions of the last mentioned Act of the said parliament in so far as it relates to the province of Manitoba or of any other Act hereafter establishing new provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of the legislature of the province of Manitoba to alter from time to 'time the provisions of any law respecting the qualifications of electors and members of the legislative assembly, and to make laws respecting elections in the said province.

I submit that the province of Manitoba has not the power to consent to the amendment of its constitution by the parliament of Canada. Would it not be necessary to go further, and obtain an Imperial Act in order to change that' constitution ? Further I submit, and think the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will admit the same fact, that those terms and conditions referred to in section 6 must be terms and conditions within the competence of this parliament, and relate only to the increase of its area, its finances, and not its constitution. That appears to me to have been the view of the right hon. the leader of the opposition and his administration, for in the Act which they proposed to pass for the purpose of adding to the province of Manitoba, there was no mention whatever of any such restriction or condition or term. That is the position as I understand it, and the leader of the opposition will correct me if the letter and the proposed Bill, which I am about to read, are not correct. On the 26th of February, 1909, the right hon. gentleman wrote as follows to Mr. Roblin, the Premier of Manitoba:

Dear Mr. Roblin,-I have the honour to inclose the draft Bill for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. This Bill is on the line of the resolutions adopted by the House of Commons at its last session. The amount of allowance to be paid to the province in lieu of lands has been left in blank. According to the aforesaid resolution of the House of Commons, this amount should be fixed by negotiation between the Dominion and the government of the province.

We will be happy to confer with you at any time that may be convenient to yourself and to your government.

(Sgd.) WILFRID LAURIER,

The draft Act recites:

Mr. AIKINS.

Whereas, a petition has been presented to the House of Commons on behalf of the legislative assembly of the province of Manitoba, praying amongst other things for an extension of the boundaries of that province northward and eastward, and for an additional subsidy to the province in lieu of the ownership of the public lands in the territory to be added to the province by such extension, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of such petition to the extent and in the manner provided in the enactments hereinafter contained; therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons enacts as follows:-

Boundaries of the province.

1. Upon the legislature of the province of Manitoba consenting thereto, the limits of the said province shall be increased so that the northern boundary of the province shall be the sixtieth parallel of north latitude; the western boundary shall be the present eastern boundary of tbe province of Saskatchewan; the eastern boundary shall he the present eastern boundary of the province to the northeast corner thereof, thence in a Straight line to the most easterly point of Island Lake, and thence in a straight line to the point where the eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the shore line of Hudson Bay, thence following the said shore line to its intersection with the sixtieth parallel.

2. And whereas in accordance with the provisions of the Act establishing the province of 'Manitoba tbe ungranted lands of the Crown in the territory so to he added to the said province will continue to be administered by the Government of Canada for the purposes of Canada and the Province will not have such lands as a source of revenue, it is further enacted that there shall be paid by Canada to the Province an increased allowance by money payment to an amount of. . .

3. This Act shall come into force upon a date to he fixed by proclamation of the- Governor in Council.

Now, that was the /proposed Act by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his government. There is no provision in that Act respecting education such as has been suggested by the hon. gentleman in the proposed amendment. I submit that there must have been some good reason why the right hon. gentleman and his administration did not put such a clause in their proposed Act; that reason is, I presume, the very same reason that governs that action of the present government, namely that they do not wish to change the constitution of the province of Manitoba, in which constitution the rights of the minority and of the majority in respect of schools, are protected just in the same way and to the same extent as the British North America Act, -section 93, guards, the rights of minorities in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I presume there wras no such addition1 in that proposed Act because it was assumed that this parliament had no right to amend the con-

stitution of the province of Manitoba. Moreover if this parliament had it would be a rather singular thing that Manitoba should have one constitution for one part of its territory and a different constitution for another part of its territory. Such a thing, I submit, was never contemplated by this parliament nor by the Imperial parliament when they framed the Manitoba Act. Therefore, the reason for adding this territory to the province of Manitoba without such suggested limitations was that the present constitution of the province sufficiently guards the rights intended perhaps to be guarded though indefinitely by the hon. gentleman who moved this amendment. Assuming any school rights do exist those rights will be protected under section 22 of the Manitoba Act which, in effect is section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867. If such rights exist, they will continue to exist, I submit, as was demonstrated by the lion. the Minister of Public Works the other evening, that under the general law in a territory coming under a new government the laws in force remain in force until changed by competent legislative authority. In view of this and in view of the ambiguity of the amendment itself I submit the amendment should not be entertained by this House.

Amendment, Mr. Mondou, negatived.

Mr. OLIVER.

I desire to move an

amendment to section 5

Mr. MONDOU.

Mr. Chairman

Order.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

The amendment is lost.

Mr. OLIVER.

I desire to move, in

amendment to section 5, as follows:-

Inasmuch as under the provisions of this Act the province will not have the public lands as a source of revenue, there shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter set out, be paid by the government to the province, by half-yearly payments in advance, on the first day of January and July in each year, an annual sum based upon the population of the territory proposed to he added to the province as from time to time ascertained by the quinquennial census thereof, as follows-

The sum payable until the population of such territory reaches 100,000, shall he $200,000.

Thereafter, until such population reaches 150,000 the sum payable shall he $250,000.

After such population reaches 200,000 the sum payable shall he $300,000.

I move this amendmeut as embodying the views of the late government in regard to subsidy in respect of land in connection with the increase of the area of the province of Manitoba. The late government in negotiating with the province made the proposal set out in this amendment. It carries with it no return by the province of any of the land or the property which now belongs to the province. I wish to lay some stress upon reasons why the offer of financial terms to the province of Manitoba in connection with the extension of its area was framed in accordance with this amendment and why there was not taken into consideration the question of any return of the property of the province, or the prospective property of the province, to the Dominion. It was absolutely necessary, in considering the resources which would be accorded to the province under the new arrangement to consider what the province was receiving directly and indirectly from the Dominion government, especially in consideration of the fact that it was to some degree desirable that there should be parallel arrangements in the matter of financial assistance-measurably parallel, at any rate-as between Manitoba and the western provinces. But, more important than the question of actual financial arrangement, more important than the value that might be attached to the property which had been handed over by the Dominion to the province, was the effect that this retention by the province would have upon the development and progress of the province as compared with that which would take place if that property) were handed back to the Dominion. For good reasons-undoubtedly for good reasons-in 1885, when the adjustment of the subsidy was made with the province of Manitoba, in addition to the cash subsidy to be paid, it was provided that all swamp lands within the province should become the property of the province. The reason why this was done was not so much because of the cash value of those lands, because at that time these lands had no cash value. In 1885, good agricultural land in the province of Manitoba and in the other two western provinces was not worth $3 an acre-it was not worth $2 an acre.

The Canadian Pacific railway, sometime between 1882 and 1885, sold to the Dominion government six million acres of land at $1.50 an acre. This was selected land, selected agricultural land, fairly fit for farming; and if first class agricultural land fairly fit for farming was worth at that time only $1.50 an acre, the swamp lands of Manitoba had practically no value at all.

The reason why the swamp lands were left in the hands of the province of Manitoba was in order that they might be reclaimed, developed and made productive- that they might be drained. It was thought that the province itself was the proper authority, and had the most suitable means to do that work, and consequently they -were left in the hands of the province, it was thought right and proper to leave

them in the hands of the province which

was expected to make the expenditure to reclaim those lands and make them valuable The proposition was not to give revenue to the province of Manitoba in place of a cash subsidy, it was an arrangement whereby this large area of land could be reclaimed, could be made productive That arrangement, I am sorry to say, did not work out as was expected. When money is readily available, and when the prices of land are high, when it is possible, as it was not possible during previous years, to raise money on the security of the lands to be drained, the government of Manitoba might well have entered upon a policy of effective drainage of these low lands, a policy of effective reclamation of the four, five, six, or seven million acres that are to-day classed as swamp lands. The provincial governments have not entered upon such a policy. It is perhaps not in place here to criticise the drainage policy of the Manitoba government, but there may be no. harm in mentioning it. It is a policy whereby certain areas are set apart as drainage districts, bonds are issued on the security of the land's in those districts, and purchasers of the lands not only pay the price of the lands to the provincial government, but carry the debt that has been laid upon them for the purpose of drainage. That may be a good policy in a limited way, but it cannot be a policy under which this vast area of land can be properly reclaimed. This area, as I said the other night, is two-thirds as great as the total area under cultivation to-day in the three prairie provinces, that cultivation which has mad'e the Dominion rich and great. That is the area which is waiting to be reclaimed, developed, and made productive under an active, energetic and progressive provincial government such as we hope to see in that province in the not distant future. That land is to be handed back to the Dominion government, a government which has not the proper authority or jurisdiction, and which is not responsible for the drainage or reclamation of those lands. Is it possible, as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins), said the other day, that these lands are only being temporarily handed back to the Dominion, to be again returned to the province? Possibly, that is the case.

Mr. AIKINS.

Does the hon. gentleman say that the member for Brandon said that?

Mr. OLIVER.

I understood him to say it.

Mr. AIKINS.

The hon. gentleman is mistaken.

Mr. OLIVER.

Mr. OLIVER.