[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Have any charges or complaints been made to the Department of Railways and Canals against assistant electrician Cuillerier P
2.	If so, has any report as to such complaints or charges been made to the department by the chief electrician on the Sou-langes Canal P
3.	If such charges or reports have been made, does the government intend to make an inquiry as to the truth of the same?
4.	If such inquiry should be made by whom will it be considered, and when anil where will it be held?
142*


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by Number One.
3.	Answered by Number One.
4.	As no charges have been made, it has not been necessary to decide when and where and by whom an inquiry will be held.


NAVAL DEFENCE OF PACIFIC COAST.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MACDONALD:	-
1.	Is the government aware as to whether or not a resolution in the following terms has been adopted by the legislature of British Columbia:
Whereas the government of Canada has decided that any scheme of naval defence to be effective, must be by co-operation with the mother country and the other parts of the Empire; therefore, he it resolved, that the Dominion government be urged that, in view of the great importance for the immediate and adequate protection of the Pacific coast of Canada, the question of naval defence be considered at the earliest possible date?
2.	Has the attention of the government been called to any_such resolution?
3.	If so, has the government been informed as to whether or not such a resolution was adopted on the motion of the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. McBride?
4.	Has a copy of such resolution been received by this government from the government of British Columbia?
5.	If so, does the government propose to move along the lines suggested in said resolution? If so, when? If not, why not?
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The government has no information as to the mover of this resolution.
4.	Yes.
5.	When the government has formulated its naval policy, it will lay it before parliament.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has M. J. Lepage, Esq., preventive officer in His Majesty's Customs at Rimouski, been dismissed? If so, at whose request, and for what cause?
2.	Is the Minister of Customs aware that this officer is said to have denied under oath having taken any part in elections?
3.	Has he been denied the right of an official investigation? If so, why?


Mr. REID (Grenville) :: 1.	M. J. Lepage, collector of customs, Rimouski, has been dismissed for active political partisanship, on the statement of the member for parliament for Rimouski.
2.	No.
3.	The usual course has been followed in this case, the charge having been made
I by a member of parliament.


Mr. CARVELL:: 
Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	Yes. .	'	.
2.	On the recommendation of the Minister of Customs for alleged violation of the Canada Temperance Act.
3.	There was an information laid against Mr. Chubb before a commissioner of the parish of St. George civil court. Mr. Chubb states that the facts in this case were that his son, who was working in the store with him, sent to St. John for three bottles of whisky for some of hisi neighbours about Christmas time, and that he was not personally accountable for the ordering or the distribution of the liquor, but as he did not desire to figure in the courts, he sent his son to St. George before the trial and paid the fine of $50 and $7 expenses. Mr. Chubb's statement is confirmed by one of the neighbours, who describes himself as a Liberal.


Mr. LEMIFTJX:: 1.	Has Louis Pouliot, of A.mqui, been dismissed? If so, what was the cause of his dismissal ?	_
2.	Has an investigation taken place? If not, why not?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b) Political partisanship.
2.	(a) No.	[DOT]


THOMAS HALE, WESTVILLE.
Air. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who has been appointed to succeed Thomas Hale, of Westville in the county of Piotou, as correspondent of the ' Labour Gazette '?
2.	If none has been appointed yet, will anyone be appointed?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	Lawrence Howard McKenzie.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of the news sent up to date to Magdalen Island by the weekly correspondent appointed by the Postmaster General; also for a copy of the instructions given said correspondent ait 'the time of his appointment.-Mr. Lemieux.
For a copy of all letters, oomplaints, charges, and other papers and documents in the possession of the Post Office Department relating to Tracadie road post office, Guys-borough county, Nova Scotia,-Mr. Sinclair.
Mr. REID (Grenville).: For a copy of all papers, complaints, letters and other documents connected with or relating to the dismissal of John McLeod a3 postmaster at Denmark, Colchester county, Nova Scotia, and the appointment or suggested appointment of D. McLeod to tne vacancy.-Mr. Macdonald.


PELAGIC SEALING.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask my right hon. friend whether letters of ratification have been exchanged for a treaty with reference to pelagic sealing, and are they before the House?
Right hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister). I understand that letters have not been exchanged, and the treaty is now being considered by the United States.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
Air. KYTE.: I desire to ask the Minister of Public Works (Air. Monk) when I may expect certain returns moved for on the 5th of February having reference to breakwaters at Port Richmond and Charles Forest's Cove, N.S.?


Mr. MONK.: I will make a note of rny hon. friend's request, and try and get the report down.


George William Kyte: There are several other orders outstanding having reference to other departments of the government, and I will be glad if they are brought down as early as possible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Send me a memorandum of them.


PAYMENT OF ELECTION ACCOUNTS.
Mr. TURRIFF.: I would like again to call the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roche) to the fact that I am still getting communications from my constituency claiming that the accounts in connection with the election held now almost six months ago, have not yet been paid. A part only of the money has been sent, but in such a way that the returning officer is not able to pay it out, and practically nothing has been paid in connection with the ejection. In connection with the census, also, there are still a number of accounts outstanding, and I would like to draw the attention of the government to the fact that it is now a great deal more than six months since the census was taken, and these accounts are still unpaid.


Mr. BURRELL.: I did not quite catch all my hon. friend's remarks, but I understood them to be a complaint that a lot of the census enumerators had not been paid. Was that it?


John Gillanders Turriff: Some of them-yes.


Martin Burrell: I am informed by those responsible in the department that all the accounts would have been paid at the end of last week but for the fact that vouchers for some had not been received. I believe that explanation to be correct. I think my hon. friend will find that all were practically settled last week. If my hon. friend will go back to the last census he will find that the work has been expedited this year probably more than it was ten years ago.


Mr. ROCHE.: With regard to the election accounts, that is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Auditor General, with whom I have had some communication in which he informs me that if there are any unpaid accounts it is invariably due to the fact that they have not been rendered or there is some dispute in connection with them. I will get the particulars of these accounts to which my hon. friend has referred.


ST. JOHN VALLEY RAILWAY.
Mr. PUGSLEY.: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) if the agreement regarding construction and operation of the St. John Valley railway has yet been signed. My hon. friend was good enough to say that as soon as it was signed he would lay it on the table of the House.


Mr. COCHRANE.: It has been signed by myself and the order in council was passed j^esterday. As soon as the order in council is signed by His Royal Highness the Governor General I will be glad to bring the papers down.


EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES-MANITOBA.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Borden for the second reading of Bill (No. 115), to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville).: Mr. Speaker, the question which is now before the House is one of great importance indeed and of far-reaching consequences from the national point of view, and, I might perhaps add, from the imperial point of view. We are engaged in the process of carving out from the vast domain of Rupert's Land new territories for three great provinces of this Dominion. Whilst we are engaged in thus carving out these new territories we might, perhaps, be inclined to forget the men who secured for Canada the great Rupert's Land, obtaining it through the good offices of Downing street for a paltry sum of money. I have heard during this debate warm compliments paid to the memory of Sir John
A. Macdonald, who was declared to be a great statesman because, in the early days of confederation, he had thought proper to enter into negotiations with the mother country in order to secure these territories for the Dominion of Canada. I do not begrudge, Sir, the compliments to which the great giant of our Canadian public life, Sir John A. Macdonald, is entitled. But, we must not forget, now that we are comparatively far away from those events of confederation days, that there were other men too who did their best to obtain the union of the various provinces and to found this great confederacy, and who, with Sir John Macdonald, merged their party strife and party spirit and obtained for Canada the territories of the northwest from the Hud1-son's Bay Company. 1 refer especially to the ,old Liberal chieftain, George Brown and Alexander Mackenzie, to whom we owe much for confederation and for the retention of this land for the Dominion.
With this piece of legislation which we are now considering stands on the order paper concurrent legislation, which will be moved in a few days by my right hon. friend who leads the government (Mr. Borden). There are two resolutions on the order paper in one of which it is enacted that what remains of the territory north of Ontario, and the portion of Keewatin that is not allotted to Manitoba, shall go to the province of Ontario. In another resolution it is also enacted that the far away district of Ungava, shall henceforth belong to the province of Quebec. Sir, let me say at once to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that, speaking as a Canadian, I heartily approve of that legislation. I believe that Ontario is entitled to the land north of Temiskaming as far as the shores of Hudson bay and I unreservedly, rely on the good sense of the province of Ontario to administer that new region as well as it has administered the district immediately adjoining. I also approve of the annexation of Ungava to the province of Quebec. It rightfully belongs to the province of Quebec. My hon. friends, the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), yesterday, opened their remarks by laying emphasis on the fact that Ungava would be allotted to the province of Quebec. Presumably they were desirous of accommodating their remarks as much as they could, to the sentiments of their followers in this House. But their followers and the members of this House must not forget that both the territory to the north of Ontario and Ungava territory were offered some years ago by a Liberal government to the two largest provinces of the Dominion. Ontario did not see fit at the time to accept the terms of the 'resolution which was moved in this House by my right hon. friend who leads

the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), but long ago, Quebec, through the instrumentality of the Premier, Sir Lomer Gouin, accepted Ungava on behalf of his /province. So, it is no. new thing and Ungava cannot suffice to soothe the sentiments of the followers of hon. gentlemen opposite. They must give something else. At all events, Sir, I congratulate the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) not on having given these portions of the northern territories to the two great provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but rather do I congratulate him upon having only implemented legislation brought before this House three or four years ago.
Let me say now, how far I disagree with the right hon. gentleman in regard to the legislation which he has submitted to this. House. There is another order in council which will toe embalmed in the statute book, I suppose, as part of the Bill. This order in council has reference to the projection of a line five miles in width through the northern territory of Manitoba as far as Port Nelson. I cannot help saying with all due respect to my right hon. friend, that this is a most unseemly and most extraordinary piece of legislation. It paves the way for future conflicts between the provinces of Manitoba and the province of Ontario. It gives sovereign rights to the province of Ontario on that thin red line on the map, whilst it keeps away from Manitoba proprietary Tights in the lands adjoining.
I say it paves the way for future conflicts between these two great provinces. True, the Prime Minister can answer that the Premier of Manitoba is satisfied, and that the Premier of Ontario, who is supposed to voice public opinion in that province, is equally satisfied, and that the government supporters at Ottawa are satisfied, and that the opposition in this House are the only persons who are dissatisfied.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, that is no argument. My right lion, friend the Prime Minister is supposed to know public opinion in this country and he ought to realise that he cannot repeat the victory he won on the wave of the 21st of September last. He may believe that, but, there was once a king of Poland who, when he was intoxicated, believed that all his subjects were intoxicated with him. And, as regards this unseemly projection of the province of Ontario in a thin red1 line on the map towards Port Nelson, I say with all due Te-spect for Sir James Whitney, for whom I have great admiration


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: I say that notwithstanding all his ability, while he may be satisfied with that thin red line projected over Manitoba to Port Nelson, there are others deeply interested in the province of Ontario who are not satisfied. I know of a man who in his day and generation represented public opinion in Ontario in no less degree than does Sir James Whitney; I refer to Sir Oliver Mowat.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know the fight and the successful fight that Sir Oliver Mo^wat made for the boundaries of Ontario against Sir John A. Macdonald; and I know that if Sir James Whitney is satisfied with this, Sir Oliver Mowat would not be satisfied were he alive to-day.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: May I ask a question ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


John Allister Currie: I just want to ask a question.


Mr. BUREAU.: Take your medicine like a man.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has the floor.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am now in the vein of paying compliments to the Prime Minister and that stalwart friend of his, that future cabinet minister


Jacques Bureau: Now, you have got him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He should not interrupt me even ' pro bono publico.' I am, I say in the vein of paying compliments to the right hon. the Prime Minister, and coming to the boundaries of Manitoba I say that I approve of the boundaries as set forth in this Bill. I approve because it is a vindication of the policy pursued by Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he was in office. That right hon. gentleman himself mapped cut with his colleagues what extensions should be made to Manitoba north and east, but for years and years the Manitoba government who were not in sympathy with the right hon. gentleman, marked -time. They sent to Ottawa delegation after delegation, and when they were not satisfied with the boundaries they were satisfied with other parts of the offer made to them, but it was always found that if something was satisfactory something else) was sure to be unsatisfactory in the terms offered by the Liberal government. By far, the most important matter was the provision with regard to the boundaries, and it is a vindication of the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier that exactly the same boundaries have been given to Manitoba in this Bill as he proposed. And, if the present Prime Minister, in addition to extend-
MAltCH 6, 1912
ing the boundaries of Manitoba and giving new wheat fields to the farmers of that province, could insert in that Bill a provision that with respect to the new crops that will be raised on that extended territory he would give to the western farmer a market in which to sell them I would say that this legislation was almost perfect. Be that as it may, the Prime Minister did another thing by this legislation to which I strongly object.
I need not repeat the arguments that have been adduced by the hon. member for St. 3ohn (Mr. Pugsley). With his usual eloquence he dealt with this subject and he criticized with all the vigour and ability with which he is endowed the financial terms that are offered to Manitoba by this Bill. I agree entirely with the remarks he made. I say that the financial terms are exorbitant. I say that they are not what they should be, considering the position of Manitoba relative to the other provinces, and when we know that in 1885 there should have been a finality in this matter. The policy of the government as regards the arrears is also unsound and calculated1 .to bring about regrettable results. I agree on these two questions with my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley). In giving "the enormous amounts which are being handed over to the province of Manitoba by this arrangement I cannot help thinking of the sad position in which the provinces by the sea are left. I cannot forget that the maritime provinces helped just as much as did Ontario and Quebec in the founding of this Dominion. I cannot help remembering that their delegates were united with the delegates of Ontario and Quebec, and that they thought when Canada was made a Dominion they would have an equal chance with the other provinces to develop and to increase. But what are the facts? As Quebec has increased her territory, as Ontario has increased her territory, as the provinces in the west are increasing their territory, the little provinces by the sea which cannot be extended are decreasing in population, while their financial burdens are ever increasing. Have not these provinces in the east done as much for confederation as have the new provinces? I have travelled in the west and I say here that the real pioneers are the men who came from the maritime provinces and from Quebec and from Ontario. You may go into any seat of learning in the west; you may go to any high school in these new territories, and there you will meet men from Prince Edward Island, men from Nova Scotia, men from New Brunswick, teaching the younger generation. Go into the banking institutions, into the insurance companies, into the largest financial establishments, and at the head of these institutions you will find men from the far away provinces by the sea, But,
Sir, the provinces by the sea will have no added territory. Then, under such circumstances, before carving out finally what remains of our Canadian Dominion, the right hon. gentleman should have summoned to Ottawa a conference of the premiers of the various provinces and have given our friends by the sea a chance to exist and to live. '
Mr. Speaker, the Bill is perhaps more important for what it does not contain than for what it contains. We were treated right royally last evening to the new issue of the eternally famous school question By whom has this question been imported into the debate? Not by the Liberal party, not by the Liberal press, not by the Liberal orators throughout the country. The question which was imported into the House last night must be assigned exclusively to the Nationalist wing of the coalition government. Indeed, I do not know why I should presently, address myself to my friends on the other side of the House. They know more about this feud than we " know. I ought to enlighten my friends on this side of the House who come from various provinces as to this family quarrel-because it is nothing more and nothing less than a family quarrel. My hon. friend the Postmaster General complained last night that he was being called names. He said:	' They call us names;
they implore us French Canadian ministers, hand over your portfolios; and we are branded as arch traitors.' Of course, Sir, the hon. gentlemen will not hand over their portfolios, and my hon. friend must stand being called names for many years to come. Turning towards his Tory friends sitting behind him, he said, "They call us arch traitors." By whom are they called arch traitors? As regards myself, I know what name to give the hon. gentleman. For twenty-five years in public life I need not invent any new name. He is called arch traitor by whom? By his own friends. Mr. Bourassa, in an interview published two days ago, said that the conduct of the hon. gentlemen who form the Nationalist wing of the coalition government made his British blood boil in his veins; and Mr. Ar-mand Lavergne, the leader of the hon the Postmaster General, said of him not later than yesterday, "I am ashamed of him." Arch traitors, Mr. Speaker? Arch traitors to their own friends, whom they led not into the promised land of integral Nationalism. Arch traitors to their own friends, to their own promises, and to their apparent convictions on and before the 21st of September last. I say again, Mr. Speaker, we did not raise the issue. We are simple onlookers. We are witnessingithe quarrel, and we are evincing much pleasure at the sight. No, we did not raise the issue. The best evidence of that is the able and eloquent speech delivered last night by a sincere

believer in Nationalism, the young member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarehe) a speech Sir, which deserves commendation from every member of this House, because it was lofty. What did the hon. member for Nicolet say? He said that he felt in'duty bound to separate himself from his ministers who had led him astrav lefore Hie 21st of September, as he had promised if elected he would restore separate schools to Manitoba and would give separate schools to the minority in'-Keewatin. By whom was he induced to make that promise to the electors of the county of Nicolet if not by the Minister of Public Works, if not by the Postmaster General, and by the Minister of .Inland Revenue? I repeat-and I am in the judgment if my fellow Liberal members from the province of Quebec-who induced the bright young men who separated themselves yesterday from the ministerial party-who induced them during the last four years, in their respective constituencies, to advocate and promise the restoration of a system of separate schools in Manitoba and in the district of Keewatin, if not the Postmaster General the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Inland Revenue with their incendiary speeches? The quarrel is between those who yesterday separated themselves from the ministerial party and the three Quebec ministers is this, that the young Nationalists are sincere, while the three ministers are not and were not sincere. Sir, I have listened with a great deal of interest, with rapt attention, to the impetuous speech made by the Postmaster General. It was a plea pro domo.
The hon. gentleman was defending his own gates, he was defending his own lines, in a word he was defending his portfolio. But, Sir, do you suppose that this speech, hurling defiance as it did against the exPrime Minister, was addressed to the right hon. gentleman. Sir, the Postmaster General's bold rejoinder went far beyond the walls of this parliament: It was addressed to that Samson of the Nationalist party, that Samson that no Delilah could approach, and whose locks no Delilah can clip or fleece. The indignant speech of the hon. gentleman was addressed to Mr. Bourassa, who is now desecrating the ministerial temple by acting in such a way that we can already hear the columns toppling and tumbling to pieces within that edifice.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, Mr. Speaker, that speech was not directed against the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, sure of that. The Postmaster General's indignant accents went far beyond the walls of this House. They were addressed against Mr. Bourassa, who dared to be logical after the 21st of September as he Mr. LEMIEUX.
was before that date. They were addressed against Mr. Lavergne, the would-be leader of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pelletier). They were addressed against the editors of the Nationalist press-against the editor of ' Le Devoir,' of ' La Croix,' of * Le Nationalists,' ' L'Action Sociale,' against the four leaders of public opinion in the Nationalist party, who are all denouncing the action of the Postmaster General at the present time. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman and his colleagues from Quebec are primarily responsible for this school agitation and they will reap their reward sooner or later.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are denounced by those they have misled. They will also be condemned by the electorate at the very first opportunity. Last night I heard something which is new to my ears. I listened to the laboured speech of the Minister of Public Works. I pinched myself during the delivery of that sp.eech. I could not believe that it was the Minister of Public Works who was speaking, but beyond doubt he was the speaker. He said, Mr. Speaker, that he always understood-and he made the statement in his usual mellifluous tones-that the school question had been finally settled, and he added, remembering no doubt that he once was a professor at Laval University, ' We are functi officio.' It sounded like a legal sermon. The Minister of Public Works during the last 15 years has been representing quite another constituency than that of Jacques Cartier; his constituency was the Nationalist element and some of the young clergy in the province of Quebec. I do not know what the Nationalists would have said during the last campaign, with the programme I have in my hand, when the hon. gentleman was apparently so much concerned about the maintenance of the federal pact of 1867 as regards the protection of all minorities in order to ensure contentment among all classes-if he had told them that the Manitoba school question had been settled.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know either, what reception he would have had from a certain section of the Freneh-Canadian clergy if he had answered: * functi officio sumus ! ' Ah ! Mr. Speaker, we were great criminals in the province of Quebec. The right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, with his Freneh-Canadian colleagues in the late cabinet, and the French Canadian members in the last parliament were great criminals in the eyes and in the judgment of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk). True, at the same time whilst he was ingeniously

carrying on his racial agitation, by promising remedial legislation, by promising the restoration of Catholic schools in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan, and in Alberta, true it is that during his 15 years of stewardship in this parliament the hon. gentleman never moved a motion of censure against the settlement which was made in 1897. But one can speak one way before the House of Commons and the other way before the electorate; and we had the evidence of this during the last 15 years. Let me recall a few instances. Those whose righteous principles were elastic enough to accept the Manitoba settlement made by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in 1897 could perhaps be' stirred up in their patriotic feelings against the hon. gentleman's naval policy as formulated in this parliament, and, therefore, the Minister of Public Works made a formal alliance with the Nationalist party. With some of them he rode the separate school horse, with some others he rode with flying banners against the Canadian navy. And in order to give the public an impression that he was sincere, what did he do? He severed with eclat his connection with the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government.
He did that in order to give the Prime Minister a little more freedom elsewhere and to make himself a little more free in the constituencies of the province of Quebec. Many in this House were present in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska two years ago who have not forgotten the incident which took place during the speech of the hon. Minister of Public Works on that occasion. He was fiercely denouncing the naval law he was fiercely denouncing the school settlement promulgated at the instance of the right hon. gentleman by the Greenway government in Idanitoba, when suddenly, from the crowd, a voice shouted ' what about Borden?' My right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) will pardon me if I re-echo the very discourteous interjection, but great men are only known by their family names? Some one shouted from the multitude ' What about Borden?'


Some hon. MEMBERS: He is all right.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is all right? He may be all right to-day


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He may be all right today, but on that day he was all wrong. What was the answer of the Minister of Public Works? Let my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) a doughty fighter of the Conservative party, listen to this. When he was asked:	What about Borden?
he turned around and, nearly sobbing, as he sobs when he passes his estimates, with tears in his voice and in his eyes, said:
Borden? Have I severed my connection with the Conservative party to be told that I am a partisan of Borden? He was all wrong, Mr. Speaker, on that day.
I say, Sir, that the stand of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) on the school question for the last 15 years,-and you, Sir, are a witness to this-was on a par with his stand on the naval question at the opening of this session. You remember, Mr. Speaker, in 1909, on the 29th March, a resolution was passed by this parliament praying for the establishment of a Canadian navy. You remern-bei that the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Public Works, from his seat in this House, denounced that policy and declared himself opposed to that resolution. During the campaign his constituency of Nationalists listened to him. According to Mr. Bourassa and his friends he was the only one in this House who had spoken the true language of a patriot. The elections took place, and that hon. gentleman was selected as one of the colleagues of the Borden government. He came back-to this House, he was asked how the change had come about, what bargain he had made with the right hon. the Prime Minister, to merge his. opinions, anti-naval, with the opinions, pro-naval, of his Prime Minister. What did he answer? He answered that he had never wavered, that he had always been in favour of a naval policy. He went so far as to say that he had supported the resolution of Match 29, 1909, and I had to read him his ipsissima verba from the ' Hansard.' He did not dare answer when I established clearly to this House that he had differed completely from his colleagues on that occasion.
The Postmaster General made a lengthy speech containing some more or less witty references to the right hon. gentleman who-leads the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), which, perhaps, could be forgiven, if they had been made on the platform or at Billingsgate, but I say that the reflections he cast on the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will put the Postmaster General on a level where he really stands in the judgment of this House. Sir, let not my friends who belong to the Tory party believe for one moment, that this staunch defender of Tory faith, has always been a dyed-in-the-wool Tory. I know the hon. Postmaster General from A to Z, and when I say from A to Z, I know whereof I speak. The hon. gentleman reminds me of that little animal mentioned somewhere in the Roman law, known in common parlance as the chameleon, but known in the Roman law as the salamander. In the Roman.law a man who has a fraudulent debtor was called a salamander or a chameleon because he could change at his own sweet will. The

hon. gentleman is the Postmaster General, of Canada. Has he always been such a faithful follower of the Conservative party, has he always held the same contemptuous opinion which he expressed yesterday of the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition? I tell niy hon. friends on your right, that I have known the Postmaster General for nearly 35 years. I have listened to him when he was a humble, a very humble follower of the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). In 1885 on the Riel question, the hon. gentleman left the Tory party, joined the ranks of the Liberal party, and ran as the candidate of the Nationalist party of the time, in Three Rivers.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The Liberal-Nationalists.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman who always refers to his loyalty and his sturdy opposition to reciprocity, was a humble follower of the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, when the Liberal party in 1891 unfurled the banner of unrestricted reciprocity. He supported that party from 1887 until 1891. In Lotbiniere county, in the elections of 1908, when he ran against my hon. friend who sits for Lotbiniere, he did not run as a Conservative candidate, he stood as an independent candidate. He wanted to come into this House-and I was present on the platform to unmask him he solicited the votes of the men of Lotbiniere county, as he said, that he might come into the House of Commons as a follower of the right hon. gentleman. The district of Quebec is my witness, my hon. friend from Lotbiniere is my witness; the Postmaster General wanted to come into this House to support, as he said, the right hon. gentleman who was then the Prime Minister, and the only fault he found with the right hon. gentleman was, that he was too much under the sway of Mr. Sifton on the Manitoba school question. Sir, during the last election, in the month of September he delivered a speech in the county of Quebec, where he was brought as a candidate ty whom? By Mr. Lavergne. Let me quote from * L'Evenement,' his own organ:
On the 17th of September, speaking dn the county of Quebec, Mr. Pelletier paid a tribute of gratitude to Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne for what they had done for their country.
And in his grandiloquent style, with that tragic countenance which he assumed yesterday, reminding us of Talma or Coquelin, he said:
The people love you, Lavergne, because you have loved the people. Bourassa and yourself, Lavergne, have written a unique page in the annals of our country. I have offered myself as a candidate, because I had the support of Armand Lavergne.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And speaking of the multitude:
When you, gentlemen, on the 21st of September next, elect me, you will sing the victory of Pelletier and Lavergne. (Loud and prolonged cheers).
Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Lavergne, on the 17th of September last, gave utterance to views similar to those that were expressed by his follower last night in this House? We all know as a matter of history, and you, Mr. Speaker, better than any one else, that the reason why Mr. Lavergne severed his connection from the Liberal party was, first, because on the Autonomy Bills of 1905, he deprecated the substitution of clause 16, No. 2, to clause 16 No. 1. He started a campaign with Mr. Bourassa throughout the province of Quebec against the school policy accepted by this government, and by the Liberal party; and then, later on, to the many faults, to the many weaknesses which he found in the Liberal ranks, he added the naval policy in his arraignment of the Liberal party. Mr. Lavergne, in the province of Quebec-and I am in the judgment of the Liberal members of this House-Mr. Lavergne denounced the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the school question, and on the naval question. And when my hon. friend the Postmaster General ran as a candidate in Quebec county he ran imbued with the ideas, with the principles, with the professions of faith made by Mr. Lavergne; he was the follower of ,Mr. Lavergne, as he rightly stated at that meeting. What a change since the 21st of September. It may be said, however, Mr. Speaker, that not all of the Nationalist editors had faith in the hon. gentleman. I read in ' La Croix,' one of the most influential clerical and Nationalist papers in the province of Quebec, a very fierce denunciation of the hon. gentleman. In the last number of ' La Croix,' on March 2, it says:
The present Bill will not toe debated in the House until Monday next. What will then be the attitude of the Catholic members of the House, of the ministers, Messrs. Pelletier, Monk and Nantel? Will they throw' down their portfolios on the green cloth of the table, at the feet of their leader, if that leader persists in his refusal .to insert in that Bill a clause preserving the rights of Caitholiofe in Keewatin to their schools? Have they already insisted on that right? We do not know, events which will occur in the House of Commons next week will teach us wihat has happened. But from Pelletier, notably, we expect nothing good.
I have too much admiration for the ability of my hon. friend to read the other sentences.


Mr. PELLETIER.: I never read it.
447.3


Rodolphe Lemieux: ' La Croix ' will teach you to read it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Never. I know those people too well.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are speaking of clerics.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am speaking of 'La Croix.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are speaking^ with much boldness. I am afraid there will be a mandement issued against you shortly.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: ' La Croix ' is not a respectable paper.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not a respectable paper since it differs from my hon. friend, but it was a respectable paper before-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Never.
Mr. LEMIEUX-when it denounced my right hon. friend as being subservient to the Protestants, and my hon. friend used * La Croix ' for his own political purposes.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Never.
Mr. LEMIEUX-against the Liberal party.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I never used that paper in my life.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is very nervous; I do not know why he should be so nervous.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not nervous.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let him take his medicine. This Bill is a very hard and bitter pill to swallow. Again I say to my hon. friend, let him take his medicine; the end is not in sight yet. My hon. friend has given a new version of the history of the Manitoba school question. Let me refer for a minute to this question which is better known probably from my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers) than from any other member of the House of Commons. There was a school question from 1890 to 1897. but I understood last evening from the Minister of Public Works that it had been finally settled. The Postmaster 'General stated in so many words last evening that it was not settled and that he relied on his friend, Mr. Roblin, to give justice to the minority of Manitoba. It is well known that in 1890 a Grit government in Manitoba abolished the separate school system. It is also a matter of history that this legislation, passed by the Manitoba government in 1890, could have been disallowed within two years of its sanction. It was not disallowed, and I quite agree with my hon. friend that it would have been a very severe remedy to have
used against that legislation. Sir John Macdonald, we are told, refused to entertain the idea of disallowing that legislation in Manitoba. He had had his experience with that province of Manitoba; he knew that disallowance might be in the statute-book, but that it is never wise nor prudent for a statesman to enforce it. It was no more wise to use the power of disallowance than, in such an extreme position as the Manitoba school question was placed in 1896, to use the remedial order which was sent forward from the then government to the Manitoba authorities. If we cannot blame the Conservative government in 1890, 1891 and 1892 for not having used the power of disallowance, we cannot blame the Laurier government of 1896 for not having insisted on the remedial order being accepted by the Manitoba authorities, and I will explain why. The great mistake-I will not use the word ' crime,' because according to Thiers an error in politics is sometimes worse than a crime- the great mistake made by the Conservative party in 1890 was, instead of boldly facing the issue and entering into negotiations with the Manitoba government, to dally with the question, to send it from court to court, from the Supreme Court of 'Manitoba to the 'Supreme Court at Ottawa, from the Supreme Court at Ottawa to the Privy Council in England, from there again back to Manitoba, and to follow in the same way a second time to the Privy Council in London. During that time the agitation went on, becoming fiercer and fiercer every day, until, in 1895, this country, as you know, Mr. Speaker, being a contemporary yourself of the events which took place during those memorable years,
1895	and 1896, was ripe for civil war and we were, practically speaking, on the verge of national disintegration. What happened then? The judgment of the Privy Council came to the Conservative government and they enacted the famous remedial order. Looking back at those events as they appear in history to-day, is there a man in this House who. in his sober senses and in good faith, would pretend for one minute that the remedial order could have been enforced as against an unwilling legislature in Manitoba? I assert that it was impossible. Sir Charles Tupper, during the session of 1896, after the Liberal government came into office, admitted that it was impossible to enforce that remedial order. There is a saying in law-and again I address myself to an old, professor of constitutional law who will pardon me if I use Latin w-ords-summum jus summa injuria. We know that under the saving clause of the Manitoba Act you could enact remedial legislation, but by enforcing that legislation against an unwilling legislature in
1896	and in 1897, you would have caused
[DOT]1475

civil war in Manitoba. Then, Sir, do you suppose, as my hon. triend the Postmaster General said yesterday, that if my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition won the elections on the 23rd June, 1896, it was due to appeals made to his fellow countrymen on the school -question? Do you not rather believe, Mr. Speaker, you who are one of the stalwarts of the old Conservative party of those days, that the crisis which took place in the cabinet in 1895 -and 1896, when seven ministers on the eve of a session and of -a general eleotion, threw up their portfolios and abandoned their leader, reacted in the country and had the effect of opening the minds and -judgment of the electors? No doubt the school question was a factor in the election of 1896, but after the Conservative party had been eighteen years in office, after having lost their great chieftain, Sir John Macdonald, after having been deprived of their other leader, Sir John Thompson and having in the last resort recourse to the ability, I must say, but the old age of Sir Charles Tupper, do you not believe that, the Conservative party having against it the buoyancy of the Reform party and the Liberal wave sweeping the country from one end to the other, the time was ripe for a change in spite of the school question? At all events I am in the judgment of this House in stating that as regards the school question the attitude of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition from 1890 until 1897, when the settlement was accepted by Manitoba, was lofty, Canadian-like and patriotic.
What did he say during that crisis; what was the watchword of the Liberal party-yesterday my friend used the word slogan-what was the watchword of the Liberal forces then? It was: no coercion against Manitoba. Sir, provincial rights have been emblazoned on the banner of the Liberal party; provincial rights have been vindicated by the Mowats, the Blakes and the Lauriers. Our cry was: no coercion against Manitoba, but a policy of conciliation, of mutual concession on every question of an irritating character as must necessarily be the school question or the language question. Yes, that was the policy of the Liberal party. No coercion, again declared our leader on the Autonomy Bill, when the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) was trying to impose the French language as an ofR-cial language on the legislatures of Saskatchewan and Alberta, although there was but one French Canadian a member of these two legislatures at the time. No coercion, said Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but a policy of conciliation on this language question. And, the right- hon. gentleman added: I have faith in the generosity of mv English speaking Mr. LEM IE TJX.
fellow citizens, and I know that if the time -comes when there are several French Canadian members in these two legislatures, as very likely it will, then the English speaking people of the western provinces will be generous enough to give them the opportunity of using their own language in addressing the legislative chamber. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the policy of the Liberal party from 1890 to 1897 in these years of crises was a policy of conciliation. My hon. friend opposite has quoted a speech said to have been delivered in Quebec, and contrasted it with a speech delivered at Toronto by the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Well, there are just two or three words in the last sentence of the Quebec speech which do not sound like the usual utterances of the right hon. leader )f the oppoistion, and as to the balance of both speeches, I recognize the expression of his well-known principles of justice of fair-play and freedom for all the people of Canada irrespective of race or creed. And, Sir, I declare here without fear of contradiction that whether in Ontario or in Quebec the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has always advocated only one policy: a policy oi conciliation and mutual concession. But we do not lack authority other than newspaper reports which are not always accurate; we have here the book of books; we have here ' Hansard,' and in	' Hansard ' will be found the
policy enunciated by the Rt. Hon. gentleman, when leader of the opposition, sitting in the very seat he now occupies, vindicating Liberal principles against a Conservative majority from 1890"to 1897. We were told last night that he appealed Ito the passions of the Quebec electorate. Let me remind the younger members of this House of -a certain letter, which, on the eve of the general elections in 1896 was addressed to the right hon. gentlem.an by an old missionary, venerable, and highly respected, not only in Quebec, but throughout the entire Dominion. The letter I refer to was written by Father Lacombe, and addressing the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he said:
I inform you with regret that the episcopacy like one man, united to the clergy, will rise to support those who -may have fallen to defend us. Please pardon my frankness which leads me -to speak thus. Though I am not your intimate friend, still I may say that we have been on good terms. Always I have deemed you a gentleman, a respectable citizen and a man well able to be at the head of a political party. May Divine Providence keep up your courage and your energy for the good of our common country. We do not ask you to vote for the government hut for the Bill which will render us our rights, which will be presented to the House in a few days. I consider, or

rather we all consider, that such an aot of courage, goodwill and sincerity on your part, and from those who follow your policy, will be greatly in the interests of your party especially in the general elections.
There the chance was offered to the right hon. gentleman that if he would support the remedial legislation he would in return receive the support of the Catholic clergy of the province of Quebec. And, we were told from the government benches yesterday that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had appealed to the religious prejudices of his fellow countrymen, in 1896. How dare any man make such a statement? We have ' Hansard ' here,' and we have the words spoken by the right hon. gentleman before the elections, spoken not in a little hall in the back concessions of Quebec, nor in the back concessions of Ontario, but here on the floor of this parliament, addressed to the country and conscious that his words would be unmistakably heard by the people at .large, and what did Sir Wilfrid Laurier answer to that invitation of Father La-combe? Mark his words:
Not many weeks ago I was told from high quarters in the church to which I belong, that unless I supported the school Bill which was then being prepared by the government and which we have now before us, I would incur the hostility of a great and powerful body. Sir, this is too grave a phase of this question for me to pass it by in silence. I have only this to say: even though I have threats held over me, coming, as I am told from high dignitaries -in the church to which I belong, no word of bitterness shall ever pass my lips as against that church. I respect it and I love it; but Sir, I am not of that school which has been long dominant in France and other countries of continental Europe, which refuses to ecclesiastics the privilege of having a voice in public affairs, No, I am a Liberal of the English school; I believe in that school which has all along claimed that it is the privilege of all subjects, whether high or low, whether rich or poor, whether ecclesiastic or layman, to participate in the administration of public affairs to discuss, to influence, to persuade, to convince; but which has always denied, even to the highest, the right to dictate even to the lowest.
Was that an appeal to the passions of his fellow countrymen? 'Listen to the right hon. gentleman further:
I am here representing not Roman Catholics alone but Protestants as well, and I must give an account of my stewardship to all classes. Here am I, a Roman Catholic of French extraction entrusted, with the confidence of the men who sit around me, with great and important duties in our constitutional system of government. I am here the acknowledged leader of a great party composed of Roman Catholics and Protestants as well, in which the Protestants must be in the majority as in every party.
Am I to be told-I, occupying such a position-that I am to be dictated* to as to the course I am to take in this House by reasons that can appeal to the consciences of my fellow-Catholio members, but which do not appeal as well to the consciences of my Protestant colleagues? No! so long as I have a seat in this House, so long as I occupy the position I do now, whenever it shall become my duty to take a stand upon any question whatever, that stand I will take, not from the point of view of Roman Catholicism, not from the point of view of Protestanism, but from a point of view which can appeal to the consciences of men, irrespective of their particular faith, upon grounds which can be occupied by all men who love justice, freedom and toleration.
That programme-because it is a programme-became the banner of the Liberal party, French and English; it became the bond of union of all liberty-loving Canadians. It defeated the Tory policy, a policy which in Ontario vociferously denounced the right hon. gentleman for certain reasons, which I need not give, and which in Quebec, denounced him no less vociferously, and perhaps much more ingeniously, from quite other motives. The government of the day resigned, and as a result the right hon. gentleman, then became the Premier of this Dominion. He was immediately called upon to formulate a policy on the school question. Of course we hear much less denunciation against the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works than were made in 1896 against the right hon. gentleman. He had to give justice immediately to the Catholic minority of Manitoba, as the demand was pressing. It took a few months. He had some pour parlers with Mr. Greenway. He used the influence of his colleagues, Sir Oliver Mowat, and others, and finally an agreement was reached. The Minister of Public Works declared last night that that agreement was acceptable to him to-day. The question in his judgment, is finally settled. According to the Postmaster General, it was a poor settlement. Sir, the Postmaster General paid a great compliment to the memory of the old leader of the Liberal party, who has just passed away, the Hon. Edward Blake, and I join him in those compliments. If, according to my hon. friend, the Laurier-Greenway settlement was a poor one, one for which the right hon. gentleman should have been condemned 15 [DOT]years ago, how is it that Hon. Edward Blake, a great legal luminary probably the greatest jurist in the British Empire at any rate, strongly approved of that settlement? In a letteT which he addressed on January 20, 1897 to the Solicitor General of that day, the Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick, the Hon. Edward Blake gave as his opinion that the settlement was a broad and fair settlement, and should be accepted by the minority in Manitoba; and we know that Mr. Blake

of the French Canadian and Catholic minority in Manitoba? Was he prevented by the right hon. gentleman from implementing the terms of the agreement of 1897? On the contrary, hut we know that Mr. Rob-lin was not quite willing.
Oh, but the hon. gentleman knows that Mr. Roblin unfurled the British flag on every school house in .the province of Manitoba, and I commend that policy. We must teach the young men to love and respect the flag, i say that the British flag is the symbol of justice, of tolerance and of liberty. We Liberals trust in the flag more than in Mr. Roblin. It should be an easy matter then for the three Nationalist members, unwilling to surrender their portfolios in order to protect the sacred rights of the minority, to settle with Mr. Roblin under the folds of the British flag.


Rt. Hon. R. L. BORDEN.: (Prime Minister) Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lemieux) has entertained the House at very considerable length with a number of reminiscences very delightfully rendered and of a [DOT]more or less amusing character. I shall come to some of these a little later on but for the moment I will take up one or two observations of my hori|. friend in the early part of his address. He is .good enough to congratulate the government upon having placed upon the order paper of this House resolutions providing for the extension of the boundaries of Ontario and Quebec, adding, however, that our action in that regard is only by way of implementing a resolution passed by this House under the leadership of my right hon friend who sits opposite; and when he reminds us of that it might be worth while to inquire why it is that these resolutions have remained as waste paper ever since the 13th of July 1908 and whether or not the remarkable and unexplained delay has anything whatever to do with the extension of the boundaries of the province of Maniltoba.
Then my hon. friend was good enough to lament the harsh treatment which, as he claims, has been meted out to the province of Ontario. Does he realize, when he makes that statement, that the boundaries proposed by this government are exactly the same as those for which he voted in 1908?
Does he realize that although Ontario, through her ministers of the Crown, went before the government of which he was a member, she was denied the relief which this government is giving her by the present measure? If my hon. friend is ol the opinion that Ontario is not getting fatr-play to-day, does he mean to say that it was to the credit of his own government that it gave to the province of Ontario no right whatever to a port on the Hudson
' Mr. LEMIEUX.
bay? I should regard it as venturesome not to say audacious, for my hon. friend, under the present proposal which secures to the province of Ontario a port on the Hudson bay, to contrast for one moment the treatment accorded to that great province by the present administration with the treatment accorded it by the administration of which he was a member.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a misconception, perhaps I did not clearly express myself. I quite approve of the new boundaries given to Ontario, as I approve of the boundaries given to Manitoba. What I intended to speak of, was the projection of Ontario to Port Nelson.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend was complaining on behalf of Ontario.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I said that Sir James Whitney might approve of that projection, and that the Conservative party might approve of it, but the people might not.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend realize that it is a great deal more than he was willing to give to Ontario? Will my hon. friend be good enough to state whe* ther he does or does not object to that consideration being granted to the province of Ontario? That is a plain question. My hon. friend does not seem to be very ready with an answer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I objected to that projection of the province of Ontario into Manitoba, and I still object to it.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend a moment ago was complaining on behalf of Ontario. Now he has shifted his ground, and is complaining on behalf of Manitoba. Has my hon. friend really made up his mind whether he desires to complain on behalf of Ontario or on behalf of Manitoba?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I said it would lead to conflicts between Ontario and Manitoba. My hon. friend will read my remarks in ' Hansard ' to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and I will find exactly what I have stated, and I do not think I will get much enlightenment as to the exact position of my hon. friend.
Now my hon. friend bewailed the sad position of the provinces by the sea. We did not hear much about that in 1908, when these resolutions were passed. I would like to tell my hon. friend that he is not speaking by the letter when he says that the maritime provinces are declining in population. They are not declining in population. It is true, they have not made the same advance in population that some of the other provinces have made, nevertheless they have made a substantial advance in population; and I have not the slightest doubt that, under the progressive and fav-
*4485

ourable policy of the present administration, they will make very much greater advances in the future than they have made in the past.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What I meant was, that they had decreased in population because they were losing their representation in this House. By the present census they are liable to lose a few seats in this House.


Robert Laird Borden: I am aware that they lost representation in the House of Commons in 1901, and I am also aware that the late administration did not do anything to redress any of the grievances of the maritime provinces in that regard. Of course, every one of us realizes that it is because those provinces entered confederation without any provision that their representation should not be decreased that they are in that unfortunate position to-day. A.s a matter of fact, the only province on whose behalf such a stipulation was made when it entered confederation was the province of British Columbia, which has never required it.
However, I will pass from that to deal with another point to which my hon. friend invited attention. I shall not attempt for a moment to follow my hon. friend in the very rambling address which he delivered this afternoon, and which was largely composed of taunts hurled against my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) and my hon friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk). I would like you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House, to observe this one thing at least, that the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works have had the courage to stand up in this House and state where they are on this question. But my hon. friend, after speaking an hour and three-quarters, left us as much in ignorance as to what his own attitude is on this question as we are in ignorance of the attitude of his leader. My hon. friend reproaches my colleagues with desiring to keep their portfolios, he reproaches them with a change of heart, with a change of mind; he reproaches my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works with having changed his mind on the naval question. Has my hon. friend from Rouville any recollection of the letter he wrote in regard to the naval question on the 4th of August, 1902, and may I ask whether he stands to-day where he stood when he wrote that letter?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Exactly in the same position.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I will read it, or a portion of it:
Permettez-moi cependant d'exprimer mon etonnement de ce que les delegues des Chambers de Commerce du Canada, et de la 143
province de Quebec en partieulier, aient cru devoir appuyer une resolution qui affirme un principe absolument faux, a savoir: I'obliga-tion pour les Colonies de participer a la defense de PEmpire.	.
Translate that into English-I need not read the rest of it:
Permit me, however, to express my astonishment that the delegates of the Chamber of Commerce of Canada, and from the province of Quebeo in particular, have thought fit to support a resolution which affirms a principle absolutely false, namely, the obligation of the colonies to participate in the defence of the empire.
Now has my hon. friend still the courage to stand up in this House and reproach the Minister of Public Works with respect to his position on the naval question in 1909? 1 have only read one paragraph from the hon. gentleman's letter, I will leave if to other members of the House to read the whole letter, I have read such portion of it as is relevant to this debate. I say that the citation of that one paragraph of his letter puts my hon. friend absolutely out of court when he endeavours to level any reproach against the Postmaster General of the Minister of Public Works in respect to their attitude upon this question.
Now my hon. friend has spoken in reply to a criticism which was levelled by the Postmaster General against the right hon. leader of the opposition. There is one remarkable thing about my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Leinjieux). Whenever he quotes from a newspaper which does not exactly coincide with his views, he makes all due allowance for inaccuracies of reporting; but when he comes to quote a newspaper containing some alleged speech of a member on this side of the House, he has no misgivings whatever about its accuracy.
Well, my hon. friend referred to what had been said in Quebec on the one hand and in Massey hall on the other by the right hon. leader of the opposition. He qualified his observations upon the Quebec speech by saying that the concluding sentence or two did not sound like the words of the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition. He had a good deal of misgiving about that. I think he might perhaps have been a little more accurate if he had stated that the. concluding sentences of the Quebec speech did not sound very much like the Massey hall speech. Let us contrast the language of " the two speeches. My hon. friend argued that they were entirely consistent. This was delivered in the Jacques Cartier hall, Quebec, on the 7th May, 1896, and I am reminded by my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) that the elections were held on the 23rd June in the same year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it must be apparent to you under those circumstances, that so far as these statutory provisions respecting separate schools in the northwest are concerned, they were absolutely inoperative, for the reason, in the first place, that no members of the Council had been appointed so as to create a body known as the Commissioner's Council, and in the next place, because the commission had not been authorized-even though councillors had been appointed-to make any laws or ordinances whatsoever with respect to the establishment of schools in these territories. The situation when we came into power was this: that for three years there had been upon the records of this parliament, resolutions declaring that the boundaries of Manitoba, of Ontario, and of Quebec, ought to be enlarged according to certain defined limits which were expressed in these resolutions. What was our duty under the circumstances ? We know very well indeed that a great deal of negotiation had gone on between the government of Manitoba and the late Liberal administration with regard to the enlargement of the boundaries of that province, and, there are those of us who are free to believe that the delays with respect to all these provinces were due to a certain peculiar policy of the Liberal government in connection with the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. When we came to power, we conceived it to be our duty to carry out that policy which parliament had declared in 1908, and we proceeded to carry it out. I ask any hon. gentleman in this House whether or not it would have been a reasonable thing for this _ government-after that matter had stood for nearly four years without the appointment of any council, without authority to the commissioner to put into force these provisions respecting education- I ask whether or not it would have been a reasonable thing for us to undertake to do that without which these Northwest Territories had got on very well for three and-a-half years at least. And, to do that, remember, on the very eve of carrying out a proposal to which parliament had given its unanimous acceptance on the 13th of July, 1908. Why, Mr. Speaker, I think it would have been the verv worst thing we could have done in the interests of all concerned if this government had seen fit, on the eve of enlarging the boundaries of Manitoba, to take any such step as that which has been suggested. I come from a province where separate schools do not exist by reason of any statutory provisions; I come from the province of Nova Scotia, and I would like to tell my hon. friends in this House from the province of Quebec and from every other province in Canada, that although there are no provisions in that province establishing separate schools Mr. BOUDEN.
for Catholics as a matter of right, the relations between Protestants and Catholics in the province are, I believe, at least as cordial and as friendly as they are in any province of Canada, and I do not believe that the Catholics in the province of Nova Scotia have anything to complain of in respect of the treatment which they receive from their Protestant brethren. I believe they are fairly, and justly and honourably treated, and I think I can appeal to my Roman Catholic friends from the province of Nova Scotia to bear witness to the accuracy of what I now state.
What are the arguments of the right hon. leader of the opposition in 1896? That this matter had better be left to the people of Manitoba; and, following the advent of his party to power, certain negotiations were carried on between his government and the government of Manitoba. I am not disposed to-(Jay to enter into a consideration of how far the agreement arrived at, was or was not satisfactory; but I do say that the Homan Catholics of the province of Manitoba constitute a larger proportion of the people of that province, than the Roman Catholics of this Dominion constitute of the population of the Dominion as a whole; and we cannot for a moment, suppose that- the influence of the Roman Catholics in the province of Manitoba in the advocacy of what they consider to be their just rights and for the redress of any grievances from which they suffer will be any less powerful than it would be in relation to the enactment of ordinances under the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act, chapter 62, of the Revised Statutes of Canada. I trust that I make myself perfectly clear. The Roman Catholics of the province of Manitoba are in a minority in that province; but they are a more powerful minority in the province of Manitoba than the Roman Catholics, as a whole, are in this whole Dominion, and I have absolutely no doubt that the majority of the people of Manitoba will he disposed to. deal fairly, honourably and generously with them, just as the people of the province of Nova Scotia, without anv statutory provision whatever, have dealt fairly, honourably and generously with the Roman Catholics of that province.
Then a suggestion has been made that it would be desirable for the parliament of Canada, in enacting this measure, to attempt to place restrictions upon the legislative authority of the legislature of Manitoba in respect of the territory proposed to be added. In the territory there are at the present time, not more than 165 white people, 400 or 500 half-breeds, and the balance of the population are Indians. Now, a proposal to place any such restriction upon Manitoba would seem to me to be an impossible one, for two reasons. In the first place, I

do not believe that it is politically possible, because I do not believe that Manitoba would accept the extension of her boundaries coupled with any such restriction. In the next place, I do not think it is constitutionally possible. I would like to point out to hon. members, to whose attention this may not have been brought, that the provisions of the British North America Act, of 1871, .with regard to the constitution of a province in the first instance, are very different from those contained in the clause of the same Act, providing for the altera- * tion of the boundaries of a province. Section 2 of that Act is as follows:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada but not included in any. province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province and for its representation in the said parliament.
But when we come to the third section of that statute, we find that the language with regard to increasing the area of a province, is in very different terms. It is as follows :
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 bv the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
We have in the one section direct authority for this parliament to determine the constitution of a province. In the other section we have not any such thing, and it seems to me absolutely impossible to conceive that you can have a province in Canada, such as Manitoba would be after this Bill had passed, which would be governed as to one part of it by one constitutional provision in respect of education, and in another part of it, by another constitutional provision in respect of education. I do not believe that the British North America Act of 1871 contemplated any such thing. To my mind, it is inconceivable, and I do not find warrant for it m the statute. It is inconceivable that you could have one constitutional limitation in old Manitoba and another constitutional limitation in the part of Manitoba which we now propose to add. But whether I am right or wrong in believing that that is constitutionally impracticable, I am absolutely certain that it is politically impracticable : and I venture to say that the people of Manitoba, imbued as they are
with big, broad, generous spirit, would be inclined to deal with their fellow countrymen who may be of a different faith in the same broad-minded and generous spirit as that which has been evinced in other provinces of Canada where no constitutional provisions of this kind exist. So, Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that this Bill which we have submitted to the parliament of Canada is along the right lines-along the lines of observing the constitution of Canada as it is embodied in the British North America Act, of 1867, and in the British North America Act of 1871. My hon. friend the Postmaster General last evening cited competent authorities for the position that in so far as any rights do exist in the territory which we propose to add to the province of Manitoba, those will remain to be dealt with by the parliament of Canada in so far as such matters appertain to the parliament of Canada or by the legislature of the province of Manitoba in so far as they appertain to the legislature of the province of Manitoba. 1 venture to think that the course which the government has taken in that regard is one in the best interests of all concerned, and will commend itself, not only to the majority of this parliament, but to the majority of the people of Canada as well.
House divided on motion for second reading of the Bill.
YEAS:
Mjss.euis
Achim,	Kidd.
Aikins,	La lor.
Alguire,	Lancaster,
Ames,	Lavallee.
Armstrong (Lambton),Lennox,	
Armstrong (York, 0.),Lesperance,	
Arthurs,	Lewis,
Baker,	Macdonell,
Ball,	McCurdy,
Barker,	McKay,
Barnard,	Marshall,
Barrette,	Merner,
Beattie,	Middletoro,
Bennett (Calgary),	Mondou,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Monk,
Best,	Morphy, .
Blain,	Munson,
Blondin,	Nantel,
Borden,	Nicholson,
Boulay,	Nickle,
Bowman,	Paul,
Brabazon,	Pelletier,
Bradbury,	Perley,
Broder,	Porter,
Burnham,	Rainville,
Burrell,	Reid (Grenville),
Chahot,	Rhodes,
Clare,	Robidoux,
Clark (Bruce),	Roche,
Clarke (Wellington),	Rogers,
Clements,	Schaffner,
Cochrane,	Sexsmith,
Cockshutt,	Sharpe (Liegar),
Coderre,	Sharpe (Ontario),

44%
[DOT]'*Crocket,
'Cromwell,
Crothers,
' Currio,
Davidson,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
-Edwards,
Elliot,
Elson,
Fisher,
Foster (King's, ON.S.) Foster (Toronto, N.), i'ripp,
Gauthier (Gaspe) *Girard,
Goodeve,
Tfartt,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Hughes (Victoria J ameson,
Kemp,
Shepherd,
Smith,
Stanfield,
Staples,
. Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Thoburn,
Thompson (Yukon),
, Thornton,
Tremain,
Walker,
Wallace,
Webster,
Weichel,
White (Leeds),
White (Renfrew), Wilcox,
Wilson
0.), (Wentworth) and Wright.-114.
NAYS:
Meighen,
Boyce,
Bristol,
Garrick,
Smyth,
Carroll,
Richards,
Charlton,
Lapointe (Montreal), Clarke (Essex),
Forget (Sir Rodolphe),Wilson (Laval), Fowler,	Fugeley,
Taylor,	German,
McLean	(P.E.I.),	Seguin,
Osier (Sir Edmund). Biouillard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the second time, and. House went into Committee thereon.
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 4, financial terms,
William Pugsley: I beg to move the following amendment to subsection 1 of section 4:
Meland,
Bellemare,
Bickerdike,
iioivin,
Bourassa,
(Boyer,
Brown,
Buchanan,
Bureau,
Cardin,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chisholm (Antigonish); Chisholm (Inverness) Clark (Red Deer), Cruise,
Delisle,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fortier,
Gauthier (St. Hyaointhe), Gauvreau,
Guilbault,
Guthrie,
Hughes (King's, 1 P.E.I.),
Hay,
Knowles,
Byte,
Lachance,
"Lamarche,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamou.r.aska), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Law,
Lemieux,
deurs
Lcggie,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Maclean (Halifax), MaoNutt,
McCraney,
McCoig,
McCrea,
McKenzie,
McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Maroile (Bagot),
, Martin (Montreal,
Ste. Mary's),
Martin (Regina), Michaud,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
I'acaud,
Papinean,
Paquet,
Pardee,
Proulx,
Reid (Restigouche), Robb,
Ross,
Sevigny,
Sinclair,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Tobin,
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Verville,
Warnock and ,White (Victoria, Alta.)-76.
-Ministerial.
Opposition.
Messieurs
Haggart,	: Gordon,
JVorthrup,	Demers,


Robert Laird Borden: That subsection 1 of section 4 be struck out, and the following substituted therefor -.
4.	Inasmuch as the province was not in debt at the time that the province was established, it shall be entitled to be paid and to receive from the government of Canada Iby half-yearly payments, in advance, on the \first days of January and July in each year, an annual sum not exceeding $381,584.19, being the equivalent of interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $7,631,6S3,-85, the difference between a principal sum of $8,107,500 and $475,816.15 heretofore advanced by the government to the province for provincial purposes; and such amount shall be fixed and determined by the Governor in Council after the holding of a conference by (the federal government with the premiers of the different provinces of Canada in respect thereto, and also in respect to any increases in the debt allowance which it would he just and equitable to make to the other provinces of Canada in connection with the increase of the debt allowance to the said province of Manitoba.
My hon. friend will see that the amounts are exactly the same as in the section as proposed. The only difference is that the Governor in Council may pay an amount not exceeding this, the amount to he settled after there has been a conference between the federal government and the premiers of the different provinces of Canada called to consider this matter and also to consider what allowance, if any, it would be just and equitable to make to the other provinces of Canada in connection with the increase in the debt allowance to the province of Manitoba.
I think that the idea of a provincial conference to consider and if possible to settle and determine what shall be the subsidies granted to the different provinces of Canada is one which ought to commend itself to every member of this House. We know that a good many years ago there

was a conference of the provincial governments held at the city of Quebec in, I think, the year 1886. That conference was not called by the federal government, it was convened at the instance of the two larger provinces and certain resolutions were passed looking to a readjustment of the subsidies from the Dominion to the provinces. Their resolutions were sent to Ottawa, but they were not acted upon and so far as the public records show they were not even considered. In 1906 there was a new departure and the government determined to call the premiers of the different provinces of Canada in conference with a view to considering the various claims that were being made by the provinces upon the Dominion and more especially to consider the question of increasing the subsidy allowances to the different provinces. I think that was a move in the interests of the whole Dominion. The different provinces are like a family, they together constitute this nation and I cannot imagine anything more calculated to promote harmony and good will between the different provinces of Canada and to allay dissatisfaction than for the federal government to summon the different provincial governments in conference with a view to talking over matters which are of common interest and to settle any questions that may exist in relation to the financial status of the different provinces. That was the first time in the history of confederation that such a conference was called by the federal government. The act of summoning the conference was received with universal approval by the people of Canada. All the governments of Canada responded to the invitation and the provinces were all represented at that conference. They entered upon their deliberations with a sincere desire to come to conclusions which would be just and equitable to all the provinces and which would be in the general interest of Canada.
I think myself that the government could not take a step more in the interest of the whole people of Canada than to follow the example which was set in 1906, and now summon a conference of the Premiers of the different provinces. To-day we have this spectacle of one province coming to the federal government and claiming that the arrangements which were made twenty-five years ago with that province are at the present time unsatisfactory, and claiming what in effect is an additional subsidy; because, no matter how we may speak of it, there is no doubt that the addition to the debt allowance is an addition to the subsidy of the province. It is in no way connected with the question of ownership of the public domain, it is a question which pertains as much to all the other provinces of Canada as it does to Manitoba. We have also the spectacle to-day of the province of British Columbia coming to this government and appealing for better terms, and we have a proposal on the part of this government, in effect, to leave the claims of that province to arbitration under an arrangement by which this government would appoint one commissioner, the province of British Columbia another commissioner, and these two commissioners appoint a third. Now, it does seem to me that instead of dealing with each province by itself, there ought to be a conference of the Premiers of all the provinces meeting here in Ottawa, who would confer from day to day with the federal government, and who, I am sure, would enter upon that conference with a disposition to deal justly and fairly the one with the other, and to reach conclusiohs which would be in their nature final, and would give general satisfaction to all the provinces of Canada.


Mr. BLAIN.: Has my non. friend overlooked a statement made by the Prime, Minister on the second reading of the Bill, dealing exactly with the question to which he is now' referring?


William Pugsley: What is that?


Richard Blain: I will read it if the hon. gentleman will permit me. The Prime Minister said on March 4, page 4350:
And I would like to repeat what I have already said in speaking upon the resolutions in that regard, that when we do come to consider that proposal I think it will be just and necessary to give some consideration to the maritime provinces whose boundaries cannot be enlarged by reason of their natural situation, to call them into our councils and give to them a just voice as to the terms upon which these lands should be handed over, and especially with regard to what compensation, if any, should be given to the three maritime provinces by reason of the transfer of these lands to the governments of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.


William Pugsley: 1 had that well in mind, I had not overlooked it at all. But my hon. friend will see that these remarks of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister apply simply to the question of giving compensation to the maritime provinces by reason of handing over at some time in the future, whether the near future or the distant future, the public domain of the three prairie provinces. Now, that may be a long time hence, that cannot be done without some arrangement with these three provinces by themselves. As the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers), admitted when he was addressing the House, when it comes to dealing with that question, it would be for the governments of those provinces to say what amount of money

they would return to the federal treasury in exchange for the lands to be handed over to them. That is a matter that can only be dealt w'ith by arrangement with the three provinces. It was stated by the Minister of the Interior that there are a good many people in the prairie provinces who would prefer to have the money instead of the lands, the money which they can use for ordinary purposes of public improvement, and they would prefer to let the Dominion government administer the prairie lands and give them away to the settler free of any charge, as they have been doing in the past. Many people in the prairie provinces believe that instead of making the prairie lands a source of revenue, they should be given aw7ay absolutely free to the man who is prepared to come into that country, and make a home for himself and his family. Therefore, it may be many, many years before that question would come up if it is only to come up as suggested by the Prime Minister.


Mr. BARKER.: Is the hon. geni cm an disposed to leave to the dim and distant future the settlement of all these questions with the provinces by the sea?


William Pugsley: No, I am not disposed to leave it to the dim and distant future. I say that now, when we are altering the situation of three important provinces of Canada, when we are trebling the area of the province of Manitoba, when we are almost doubling the area, if not quite doubling the area, of the province of Ontario, and when we are almost quadrupling the area of the province of Quebec, when we are altering the financial terms under which the province of Manitoba for 26 years has been in the confederation, I say that now is the time to take up the question as to what, if any, consideration should be given to the maritime provinces.
Now, if ever, is the time to take up the question of what should be done in regard to. the representation of the maritime provinces. It does seem to me that those of us who are here representing the maritime provinces can appeal with great force to the representatives of those great, strong and growing provinces of Canada, to give fair and reasonable consideration to the claims of the maritime provinces, not only the financial claims but their claims in respect to representation. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) suggests that we should leave it until the time comes to deal w'ith the public domain of the three prairie provinces. Why, Sir, within a year or two at the outside, there ought to be introduced into this parliament a redistribution Bill. Under that Bill, unless some provision is made with regard to the representation of the maritime provinces, these three small provinces by the sea will Mr. PUGSLEY.
lose five representatives; the province of Nova Scotia will lose two, New Brunswick wil] lose two, and Prince Edw'ard Island will lose one. That small province of Prince Edward Island, small though it may be, is yet a province composed of men the equal of any of the people of Canada, that province which, when solicited to join the union, declined to enter unless it was assured of a representation of six members, a representation which the people of Prince Edward Island were led to believe would never be reduced; that province today will find, as a result of the redistribution which must before long be passed through this parliament, her representation in the House of Commons reduced by cne-half the representation which it was stipulated she should be allowed by the Act when she entered confederation. Now In New Brunswick we shall find as a result of the redistribution that our representation will be reduced to eleven, and that of Nova Scotia will be reduced to sixteen. I say, therefore, that now is the time, when we are dealing with these important constitutional questions, to take up this matter and endeavour to settle it. We know that the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have asked for a conference of the Premiers of the different nrovinces for the purpose of considering this question of representation.
They all feel in the strongest possible manner that that question ought to be dealt w'ith at a conference of the provinces. Would it not be entirely opportune, that, in connection with the financial question and in connection with the extension of the boundaries this question of representation should be taken up? It will not delay this measure very long. It would only mean that it would stand over until the next session of Parliament. A conference could be called very soon after Parliament rises, representatives of the provinces could easily be got together and all these important matters could be gone into by the premiers of the different provinces in consultation with the federal government. I have sufficient confidence in the good judgment and in the spirit of generosity of the various provincial governments to believe that they will consent to an arrangement which will give-and this is all we ask- to the lower provinces that representation that we had when we entered into the union, all we ask is that our representation should not be reduced below what it was when these provinces entered the confederacy.^ We do not ask for any increase. We are willing to let our rights to an increase depend on an increase in population. In saying that I speak, not for Liberals, not for Conservatives, but for the whole people of New Brunswick and I believe I speak the united voice of the whole people of

the maritime provinces, when 1 plead-
I suppose I cannot demand, because the older provinces have the right, perhaps on their side, to stand by the strict terms of the Act of Union-for fair play in the proper sense of the word.
I plead" for doing away with the injustice from which we are suffering and for removing many of the disadvantages which are pressing upon our people. I desire to express my most sincere thanks to my hon. friend who sits on my right (Mr. Lemieux) who, this afternoon, in a true spirit of generosity, in a spirit which makes for the advantage of the whole people of Canada, said that he would welcome the day when justice would be done to the maritime provinces with respect to its representation and when an Act would be passed which would prevent. its suffering any loss in representation. Let me appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). I have heard him before on this question and I have heard him speak in eloquent terms of the injustice from which the maritime provinces have been suffering and the great necessity of doing something to take away this injustice and the certainty of continued loss in representation. Let me ask him whether he has taken the question up with his colleagues and, if he has,_ if he entertains the same view to-day which he entertained when he was a member of the provincial legislature. Let me ask him if he can conceive of any better time than now to take up this question of the representation of the maritime provinces, if he can conceive any better time for its consideration by a conference of the provinces *when they might be summoned, as they could be summoned now, if this measure stands over, to consider all these questions, to consider how the enlargement of the territories of three great provinces of Canada affects the smaller provinces, to consider how the alteration in the financial terms affects the smaller provinces, and to consider whether or not in its material aspects the alteration of the constitutions of these three provinces affects the question of representation and ought now to be dealt with. In my humble judgment there never was a time in the past so appropriate as now to take up this question of representation and there never will be a time so opportune in the future as is the present occasion for taking up the subject and dealing with it.
My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers) sought to justify this special dealing with the province of Manitoba by the statement that all the members of the Interprovincial Conference approved of these claims on the part of Manitoba, and he said that Manitoba had no greater friend at that conference than myself. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have always,
I am proud to be able to say, been a friend * of Manitoba. I was one of the pioneers of Manitoba. My hon. friend speaks of the pioneers, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) speaks of the pathfinders. When I went to Manitoba there were many pathfinders, but of later years, and I believe since the time when the hon' Minister of the Interior went into Manitoba, the hardships have all passed away and there is no pleasanter place in which to live than Manitoba. The people suffer no more hardships there than they do in the other provinces of Canada. Manitoba is an exceedingly prosperous province. But while I was then a friend of Manitoba and desirous of doing justice to that province as one member of the Interprovincial Conference, yet I beg to differ from my hon. friend and to say to the committee that the records show, if I read the records aright, that my hon. friend is entirely mistaken when he says that the members of the Interprovincial Conference approved of these claims of Manitoba. I can prove what I say by the record. If the members of the committee will take up the sessional papers of 1907 they will find a full report of the proceedings of the Interprovincial Conference. I refer them specially to sessional paper 29a.
Report of proceedings in conference between members of the government of Canada and of the various provincial governments assembled at Ottawa, October, 1906:
At that conference the first and principle question which was dealt with was an increase in the subsidies to the various provinces, and if hon. gentlemen will look at the return they will find, upon the fourth page ' Resolutions of the Conference,' dealing with this subject of an increase in subsidies. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has endeavoured to make the committee believe that, while these resolutions were agreed to, yet, at the same time, the members of the conference approved of the special claims which the province of Manitoba was making. I say they did not, and I speak as a member of the conference, not only from my recollection but from the record as contained in that return which was brought down to parliament. This is what the conference resolved:
Therefore it is unanimously resolved that the subject matter of the resolutions adopted by the conference of the representatives of the several provinces held at Quebec-, in December 1902 and which was shortly thereafter presented to the government of the Dominion and which were ratified by the legislature of the then existing provinces except that of British Columbia, he now pressed upon the government of the Dominion for immediate and favourable action, under reserve of the right of any province to now submit to such government, memoranda in writing concerning any claims it may have to larger sums

than those set out in the said resolutions, or to additional consideration or recognition.
My hon. friend did not give that weight to the word ' now ' which the conference intended should be given to it and which must necessarily be given to it. What the members of the conference did was, first, to pass a resolution in regard to a general increase of subsidies amongst the different provinces. Then they said: We are prepared to consider the special case of any province and we reserve to the government of any province the right to now submit a memorandum of any special claims which they may have. The province of British Columbia did submit its claim for additional consideration. That memorandum applied as well to the province of British Columbia as to the province of Manitoba and to every other province in the Dominion. British Columbia, as I have said, submitted its claim and what did we do with it ? The conference unanimously rejected it, and the two representatives from the province of Manitoba, Mr. Roblin and Mr. Campbell, joined in an unanimous recommendation that the claims of British Columbia should not be conceded. That is the way in which the conference dealt with that special claim-a claim in respect to which these reasons apply just as much as they do to the claim of the province of Manitoba. The conference rejected, as I have said, the claim of British Columbia, but, in view of the exceptional conditions in that province, in view of its being a mountainous country and road-making being exceedingly expensive, and in view of other considerations which were put forward in the memorandum and which will be found in this return, the conference recommended that the Dominion should give to the province of British Columbia an additional allowance of $100,000 per year for a period of ten years.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand how these matters are settled by the conference; do they vote by provinces or by individual membership?


William Pugsley: They voted by individual membership, but I may say that they were unanimous.


Robert Laird Borden: Was the membership for each province restricted.


William Pugsley: No, the representatives for Ontario were Sir J. P. Whitney, Mr. Foy, and Mr. Matheson; for Quebec, Sir Lomer Gouin, Mr. Turgeon and Mr. Weir; for Nova Scotia, Mr. Murray and Mr. Drys-dale; for New Brunswick, Mr. Tweedie and Mr. Pugsley; for Prince Edward Island, Mr. Peters and Mr. George E. Hughes; for Manitoba, Mr. Roblin and Mr. Campbell; for British Columbia, Mr. McBride; for Saskatchewan, Mr. Walter Scott and Mr. Calder; for Alberta, Mr. Rutherford and


William Pugsley: r Mr. Cross. For each of the larger provinces there were three representatives and t from the other provinces two representat-, ives each, except British Columbia which , had one representative in the person of , the Prime Minister. So far as I remember the resolutions at the conference were | passed unanimously. In order to show t that the conference had no thought of J. approving of any additional claims of the , province of Manitoba I find , in the return . a memorandum which was submitted by [ Sir J. P. Whitney, the Hon. J. J. Foy, anil L the Hon. A. J. Matheson, in which there is this language:
. We urge that in the future no special grant t at any rate should be made to any one province. We repeat that in our opinion an ' agreement which will render impossible ' periodical applications for the rearrangement ' of the subsidy is feasible and should be de-* termined upon. It is possible that such an arrangement might be fixed and positive and at the same time elastic, working automatically so as to speak as the Dominion census from, time to time would determine.
There you have a strong protest on the part of the representatives from Ontario, which protest was concurred in by the members of the conference against in the future making, any special grant to any one province. And, so I say, at that conference it was intended to deal with the various claims that were submitted and to make a finality of them so far as the conference could do. The conference was of the opinion expressed by Messrs. Whitney, Foy and Matheson that in future there 'should be no special grant to any one province.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the conference come to any resolution on that question?


William Pugsley: No, not so far as the returns show. The only exception from that was with respect to British Columbia where they thought that owing to special circumstances they should recommend an additional allowance of $100,000 a year for ten years. My recollection is that the representatives of Manitoba with the representatives of the other provinces, felt that the Dominion was dealing generously at that time with the different provinces, but at all events the special claim of Manitoba was not further mentioned at the conference, and we were not called upon to deal with it. The conference having agreed upon the general resolution as to the increase in subsidy then reserved the right to any province to, at that time, not in the future, submit its claims to the government so that the conference might deal with them. In response to that invitation the province of British Columbia did submit its claim which was dealt with by the conference in the manner I have described, but the province of Manitoba did not re-

spond to the invitation and did not present any other claim, and I was under the impression that the representatives of Manitoba went home perfectly satisfied that they had received the same generous treatment which the other provinces had received in connection with the adjustment of the subsidies. I do not know that it would be of any advantage to take up the time of the committee in urging that there is no fair ground whatever for now dealing specially with the one province of Manitoba any more than there is for dealing with any other province of the Dominion which might be picked out. Reference has already been made to the fact that it is now proposed to arbitrarily give to the province of Manitoba a sum of about $32 a head upon a population of about 250,000. Why not make it the actual population of 450,000? In the case of British Columbia it was fixed oni a population of 60,000, and although British Columbia to-day has a population of about 350,000, I am not aware that it has received any increase other than the general increase which was made in 1884. The government fixed upon a population of 250,000 for Manitoba, because they say that parliament in 1905 made a debt allowance based upon a population of 250,000 for the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. But, you ignore British Columbia, you ignore Ontario, you ignore Quebec, you ignore Nova Scotia, and simply because in 1905 when two new provinces were being created, these provinces were given an estimated population of about 250,000, you say it is right to do the same thing now in respect to an old province which has been forty years a member of the confederacy. The government ignores absolutely the fact that this eight million dollars which it is proposed to give to the province of Manitoba does not represent one single dollar of expenditure made before Manitoba became a member of the confederacy.
They admit that Manitoba had no debt when she became a part of the union. They ignore the fact that every dollar of the debt allowances of Ontario and Quebec, if I remember rightly, represented money of the people of the old province of Canada which had been paid out for the construction of public works which were handed over to the Dominion, and which form to-day a most valuable asset of the Dominion, such as the great system of canals which are essential factors in the system of national transportation, and in respect of which those provinces did not receive one dollar of interest, because that allowance simply goes to pay the interest on the debt which they incurred before confederation, in order to, construct public works which are for the general advantage of Canada. They ignore altogether the
fact that the larger part of the debt allowances for the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was incurred in respect of works of a national character which passed over to the Dominion, works which, if those provinces had not constructed them before confederation, such as custom houses, post offices, railways, harbour works and lighthouses, would have had to be constructed and paid for by the whole people of Canada. Hon. gentlemen ignore these facts altogether, and treat the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia1 in this light and cavalier manner, just as if they had no claim for consideration in a readjustment of the debt allowance of a province. The hon. gentleman said that there was a precedent for this. What was the precedent he cited? He cited the case of the province of Nova Scotia in 1869, when an increase was made to the debt allowance of that province. The members of the government of that day most of whom had taken part in drawing up the compact of confederation, said: We recognize that this is something which ought not to be done except in a case of the gravest possible necessity. But they admitted that a mistake had been made in respect of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's debt allowance was based on what was assumed to be her actual expenditure on public works up to the time of the Quebec conference; but between that time and the time of her coming into the union, she had expended $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 in extending her railway system; and it was agreed that because ot that mistake, parliament ought to interfere and put her in the position in which she would have been placed if that mistake had not taken place. Sir Charles Tupper, then Dr. Tupper, made a strong argument in favour of rectifying the mistake, and showed how it had occurred. This has been done also in the case of Manitoba, under circumstances which were explained during the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member made an offer of certain financial terms tr Manitoba?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there any conference before that was done?


William Pugsley: Those terms were simply based upon the necessities which would arise by reason of the addition of territory.


Robert Laird Borden: Why were not the other provinces entitled to be heard?


William Pugsley: I am prepared to admit that they ought to have been heard, but we cannot always have our own way. My

right hon. friend who leads the opposition will remember that I urged almost from the day I came into the government that some steps should be taken to secure the representation of the maritime provinces at the numbers at which it stood at the time of confederation. I did not succeed at that time, but I had a great hope of succeeding -when the time came for dealing fully with this question of boundaries. The time had not arrived when the late government was in power, although my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition went a considerable distance in that direction when a resolution was passed to enlarge the boundaries of the province of Quebec, and a clause with his approval was added providing that the increased territory should in no way affect the representation of the other provinces; in other wolds, that, in estimating the 65 members who form the pivot upon which the representation turns, the added territory should not be _ taken into account at all. That was quite a step forward, and I had certainly strong hope that when we came to deal effectually with the matter, the claims of the maritime provinces with regard to representation -would be recognized. A short time ago, I think in the discussion on the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, my hon. friend from Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. McLean), took strong ground that something ought to be done. Is his voice to be heard now, or is he going to allow this Bill to pass without raising a protest on behalf of the province from which he comes, and which is suffering so much by reason of loss of representation? We heard at the same time from my hon. friend from Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler), who, I regret, from circumstances over which he has no control, is not able to be here to-night; and I had hoped that he also would raise his voice against the continuance of the present condition of affairs with respect to the representation of the maritime provinces. There is nothing more that I can say; the facts are plain" With respect to the province of New Brunswick, the Dominion of Canada has an asset which cost that province upwards of $5,000,000, and which to-day is yielding a revenue to this country. That is charged as a part of the debt account, and New Brunswick is not receiving one cent of interest in respect of that indebtedness. All that the Dominion has done has been to pay the interest on the indebtedness incurred in the construction of that revenue-producing property. In respect to Manitoba, hon. gentlemen propose today to fix arbitrarily $8,000,000 as her allowance, and to grant her on this account $400,000 yearly out of the Dominion treasury. I may be undulv prejudiced as repre-Mr. PUGSLEY.	j
senting one of the smaller provinces down by the sea, but it does seem to me that there are claims in respect of those provinces- financial claims and claims in respect to altering the basis of representation- -which ought to be considered. If my right hon. friend passes all the legislation now proposed, and leaves unsettled these questions, which are believed by the people of the maritime provinces to be vital to their future, he is going to have great difficulty in dealing with them in the future.
As I have said now is the time, when we are dealing with these important constitutional qeustions, to call together the government of the different provinces of Canada to a conference, confer with them, let . them meet with each other- the representatives of all parts of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific-let them confer together, in conjunction with the members of the federal government, and I am sure they will bring to bear their best intelligence, bring to" bear their mutual desire to make an arrangement which will promote peace and harmony among all the people of Canada. If that is done I have every confidence that they will work out a plan which will be satisfactory to all the provinces, and which will be satisfactory to this parliament and to the government of Canada.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings County, P.E.I.) I have very great pleasure indeed in seconding the motion which has been made by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley), and I agree with every statement he has presented to the committee. I think that I can make -some other statements that will appeal to the fairness of this committee, particularly with regard to the province of Prince Edward Island. I am bound to say that there are many features of this Bill which appeal to me" as being fair and reasonable. The statements made on behalf of the government that, in the preparation of this Bill and in the giving of financial terms to the province of Manitoba they desired to put that province on a. footing of equality, so far as regards financial terms with the sister provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, appeal to me. That desire appears to me, so far as I understand it, to be fair and reasonable provided you do no injustice to any of the other provinces in the making of that arrangement. Sir, I look upon the confederation as a partnership, a partnership of nine members. Every one of these members has a private business of his own which he is carrying on, and if you take from the partnership funds a large sum of money and give it to any one of the partners for the purpose of his Own private business you necessarily, to that extent, do

some injustice to all the other partners unless they receive compensation in some other way. Sir, unless this confederation, this partnership, is carried on by the application of principle of the strictest justice it would appear to me that it cannot be carried on at all satisfactorily, that you are introducing a system that sooner or later will have very dangerous results. Now, while the granting to Manitoba of additional territory so that its area will be practically the same as that of the sister provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta appeals to me, and while I think that by placing all these prairie provinces on a similar financial basis you are not going far astray, at the same time to date these payments to Manitoba back to 1908 appears to me to be quite unjustifiable. That is the feature of this Bill that I cannot understand and cannot see the justice of. I want to consider the case of Prince Edward Island and to refer to the special conditions connected with that province. Prince Edward Island never had any Crown lands or mines or minerals, and in that respect she stands exactly on the same footing as the three prairie provinces. Therefore, I think that when large additions have been made to the finanical resources of Manitoba, that the position of Prince Edward Island ought to be specially considered. We will take up one! item in this Bill, which I think will prove that a very great injustice will be done to the province of Prince Edward Island unless this special provision is taken into consideration. I refer now to the sum that is to be paid to the province of Manitoba in lieu of the public lands. The sum of $562,500, based upon the population, is to be given to Manitoba	in lieu of public lands, and
that sum is to be increased from time to time. That payment amounts to practically-as near as I can figure it out -$1.25 per head of the population of Manitoba at the present time. When Prince Edward Island came into confederation her allowance because of the fact that she had no public lands was $45,000, which amounts to less than 50 cents per head of her population. If we want to be fair to the province of Prince Edward Island we must I think-and in this matter I appeal to every member of this committee-increase the allowance to that province to make it correspond with the payment which we are now giving to Manitoba. Prince Edward Island, therefore ought to receive $1.25 per head of her population by reason of having no public lands, mines or minerals. That would be an addition of $75,000 to her present subsidy. Furthermore, if you pay these subsidies to the province of Manitoba from the year 1908, by every reason of justice and fair play yuu ought to likewise pay this additional subsidy to the
province of Prince Edward Island from that year.


Mr. MACDONALD.: Hear, hear.


Mr. HUGHES (.Kings, P.E.I.).: This would give her arrears of $300,000. It seems to me that that is a fair and businesslike statement which ought to appeal to the fairness and justice of the Minister of Finance. I might also state, as it has been referred to by the member for St. John, that when the older provinces came into confederation they brought in with them their public works for which they had paid. The same thing applies to the province of Prince Edward Island. We built our own railway in Prince Edward Island before we came into confederation and paid for it, and the cost of that railway was charged to us in the allowance that was given to us at the time of confederation. At the time of our entry into confederation the debt of Canada was $49.40 per head of the population, and Prince Edward Island was given a debt allowance of $50 per head of the population. That was charged to her, and the province was also charged with every dollar expended on public works and we have since that time paid the interest on our debt, which includes the cost of building the railway, and our share of the debt of the Dominion of Canada. That is a fair arrangement, and I have no fault to find with it, but it has been sometimes said to me, and the view is held even by some members of this House, that the Dominion of Canada built the railway on Prince Edward Island and presented it to the province as a gift. Nothing of the kind. We came in under exactly the same conditions as the other provinces of Canada.
A word with regard to representation. That is a question of very great importance to the smaller provinces of this Dominion. Some few years ago, when I had the honour of a seat in this House, I brought that question each year to the attention of the House and was glad to find that each time it was received with better attention and received greater support and when in 1907 I moved a resolution asking that an address be presented to His Majesty praying that he would submit a measure to the imperial parliament changing the British North America Act to the exent that none of the three Atlantic provinces in the Dominion of Canada should have fewer representatives than it had at the time it entered confederation, my resolution receive very generous support from hon. gentlemen opposite, including the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor), the hon. member for the Niagara District

'(Mr. Lancaster), and I think the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield).


Mr. STANFIELD.: I moved a motion of that kind and the government turned it down.	'


James Joseph Hughes: They have a provision of that kind in the constitution of Australia, and British Columbia secured such a condition under the terms of her entrance, into the confederation. The time has surely come when the government of this country should seriously consider this problem in relation to the maritime provinces. I want the Minister of Finance to consider what I have said with reference to the financial terms in regard to the position of Prince Edward Island. It appears to me that the case need only be stated for its justice to _ be apparent, and that the claim of Prince Edward Island for treatment similar to that now being given to Manitoba is insuperable. I feel sure that the members of the government will not see injustice done to any province, particularly to any of the smaller provinces, and it must be remembered that Prince Edward Island stands in exactly the same position, as far as public lands go, as Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I submit this matter with all confidence to the consideration of the government and hope that they will deal with it. For that reason I have seconded the motion made by the hon. member for St, John (Mr Pulley).


Mr. HAZEN.: My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) made some remarks with reference to the representation of the maritime provinces in the parliament of Canada, having -regard to the fact that after each decennial census for some decades there has ibeen a decrease in the representation of those provinces. The hon. gentleman made a direct reference to myself and stated that he had heard me in the past speaking in very strong language as to the injustice that was being done to the lower provinces in consequence of their 'osing representation because of the fact *hat the population in the lower provinces was not increasing as rapidly as that of the other provinces in confederation.
Therefore, under the terms under which we entered the confederation in 1867, we were jlosing representation, as we were not holding our own proportionately with the population of the province of Quebec. My hon. friend asked me if I still entertained the same views on that question which I entertained at the time to which he referred, which was a time when my hon. friend and myself both occupied seats in the local legislature of the province of New Brunswick, and in which, on several Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.).
occasions, this question of the loss of representation was discussed. I would say to my hon. friend that I still hold precisely the same-views that I held when I was a member of the legislature of the province of New Brunswick. I think it is a most desirable thing, and an act of simple justice, that some effective action should be taken under which there should be provided at least an irreducible minimum so far as the representation of the maritime provinces of Canada is concerned. My hon. friend brought the matter to the attention of the New Brunswick legislature on several occasions when he was a member of a government of that province. On one occasion he made the contention that if a case was properly submitted to the highest court in the empire he believed that court would hold that the proper interpretation of the word ' Canada ' in the British North America Act, in the clauses concerning representation of the various provinces, was that Canada consisted of the four original provinces of the confederacy, and that as a result of such an interpretation we would not lose any part of our representation, and that what we had lost would tie restored to us. My hon. friend then Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick, carried the matter first to the Supreme Court of Canada, and afterwards <o the Privy Council; but the Privy Council failed to uphold the contention of my hon. Mend, I regret to say. His contention was that the word ' Canada ' mentioned in the British North America Act, was the Canada consisting of the four original provinces of the confederacy; that contention was dismissed by the Privy Council, and it was held that the loss of representation which we had sustained was justified under the British North America Act, Now, my hon. friend has referred to the fact that it is a matter of great regret to us in the lower provinces that this is the case. It is indeed a matter of great regret; to ,us, irrespective of party. The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were two of the original provinces of the confederacy, whose consent made it possible to bring about the union, and which at that time did not anticipate the tremendous growth and expansion of the west, and it is, I say, a matter of regret to us that our representation after every census has been reduced, and we fear that perhaps that reduction will continue to go on in the future. Now, this question is not a new one in the parliament of Canada. We find that on January 31, 1910, a resolution was moved in this House by the hon. gentleman who then and now, represents the county of Bichmond in the province of Nova Scotia (Mr. Kyte). That resolution was in this language:

That in the opinion of this House the maritime provinces of Canada should have preserved to them the representation in the House of Commons that they now enjoy. That in the redistribution of the constituencies to be made after the next decennial 'census the number of representatives to be [DOT]returned from the said provinces should not ,in any case be reduced. And that an humble petition be presented to His Majesty praying ,that the British North America Act be amended in accordance writh the purport of this resolution.
That resolution was debated, and an amendment was moved by an hon. gentleman who at that time, represented the county of Queens, Prince Edward Island, (Mr. Warburton), and it was seconded by Dr. Daniel, then representing the city of St. John. That amendment read as follows:
Each province in the Dominion of Canada .should have as a minimum representation in the House of Commons the representation it had upon becoming a province of Canada. That in the redistribution of the constituencies to be made after the next and after every future decennial census, the representation of each province should be not less than that minimum. And that a humble petition be presented to His Majesty praying that the British North America Act be amended in accordance with the purport of this resolution.
The resolution moved by the member for Richmond was to the effect that the representation of the provinces should not fall below the representation which they had at the time this resolution was moved. The amendment of the hon. member for Queens, Prince 'Edward Island, was to the effect that the representation of none of the provinces of Canada should at any time, fall below what that representation was at the time they entered the union. That amendment was debated in this House, a number of hon. gentlemen took part in the debate, and among others, was. my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I am a little surprised to find, on referring to his speech, that it lacked in large measure, the enthusiasm that we used to hear him express on this subject, when he spoke upon it in the legis-ature of the province of New Brunswick. Those who heard the extremely strong views which the hon gentleman entertained before he went to the Privy Council, and the even stronger views to which he gave expression after he returned from the Privy Council, when in that legislature, he criticised the judgment, and pointed out wherein he thought it was weak, and maintained that the province had a grievance which called for redress, believed that when She hon. gentleman came here, and became a member of the government of Canada in the year 1907, only a short time would elapse before he would so influence his colleagues in the House and in the government, that some remedial legislation would be introduced to redress the grievances under which he and many of us felt, that we were labouring under in the lower provinces. But we find that the hon. gentleman, so far as the record goes, did not lift his voice or use his great influence in that direction. We find that when the bon. gentleman addressed the House on the resolution moved by the hon. member for Richmond, and the amendment moved by the member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, that enthusiasm which had so marked the hon. gentleman's speeches in the House of Assembly of New Brunswick bad practically disappeared, that a change had come over the spirit of the hon. gentleman's dreams, and he no longer talked of the injustice that was being done to the lower provinces. Let me quote some of the remarks of the hon. gentleman on that occasion:
, In my opinion the way in which this matter should be presented is rather along the line taken by my hon friend (Mr. Richards) than along that taken by my hon friend from York (Mr. Crocket). My hon. friend from York said that a great injustice was done tfie maritime provinces, and he claims that these provinces were not here asking for a favour but demanding as a matter of right that a change should be made in the representation.


Mr. CROCKET.: If my hon friend will pardon me, I said we were demanding the restoration of a right of which we had been deprived.


William Pugsley: I understood the hon gentleman to say, and I think I understood him correctly, that it is not as a matter of favour, but rather as a matter of right that the representation should be restored to what it was. But it seems to me that my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Richards) has put the matter on the only ground on which it can be put, and that is that it would be a generous thing for the larger provinces to recognize the dissatisfaction existing in the maritime provinces and which is bound to increase as our representation declines. It would be an act of broad generosity for the larger provinces to recognize that fact, to deal in this spirit with the smaller provinces, and to restore the representation to what it was at the time of confederation and below which the people then thought it never would fall.
The reason that I say it cannot be 6a.id that an injustice has been done to the lower provinces is that we have no right to complain of what is the interpretation given to the constitution by the highest court of the realm.
It will, therefore, be seen that the. bon. gentleman, speaking of the resolution in this House, took a distinctly different ground from the ground which he took in speaking on a similar subject in the legislature of New Brunswick at a time when he was a member of the government of that province. This resolution, as I

say, was discussed by a number of members from the different provinces, and all the speeches were distinctly sympathetic. The right hon. the leader of the opposition, then first minister, addressed the House. I have not had time to go through the reports as I did not know the question was coming up to-night, but I did read the report of the debate some years ago, and 1 believe that every man expressed sympathy with the position that was taken by the lower provinces. The right hon. the leader of the opposition said that the question was one which could not be disposed of by this parliament, that the question of representation had been settled by the British North America Act, that it was a compact entered into by the different provinces, that the question was one which would have to be dealt with by the different provinces, and a conclusion come to by them in regard to the matter, before it could be taken up and dealt with by the government of the Dominion, and before a change could be asked for in the British North America Act. Following that session I had a conference with a gentleman who was at that time the premier of Prince Edward Island, Mr. Hansard, now a judge of the supreme court of that province, and as a result of that we called a meeting in the city of St. John which was attended by representatives of the three lower provinces. The hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), who was at that time attorney general of the province of Nova Scotia, attended as its representative in the absence of the premier, who was unable to he present in consequence of illness. Others who were present were Messrs. Hansard and Palmer of Prince Edward Island. Mr. Warburton, who had made the motion in the House of Commons. Dr. Daniel, and one or two public men in the province of New Brunswick. We fully discussed and considered the whole question, passed a resolution embodying our views, and then got into correspondence with Sir James Whitney and Sir Lomer Gouin, and asked them to call a meeting of the premiers and representatives of the different provinces, so as to consider this question which was of vital importance to us. That conference was held in Toronto in the autumn of 1910. Among the representatives present were the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers), Sir James Whitney, Sir Lomer Gouin and representatives of all the other Canadian provinces with the exception of British Columbia. I presume that British Columbia did not send a representative to the meeting because it did not feel interested in the question to the same extent that the other provinces did, as under the Act, under which British Columbia came into the union, there is an irreducible number Mr. HA ZEN.
fixed below which representation in British Columbia cannot fall no matter how small the population of the province should become. In other words, British Columbia, which came into the union, after the four original provinces, and before Prince Edward Island became part of the confederation, had inserted in the Act determining the terms of union a provision that under ill circumstances its representation should be fixed at six, and that it should not fall below six; so that if the population of the province should become smaller than it was at the time it entered the union, its representation would still be six members. The conference deliberated in regard to the question very fairly and very candidly.	I do not think that I
am revealing any secret when I say that there was a very general feeling among the members of the conference that something should be done to meet the case of the maritime provinces so far as their representation was concerned. But when my hon. friend puts forward the statement, as he has done to-night, that the representation of no province should fall below that which it had when it entered the union I am afraid that my hon. friend has not given full consideration to the question. That view was put forward at the conference and at once we found ourselves face to face with this condition of affairs. Under the British North America Act the representation of the pivotal province of Quebec was never to be less than 65 in number. Ontario entered the union with 82 members. The people of Quebec have the expectation that at some day, it may be in the near future or it may be farther away, Quebec will be equal in population to Ontario. That hope and ambition may or may not be realized but see what it would mean if it were realized and there was a clause put in this Act to the effect that the popular representation of the provinces should never fall below what it was originally placed at in 1867 or when the provinces entered the union. It would mean that Quebec would have the same or as large a population as Ontario and yet the representation of Quebec would remain at 65, would not increase at all, while the representation of Ontario would not fall below 82. It looked like an insurmountable objection at first, but there was a very strong disposition among the representatives who came from the west, who came from Ontario, and among the members of the conference generally that some exception ought to be made in the case of the maritime provinces. The conference adjourned without taking action as several of the representatives of the different provinces said that they did not feel like committing their provinces to any' course of action on the subject until they had had an opportunity

merits and legislatures. The conference adjourned with the understanding that it would be called together at some future date after the census had been taken and before a redistribution had taken place in order that some decision might be come to along the line of doing something, in so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, in the way of fixing an irreducible minimum for their representation. I may say that, from conversations I have had since with the premiers of different provinces and with gentlemen from different parts of Canada who were present at the conference, I do not at all despair of an agreement being come to between the provinces themselves under which an arrangement will be made that will be eminently satisfactory to those of us who come from the lower provinces.
I fully agree with many of the reasons advanced in support of a contention of that sort. At the time of confederation there were onjy the four provinces. No man in the wildest flights of .fancy, could foresee the greatly changed conditions that were going to come over Canada or anticipate the day when there would be thousands and hundreds of thousands of people flowing into the northwestern country, a country little known at that time and a country that was hardly thought to be fit for settlement. The whole condition and complexion of that country has been changed, and had the men who were delegates to the Quebec conference before 1867 anticipated what was in store they never would have agreed to the terms regarding representation that they did agree to when the conditions were entirely different from what they have become since and when no man anticipated that these greatly- changed conditions would come about in the course of a few years. We find the other provinces being added to from time to time, an empire almost being added to the province of Quebec; we find provinces carved out of what was then just prairie land in the west belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company, first the province of Manitoba, followed by the two great provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and we find a large addition made to the province of Ontario. But, situated as we are in the lower provinces, hemmed in on both sides either by the sea, by the state of Maine or the province of Quebec, there is no possibility of an extension of territory and we feel that this territory out of which these other provinces in the west have been carved has been purchased with the money of the Canadian taxpayers, with the money of the people of the lower provinces, with the money of the people of every other part of Canada and that the land belonged equally to us as it did to the other parts of Canada.
Under the physical and geographical conditions that prevail, no part of that- do-144
main can come back to us. But we do claim that on account of the tremendous additions made to the west in territory, a share in the burden of purchasing which we cheerfully bore in the general interests of the whole Dominion, and considering that we were among the original provinces of Canada, which made possible the great idea of a united Dominion from ocean to ocean across the northern part of this American continent, we do claim, I say that we are entitled to generous consideration, and especially so in view of the fact that the devolpment of that western country has attracted from our farms, our workshops and our fisheries, so many of our young men, who, had they remained, would have contributed to the wealth and influence of their native province. In view of all these circumstances and the sacrifices we have made, we believe that we should not be put in the humiliating position of having our pride wounded, census after census, by finding that our representation has to be diminished in this House, and that to-day we are not holding nearly as influential a position in the confederacy, so far as to representation in Canada, as we did in its early years. And, while that general statement is true in reference to the lower provinces, there is an even stronger claim on behalf of Prince Edward Island. There is no question to my mind, that history shows that the men who represented Prince Edward Island when the terms of union _ were brought about in 1871, firmly believed that provision had been made for the minimum number of six mem- . bers that would represent that province in this House of Commons. That was at the time a larger number than the population of Prince Edward Island would have warranted, and the representatives of the island distinctly understood and so [DOT]reported to the people what the terms of the arrangement were, that there was an irreducible minimum of six members below which the representation of the island would never fall. The delegates from Prince Edward Island had before them the fact that only the year, before, British Columbia, which then had not as large a population as Prince Edward Island had when it entered the union-secured terms under which it was provided that tire representation of British Columbia should be six members in this House of Commons and that it should never fall below that number. That privilege having been agreed to in the case of British Columbia, it constitutes to my mind a tremendously strong argument in favour of a similar provision being inserted with regard to the representation oif the lower provinces.
I have spoken to-night because I think it is important that this question should be kept before this House and because of the direct personal appeal made to me



by my colleague from the city of St. Joha (Mr. Pugsley). I understand that the next conference of provincial premiers will he held during this coming summer, and that correspondence on the subject is already taking place between the Premier of New Brunswick and the other provincial premiers. I understand that Sir James Whitney and Sir Lomer Gouin, who are recognized as the joint chairmen, are willing to call a meeting to consider the matter, and I have every hope an agreement will be come to under which it can be arranged that the representation of the lower provinces shall not fall below what it is at the present time. And, while I entertain my opinion about our representation as strongly as I ever did, yet I do not believe that the proper means of accomplishing the object we have in view is by opposing the present measure which seeks to put Manitoba on a plane of equality with the other western provinces of Canada. So far as that measure is concerned it is intended as a measure of fair-play to the province of Manitoba. No one who looks at the map of the Dominion of Canada can see the position Manitoba occupies in comparison with Alberta and Saskatchewan, so far as the extent of territory is concerned, wihout feeling that a great injustice was done Manitoba. Every fair-minded man must admit it is only just that its boundaries should be extended, so that it may become comparable in that respect to the newer provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Every one must feel that this injustice should not be continued longer to the old province of Manitoba, that has blazed the way and opened up to civilization that western country which has now become so potent and important a factor in the public life of Canada. The proposal in this legislation is to redress these grievances, and I do not think any man in this House should object to that. I have heard nothing to lead me to suppose that Manitoba is being treated with anything less than fair and generous justice if this Bill becomes law. I do not believe that we of the maritime provinces have anything to gain by setting our face against this measure which is calculated to do justice to the. western part of this country. Bather, I think we will advance our interests and the case we have at heart- not only in the matter of representation, but in the future as regards the financial terms-by gaining the goodwill and support of our friends in the we3t if we accord this measure generous support. Let us treat Manitoba now in the broad spirit in which we ourselves hope to be dealt with when the question comes before par-Mr. HAZEN.
liament (as it will in the not far distant future) of better times for the maritime provinces. We have the assurance of the right hon. the Prime Minister that the question of compensation to which the maritime provinces are entitled will be dealt with when the question of giving over to the western provinces the control of their public lands is brought for consideration before parliament, and we will not have to wait until the dim and distant future to see that happy day. We have the assurance of my right hon. leader that when that time comes the claims of the maritime provinces will be fairly and reasonably considered, and we may then expect that we will be placed in as good a financial position relatively as the other provinces are. I do not concur with the view expressed by my hon. friends opposite that it is desirable now to hamper the present question with the consideration of that compensation to which we are entitled in the lower provinces, or by an expression of opinion regarding the representation of the maritime provinces as to which I believe this House is practically a unit now, and which I sincerely hope will be dealt with effectively at the meeting of the premiers to be held during the coming summer. If it is not dealt with effectively at that meeting, the question will arise as to what attitude may fairly be taken, having regard to the constitution, for the purpose of redressing the undoubted grievances we labour under. Only a few years ago, in 1891, Nova Scotia had twenty-one members, New Brunswick had sixteen members, and Prince Edward Island had six members, but to-day there has been a great reduction and New Brunswick has only thirteen members, Prince Edward Island four, and Nova Scotia eighteeln. But while my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) is now calling for the redress of these grievances, he overlooks the fact that we lost representation under the census of 1901, and that at that time, while he was not a member of this House, he was an influential supporter of the government of the day. How does it come, that he did not then exert his influence with the government, to have existing conditions remedied?
Nothing was done at that time. We sustained the loss of representation. The census of 1911 shows that we shall sustain a still further loss. But I believe that we from the maritime provinces, uniting on both sides of politics in supporting a claim of this kind, can with confidence ^appeal to this House regardless of party 'affiliations, to do what it can to effect a remedy for a state of affairs that so affects our pride, and will affect our status and influence in the future as a part of this confederacy.	*


Mr. CARVELL.: I am afraid that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries possesses a greater optimism in regard to the sense of fair-play of the parliament of Canada with regard to this matter than the facts of the case warrant. My hon. friend has not been in this House during the last seven or eight years and listened to the discussions on this question by hon. members from all parts of Canada. I have listened to his very pleasant speech with a great deal of interest; but I want to point out to him that a conference of provincial Premiers alone will not settle this vexed question of the rights of the maritime provinces. It will require a conference participated m, not only by provincial Premiers, but by the Premier of the Dominion and the federal parliament before we can arrive at a conclusion. If my hon. friend will take the trouble to go over the debates and votes to which he has referred, I think he will find that not a man from the west of Lake Superior, and very few west of the maritime provinces, voted for the motion of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), or for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. McLean). There wjere a few from the province of Ontario; I do not think there was one from the province of Quebec; and the remainder were membeirs f^om the maritime provinces, regardless of politics. Now, my hon. friend has travelled all around the question, and has given, I think, in a fair manner, the arguments pro and con. It is true, he has tried to show that the attitude of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), to-night is not consistent with the statements he made in this House two years ago. But, after all, my hon. friend from St. John was fair in stating the facts as they were in 1910, just as he has stated them to-night. My hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket), was claiming as a matter of right that our representation should not be reduced below the point at which it exists to-day. My hon. friend from St. John was not claiming that as a matter of right, because he said the Privy Council had decided that as a matter of right our representation must be reduced, and, therefore, the only way in which our present representation could be maintained was as a matter of justice^ to us by the remainder of the Dominion. We may just as well face this thing as it is. We may as well admit that as a matter of law, on a proper construction of the British North America Act, as settled once for all by the Privy Council, our representation must go down unless our population increases in equal proportion to that of the province of Quebec. There is no use of beating around the bush and saying that we have any legal right 144}
in the matter, because we have not. Therefore, we come down to the question: Will the rest of Canada give to us as an equitable (right that which we assumed we were safeguarding when we came into the union? I agree with the statement of my hon. friend that if the representatives of the maritime provinces at the Quebec Conference had the faintest idea that our representation would be reduced below what it was as fixed at confederation, they would not have accepted the terms then proposed. But, unfortunately, conditions have changed and our representation has been reduced; and, unfortunately, as the law stands to-day, it will continue to be reduced unless our population increases much more rapidly in the future than it has done in the past. We must have a change in the British North America Act if this reduction is to cease, and how are we going to get that change? My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says: ' Let this Bill go through; you will only be injuring your case if you raise an objection now, because you will hear from the rest of the people of Canada if you are not friendly towards them.' My experience is that the best time to get anything from another party is when he wants to get something from you. That may be a sordid way of looking at the matter; but my hon. friend will find that if the province of Manitoba gets her boundaries extended and her money grant increased, and if the province of Ontario gets all the rest of the Northwest Territory lying west of Hudson bay, and if the province of Quebec gets all the remainder of the territory lying east of Hudson bay, all of the available land in Canada will have been divided among all the other provinces, and they will have got the financial arrangements that they want, which are grossly unfair to the maritime provinces, he will be reckoning without his host. He will be leaning on a broken reed if he expects that the other provinces, after they have gained all these advantages, are going to turn around and say: You poor people of the maritime provinces have been badly used; we cannot give you more money or land, but we will give you more representation. I want my hon. friend to consider that before he throws his cards on the table. It may be said that I am taking a sordid view of the situation. I think I am taking a common-sense view, and I want my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as one of the representatives of the maritime provinces in the government, to look the facts in the face. If we have a conference of all the provinces, and have the matter discussed in parliament before Manitoba gets her boundaries extended, and before Ontario gets hers, and before Quebec gets the rest of the territory, and

before they all get improved financial treatment, I think we shall be in a much better position to obtain just treatment for the maritime provinces. Therefore, I think, from the standpoint of the maritime provinces and from the standpoint of common prudence, the members of this House would do well to consider, very carefully, the amendment offered by the hon. member for St. John. I do not know that anything I may say will have any influence with my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; but I warn him now, and I warn the people of the maritime provinces, that the bait which the leader of this House is holding out to them may be very useless; it may be something that may not be realized for years to come. As I have already pointed out, it is all verv well for the Minister of (Marine and Fisheries to say, I have faith to believe that this will come in a short time. I know perhaps as much about the feeling on this matter as he does, although I am not a member of the government, and, as I read the political horoscope to-day, the possibility of the three western provinces getting their land is very much farther in the future than it has been at any time in the last ten years; and if the maritime provinces are to be compelled to wait until the land is given to those provinces before they get a readjustment of their financial arrangements, I believe they are doomed to great disappointment before the promised land is reached.
What is true in my statement regarding financial matters, is doubly true regarding my statement as to the question of representation. Therefore, Sir, I say again, it behoves the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who perhaps in one sense ought to be the special representative of the maritime provinces in this case, to look very carefully into this question, and consider it very seriously before he attempts to vote down the amendment proposed by the member for St. John.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not quite able to apprehend the view of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, that the transfer to the western provinces of their lands is further off to-night than it has been at any time in the past, but I suppose rny hon. friend perhaps did not mean it just in that way.	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Pretty nearly.


Robert Laird Borden: You did?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Then all I have to say is that I do not quite understand the. statement. In the first place the resolution which has been moved by the hon. member for St. John does not allude Mr. CARVELL.
at all to the question of representation, but to the question of financial terms, and the hon. gentleman desires, according to the terms of his proposed amendment, that nothing should be done in respect to placing Manitoba on a basis of equality with Alberta and Saskatchewan until the Premiers of Canada have been called together and held a conference. Well, I am bound to say that I do not exactly see the significance of that. I am not aware that the Premiers of Canada were called together in conference at the time Saskatchewan and Alberta were constituted.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that the Premiers of the various provinces of Canada were consulted about the financial terms granted to Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that at any one'of the many occasions on which individual provinces have had a change for their advantage made in the financial terms which they received from this Dominion, that there has been a conference of the Premiers. The only conference of the Premiers in regard to which any such action was taken, that I can recall, speaking from memory, is the one which has been already alluded to so many times in the course of this debate. Now; the member for St. John says that this measure proposes to ignore all the other provinces. Well, the other provinces are no more ignored now that they were when Alberta and Saskatchewan were constituted. As far as I am aware the moneys proposed to be paid to Alberta and Saskatchewan were to be paid out of the treasury of Canada, and I do not know any other source from which it was proposed to derive them. Therefore, I assume that there should have been just as good reason for consulting the Premiers of the other provinces of Canada then as now, but they were not consulted. No one of the hon. gentlemen who have urged this point with so much insistence had a word to say about calling any conference of the Premiers of the various provinces of Canada at that time. Then I do not exactly understand how the conference of provincial Premiers is to work out this question. Are they to vote by provinces? Are they to vote by the accidental number of representatives who happen to be present from the various provinces? Are they to vote by population, or how are they to vote?


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: Would it not be fair to have them present at a conference though?


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be fair to have them there?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, if they are not satisfied, would it not be fair and just to have them at a conference?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that there is any great advantage in calling the provincial premiers together in a conference unless we are going to pay some attention to their conclusions. If we are to call them together in a conference, then surely we are to be governed to some extent at! least, by their conclusions. Well, suppose the provinces are not unanimous, are we to be governed by the majority, and if so, by what majority? By the majority of population, by the majority of a number of provinces, or by the majority of delegates who happen to be there incidentally to represent any province. That is what I asked the hon. member from St. John.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries says the provincial premiers are going to be called for some purpose or another.


Robert Laird Borden: Oh no, he says they have been called together for the purpose of seeing whether or not the provinces of Canada, other than the maritime provinces, would not all come to an agreement that the representation of the maritime provinces should not be decreased below what it is at the present time, and they failed tq come to any such agreement. Some of the provinces, I understand, were willing, and some were not willing. At all events no agreement was reached. Suppose a similar result obtains in regard to this matter, what conclusion are we to adopt? Every hon. member knows that in the end the final conclusion in respect to any such matter as this must rest upon the responsibility of the federal government and upon no other responsibility, just as it rested in 1905 upon the responsibility of the government that was then in power. We are doing no more to-day, as I have already stated a great many times, for the enlarged province of Manitoba than was done for the adjoining provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905. However, my hon. friend from St. John has moved his amendment, and it is understood that matters of a controversial nature were not to be finally dealt with tonight. I would be very glad, therefore, to let the clause stand, and see if we can make any progress with some of the other clauses of the Bill, and resume the discussion upon this clause if that course meets with the approval of the committee to-morrow, or when the Bill is next taken into consideration.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to say a word in regard to this matter on behalf of my province, and I must say that I cannot quite grasp the reasoning
of the leader of the House when he wanted to indicate that there was no necessity for a conference, that you would not know what to do with that conference if you did get one. Yet my hon. friend two days ago told us that when he comes to hand back the lands to Manitoba and the other provinces, he is going to call a conference of the provincial governments of Canada to consider


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I did not say that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, my hon. friend used the expression: We would call them to our counsels.


Robert Laird Borden: I said that we would call the maritime provinces to our counsels whose boundaries could not be extended by reason of their natural situation. I said nothing more.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then my hon. friend when he gets the representatives of the maritime provinces together, is he going to say that Prince Edward Island shall not have as much to say about the matter as Nova Scotia, nor Nova Scotia as New Brunswick, or how are the provinces going to vote?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is another term for a conference.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say they would vote at all, and I do not propose they shall vote.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then my hon. friend is going to call the representatives of the provinces before him and. when they are here and sitting down at the conference, say to them:	'Although you
have been called here I do not intend that there should be anything more than talk indulged in. You cannot come to any unanimous conclusion and you cannot vote on questions with which you are dealing.' I wonder what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is going to do'with the conference that he is going to have this year. Is he going to allow the representatives at that conference to vote?


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman is wrong. I did not say I was going to have any conference this year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You did not? Then if my hon. friend did not tell us there was going to be a conference of the different provinces of the Dominion to consider the question of representation, I do not know what he did tell us.


Mr. BURNHAM.: May I ask whether this conference of the provinces is a Dominion or a provincial matter?
452V


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is an election coming on in New Brunswick this summer.


John Hampden Burnham: I see. All right.
Mr. MxVCDONALD. My hon. friend from Peterborough generally manages to throw some light upon any problem which he undertakes to discuss, ibut I am bound to say on this occasion he has only succeeded in so clouding up the matter that one hardly knows what he means. Certainly there is going to be some kind of a conference according to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries this year, to consider the question of representation. I would like to know when these gentlemen get together how they are going to be allowed to vote, how their judgment is to find expression. Are they to be allowed to come to any decisions at all, are there any votes to be taken, or what are they going to do?
According to the Prime Minister, you cannot have that kind of a conference because when he has his conference he will not allow anything of that kind. The Prime Minister will see on deliberation, that what the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), is asking him to do, is to to have a conference before changing the debt allowance of this particular province in order to consult the other provinces on that subject because it is an important one and one on which they have a right to be consulted, and at the same time, he can deal with the question of disposing of the lands if he wants to. The leader of the government says: I am going to give to Manitoba this subsidy and then I will cal] a conference in regard to another matter. The Minister of Finance when he came to deal with that question pleaded with the leader of the opposition that he should try to be a statesman and not a politician, and my hon. friend set the pace for .all the government, in which he was followed by the Minister of the Interior, but he himself was neither a statesman nor a politician, he was a sentimentalist, willing to grant subsidies to pathfinders. That was about the only reason the minister was able to give to the House for this increased debt allowance. Pathfinders should get more money, because they are pathfinders, and a pathfinding province should get more than any other portion of the Dominion. After you have paid off the pathfinders, then we will have a conference to settle that question, after you have disarranged the debt allowance all over Canada and created a disparity and unfairness of treatment of different provinces, we will sit down and talk it over. That seems to be the attitude of the government in this matter.
My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) put before us the situa-Hr. BURNHAM.
tion of his province. That province has never had any crown lands, it has had no revenue producing assets of any kind, which are common to all the other provinces of the Dominion. Why should not Prince Edward. Island get special treatment in connection with this Bill? It may not be a province peopled with pathfinders, but nevertheless its people are entitled to consideration and consideration now. If we are to have any haste about this thing, if the demand of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers) is so imperious and insistent, that he has to be settled with at once, and all of the other provinces have to wait, Prince Edward Island will have to worry along with $1,028,293.41 a year less than Manitoba. The province from which I have the honour to come, which has 30,000 or 40,000 more population and consequently, more institutions to deal with, will receive under this. Bill $738,884.91 per annum less than Manitoba.


Robert Laird Borden: Hew .much more does Saskatchewan receive?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend does not want to get away from that proposition and I shall deal with it in a moment. I am saying here, that when the hon. member says to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that he would not have a conference until some time in the dim and distant future, that when he called a collection of people together he would not allow them to do anything except to look at him. .In the meantime, the other provinces in the Dominion are being treated in this ungenerous way.
Take New Brunswick. Every year from the passing of this Bill that province will receive $42,794.43 less than the province of Manitoba, which has practically the same population. Then why should British Columbia stand and wait? Is the Minister of Interior more powerful than Dick McBride? Is that the position to-day that he can come here and say we must have all we are asking for and we must have it immediately without consultation with anybody and every other province can go hang in the meantime while British Columbia, which is a province of pathfinders and should therefore commend itself to the Finance Minister, will have to struggle along with $756,323.99 per year less than Manitoba, and some time we will call you to our councils, look at you and state what we are going to do about this thing? That is the position to-day, they are handing out to Manitoba this generous gift covering three years of alleged arrears over and above all this disparity that exists in regard to these im-dividual provinces.
The Prime Minister a moment ago wanted to make a comparison with Saskatchewan. Let us look at the problem of how this sub-

sidy should he dealt with. Manitoba as a province of the Dominion has existed since 1870, it took part in all the conferences held with regard to provincial subsidies and, in the meantime, accepted without ever a quiver or complaint in 1906 and 1907, the amount of money which the federal government had voted in accordance with the resolution passed at the conference. Every one who was in the House at the time or who has looked at the debate knows that while there was an aggressive Conservative party in this House from Manitoba no one alleged that Manitoba required or demanded any special treatment, and the Secretary of State sat still and said nothing. The Minister of the Interior yesterday tried to make us believe that the particular claim of his province at that time received special recognition at the hands of the conference. There is not a single line in the whole renort to be found in the Sessional Papers that warrants that statement. On the contrary the Premier of Ontario and his colleagues went on record in the strongest possible way in declaring that for "the future there should be no special grant of subsidies such as this government proposed to make to Manitoba at this time. Is this confederation a partnership of the different provinces of Canada or is it not? That is the proposition that is at the basis of this whole legislation. One would think to hear these gentlemen talk about these matters that the history of Canada is about written and that our future was not a matter to be considered at all. The only way in which such questions as the extension of boundaries can be fairly solved is the way in which the fathers of confederation did it, when they sat in council at Charlottetown and Quebec and considered the relative positions of each province, what the debt allowance should be and what considerations were peculiar to each province and then attempted to settle the matter fairly. That is what they did in 1906-7, and when under the late government the proportionate amounts to be paid to each province were reconsidered they all met here and dealt with the matter. When my hon. friends come to pick out one province which was to enter confederation after 1867, and to deal with it,_ they did not attempt to defend the proposition except to say that they were dealing with the matter on a basis of federal readjustment. They come along and say, oh this is a province of pathfinders. The same thing was done when the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were originated, and now they say that for that and no other reasons you must increase the debt allowance, and maue these extra grants to the province of Manitoba. When 'this question of subsidies was before the House of Commons in 1906-7 the financial critic of the opposition who is now the
Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) told the House how these things should be dealt with. I ventured to ask the Minister of Finance on the first, reading of this Bill whether he had looked at this question from that standpoint, and he told us he was not responsible for the individual views of his colleagues. I think my hon. friend the new Minister of Finance could have gone to school to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to these questions.


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: My hon. friend asked me what was the debt of Manitoba tc-day. There is no assumption by the Dominion of the debt of Manitoba to-day, and therefore it does not enter into the consideration of this question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Unfortunately for my hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce did, in 1906-7, lay that down as one of the essential things that should be taken into consideration.


William Thomas White: 1 am satisfied that he did not intend it in that sense at all, because it is not relevant unless the Dominion assumes the debt.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I invite me hon. friend to turn up ' Hansard ' of that year where he will find what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said upon that question. He discussed very fully the resolutions which were then brought before the House by the then Minister of Finance, asking that the resolutions which had been agreed upon by the provinces should be adopted by the House. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce laid down a great many rules which should be followed, and I will take them up. First he said that before the federal government dealt with this question of subsidies they should consider what are the available sources of revenue of a province, they should examine into the expenditure of the province, and find whether it had been wise and prudent, or whether it was one which was likely to lead to a debt so vast that the province would be compelled to come back to the federal parliament and ask for assistance. If their means of revenue were limited, that also should be taken into consideration. Then there was another consideration: Is this to be the last time of asking? he said:	Is the proposition to be
a final one? There has been no suggestion in regard to that subject in this case, and that is a subject upon which we ought to know something before this Bill goes i ut of committee. Hon. gentlemen say that this is the last time Manitoba is coming back. Are we making a full settlement of all financial demands, or will Manitoba be coming back next year? These are things which the Minister of Trade and

Commerce said should be considered. Then he asked: Is it a permanent arrangement? Every Finance Minister, he said, should be careful to see whether it was a permanent arrangement or not. There is nothing here to show that this is a permanent arrangement; on the contrary, we are told that this is not a permanent arrangement. In a year or so we are going to give the lands back to the western provinces, and to make a new deal in which the Minister of the Interior will endeavour to walk off with the larger share of the swag. The result will be that this whole subsidy question wall be reopened. Is there any check put on the debt creating power of the province? was a pertinent question asked by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is there any check, or is the door left open so that every provincial Premier who wants to be extravagant can come back and make another raid? All this language in regard to the debt will be found in the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, pages 5314 to 5319 in ' Hansard ' of March 25, 1907.	All
these considerations were suggested by him as being absolutely necessary before you could determine what was fair and right in dealing with any province of the Dominion. Then he declared that having a fixed sum you could never have finality, and where you fixed a definite amount you could never have finality, and no payment should be made, except it was made on the percentage basis, or you could never have a final settlement as to the rate of payment which is to be applied to every province. All these considerations the Minister of Trade and Commerce declared to be essential in 1907; and not one of them has been observed by this government; there is no pretence, they are all thrown to the winds. There is only one defence -Saskatchewan and Alberta got so much in 1905, and therefore we have got to give to Manitoba that amount to-day. Now, on what possible ground can this proposition be justified ? What reason can there be for doing that any more than if you were to say to Ontario to-day, vdiich was one of the original partners of confederation, that because her boundaries are being extended to the Hudson bay, you must give her an additional amount. The principal theory upon which the provinces are to be assisted with provincial subsidies is that larger responsibilities are assumed along with the rights accorded to them under the British North America Act. Certain duties were assigned to each provincial legislature to carry out. They were compelled to look after certain services, and we were compelled to look after certain others. The amount of money that was to be expended necessarily by any province depended upon population and Mr. MACDONALD,
like considerations. Now, because, _ forsooth, you are adding to the territory of the province of Manitoba a certaiin area, you say to them: We are going to give you this vast sum of money beginning in 1908,though you had no territory and therefore had no responsibility, and therefore nothing to expend any money for. Manitoba never lost a dollar since 1908 by reason of not having this money, because she never had the territory to spend it on. If the reason for granting this increased subsidy is because you are going to increase the territory of Manitoba, then you have no reason for giving these arrearages, because Manitoba was not spending any money. In 1905 you started out the two new provinces, and from that moment their expenditure began. Along with the rights that were accorded to the provinces under the British North America Act, was a duty imposed upon the legislatures of those provinces, and they had to spend their money. Manitoba has been doing this since 1871 in a limited way, but not a single dollar has she spent since 1908 in addition to what she was spending before, for the reason that she had no more territory on which to spend it. The Minister will search the records of his department in vain previous to confederation down to the present time to find any justification for such a proposition. What are they to be compensated for ? If they had the lands, then they would have been expending some additional amounts upon them, because responsibility begins with the acquisition of the lands. It is purely a sentimental arrangement in order that the Minister of the Interior may go back to Manitoba and tell them: See what I have got out of the Dominion treasury for you, although I had no right to get it.


John Hampden Burnham: Are there no damages?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) is a lawyer, I understand, and damages in regard to breach of rights in a legal sense can be assessed upon certain principles. If it were possible to convince my hon. friend, I could easily convince him that these theoretical damages of which he speaks were never found within the purview of any legal considerations nor of any political one, either, up to date.
Two million dollars paid to Manitoba because they did not get the boundaries settled three years ago. Why did they not get their boundaries? It was their own fault. They never said they would take the boundaries until last spring when they took the very limits that the late government offered to them, Yet, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White), subsidizing the pathfinders, is going to give them $2,000,000 for nothing. What is going to happen, after they do get the

lands, to the 690 white people up there? The Manitoba government has never spent a five cent piece in actual money in looking after these 690 people or the territory in which they live since 1908, or at any time up to date. The Dominion government looked after that territory and had everything to do with it. The Indians were looked after by the Indian Department, and whatever police work was done was done by the mounted police. If Manitoba gets control of that territory the mounted police will go on looking after the territory at the expense of the Dominion of Canada. This additional bonus which they will receive we have not yet heard mentioned. The result is, that leaving out of consideration altogether the amount which is supposed to be their due for damages for a wrong that was never inflicted, this - Dominion is giving to Manitoba a still further sum of $747.83 every year for every man, woman and child to be found in the added territory. Is it any wonder that my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), wants to have a conference of the other provinces of the Dominion? When you get down to the real situation in reference to this matter you will find that the Dominion government hands over to this province $747.83 every year for every man, woman and child as a gift to assist in governing the people who are to be found in the added territory in order that Manitoba may be on an equality with Alberta and Saskatchewan. That is the reason that is given.
My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers), sang a dismal song that the late Premier would not give them what they wanted because they were Conservatives. He was smiling in his cheek when he made that (Statement in this House. It has become an old story how he and the Premier of the province oi Manitoba have been making a football of this question for the last ten years. The Minister of the Interior knows very well that the Manitoba government were preaching that Laurier would not give them a fair deal. They did not want a fair deal. They were sparring for wind and lor time, looking for a grievance, and it is on account of thisi old grievance of theirs that they were feeling so badly, but have succeeded in inducing the new Minister of Finance to give them this $2,000,000 as a present, and a solatium for their wounded feelings. Then my hon. friend was so sorrowful over the fact that this leader of the opposition, when he was Premier, would not give them the swamp lands just when they wanted them. But he said the Canadian Northern could get lands just when they wanted them in Saskatchewan. My hon. friend was worrying tremendously about the Canadian Northern railway. Everybody
who knows anything about Manitoba politics knows that my hon. friend and the Canadian Northern have been cheek by jowl for the last ten years, standing and working together whether it was in regard to swamp lands or any other kind of lands. The Minister of the Interior was certainly drawing a long bow when he attempted to persuade this House that the claim of Manitoba in regard to this debt allowance and increased subsidies was approved by the conference. The contrary is the case as has been proved by my hon. friend from St. John. There is no evidence on the records to justify the statement of the Minister of the Interior. On the contrary, I want to reiterate to my hon. friend who was not at the conference at all, that the Premier and the Attorney General of the province who were there signed and supported the resolution which was presented to them under which they accepted the allowance that they have been receiving from that day down to the present time and never made any kind of a kick, never made any kind of objection as to these side claims. Look what Premier McBride did in regard to British Columbia. He presented his claims and advocated them very seriously. He could not get the representatives of the other provinces to agree with him and he said: I will not join you at all upon this question; you may go and see the Prime Minister if you like, but as far as I am concerned, I will leave the conference and do what I can to secure favourable action upon my demand. The colleagues of the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Roblin and Mr. Campbell, quietly and humbly sat down along with the other Premiers, and representatives of the other provinces and never said a word about these claims, except that they had presented them to the Premier. When these gentlemen would not agree with them that it was right that they should get these extra claims, they said: We are not going to go like Premier McBride, and kick over the traces, or do anything; we will take what we can get in the meantime, and as long as you do not agree with McBride we will go with you. They did so; there was no refusal on their part, as there was on the part of Mr. McBride. If the minister's colleagues, Messrs. Roblin and Campbell, had done what McBride had done in 1906, it would have been open to him to argue that they had a grievance that ought to be remedied, but he comes in and proposes to take the money of the various provinces because Laurier would not give them the boundaries. Since 1908 anybody who went to Manitoba would hear nothing discussed ir. provincial politics, but the declaration of members of the provincial government that this wicked man who had been leading the government of Canada would not

give them fair-play, and would not give them the boundaries. A great many people believed it, who did not know that there was incorporated in the records of this House, a resolution passed in 1908 giving them exactly what they get this year and what they would not take and what no one could possibly induce them to take. These gentlemen did not want to take that until they had the elections over in Manitoba last year. The complaint would have been done away with, if they had accepted these boundaries before the provincial elections were over. These gentlemen wanted a grievance. Mr. Richard McBride asserted, thisi claim for an extra allowance but, finding that his colleagues from the other provinces would not join with him, he would not have anything to do with them and went out and asserted he was right in this matter. These gentlemen did not do anything of the kind; they took the money went home, and now they have succeeded in inducing the government of this country to give them $2,000,000 for absolutely nothing. You say that this is not a finality that this does not close the books, that you are making a deal about lands and about territory, that you are taking from these people the swamp lands, that you are going to make a new arrangement at some time in the future and that when you make that new arrangement about the lands, you will hold a conference. We come to you and say:	Do you think that it is a good
time now to hold a conference because you are dealing with financial arrangements on a certain basis, with an old province of the Dominion, that joined with us three years ago, as a member of the conference that then took place, and where we were told what our course was going to be in the future and what we ought to receive-do you think that it is a fair proposition that you should hold a conference now before you adopt this new arrangement with this one province? That is the proposition of my hon. friend from St. John, it is a reasonable one, and I fail to see upon what ground it can be answered.
The circumstances of this case are such that my hon. friends opposite cannot answer their responsibility to the other provinces of the Dominion by saying they are going to level this up by the two prairie provinces. For the reasons I have given I support the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley). The Minister of Marine and Fisheries rather suggested that my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) was not as enthusiastic about the matter of representation as he was at one time, but I can tell the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries) that that idea is purely a figment of his imagination. The maritime provinces were not aroused on this question of represen-Mr. MACDONALD.
tation until after 1901, and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) was the first to raise the question. He initiated the legal proceedings which were taken to have the question considered before the Supreme Court and the Privy Council and I had the honour of being associated with him, representing the province of Nova Scotia in that argument No man could have presented a stronger case than the hon. member for St. John did before the Supreme Court of Canada, and I want to say that the decision upon that matter was based upon a strict legal interpretation and not upon the consideration of these constitutional rights which ought to have been taken into consideration in arriving at a decision upon such a question. The Supreme Court of Canada, when it has to deal with a question of constitutional rights such as that of representation, will not look at the historical documents which show thd understanding that existed at the time of union, nor at the date which is open to every one and which discloses the intention of the original parties to the compact. The courts never looked at these facts, but decided the question from a technically legal standpoint. However, the right which is claimed now is one which can only be granted as the result of the consent of the various provinces of this Dominion. And, this would be an appropriate time to have this conference, a conference of value, a conference such as the Premier proposes to call with regard to the disposal of the land. Why not have that conference this year? Next year we will have redistribution and if parliament goes on redistributing without an amendment *o the Act of the Imperial parliament to warrant their doing justice to the maritime provinces, the time will be too late and the right which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says we should obtain, we cannot obtain. I come from ihe province of Nova Scotia, which is discriminated against as a result of this bargain. I come from a province which was one of the first partners of confederation, and has more right to consideration at the hands of this government than lias that eldest of the prairie provinces, great as she is. And, I say that every year 'hereafter until justice is done us, we will be discriminated against, as compared with Manitoba, to the amount of $750,000 a year, I claim that the resolution moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) demands the attention of the government, and I am surprised that the Prime Minister coming, as he does, from my own province, and knowing the conditions there, should absolutely submit himself to the dictation of the Minister of the Interior, who, in

this case has succeeded in getting him to do something which is unfair to the other provinces of the Dominion. If Manitoba is entitled to this concession, then let the other provinces of the Dominion be treated fairly at the same time. For my part I say: let Manitoba have every right to which she is entitled as a member of the confederacy, but do not let Manitoba have that which the government refuses to give to Nova Scotia, to New Brunswick, to Prince Edward Island and to the other provinces of the Dominion.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: I understood the Prime Minister to say that as the amendment offered by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) was contentious, it would stand over until a future occasion. I have an amendment to move to section 4, and as no doubt that amendment will be contentious also, I want it to be understood that if this amendment is left over we are not to be precluded from moving further amendments.


Richard Blain: What is the hon. gentleman's amendment?


Hugh Guthrie: When the present amendment is disposed of, I intend to move that subsection 2 of section 4 be stricken out, and the following substituted therefor:
The first half yearly payment under this section shall be made on the first day of July, 1912.


Mr. MONDOU.: I also give notice that I shall move as an amendment:
That the following clause be inserted in Bill 115 ,as clause 8, immediately following clause 7.
Nothing in this Act shall in any way prejudice or affect the rights that miay actually be enjoyed by the population of that part of the Northwest Territories now added to Manitoba.


Mr. ROGERS.: 1 wish to say a few words by way of enlightenment to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) who has undertaken to discuss a question that he apparently knows very little about. I am surprised at some of the statements the hon. gentleman has undertaken to make in this House, for I would expect that in undertaking to discuss an important question such as the one before us, he would have informed himself to some extent so as to be in a position to discuss it intelligently. In the first place, the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald) has asked: why did not Manitoba take her lands when they were offered to her three years ago. Well, I want to tell the hon. gentleman that we have never been offered the lands, neither three years ago, nor at any other time during the reign of the late Liberal government. Such a thing was never offered to us; we pleaded for that as representing Manitoba
time and again, but we never could get that concession from the Liberal government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about the resolution of 1908?


Robert Rogers: The resolution of 1908 did not promise or offer to the province of Manitoba one single solitary acre of land.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You are confusing that with boundaries.


Robert Rogers: Then my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) goes on and undertakes to tell the House that the territory of Keewatin to be added, has never cost the province of Manitoba a solitary dollar. Let me read for his information a few words from a speech delivered by his honoured leader in this House on May 9, 1905. Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the following statement:
No, there is no need for a legislature, because there is no population in Keewatin. Keewatin has been administered for thirty years by the province of Manitoba.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Since 1905 who has administered it? The province of Saskatchewan.


Robert Rogers: The province of Manitoba was administering the district of Keewatin for thirty years, and an attempt was made by the government which my hon. friend supported in 1905 to take it away from us.


William Pugsley: Is it or is it not true that although it may have been administered by Manitoba, any expenses connected with the administration of Keewatin were borne by the Federal government?


Robert Rogers: Certain expenses were borne by the Dominion government. The Lieutenant Governor of the province of Manitoba received $1,000 a year for thirty years as the governor and administrator of the district of Keewatin, but every justice of the peace and magistrate in the province of Manitoba, who received his pay from that province, was a justice of the peace with full power and authority for the administration of 'law and order in the district of Keewatin for thirty years.


William Pugsley: Did these justices of the peace receive any salary from the Dominion government?


Robert Rogers: Justices of the peace, police magistrates, and so on, always received salaries from the province of Manitoba.


William Pugsley: Did they receive any extra salary for administering justice with respect to persons charged with crime in the Keewatin territory?


Robert Rogers: No doubt, in fixing their salaries, due consideration was given to the amount of work they had to do in ad-

ministering that great territory during that length of time. The hon. member for Pictou says we are apparently in great haste in endeavouring to settle this question, and that we should delay it further in order to have a conference. I do not think the facts will bear out the statement of the hon. member for Pictou that either I or any other member of this government, or the government as a whole, are evincing any great haste in the settlement of this question. It has been a very live issue in the province of Manitoba for ten long years. We have been appealing to the government of our predecessors during all that period, and we have not met with much success.


William Pugsley: Has the Manitoba government pressed the federal government to give the lands?


Robert Rogers: We pressed the government of our predecessors to give us equality either with the provinces to the east or the province's to the west. The real grievance of Manitoba rested upon that point. Manitoba claimed that her position was one of inequality with any other province in the Dominion, by reason of the fact that, before the province of Al*-berta and Saskatchewan were formed, she was the only province that was not in possession of her public domain and her national resources. She complained for many years, and received from this parliament, on various occasions during that period, a readjustment of her claims. When the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were formed in 1905, the province of Manitoba made a special appeal to the gov eminent of the day to be placed in a posi tion of equality either with the provinces to the west or to the east. The older provinces of Canada had their lands and their mines and their minerals, and the provinces of the west then being created were being placed in a much more favourable position than the province of Manitoba. We were told by the right hon. gentleman who was leading the government at thal time that he could not consider at all the question of granting us our lands. Manitoba then undertook to urge its claims on the ground that it was entitled to be placed in a position of equality with the sister provinces to the west. The province of Manitoba presented its claim at the conference, and had it supported by the conference, to be given the same terms and conditions as those given to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The province of Manitoba has not asked this government up to the present time to give them their lands, because they felt that they had established their case at the conference to the satisfaction of every government in this Dominion, and were en-Mr. ROGERS.
titled to the same terms and conditions as the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Now, the hon. member for St. John says that the Sessional Papers do not establish that Manitoba had made the claims which she did make before that conference. If the hon. gentleman will turn to page 3 in the Sessional Returns, he will find it stated that the return published there consists simply of extracts from what took place at that conference. Therefore the Sessional Papers show on the face of them that it is not a full report of that conference.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me, because there is an issue between us? iM.y hon. friend made the statement that the records show that the conference had approved of these special claims which the province of Manitoba was making. Now I have no recollection of it. I have searched' the records, and I can find no trace of such a thing. Would my hon. friend be good enough to point out, where it appears that the conference approved of these things?


Robert Rogers: In answer to my hon. friend, let me say that I told the House yesterday that when Manitoba was invited to be present at that conference, its representatives replied they would only attend upon a certain understanding. They came here with that understanding, and when they arrived, Mr. Roblin presented his case to the conference and a sub-committee was appointed to consider that case, not as my hon. friend from Pictou, I think it was told us, that they were appointed to consider the case of the representatives from British Columbia. In order that I may make it clear to the House, I will read the statement appearing in the official record, as made at that time, by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition, so that you will see that the case of Manitoba and of British Columbia were both dealt with in an entirely different form and in an entirely different way. When British Columbia came here the claim that she had in effect was this: That British Columbia would not be satisfied with the terms and conditions for which that conference was -specifically called to deal with. That conference, as has been stated by the member for St. John, was called to carry out, or to approve, a resolution as passed by a conference held in the province of Quebec in the year 1902. That conference in 1902 laid down that the time had arrived when this government should give to the different provinces of Canada additional subsidies in regard to legislation and to the cost of government, as well as in regard to the changed conditions by the payment of 80 cents per head. The conference was called

to deal with these two specific points, and these two points alone. Manitoba at first refused to attend in case her position would be misunderstood for these points were the only two to be dealt with in that way. British Columbia refused to take part in that conference and Mr. McBride left the meeting because he could not get an additional increase under those two items. Those two items are to-day entirely satisfactory to the province of Manitoba. However, that was the point which Mr. McBride raised in -so far as the province of British Columbia is concerned. Now, here is what Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to say in addressing the joint conference upon that matter:
I have given careful consideration to the memorial of British Columbia's government, and particularly to the request that a commission he appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the financial relations between the Dominion and the province. I have been unable to reach the conclusion that the appointment of such a commission would he the best way of dealing with a question of this kind. I fear that such a course would not lead to the harmonious settlement of the grants to -provinces which all should desi-re to bring about. However, I regard the matter at present more as one for the opinion of the conference than for the judgment of the Dominion government. You have assembled for the purpose of considering -the sums which should properly he paid by the Dominion to the provinces in the way of subsidies and allowance for the maintenance of government. The British Columbia proposal comes entirely within the chief purpose of this conference. If _ this conference, after hearing -Mr. McBride's arguments in support of this contention, reach the conclusion that an arbitration should take place, through a commission, foi the purpose of _ dealing with the claim of British Columbia, that would present the matter to the Dominion government in a new light, and while I am not prepared to express any final opinion, I can say at once that such -a recommendation from the conference would have great weight with us, and we should feel bound to give it further consideration. While I give you this expression of my own views and of the views of mv colleagues who are here with me, I shall, if you will permit me, offer a suggestion. I think there is a disposition on the part of the conference to recognize that the conditions in British Columbia, owing to the vastness of her territory, to its mountainous character, and the s-parseness of her population, create exceptional difficulties which should be taken into consideration in the adjustment of the distribution of the grants in aid of provincial governments. I am mvseilf disposed to admit that such is the case, I would stronglv advise that Mr. McBride avail himself of the good disposition which is manifested in the conference -and at once approach the question of that allowance, in adid+ion to that already contemplated, should be made to meet British Columbia's difficulties. It is a question which after all can better be settled here than anvrt-here else. I feel assured that the conference will be willing to deal with the matter in a spirit of fairness to British Columbia I pro pose therefore that we shall leave you to discuss the question frankly with one another and co-me to you again when probably you will have reached some satisfactory agreement.
Now that was where British Columbia came in in connection with the other provinces. Manitoba took no exception to the proposal as made by the conference held at Quebec in 1892, and when her representatives attended that conference at that time, they were careful then, as in 1906, to have a note made on the records of that date, that the case of Manitoba should receive special consideration, and at the foot of the report of that conference of 1902 you will find the note:
The following -paragraph was added in the
case of -Manitoba :
It is, however, to be distinctly understood that in asking for this conference on the basis set forth,^ it shall in no way prejudice Manitoba's claims upon the Dominion in respect to her lands.
and so forth.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the position -which Manitoba has -taken all along in respect to this matter, and her representatives attended the conference in 1906 with the distinct understanding that her claims against the Dominion were not to be prejudiced by the fact of their attendance there, and by Manitoba's acceptance of the terms in respect of the government and legislative allowance, as well as the allowance in connection with the 80 cents per head. I read to this House yesterday, and I am not going to detain hon. gentlemen by reading it again to-night, that when that conference took place, a subcommittee was appointed and appointed specifically to give consideration to this matter. On that occasion the hon. member for St. John, because I heard my colleagues talking abo-ut it at the time, was very good and very generous in supporting or giving consideration to that particular matter, and when the resolution embodying the arrangement agreed to by that conference-not only by the subcommittee, but by all members of the conference-Mr. Roblin who was presenting the matter moved this resolution, as reported in the Toronto ' Globe,' which published a full report of the official minutes of the meeting taking place at that time:
Moved by Mr. Roblin, seconded by Mr. Peters, that the report of the committee charged with the preparation of the resolutions embodying tbe views of the conference on the resolutions of 1902 be adopted, and it was unanimously adopted as follows:
Whereas the members of this conference are of the opinion that it is desirable in the interests of the people of Canada and essential to the development of the provinces

that an immediate provision he made for an increase of the subsidies granted by the Dominion to the several provinces and for the award to the provincial governments' by Canada of an amount sufficient to meet the costs of the administration of criminal justice not exceeding twenty cents per head of the population; therefore it is unanimously resolved (1) that the subject matter of -the resolutions adopted by the conference of the representatives of the several provinces held at Quebec in December, 1902, and which were shortly thereafter presented to the government of the Dominion and which were ratified bv the legislature of the then existing provinces, except that of British Columbia, he now pressed upon the government of the Dominion for immediate and favourable action, under reserve of the right of a.ny province to now submit-


William Pugsley: To now submit.


Robert Rogers: To now submit to such government, memoranda in writing concerning any claims it may have to larger sums than those set out in the said resolutions, or to additional consideration for recognition.


William Pugsley: For recognition.


Robert Rogers: I want to tell my hon. friend from St. John, that Manitoba placed her claim in the hands of the Dominion government then and there, in writing. I want to tell him furthermore, that no other province in this Dominion from that day to this, as far as I know, has placed any claim in the hands of the government in writing in respect to the said matter.


William Pugsley: The records show that immediately following the adoption of that resolution, British Columbia submitted her claim, and it was dealt with by the conference, including the representatives from Manitoba, and it was rejected, the conference passing a unanimous resolution which the representatives of Manitoba also assented to, declaring against arbitration but recommending that British Columbia receive a reasonable additional allowance for civil government of $100,000 a year for ten years.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend does not appear to have understood what I mentioned a minute ago, that British Columbia's claim was a special one which simply dealt with the two specific items which the conference was called to consider-that of the subsidies for government and legislation, and the matter of 80 cents per head, as stated by the then Premier himself, whose remarks I quoted a few minutes ago.
Outside of that no other province made any claim under the reservation as provided by these resolutions that they should make appeal to the government for additional consideration under the reserve so Mr. ROGERS.
stated. Manitoba has been the only province that came under that particular clause from that day to this.


William Pugsley: Have we heard now from my hon. friend all that he relies on as showing that the conference approved of the special claims of Manitoba or is there anything else that will tend to prove it?


Robert Rogers: I think I have told the hon. gentleman all that is necessary to inform him to-night. If to-morrow he wants more information I will, if possible, suppiy him with it.


William Pugsley: There is not a word to show thait the conference approved of it.


Robert Rogers: I told my hon. friend that our claim was presented at that conference and it was only after the conference gave it full and fair consideration that they were willing and did vote unanimously in order that this reservation should he placed in the resolution.


William Pugsley: That does not approve of it.


Robert Rogers: That is a statement that should1 be plain enough in respect to the matter and should satisfy the hon.. gentleman if he wants to be satisfied, in regard to the position. My hon. friend has moved an amendment to the effect that we should submit this matter to a further conference. This course is adopted in pursuance of the same policy which has been pursued by the- hon. gentlemen opposite for the past fourteen years. They have attempted to find one cause after another to stir up one province against another, in order that Manitoba might be prevented from occupying a position of equality with the other provinces of Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was the minister or any other member of the government of Manitoba aware of the terms of the .address passed by the parliament of Canada in 1907 asking for certain imperial legislation to ratify the new provincial subsidies in which the terms were used that this settlement was to be final and conclusive? Did anybody oppose this legislation in the Imperial parliament on behalf of the government of Manitoba as it was opposed on behalf of British Columbia?


Robert Rogers: If my hon. friend will read the Act I think he will find it is there under subsection 7. That clause was put in order to cover the very resolution which I have been reading to this House which wa3 passed unanimously at the request of Manitoba, and in order that Manitoba's claims should be protected and it is incorporated in the Act to which my hon. friend refers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That clearly refers to British Columbia.


Robert Rogers: 
William Pugsley: Would the amounts paid into the treasury be customs duties?


Robert Rogers: Customs and excise.


William Pugsley: Is not the great city of Winnipeg the wholesale distributing point of the whole of the west?


Robert Rogers: Toronto is too.


William Pugsley: Would it be fair to take the figures of the great city of Montreal and attribute them to the province of Quebec?


Robert Rogers: Now, I ask you if Manitoba, from that point of view if from no other, has not a good case to present to this House to have her position rectified, and to be placed on a footing of equality with the other provinces. That is all Manitoba has ever asked, that is all they are asking by this Bill. The hon. gentleman says that we should have a conference to consider the question of representation in the maritime provinces.


Mr. NESBITT.: Those figures that the hon. gentleman has presented of money paid into the various provinces, are they based on the customs?


Robert Rogers: Based on customs and excise. I want to say that I sympathize with the hon. member for St. John and the other members from the maritime provinces in the claim they make in regard to representation. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has dealt fully with the conference that was held here in 1910. I had the pleasure of attending that conference, and the question which the hon. gentleman refers to was given careful consideration. The great majority of the members of that conference considered that it would be in the interest of this Dominion if most careful consideration were given to the representa-

tions then made. I think that one or two gentlemen present at that conference were not disposed to give sympathetic consideration to the proposals made by the maritime provinces. HoweveT, my feelings in regard to the matter have not changed, and I am sure that I represent the feelings of the people of western Canada. I am satisfied they are willing at all times to join any conference, and to give the most liberal interpretation to any propositions that may be made by representatives from the maritime provinces with a view to secure a remedy for the grievance of which they complain. I presume another conference will be held before very long, and when this question comes up, I am satisfied that the representatives from western Canada will be prepared to give a sympathetic and generous support to the claims of the maritime provinces. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for St. John, I think the object is to delay as long as possible a settlement of this vexed question relating to the province of Manitoba. But I can assure him that no matter how many amendments he may move, we will be able to carry through this House the Bill which is now before us, and in so doing we will be rectifying an injustice from which Manitoba has been suffering for a long period.


William Pugsley: By this amendment I trust the committee will realize that we do not ask for any delay that would be prejudicial to Manitoba. The first payment of the subsidy could only be made next July. Now, in the amendment we name the exact figures suggested by the Minister of Finance. All that we propose to attain by this amendment is that the Governor in Council shall have authority to pay to the province of Manitoba an amount not exceeding the figures which are named here. But before doing that a conference of the Premiers of the different provinces should be called to consider this matter, and also to consider what it would be equitable and just to allow in respect of the debt account to the other provinces of Canada by reason of this increase in the debt allowance to Manitoba. There need be no delay. We do not limit the Governor in Council at all, all we ask is that before deciding this matter, before disturbing the financial position of Manitoba, which necessarily does an injustice to the other provinces until they are likewise considered, we ask that a conference of the Premiers of the provinces should take place with the Federal government, to consider this matter vejy fully. Now, the Minister of the Interior gave me several surprises. I am surprised that he does not consent to the reasonable and fair proposition I have made. It looks as if he Wished to rush this thing through and disturb the financial relations between the different provinces. He thinks if he gets Mr. ROGERS.
this Bill once on the statute-book, then, when the conference takes place, he will be just that much ahead in the game. I think this is a pretty tough business on the other provinces of Canada, and I hope my hon. friend will not persist in a course so unreasonable and so unfair as he now threatens to take.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will make a proposition to the committee. I understand that the clause under consideration is not to be disposed of this evening, as it is a contentious clause, nor will the amendment be disposed of this evening. I propose that the committee go through the other clauses of the Bill to which there is no objection, and then we will rise. In that way we will make some progress at this sitting.


William Pugsley: There will be some discussion upon the clause relating to swamp lands, but as to the unimportant clauses it would not take five minutes to put them through. But we shall run against a snag almost immediately when we strike the swamp lands. There are a good many on this side of the House who think that is the most indefensible thing in the world, to take away from this province these swamp lands and then hold out the idea that in a year or two we are going to give them all back again.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no idea of arguing the objection that my hon. friend takes, I was merely endeavouring to ascertain, in order that we should make some progress, what clauses are objectionable. These we can reserve, pass the others, report progress, and rise if we are not going to dispose of the Bill finally this evening.


William Pugsley: If we disposed of the contentious clauses the non-contentious clauses would not take five minutes, so that there would be nothing gained.


Robert Rogers: Let us take five minutes to the non-contentious clauses.


William Pugsley: From the costume of many hon. members I conclude that there must be some pleasant function going on here and, therefore, I think we had better rise.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If we are going to make no progress I think it would be better to rise, I would move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Monk, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.


Thursday, March 7, 1912.