1905-04-26

Mr. CROCKET asked :: 1. Does the Crown stil'l own the land on the corner of Elm and Green streets, in the "town of Woodstock. New Brunswick, which was purchased as a site for an armoury ?

2. If not, to whom has it been conveyed, when, and for what price ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (for the Minister of Militia) :: 1.	No.
2.	To Mr. H. Paxton Baird, on the 23rd of April, 1904, for the sum of $1,250.


TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT LOANS.
[Stage Direction]
pect the report concerning the dredging at Port Arthur and Fort William as promised some time ago. I understood from the minister that he sent it to the Secretary of State ; I do not know what he sent it there for.
Rt.   H@: The acting Minister of Public Works is not present.


Mr. KEMP asked :: 1.	What is the total amount of money, if any, *advanced to the government by temporary loans or overdrafts ?
2.	What is the period for which such amounts are loaned ?
3.	What are the rates of interest charged thereon ?
4.	Did the government place any permanent loans during the years 1901 and 190-5 ?
5.	If so, what is the amount of such loan ?
8. At what rate of Interest were such loans placed ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 
PAYMENTS TO LIFE-SAVING CREW, GRAND MAN AX, NEW BRUNSWICK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Uriah Wilson-asked :
1.	What payments were made in 1904 to the coxswain and crew of the life saving station at Seal Cove, Grand Manan, New Brunswick, and on what dates were payments made ?
2.	Have any payments been made in 1905 ? If so, what were the several amounts, and for what services ?
S. Are there any salaries now due ? If so, what amounts, and to whom ?
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Coxswain's salary $75 ; and boat drills, coxswain and crew, $196 ; total, $271 for 1903 ; paid February 9th, 1904.
2.	Coxswain's salary $75 ; and 14 boat drills at $2 per man for season 1904, $196 ; paid January 13th, 1905.
3.	No salaries due.



DREDGING CONTRACT AT PORT ARTHUR AND FORT WILLIAM.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman), if he were here, when we may ex-



PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, in continuing this debate I feel somewhat relieved when I realize that I am not a member of the legal profession, and therefore I shall not be expected to give any legal opinion in respect to the constitutional aspect of this question relating to the autonomy of the Northwest Territories. I intend to deal more particularly, and briefly, with that portion of this Bill having reference to educational matters ; and the stand which I intend to take is that there is no practical difference between ithe original clause dealing with the educational question and the amendment thereto, of which notice has been given in this House ; that, in substance and in principle, they are practically the same. I say that I do not intend to deal with the constitutional aspect of these clauses, because I intend to rest my position upon the argument put forward in this House by the leader of the opposition, a gentleman in whom, I think, we all have confidence, and especially do we have confidence in his legal opinions ; therefore,
I feel satisfied to rest my case in respect to this feature of the Bill upon his judgment. Sir, my premises will be that this parliament is not called upon to make what I believe to be an amendment to the constitution by forcing these educational clauses upon these provinces, and in that respect creating a constitution for them. I say that this parliament is not called upon to legislate in this manner, and that it is pursuing an unconstitutional course in doing so.
In discussing this Bill, many questions have been introduced which have no bearing upon the issues before us. The Quebec situation has been more than once, more than twice, more than a hundred times, referred to anfi dwelt upon by members of this House, sometimes in order, and sometimes out of order, I think. In dealing briefly with this matter, I would refer in passing to the speech of the hon. member for Labelie (Mr. Bourassa), a speech which I could not but regard as inflammatory and as one which does not correctly represent the views of the people whose cause the hon. gentleman pro-

fessed to champion. I do not find in the speech of the hon. member for Labelle one generous word with respect to those who differ with him on this question : 1 cannot discover that he exercised any restraint in the sentiments he put forth,' though they differed very much from the sentiments of a majority of his colleagues from the province of Quebec. While he was speaking, I felt that the cause of those on whose behalf he spoke was not safe in his hands. His course was a heedless course, an extreme course, and one which I am certain will be barren of good results. In discussing this question both the hon. member for	Labelle (Mr.	Bourassa)
and the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) referred to events in this country over a hundred years ago, they referred to what happened in the year 1774 and also in 1812. I am not referring to this matter for the purpose of criticising the utterances of those hon, gentlemen, but for the purpose of agreeing with a great deal of what they said. I do not see, however, that this part of the speeches of those hon. gentlemen had any bearing upon the issues now before us. My only reason for referring to the matter at all, is that these hon. gentlemen brought it forward in the course of this debate. They reminded the House of what happened during the war of the American revolution, how emissaries came to this country from the revolted Protestant colonies to the south. These emissaries came to the French Canadian priests and the French Canadian people and invited Canadians to throw in their lot with the revolution. These hon. gentlemen reminded us how both the French Canadian priests and the French Canadian people scorned the advances made to them in 1774 to join a rebellion against Great Britain and in 1812 to give sympathy and aid to those who were at war with Great Britain. These people decided to remain British citizens and they were loyal and sincere in the stand they took. I agree with all that and I am proud of the stand taken by the French Canadians on those occasions as are these hon. gentlemen themselves. But I should have been glad had these hon. gentlemen gone further and explained-in order that we might understand the point that they were making-what other position these people could have taken. Had they pursued any other course than the one they did, they would have lost British citizenship, and that they did not want to do. They preferred to be British citizens rather than become citizens of a country in which they could not have maintained the privileges guaranteed by the settlement of 1759. I would like to have had these hon. gentlemen go a little further, and explain to me what object the French Canadians of those days could have had in joining the United .States. These hon. gentlemen are protesting against the establishment here of the kind of schools such as they have in Mr. KEMP.
the United States. Had the French Canadians joined the United States, would not that race by this time have become assimilated with the Americans ? Would not those who joined the United States and their offspring have been educated in the public schools which were spoken of in such a disparaging way by the Prime Minister? Considering these things, I cannot see what point these hon. gentlemen sought to make in referring to these old events in their speeches in this debate.
A good deal has been said about the Quebec minority ; and I also propose to deal with that matter, as coming from the province of Ontario. I wish to deal with "it in a way that will not be offensive, I am sure, to my fellow-countrymen in that province. I do not propose to criticise the Quebec educational system. In that province, the public school system, which is Catholic, appears to suit our fellow-countrymen of French origin. These schools have been instrumental in preserving the French language, and in keeping the religious observations of the church uppermost in the minds of the people. The schools are practically a part of the church. And through the devotion of the clergy to the object in view, there is in Quebec a devout people, who have a great reverence for the Christian religion, as it has been taught to them. And I believe that nowhere in Canada does there exist a better living people than the people of the province of Quebec. So far as the Catholics of that province are concerned education is a union of church and state-such a close union as it is not possible to achieve in any other part of Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) referred at some length to the situation in the province of Quebec. He was well informed on the subject because he not only represents that province as a minister of the Crown, but he has lived in that province probably all his life. But I think, Sir, that the Minister of Agriculture was most unfair in the way he handled this question and in the charges he made against members on this side of the House and against the Conservative party throughout the country. Standing in his place and speaking as a minister of the Crown, in which capacity he has charge of an important department of our affairs in every province of the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, he made the charge that the Conservatives were endeavouring at the present time to do away with separate schools in every province of this country. Here is what this hon. gentleman said :
We find the Tories now wedded to the idea of the right of the majority, the absolute right of that majority, which they say demands that in Canada there shall be no separate schools, and that the Catholic. people of this country shall not be given consideration for their cherished principles and cherished feelings. Sir, I do not wonder at this.

Now, Sir, what authority had the Minister of Agriculture to make such a statement in this House, a statement that will be sent broadcast throughout the country ? What he has said is utterly without foundation. There has been no attempt in this House, nor have I heard of any movement in this country which would justify any one in coming to the conclusion that we desire to do away with separate schools in Canada. I would like to have the minister furnish even one particle of truth to substantiate this statement. Are the members of the Conservative party trying to do away with separate schools in Ontario or in Quebec where the separate schools are guaranteed under the constitution ? Or are they trying to do away with separate schools in any other province ? Not a bit of it, and I regret That a minister of the Crown charged with the great responsibilities that the hou. Min-of Agriculture is charged with should have made such a statement and that it should have been spread broadcast in the way it has been over this country.
In discussing this question, as I have said, the situation in the province of Quebec has been brought into the debates on many occasions. The situation in the province of Quebec is unique. It is entirely different from the situation in any other province in this country. We have, in the province of Quebec, an almost solid French Canadian population which is Catholic and there is no mixture of Protestants and Catholics in the greater portion of that province. There is a mixture of Protestants and Catholics in the Eastern townships, but, so far as the great majority of the people are concerned, there is a solid Catholic and French population, and it is very easy in that province to regulate these matters. In making comparisons and in illustrating the situation I do not see how we can compare the situation in the province of Quebec with the situation which will exist and which does exist in the Northwest Territories or in any other province in this country.
I regret that this question has been brought into the arena of federal politics again. I regret that some means have not been taken of overcoming the difficulty in some other manner. We have before us the example of Manitoba. We know what happened in Manitoba only a few years ago and did not that illustration show us how impossible it was for this parliament to legislate with respect to this question without creating the greatest amount of friction and without leading to the debate and the agitation that we are experiencing in this country? Would it not have been better that the matter should have been left to the provinces the same as it was left to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and could we not reasonably hope that our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens would have fared
better if the question had been dealt with in that way? The lion. Minister of Agriculture, in the course of his speech, said that he had no fear for the minority in the province of Quebec and I agree with him entirely in respect to that. I have no fear for the minority in the province of Quebee,
I have no fear that any privileges or rights in respect to education which they enjoy at the present time will be withdrawn from them, and that is not because, in the British North America Act, there are certain references to the question of education in Ontario and Quebec. It is because the people of the province of Quebec are dealing with the question in a reasonable and sensible manner. It is because the government of Quebec knows better how to deal with that question than this federal parliament. But, what would be the position supposing the minority in the province of Quebec were interfered with? How would the children of the minority be educated? How could they be educated? I will take this question up for a moment in order to reason it out with my fellow-countrymen in the province of Quebec whose views perhaps differ from mine, yet whose views I respect, and to point out the different position that exists in the province of Quebec from that which exists ,in other portions of Canada. In the province of Quebec the schools which are Catholic and which are suitable to the conditions which exist there are religious schools. I have here some extracts from the regulations of the governing committee of the council of public instruction of that province, and I will read one or two of them.
Religious instruction is the most important of the subjects of the course of study, and it shall be taught in every school. In answering questions in the catechism, pupils shall give the exact words of the book, in sacred history lessons this is not necessary. The teacher shall follow the advice of the cure in [DOT]all that concerns the moral and religious conduct of the pupils.
Elsewhere in the same set of rules we read:
Religion shall hold the first place among the subjects of the course of study and it shall be taught in all the schools. .
I want to say again that I have no word of criticism to offer with respect to the regulations of the council of public instruction in the province of Quebec. I am not citing them for the purpose of criticising them, but I am citing them, because, in the discussion that has taken place, the position of the minority has been referred to so frequently and the question which I ask is : What would the minority do if the privileges which they now enjoy were taken away from the n? How could their privileges he taken away from them? If their privileges were taken away from tnem

how coukl tlieir children be educated? Could we expect the children of the minority to go to schools regulated by the regulations which I have just read? No one would expect that, no government in Quebec would legislate in any such way, and neither would this parliament in any shape or form attempt to interfere with the privileges of the minority in Quebec. Why, Sir, it would be just as unreasonable to interfere with the privileges of the minority in Quebec, to take away those privileges and force the children of the minority into the Catholic schools as it would be for the province of Ontario to attempt to enact a law forcing Catholic children to go to Presbyterian Sunday schools. One would be just as ridiculous as the other.
We have heard a good deal of boasting in the speeches of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the hon. Minister of Finance in reference to the great majority that is going to be rolled up when this Bill tomes to the vote. I had no doubt at all when I heard the hon. Minister of Finance announce the great majority that would be rolled up, and when i heard him tell how the party were united that there would be a great majority. I look forward to a great majority. The government have made this a party issue. They have required all their supporters to come to their assistance.


An hon. MEMBER.: We got some of yours.


Albert Edward Kemp: 
Albert Edward Kemp: have been deceived in regard to the attitude that this government has taken upon this question ; they are dissatisfied and they are disappointed with ilie remarks made by the Prime Minister when he introduced the Bill into this House. In his speech in moving the second reading of the Bill the Prime Minister referred to the press of the leader of the opposition and the agitation which this press was making for the purpose of stirring up strife and discord in this county- I would like to ask the Prime Minister what section of the press of the leader ot the opposition is responsible for this agitation ? Where is the Toronto ' Globe ' on tins question ? Is there any paper in this country with greater influence in the Liberal party than the Toronto ' Globe ' ? Is not the position of the Toronto ' Globe' ? on this question as nearly as possible similar to the position which the leader of the opposition (Mr. B. B. Borden) has taken ? And has the * Globe ' not expressed itself on different occasions as being very mu)ch opposed to the educational clauses of this Bill ? Is the * Globe ' not in favour of omitting them altogether ? But how could the ' Globe ' take any other position than that which it has taken ? How could lion, gentlemen expect the ' Globe ' to take any other position ? What was the position it took in 1896. Was it then not in favour of leaving the question of separate schools in Manitoba to be dealt with by that province ? If hon. gentlemen will look through the files of the ' Globe ' all through the agitation of 1895-96 thev will see that the position of the ' Globe ' at that time was in harmony with the position of the * Globe ' in 1905. I am not here for the purpose of defending the course of anv particular newspaper, but a good deal has been said about another newspaper in Toronto and the gentleman who edits that paper. That gentleman edited the Toronto ' Globe ' in 1896 and could the gentleman who edited that paper at that time take a different position in 1905 than that which the ' Globe ' took in 1896 ? It may be possible that hon). gentlemen opposite may think it necessary to change around, right about face on this question, but they must not always expect every other person and newspaper to follow their lead in matters of this kind. It is interesting to analyse this question and to find out who it is who are agitating, and who are interested in the discussion of this question and whose views differ from those of the government upon it. I think as good an illustration as I can bring to the attention of the House is a protest which came from the city of Toronto a short time ago in the shape of a resolution which was passed at a public meeting.
I wish to say that the protest and the agitation and the bigots and the fanatics so called by hon. gentlemen opposite are members of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario. On March 20th. 1905, a meeting


Mr.  W. F. M A OLE AX@: And still believes in it and they do not.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, a gentleman who has always supported this government and its policy. Then there was another gentleman who could not be present at that meeting, but I shall not detain the House by reading a letter which he sent to the meeting. That gentleman was the mayor of Toronto, the gentleman who ran in opposition to the present member for North Toronto in the last federal election, a Liberal through and through. He felt .called" upon to protest and did protest and his letter will be found in the published report of that meeting in the press. Then the next gentleman whose name I saw was Mr. Stapleton Caldecott, who is a Grit of the Grits. His name was before the public in the last provincial election as Liberal candidate for North Toronto. He came to the meeting which selected Mr. Blain, and explained that it was only because his doctor said he was in too poor health that he did not accept the nomination. Mr. Caldecott is so strong a Grit that I have never in my experience ventured to discuss politics with him. He is altogether too decided in his opinions. Well, he spoke at that meeting and his sentiments were in accord with those of the other speakers. The next gentleman who spoke was Mr. J. S. Willison, formerly editor of the 'Globe,'-the gentleman who wrote the biography of' the right hon. the First Minister. And no more warmer friend or greater admirer of the right hon. gentleman exists than Mr. Willison. Mr. Willison spoke next to the same effect as the others. Then I find that the next speaker was Dr. Goggin. In the course of his remarks, Dr. Goggin said :
I take it that we meet here to-night as a body of Liberals, intent upon setting before our party our views on this subject, whether they be right or wrong. This I believe is one of the qualifications of a good party man. We are [DOT]not here as a body of Conservatives intent upon making capital for ourselves. We are\ not here as a body of Orangemen trying to arrest Romanism. We are not here as representatives of the various churches to protest against the action of our brothers in the Roman communion. But we are meeting here simply and solely as citizens of the city of Toronto, with [DOT]patriotic interest in the welfare of our fair Dominion.
Then I come to the next gentleman who took an active part in that meeting, and whom I find described in this report as Dalton McCarthy's nephew. I presume the reason he was thus described is the high regard which the people of Toronto have for the late Dalton McCarthy and his great attainments. I need not read what his nephew said, because his views are well known to the House. The next gentleman who spoke was Mr. D. E. Thompson, K.C,-I cannot remember of any one political campaign in Toronto in which Mr. Thompson did not take an active or prominent part as an advocate of the Liberal cause. I do not suppose that in all his career he ever cast a Conservative vote." He is one of the ablest lawyers in the city of Toronto ; and unless he were thoroughly convinced of the soundness of his opinions, he would not have attended that meeting. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Thompson said :
The Laurier government came into power on the Manitoba school question. The question of autonomy had been before them four years and they knew what they were doing. What I want to know is why, if they were going to take this serious step in reference to education, the electorate was not taken into their confidence.
Three other gentlemen addressed that meeting, who are clergymen. I do not propose to judge of what type of politics these gentlemen are. In my opinion a clergyman should have no politics, or at least he should not express himself openly on questions of a party character except on a very rare and special occasion. The three clergymen who spoke were the Rev. Dr. Miligan, the Rev. Canon Cody and the Rev. Dr. Potts. I. do not know what are the politics of any of these gentlemen, but I know that Dr. Milligan, was a great personal admirer of the Hon. G. W. Ross, I know that Mr. Ross attended his church, and I do not think he had anything to complain of very often regarding the actions of this government. Dr. Milligan said :
Concerning the deliverance from Ottawa a month ago, the reverend speaker said it came like a thunder clap from a clear sky, considering the attitude of the Liberals in 1896.
The Rev. Canon Cody said :
A simple solution would be the best and the obvious one is to keep this tangled^ question

out of Dominion politics and leave it to the provinces to solve.
The Rev. Dr. Potts thus expressed himself :
If Paul1 could say he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, Stapleton Caldecott could say he was a Grit of the Grits. When I open the ' Globe,' as I do every morning-and in order that I may not be injured I read two Conservative papers- and see the noble stand it is making on this question, I am beginning to realize that country is more than party.
Now, I have taken up a little time in'laying before this House the foundation of the agitation in the province of Ontario and the position which intelligent men take on this question. I regret exceedingly that it has been found necessary by some lion, gentlemen, in the course of this debate, to call names and to charge the people of Ontario with being bigots. I do not think that any hon. gentleman in this House will say that these gentlemen who spoke at this meeting are bigots or Tory fanatics or anything of that kind, and I regret that some hon. members have found it necessary to resort to that style of argument. So far as I am concerned, I want to repudiate the charge of bigotry directed against the people of Ontario. A large number of the people of that province sincerely believe (that the educational policy of the government in respect to the two Bills under consideration is opposed to the best interests of the west. They are firmly convinced that it will be a great injury to that country to saddle it with a dual system of schools. It may be that the ideals which a section of the people of Ontario wish to attain in respect of this question are unattainable. But whether they be unattainable or not, let us discuss these things in a reasonable way. Let us not say that the people of the province from which I come are seeking to raise a racial issue. Such is not the case, and I defy any one to bring a tittle of proof to substantiate any such charge.
Before this Bill was introduced, I had received a great many letters, chiefly from my constituents, with reference to this question, and also I received a large number after this Bill was brought down. I have selected two letters from the bunch in my desk, and I propose to read one of them and an extract from the other, and what I do not read in the other has no reference to the subject we are discussing. My object in doing this is to show what is in the mind of the ordinary voter-not the ordinary professor in a university or college or the ordinary lawyer or business man. but the ordinary man on the street : and I must sav that the greater number of the letters I have received come from workingmen and mechanics. The gentleman who wrote me the letter I am about to read, wrote it on the 20th February, before the First Minister introduced his Bill. And I want to say that I have .selected two letters from Orange-Mr. KEMP.
men. I think our friends from another province may have an exaggerated idea what Ml Orangeman is. I do not know as much about the Orange Order as I might hope and I wish I knew more, but what I do know about it is nothing but good. I do not know anything in regard to them different from that. This gentleman in writing to me, Says :
The Orange association does not look upon this question in a spirit of narrow bigotry, but takes the broad view that in a country like ours we should endeavour to assimilate the different creeds and nationalities that make up our population; and in no way do we think this can be accomplished as well as by a system of national public schools.
Now, I can easily understand that that view will meet opposition; I can easily understand that it is different from the view taken by many hon. members of this House. But I do say that there is nothing bigoted, there is nothing fanatical in it. And it is the opinion which prevails largely in the province of Ontario. There is nothing in that opinion which can possibly give offence. Now, I wish to read another letter which was addressed to me. This is dated 10th February, and I would ask hon. mem, hers to bear in mind in this connection the fact that the Prime Minister did not introduce this Bill until 21st February. This correspondent says :
As you are doubtless aware, it is rumoured that it is the intention of the government to insert a clause in the constitution of the new province or provinces to be erected in the Northwest Territories of the Dominion, requiring those provinces to maintain a system of Roman Catholic separate schools. Now, I do not think it can be successfully controverted that the separate schools of this province are a hindrance to its progress; first, by reason of the inferior educational facilities they offer in comparison with our nonsectarian public schools; second, by reason of the distrust towards each other which they engender among our citizens; and, last, because of the additional expense occasioned by maintaining a dual system. If then, separate schools have retarded the progress of our own fair province, bow important it must be that those new provinces destined to become the planting-out ground of a great iempire, should be permitted to develop into gianthood, unshackled by the binding processes which are dwarfing their sisters, Ontario and Quebec.
A truly national policy for the west would be to make all creeds and nationalities equal before the law by maintaining only national secular schools in which only one language is taught and only one flag is recognized.
As, therefore, you were elected to represent the district of East Toronto in parliament, and I am an humble elector of that district,
I respectfully urge you to oppose the enactment of such an iniquitous clause, even should you find it necessary to antagonize political friends by so doing.
I repeat that it may not be possible for every hon. gentleman in this Hquse or for some citizens of this country to agree alto-

gether with these sentiments : but I say that these sentiments are those cherished by a large section of the people of Ontario, people who are reasonable and sensible, and from whom this agitation comes.
The hon. member for North Ontario (Hr. Grant) in discussing this question the other night, showed himself to be in an apologetic frame of mind. He felt called upon to apologize from his place in this House for the province from which he comes. He apologized to his colleagues in this House and to the people in other parts of the country especially for the city of Toronto, because of the position it has taken upon this question. Sir, I have no doubt that the people of Toronto felt very much relieved after that hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) had made his apology. The people of that great city, I have no doubt, were downcast, they went about with their heads down and feeling very glum. But, after the hon. gentleman had made his apology on their behalf they.would make up their minds that the situation was improving and that they might attend the horse show and enjoy themselves. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) in continuing thought his apology as applied to the whole of Ontario, was too general, and he gave us to understand that all the fanatical people were to be found within the limits of the city of Toronto. Now, Mr. Speaker, the population of Toronto is made up almost wholly of native Canadians, and of natives of the province of Ontario at that. Toronto is not a composite city, it is a Canadian city.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Toronto do not differ in sentiment and opinion, at any rate so far as this question is concerned, from the people of the rest of the province of Ontario. The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) tried to lead the members of this House to believe that the educational clauses in this Bill were satisfactory to the people of this province and to the people of his constituency. One hearing or reading the hon. gentleman's speech would come to 1he conclusion that the people of the riding of North Ontario and the people of the whole province of Ontario . were crying out to have these clauses enacted in the Bill. Of course, X do not pretend that these were the hon. gentleman's words, but no other idea could be taken from his observations than the one I have given. As I have said before, it would be far better if hon. members on the other side of the House would tell their colleagues and the people generally the exact position of affairs in Ontario so far as this question is concerned. The hon. member for North Ontario went so far as to speak of the people who had sincere views on this question and who are moderate and reasonable people as a * blatant mob.' He wanted his colleagues in this House and the people in other parts of the country to understand that when these people spoke on this subject they were like a lot of calves bellowing -for that is the meaning of his words. I repeat that it would do much better if hon. gentlemen opposite would speak out and state what is the sentiment in Ontario. Of course, anything that I might say on this point would in all probability have but little influence with hon. gentlemen opposite. But perhaps they will listen to the leading organ of the Liberal party in Ontario. What the ' Globe ' says on this subject may sink deeper into their minds and hearts. On the 19th of April the ' Globe ' had a leading editorial on this subject, and X propose to take up yourt ime in reading this short article in case it may have escaped the attention of hon. members. Xt bears the significant caption, ' In a Fool's Paradise,' and is as follows :
Those who suppose that opposition to the educational clauses in the Northwest Autonomy Bills is confined to Toronto, and that it is dependent on Orange-Toryism (or its vitality are living in a fool's paradise. It may he that the noisiest clamour is being made by Toronto Tories and by newspapers catering (or ultra-Brotestant and Tory or quasi-Tory support. But such opposition is utterly without significance, and may safely be disregarded both by the public and by parliament. And it may be, too, that public opinion on this and other questions is represented as inadequately and as uncertainly in a Toronto club as in the lobbies and smoking rooms of the House of Commons. That point need not be argued.
But the point of capital importance, and which cannot be disproved by shutting one's eyes to its undesired existence or by shouting bravely that it does not exist, is the unmistakable fact that not in Toronto alone but in scores of centres throughout this province the sanest and steadiest and most intelligent men cannot bring themselves to approve of the Dominion parliament, on any pretext whatsoever, interfering in the educational affairs of tne new provinces. The men who make this objection are not Tories. They are not Orangemen. They are Liberals. They are, some of them, the men who give virility and prestige to Liberalism in their constituencies, and without whom there would he uo Liberal party^ worthy of the name. To ignore the fact of their opposition, to minimize its significance, or to misunderstand Its quality is to play the part of children in a situation -which demands the wisdom and courage of men.	,
Another delusion is the notion that this significant opposition is wholly based upon racial or religious prejudices. There are, to he sure, race and creed fanatics here and there throughout Ontario whose occupation would he gone and whose enjoyment of life would be destroyed were they unable periodically to raise a scare about French Canadian domination or the aggression of the hierarchy. But there is no endurance in any opposition they may excite , and if the present controversy is politically abortive it will, in a large measure, be due to the revolt from the part played by the leading organs of anti-French and anti-Catholic fanaticism. The opposition that counts, however, and that will survive when the frenzy of Professional fire-eaters is -past, is the deliberate and convinced opposition of the men m dominantly Protestant constituencies who have never

bowed the knee to the Baal ot race and creed prejudice, and who again and again defended the inalienable rights of religious minorities against unjust political antagonism. There are Protestant Liberals who fought the P. P. A. and its minions in their anti-Oatholic campaign in Ontario ten years ago, who would not join the equal rights movement or withdrew from it when it was diverted to baser purposes, and who in every campaign of bigotry since confederation stood resolutely for the principle and the practice of religious tolerance and racial unity. To class those men, and men of their spirit, with the Toronto sensationalists, or to regard their opposition as either misguided or short-lived, is to comfort one's seif in a fool's paradise.
Members of the Liberal party in the House of Commons would follow the counsels of prudence if, during the Easter recess, they sounded the most intelligent and most significant opinion of their leading support. The echo voice of the purblind partisan is unimportant, and members of .parliament ought to guard against the soothing tones of those who would heal the hurt of the Liberal party lightly with their peace ! peace ! when there is no peace. A public man cannot afford to live in a fool's paradise.
I think, Sir, those words will sink deeper into the hearts and minds of hon. gentle-*inen opposite than the words that fell from the lips of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant). I notice in a cabled press despatch to-day the opinion of another authority, an eminent Canadian statesman who has been translated to the Senate, that place which in late years have become a haven of rest for defeated Liberal candidates and for political nonentities with long purses. I notice by a telegram to the Canadian Associated Press that Senator Fulford has been putting forth some views in England with regard to this question. I do not suppose that gentleman could possibly have received a copy of the ' Globe ' in which appeared the editorial of the 19th of April, which I have just read, otherwise he would not have written the letter he did to the London ' Morning Chronicle.' I do not think that gentleman has ever been in very close touch with the masses of the people of this country, or with the electorate, and I think he would have done well to wait a little while until he became better acquainted with this question before he undertook to pose as a Canadian authority before the English people.
Now I do not propose to refer at any length to the manner in which this legislation was introduced into this House. It was iutroduced in a most peculiar manner.
1 cannot understand why the Prime Minister introduced it without having the advice and assistance of the ex-Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance. I believe if both those gentlemen had been present the educational clauses of this Bill would have been omitted, because the position they took in 1896 upon a similar issue was exactly opposite to the position they were obliged to take in support of the


Albert Edward Kemp: piesent measure. But the Prime Minister may have felt that he was taking the course of least resistance, and that in forcing the Bill hurriedly into the House before these gentlemen returned he would have less insistence to overcome than he would have to meet from other quarters if he omitted these clauses from the Bill altogether. It seems to me in looking into that feature of the case that the Prime Minister was a little over confident in taking the action he did, that his recent successes at the polls had led him to go a little too far and to take up a position which he found himself unable to maintain.
Now, Sir, not having a legally trained mind, I am not able to say exactly what the ordinances of the Northwest legislature in respect to the school question mean, but it seems to me that they are liable' to lead to a great many complications. We have the Finance Minister saying that by this process separate schools in the Northwest will gradually disappear ; while on the other hand we have the opinion expressed outside this House that they mean the introduction of the thin edge of the wedge, and will have the effect of multiplying them. Now, Sir, with all these opinions before us, would it uot be infinitely better at the present time to drop out these clauses altogether ? II submit that if the Minister of Finance is correct in the view he takes that separate schools will disappear altogether in a short time, and if he is supporting this measure because he believes that will be the ease. I cannot understand how his supporters, especially those from the province of Quebec whose views differ from those of other members in this House, can support that measure. Therefore, are we not drifting in another direction in this case the same as we drifted in 1896 ? Have I not proved to this House that the people of Ontario and the people of other parts of Canada generally believed in 1896 that the present Prime Minister was in principle opposed to separate schools in Manitoba, and are we not deceiving the people in the province of Quebec by this legislation ? Is this legislation which the people of Quebec want ? Will we not find this question cropping up again in the federal political arena in a very short time ? I think that is bound to happen, and I believe that this legislation will be the beginning of strife and discord in this country.
Now before resuming my seat I desire briefly to refer to the peculiar position occupied by the ex-Minister of the Interior, the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). I think I cannot better characterize his attitude upon this question than by saying that he has been trying to make a'wide turning-movement. He resigned to prevent separate schools becoming a part of the constitution of the Northwest provinces. The Prime Minister said it was a question of words only between himself and the member for Brandon, indicating

that it was not necessary for his colleague to resign, and that these clauses might have been amended so as to prevent his resignation. The ex-Minister of the Interior has told us in effect that the government were not able to draw a legal document, that they did not know the meaning of a legal document, that it was drawn by an office boy, or a draughtsman-I think the latter Was the word used-that a draughtsman must have drawn the first educational clauses of this Bill. When that statement was made I did not notice any signs of humiliation upon the face of the Postmaster General, nor any very marked sign of humiliation upon the face of the Minister of Justice. If 1 understood correctly, the speech of the ex-minister, taken in connection with the accompanying circumstances, he himself must have drawn these- amendments.
This is a great game, it seems to me. It has not been customary for the hon. Minister of Justice to sit silent when charges of that kind have been made in respect to his work. The hon. Minister of Justice does not lack courage and it is rather a peculiar position in which we find that hon. gentleman. We see him sitting docile and calm, taking the thrusts of the hon. member for Brandon. Is it because there is any brotherly love that we do not know of, or affection, or charity existing between these hon. gentlemen? Is it out of the generosity of his heart that he is not going to pay any attention to these things? No, it is not that. It is a larger game, a bigger game. The hon. member for Brandon knew', when he made that statement in reference to the draughtsman, that it was impossible for the hon. Minister of Justice to answer him. He knew he could not answer him. The hon. Minister of Justice wants a law enacted granting the privilege that the amendment is designed to grant, the privilege of separate schools by Dominion legislation, and the hon. Minister of Justice knew that if he got up and contradicted the hon. member for Brandon in respect to the amendments being radically different from the original clauses that the' Minister of Justice having a following in this House and his legal advice being respected, it would change the intention and belief of the seven members from the Northwest, and he knew that if the belief of the seven members from the Northwest in the cause of the hon. member for Brandon were shattered they would not vote for tliis Bill, that there would be another bolt and that might lead to a further bolt and the result was that the hon. Minister of Justice had to sit in his place and wait until every hon. member from the Northwest Territories and as many as possible from other parts of this country had committed themselves so that they would vote right. I think if I understand the temperament of the hon. Minister of Justice properly, at as late a date as possible he will get on Ms feet and say there is no practical difference between the amended
clauses and the original clauses of this Bill. That is the view I take of the position of the hon. Minister of Justice.
I do not intend to take up any very much time in referring to the conditions in England and France in regard to education to which some reference has already been made.
I do not think it has very much to do -with this question, because the circumstances in both 'these countries are so entirely different from what they are in our o \vn Northwest. They have no influx of different nationalities as we have and the question of how best to assimilate these different peoples and different races does not come before the people of either England or France. It Is a mistake to suppose, in so far as my information goes, that the chief study in the public schools of Great Britain is the study of religious dogma. The tendency in England is towards non-sectarian, civic control. Prior to 1870 denominational schools existed in Great Britain. They were not able to stem the tide of illiteracy and in 1870 the Forster law' provided for the establishmept of public and secular schools. From 1870 to 1902, forty-eight per cent of the children have been educated in these schools. The denominational schools, as they existed previous to 1870, have shrunken in number. They have fallen from 100 per cent, in 1870 to 52 per cent in 1902. By a law' passed in 1902 denominational schools came partly under civic control and in the denominational schools religious instruction is being brought more under civic control all the time. There seems to be a forward movement in England in respect to education.
In France what*s the situation? In 1879, under Jules Ferry, who was appointed Minister of Public Instruction, a measure was adopted by which public schools were freed from all relation with the church. By a regulation of 1886 the employment in future in public schools of teachers belonging to religious orders was forbidden. At the end of 1897 there w'ere 4,000,000 pupils going to secular schools and 1,500,000 pupils going to clerical schools. In the last few years schools 'maintained by religious associations have been abolished. In 25 years the national system has developed, the attendance has improved and there are better courses of study and better qualified teachers. I do not refer to this for the purpose of showing that the conditions which exist in England or in France are suitable to this country, but because of the explanation which has ' been made in this House by some hon. gentlemen that these conditions are different from those w'hich I have stated.
I do not intend to take up the attention of the House any longer. The question- is: How are we to Oanadianize the North-w'est? It is a very serious' and a very pressing question. It may be in the interest of the Northwest to continue the system of separate schools which they have had and which in all likelihood would be continued,

but what I contend for and what I hold is that we should leave that question to them, and that we should not start out by emphasizing by Dominion legislation the importance of dividing the children up into different camps and cliques. It may be necessary to do that, it may be in the interest of . the people of the Northwest that there should be religious education, but what I say is that we should not emphasize the fact at this time taking everything into consideration by our legislation. The new provinces should be permitted to deal with this question in the way which may seem best suited to their conditions as time goes on. What are their conditions? In these Northwest Territories we have colonies of Swedes, Finns, Bohemians, Hungarians, .Tews, Austrians, Germans, Russians, Icelanders, Men-nonites, Galicians and Doulchobors. The question is how to assimilate these races and how to secure their co-operation inVbuild-ing up the nation. It requires every effort we can possibly think of to establish this union, and I think, Mr. Speaker, in no way can this great task be better accomplished than by national public schools. This, Sir, is a provincial question. It is a provincial question in the province of Quebec notwithstanding the British North America Act. If there were not a word in the British North America Act in reference to the situation in Ontario and Quebec, the school system would be precisely the same as it is at the present time, because it is by provincial legislation that these matters are regulated and the people of Quebec, Ontario and all the other provinces know better how to regulate these matters to suit th^jr conditions than we do in this parliament. One condition is necessary in the province of Quebec where certain conditions prevail, another system in Ontario, another system in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and perhaps another system in Manitoba or in our great Northwest which is growing and into which so many different nationalities are going. I say it is essentially a provincial question. It is a provincial question in Ontario and Quebec, notwithstanding the fact that reference is made to it in the British North America Act. I believe that upon the seven members from the Northwest must rest the responsibility for this legislation, because if these gentlemen had insisted upon the question being left to the provinces, there is no doubt but what they would have won the day. I am sorry for the course which events have taken. I believe that if the question had been left to the provinces the government would have been less embarrassed than they are at the present time by reason of the course which they have taken. I and other hon. members have said that it is unconstitutional to interfere with this question. We are doing something that is unconstitutional. We are amending the constitution. I say in the name of peace and in the name of harmony let us drop these educational clauses out of the Bill. They Mr. KEiMP.
are unconstitutional in any case, and let the provinces be free to act in their own best interests as time goes on.'


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively and with such intelligence as I could bring to bear to the remarks of the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who has just taken his seat, and I must say, with all due deference to that hon. gentleman and to the ability he usually displays, that I have been absolutely unable to discover one single tittle of argument why any one should vote against the proposition of the government. I can easily understand why there is some dearth of argument from the opposition benches, at present at any rate. The government have been challenged frequently across the floor of this House that they dare not put up a candidate in Centre Toronto in opposition to the lately elected member. Whether they were afraid to put up a candidate or not, I cannot say ; but Sir, is it not an astonishing thing that in the very heart of the country which is most interested in the question now before parliament the opposition dare not put up a candidate against the government ? I can easily understand how it is that the wind of their argument is knocked out, now that they must admit that the people whose interests are most directly affected by the passage of this Bill are satisfied with the measure ; for if they are satisfied, surely the people in the other portions of the Dominion should be satisfied.
The hon. gentleman said that the premier had tossed this vexed question into the arena of politics with undue haste, which he regretted exceedingly. Well, Sir, the matter had to come into politics. Provinces had to be created out of the Northwest Territories. The leader of the opposition had been for months and years crying out against the government for not creating provinces out of those Territories. The government saw fit at this time to bring down a Bill to create these provinces, and, as an adjunct to that Bill and afl incident in the creation of these provinces, the school question had to come up and be discussed ; and I presume that it will be discussed as calmly and as intelligently as possible, and a decision arrived at, and that decision will settle the matter for all time to come. The question is, what shall that decision be, what settlement shall we make of the question now before us ? We are creating provinces in the Northwest, large provinces, which will in the near future, I believe, contain a population larger than the present population of Canada ; and we desire to set those provinces on their way in a happy and contented condition, with an opportunity to extend and grow, and with all the people now living in or hereafter coming into those provinces satisfied with their condition.
I do not intend to enter into any legal

discussion of tliis Bill. People will have different opinions on the legal situation, and the only place where that legal situation can be finally and definitely settled is in the highest tribunal of the empire-the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was stated by the hon. member for East Toronto that this legislation is ultra vires of the parliament of Canada. If it is it is invalid, and the provincial governments need pay no attention to it. It is said : Why not take this matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and get their decision as to the legality of this measure ? That is not necessary. We are proposing to pass legislation which we believe to be intra vires of this parliament. If it is ultra vires, the provinces can ignore it; if it is intra vires, then I submit it is the proper legislation to pass, the only legislation which we can honestly and in fair play pass when we are creating these new provinces.
I wish to say, in the outset, that I have always been and am now opposed to the principle of separate schools. At no time in my life did I ever hold the opinion that it was desirable to have a system of separate schools in this country. Prom my boyhood days until the present moment I have had the same feeling ; and if I did not believe that it was the bounden duty of this parliament, in keeping faith with the people of the Northwest under the provisions of the constitution, to pass the legislation which the government are asking parliament to pass, I would be prepared to vote against the government's Bill. I think it would be well to consider for a few moments how it happens that we have got separate schools in Canada. We have had petitions pouring into this parliament against the provisions of this Bill. We have had petitions very largely from the Loyal Orange lodges of the province of Ontario, and I find under my hand a report to the Right Worshipful Grand Master and members of that organization, which says :	*
We, the members of the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ontario West, composed of men of various nationalities and of different shades of political opinion, unanimously pledge ourselves to use every legitimate means to drive from public life any and every member of parliament who votes for these objectionable measures.
I will be glad to know from the Right Worshipful Grand Master of that organization, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), if he approves of that sentiment.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would be glad to know if the hon. member for Welland has the approval of his own constituents. He can deal with them.


William Manley German: I am quite prepared to deal with my own constituents, but in the meantime I am dealing with the hon. member for East Grey, and I would ask him if he approves of the sentiment propounded in 157
this resolution ? It was stated by his friend the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) last night, when this 'same clause was read :
My hon. friend from East Grey did not produce any such document. On the contrary, he did not approve of the document that the member for Shefford read from.
I would be glad to know from the hon. member for East Grey whether he does approve of that statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not in when the hon. member for Shefford spoke, and consequently did not hear what he read.


William Manley German: But the hon. member has not yet answered my question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may tell the hon. member for Welland that I am not here to be cross-examined by him. He will have to settle the matter with his own constituents.


William Manley German: I tell the hon. member again that my constituents have full confidence in me. But they are exceedingly anxious to know whether the hon. member for East Grey, the Right Worshipful Grand Master of the Orange Order in the province of Ontario, approves of these words. Silence, I presume, gives consent, and the hon. gentleman does. Now, Sir, let us inquire how it is that we have separate schools in Upper Canada-the province of Ontario. I was old enough in 1862 and 1863, when the separate school agitation first arose in Upper Canada, to know that every Orangeman in Upper Canada supported the Conservative party and the separate school proposal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was that ?


William Manley German: In 1863, in 1862 in


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me tell the hon. member that he is entirely wrong, and if he was as well informed on Canadian history as he professes to be he would not make the statement.


William Manley German: In 1862 I was living in my good old native county of Prince Edward and the man who represented Prince Edward at that time was William Anderson, the grand treasurer of the Loyal Orange Order of Upper Canada. He was elected on the separate school question with the support of every Orangeman in the county and of every Roman Catholic in the county, and he voted for separate sechools in the old legislature of Upper Canada. Hon. John Hilliard Cameron did tne same thing, and I say that if any organization as an organization in Canada is responsible for the establishment of separate schools in Upper Canada it is the Loyal Orange organization of the province of Ontario.
Air hon. MEMBER. Because they were Conservatives.


William Manley German: Because they were Conservatives ? One is led to wonder whether



01 not their principles were right then or whether their principles are right now, or whether it is not a matter of expediency in each case rather than a matter of principle at all. We had separate schools established in Upper Canada and separate schools have been in existence in Upper Canada now the province of Ontario since then, and the Conservative party who are now so strongly crying out against this principle being established in the Northwest provinces is the party which is responsible for them. The Liberal party contested it then and has contested it ever since, continuously, honestly and thoroughly. If they are doing what hon. gentlemen think is a different thing now they are doing what in their opinion it is necessary to do in order to keep faith with the people of the Northwest Territories. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Kemp) said that the Postmaster General expressed himself as against the principle of separate schools and I venture to say he did. It is a liberal doctrine, it always has been a Liberal doctrine that it was not necessary to have a separate school system in this country. But separate schools were established and as long as we have sectarian teaching in the schools it will be necessary to have separate schools. Whether or not it is a wise thing to have religious teaching in the schools other than the reading of the Bible is a moot question and need not enter into this discussion. We have the separate school system engrafted on our constitution, it is a part of our system and we must carry out that principle honestly and fairly as between ourselves and the people of the Northwest who are now interested in this matter. Why is it necessary that this legislation in relation to separate schools should be enacted and made a part of this Bill ? In the first place under the British North America Act the Northwest Territories could be taken into this Dominion and when they came into this Dominion and were made a part of it, they came in under the provisions of the British North America Act. Section 146 of the British North America Act gives power :
To admit Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory, or either of them, into the union.
And the provisions embodied in section 93 of the Act are that :
The legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, shhject and according to the following provisions :
And that
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.
Then, Sir, subsequent to that, in 1871, a doubt was expressed as to whether or not under the British North America Act the parliament of Canada had the right to create Mr. GERMAN.
provinces out of these Territories. It is very clear that under the British North America Act, Territories coming into the Dominion as a i part of the Dominion would have the right to their denominational schools if such existed at the time of the admission of the Territories to the union. Then -Sir, the British North America Act was amended, giving the Canadian parliament the right to create new provinces out of these Territories under the provisions of the Act as it stands. For myself I cannot see and I doubt if any other man can possibly intelligently argue that when these provinces are brought into the Dominion they do not come in under the provisions of the British North America Act and that under the provisions of the British North America Act they are not entitled to all the rights and privileges which at the time of their entrance to the union they enjoy in regard to denominational schools. It has been argued that the word ' union ' in section 93 refers to the union of the original provinces. It did no doubt refer, so far as the expression in subsection 1 of section 93 went, to the union of the original provinces, but I say that under section 146 outside and outlying territories are to come in subject to the provisions of the British North America Act and to the provisions of section 93 of that Act as well as all its subsections. Thus I think speaking for myself that it was not at all necessary in so far as the rights of the minority in the Northwest Territories are concerned to introduce into this Bill section 16 at all. If these provinces had simply been joined to the Dominion, made a part of the Dominion, created provinces as a part of the Dominion under the provisions of the British North America Act they would have had all the rights and privileges which the British North America Act conferred on any province in this Dominion.


Mr. HAGGART.: That is all we want.


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman says that is all he wants but he goes further than that. The amendment includes the power : to exclusively make laws in relation to education. The leader of the opposition is introducing into his amendment what 1 think is quite ultra vires of this parliament, an attempt to cut off from the people of the Northwest the rights which they would enjoy under the British North America Act. He is saying that we will curtail the rights that you will have under the British North America Act by asserting in this Bill that you shall have full powers of provincial selfgovernment including education, the right to exclusively make laws in relation to education. So it is by reason of the latter part of his amendment that I absolutely object to his amendment. I think the provinces have the right to all the privileges which they enjoy at the present and what is this parliament doing ? It is simply confirming the law which exists in those Territories to-

<lay, it is confirming a law which the people of "those Territories have themselves passed. If they are satisfied, and they evidently are, why should the people in oilier portions of the" Dominion complain ? Then, Sir, in 1875 the Territorial government was created. On that occasion, the definite proposition was laid down by the parliament of Canada that denominational schools should exist in that country. It is not necessary for me to repeat the statements from the Hon. George Brown and Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. Blake and Sir John Macdonald with regard to that matter. Suffice to say that one and all of them declared that when that legislation of 1875 was passed granting denominational schools to the Northwest Territories, that was to be the law for all time to come.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not what Christopher Robinson says.


William Manley German: I am not responsible for what Mr. Robinson said. He is a leading lawyer in this country, but he was very careful to qualify his opinion by saying that he had not had time to sufficiently consider the matter to give a decided opinion. What I maintain is that the people of the Northwest, by reason of the provisions of the British North America Act and the Act of 1875 cerating a territorial legislature, have the right to insist that all the privileges with regard to schools which exist by virtue of these Acts shall be perpetuated. If they have that right, that is to me sufficient reason why I should support this Bill.
My hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Kemp) quoted very largely from the 'Globe.'
I notice that his speech was very largely made up of quotations from that paper. I am glad he quotes the ' Globe,' and hope he will read it continually because it is about the only sensible newspaper in Toisonto to-day.


Albert Edward Kemp: I read it every day.


William Manley German: Quite right, and I should be glad that my hon. friend would take heed of what it says and govern himself accordingly. He read very largely from the ' Globe ' newspaper. Well, the ' Globe ' does not control this parliament or the people of this Dominion. True, it is a power in the country, but the gentleman who writes the articles in the ' Globe ' is just as likely to be mistaken as I am ; and I venture" to say that he would give me, as I give him, credit for sincerity and for expressing the views I honestly entertain and believe to be right and proper.
I do not intend to occupy at any length the time of this House. We have had innumerable speeches. We have had this matter discussed thoroughly and intelligently. and I believe that the people have fairly made up their minds as to what should be done. At any rate I believe that parliament has made up its mind as to what it will do. We have had hon. gentlemen op-157*
posite contending that the Liberal party is inconsistent on this question, that formerly we stood for provincial rights and inscribed that principle on our banner, and that we are now dragging that banner in the dust and going back on all our past records. Well, Mr. Speaker. I venture to deny that assertion. I say that the Liberal party today is acting consistenly with its past history, and that it is the Conservative party which is a sinner in this respect. It was the Conservative party who established separate schools in this country assisted by the people in the province of Quebec. That party is now going back on its record. What was formerly the position of the Liberal party in regard to this matter ? We know that the Hon. Geo. Brown, iu the old legislative assembly of Canada, opposed the system of separate schools with all his force. That principle, however, was adopted by the Canadian legislature and became law. When confederation was brought about, Mr. Brown joined the coalition government, which adopted the principle of separate schools as a part and parcel of the Confederation Act. To that principle Mr. Brown gave his adhesion because it had been adopted in Canada and he felt it would be a wrench to do away with it. The Liberal party have lived up to that doctrine ever since. In 1896 when the Conservative party endeavoured to force separate schools on the unwilling province of Manitoba, the Liberal party objected. Why did they object ? Because they stood for provincial rights. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had decided that the Roman Catholic minority in Manitoba did not have the right to separate schools, but the Conservative party endeavoured to force these schools upon that province. The Liberal party, standing by its record, declared against that invasion of provincial rights and it went to the country and was successful.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you not stand up for provincial rights now ?


William Manley German: So we do, and it is because we are standing by the principle of provincial rights that we are supporting this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The people out there do not think so.


William Manley German: The people in Edmonton think so. They say that we are standing by the principle of provincial rights. The Conservative government endeavoured to force separate schools on the province of Manitoba and we opposed it, because we were opposed to having a system forced on a province which the people there were not bound to accept. A true regard for provincial rights consists in safeguarding the rights, not only of the majority, but likewise of the minority. One mdivi-is equally entitled to have his legal
1 dual

rights respected as a hundred thousand. It is the duty of this parliament to protect the legal rights of one man just as well as those of a thousand or ten thousand men. In 189G the Liberals stood by the principle of provincial rights in supporting the majority of the province of Manitoba, and today we are standing by that same principle in protecting the minority of the Territories. That minority is entitled to separate schools. I venture to say that there is not a lawyer, including Mr. Christopher Robinson, who will say that the Roman Catholics of the Territories have not the right to-day to separate schools. If they have that right, then this parliament is bound to safeguard it ; and it is because we are standing by the principle of provincial rights that this Bill will pass the parliament of Canada by the largest majority that any contentious measure ever received. It is because we are standing by the principle of provincial rights that this Bill will receive the approval of the province of Ontario, notwithstanding the attempts of hon. gentlemen opposite to set the heather afire. It will receive the approval of the people of Ontario just so soon as they thoroughly understand the principles of the Bill. There has been considerable agitation created and every attempt possible has been made to obscure the issue, and I doubt very much whether until very lately the great bulk of Ontario fully understood this measure. But as soon as they do understand it it will receive their support as it will receive the support of this House, and the name of Laurier will again go down in the pages of history as that of a broadminded, far-seeifng statesman and -true patriot who knew what was best calculated to promote union and progress and prosperity among all sections of this Dominion and had the energy and ability to do it.


Mr. H. A. WARD (Durham).: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) said that after listening to the arguments of my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) he was more determined than ever to vote for the Bill brought down by the Prime Minister. I echo that sentiment with regard to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. German's) own speech. After listening to him I am more determined than ever to vote against the Bill. But I go further and tell that hon. gentleman that if he follows out his own reasoning he will be compelled to vote against the Bill also. He dealt with the legal aspect of the case, and I am bound to say that he differed entirely with every legal gentleman on his own side who has discussed the subject. He does not agree with clause 16 of these Autonomy Bills. He declares that this clause is not necessary, because the British North America Act applies. This being his contention, surely he should vote against the Bill along with hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. German) Mr. GERMAN.
referred twice in the course of his brief remarks to the election of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) in Edmonton. Does he understand the complexion of the constituency ? If he does not, I will enlighten him.


William Manley German: About the same as Centre Toronto.


Henry Alfred Ward: Well. I have the figures here and about sixty per cent of the voters of that constituency are Roman Catholics- that is, French Roman Catholics, Irish Roman Catholics and adherents of the Greek church.


William Manley German: The Greek church is not Roman Catholic.


Henry Alfred Ward: The hon. gentleman says that adherents of the Greek church are not Roman Catholics, but they amount to the same thing,-they vote solidly for the government in any event. I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. German) to explain why the hon. gentleman who was at first spoken of as Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), did not accept the position and go before his constituents. It is a well known fact that hon. gentleman had the first call for the position which the hon. member for Edmonton now holds.


William Stevens Fielding: Who knows that to be a fact ?


Henry Alfred Ward: Well, it was strongly rumoured in any event. And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) declined that position, as I understand


William Stevens Fielding: Who says so ?


Henry Alfred Ward: because he dare not go
back to his constituency.


William Stevens Fielding: Who says he declined ?


Henry Alfred Ward: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) deny it ?


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ward) is making the statement. He says it is well known.


Henry Alfred Ward: It is a well known fact.


William Stevens Fielding: By whom is it known ?


Henry Alfred Ward: Why, you cannot go through these corridors without


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, rumoured in the corridors. Well, I have heard of nimours in the corridors before now.


Henry Alfred Ward: Will the hon. gentleman deny it ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why, it was stated in the ' Free Press,' the government organ.


Mr. PATERSON.: The leader of the opposition (Mr, R. L. Borden) mentioned the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) ns first choice and recommended him. and after that he mentioned Mr. Scott.


Henry Alfred Ward: I am afraid hon. gentlemen opposite are evading the question. We will not press them further on that point. I am sure that if the hon. member for West Assi-niboia had gone back to his constituents he would have met the same fate, that, I am afraid, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) will meet when he appeals also to his constituents.	*
Now, the hon. gentleman says that according to his reading of the British North America Act, that Act applies to these new provinces in regard to education, and that these provinces are to be saddled with these separate schools -whether this clause appears in the Bills before us or not. Surely then, by following the course they have followed in this matter, the government are making it necessary for these two provinces to face and settle a disputed question which might as well be settled by a reference to the Privy Council, the highest court in the realm, before dealing with it in this House. And that is the course, which, I understand, the hon. gentleman himself favours, and in that I would agree with him entirely. The hon. gentleman says he does not believe in separate schools, yet he is in favour of saddling these two provinces with separate schools for all time to come. Where is the consistency of the hon. gentleman in that ? I am glad to say that he approves of my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) reading the ' Globe,' and says that if that hon. gentleman is sensible he will pay attention to what the ' Globe ' has to say. Well, we on this side are paying attention to what the ' Globe ' says, and most of us propose to vote exactly as the ' Globe ' dictates on this occasion. It is not often that we can agree with the ' Globe,' but we read it very carefully and we are glad to find this great newspaper of the Liberal party in Ontario in accord with us on this question.
I listened yesterday, with interest, and perhaps, some little amusement, to the two hon. members from Quebec who addressed the House yesterday, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Parmelee) an English Protestant, and the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) whom I may call a Catholic French Protestant. In so calling him I do not wish to apply a name which will be unacceptable to the hon. gentleman. His speech was made up of protests, and so he may be described as I have described him. The hon. member for Shefford, who, I regret to see, is not in his place, spoke of a contrast between the treatment of the minority in the province of Quebec and of the minorities in the other provinces. To be quite fair to the hon. gentleman, I desire to read his own words as they are found at page 5074 of the unrevised ' Hansard' : I
I find it difficult to refrain from making a contrast between .the treatment accorded the minority in the province of Quebec and that accorded the minorities in the other provinces.
And so he goes on to tell how generously the minority are treated in the province of Quebec. All this is satisfactory to know. We Protestants from the province of Ontario are very glad to hear that the minority in Quebec are treated fairly, as I believe they are, and as I believe they always will be, regardless of what may be said in this debate. But the hon. gentleman stops there. He does not show that the minorities in other provinces are treated any worse than are the minority in the province of Quebec. He simply suggests a contrast and shows that the minority are well treated in Quebec. but does not show that they are not well treated elsewhere. But there is an innuendo, an insinuation, in the hon. gentleman's remarks, and that insinuation is that the minorities are not treated well in other provinces. Where is the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) ? That hon. gentleman is a Roman Catholic and understands exactly how the minority are treated in the province of Ontario. And where is the hon. member for Kingston ? (Mr. Harty). Why do not these hon. gentlemen stand up and tell this House and this country that the minority in the province of Ontario is basely treated, if such is the case. But, Sir, we have never had any complaint of the treatment meted out to the minority in the province of Ontario.
We have never heard any complaint regarding the treatment of the minority in the province of Nova Scotia which the Minister of Finance spoke of in his address. There is a province where, by law, separate schools do not exist, and yet the Minister of Finance stated without any contradiction in this House that the Catholic minority were well treated in that province, that though they had by law no right to separate schools, yet separate schools existed there, and were flourishing in the city of Halifax and other parts of the province. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was ungenerous enough to say, oh, well, if you have given separate schools to the Catholics in that province you did it because they were becoming so strong that you were obliged to. There is another instance. We find the Minister of Railways and Canals admitting that in the province of New Brunswick where there are no separate schools by law, yet the Catholic minority are treated fairly and justly, as they are in the province of Nova Scotia. Again I say there is no complaint from either of those provinces where separate schools do not exist by law, and I defy any one to report any complaint as to the treatment of minorities in any of the English provinces where there is a Catholic minority. When these hon. gentlemen get up day after day and laud the treatment of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec and insinuate that the Catholic minority in other provinces do not get the same treatment, I think thev should produce some evidence before this House to substantiate their

495t>
claim. Now, almost every lion, gentleman wlio has spoken on the government side ot the House has mentioned the fact that Mr. A. T. Galt was instrumental in getting the separate school clauses introduced into the Confederation Act with regard to Ontario and Quebec. That is quite true. But Mr. Galt was then seeking to legislate for a different set of circumstances altogether from the circumstances of the Catholic minorities in the other provinces. It is a well known and admitted fact that In the province of Quebec the national schools are not such as Protestant children can attend. That is not the case in the other provinces, because there is nothing in the national schools of the other provinces which prevents any Catholic child from obtaining an education in them. Of course there is the sentimental objection on the part of our Catholic fellow citizens to allowing their children to go to such schools. But I tell lion, gentlemen in this House that in the great majority of the towns and villages of Ontario separate schools do not exist, and Catholic children go to the public schools. As an instance, I can mention my own town, containing something over 4,000 inhabitants, where there has never been a separate school. The Catholic boys and girls are educated in the public schools side by side with Protestant children, and I venture to say that they become just as good citizens, just as good Catholics and just as good people in every sense of the word, as children who are educated in the separate schools. I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that in the town where I reside I do not believe there is a single illiterate child, either of the Catholic or of any other persuasion. They all get the same education, they are all satisfied with it. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) said last night that the same state of affairs exists in his town, and I am sure that it exists in hundreds of towns and hundreds of municipalities in the province of Ontario. Therefore, I say that there is no parallel between the need for the insertion of a separate school clause in favour of the Protestant minority in the province of Qu-bec and the need for the insertion of a separate school clause in favour of the Catholic minorities in the other provinces.
Now both these hon. gentlemen indulged yesterday in an attack on the Orange order, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has done the same thing this afternoon. That seems to be a considerable part of the stock in trade of these hon. gentlemen ; they endeavour to fix upon the Orange order the responsibility for every protest that has been made against the educational clauses of these Bills. I can tell these hon. gentlemen that I have been an Orangeman for a great many years and I am proud of it, and I am no bigot. I may mention that in 1889 ^hen a motion was made in this House to disallow the Jesuit Estates Act passed in the province of Quebec, I had the honour of a seat in this House, representing a strong


Henry Alfred Ward: Orange constituency ; yet I voted against that motion and in" favour of the principle of provincial rights, allowing the province of Quebec to deal with this question as affecting its educational institutions. I had no reason to believe that it was not right that the province of Quebec should deal with that matter without interference by the federal government. I think that the same principle should prevail now in regard to the educational clauses of these Bills, and that we should allow these new provinces the same right to deal wtih their educational institutions. It does not follow, as some hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House seem to think, that if absolute provincial autonomy is given to these provinces separate schools are going to be abolished. That result does not follow at all, and is not likely to follow. Surely if you can trust to the province of Nova Scotia, to the province of New Brunswick, to the province of Prince Edward Island, to the province of British Columbia, to deal justly with the minority in respect to education, you can trust these great new provinces in the Northwest to deal justly with the minority also. I think we may safely assume that the men who are at the head of the government in those provinces now will continue the same rights to the minority that exist at the present time. But it is the principle that we oppose, the principle of refusing to those new provinces absolute autonomy, the principle of dictating to them what sort of schools they shall establish for themselves. If the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister were here I think he would excuse me for saying that the kind of autonomy he wants to give those provinces is this : You can do as you like as long as you do what we tell you. That is the sort of autonomy this government wants to give to these new provinces.
As I have said, attacking the Orange order seems to be a part of the stock in trade of hon. gentlemen opposite. _ Another favourite pastime with them is to attack the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). His record has been raked up by nearly every hon. gentleman who has spoken on the other side of the House. My hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Parmelee). in speaking yesterday, said that the hon. member for North Toronto had swallowed his principles, and he followed up that statement by saying that the place of the member for North Toronto was on the other side of the House. I entirely agree with him that his place would be on the other side of the House if it were true that he had swallowed his principles, or was capable of swallowing them. Now these hon. gentlemen go on and appeal for justice to the minority. Sir, that is what we want to give to the minority, we on this side of the House want to give them absolute justice, we want to give them just the j amount of justice which is given to them by j the constitution of this country ; and if the amendment of the leader of the opposition is

495S
adopted, notwithstanding what has been j said by the hon. member for Welland and j other hon. gentlemen who have criticised that amendment-I say if the amendment of * the leader of the opposition is carried into j effect, the minorities in the Northwest pro-vmces will get absolute and entire justice.
These hon. gentlemen want more than justice. Whether the constitution gives them the right or not they want these schools established in the Northwest. My learned and genial friend from Three Rivers-and I am sorry not to see him in the House-used the stock argument of hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec in saying that the Catholic minority had rights in these Territories because years and years ago their missionaries discovered that country. AH honour to those reverend gentlemen who entered that great Northwest in the early days. They had much to contend with and we honour the work they did there, but these hon. gentlemen invariably laid down the rule that they are entitled to these rights because the country forsooth was discovered by these missionaries. I am told by an hon. member who comes from the Northwest that they never discovered the territory which will form these Northwest provinces. They never got within 300 miles of these provinces. Therefore, that claim to the right of separate schools in that country, falls absolutely to the ground. But, what I have noticed in the speeches of these hon. gentlemen is that they entirely ignore the constitutional point. They do not desire to have just what the constitution gives them, but they want a little more than the constitution gives them. I would present for the information of these hon. gentlemen what the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) said in the remarks which he made upon these Bills before the House.
I am glad that I have this statement from perhaps the only really eminent lawyer who has spoken on that side of the House besides the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). This is what the hon. Solicitor General said as reported at page 3458 of 'Hansard':
It is in the light of our constitution that the question must be examined. To look at it from any other point of view is to err and to quibble. According to the British North America Act has the minority in the Northwest Territories any rights to a system of separate schools ? That is. in my judgment, the only question to be decided.
Now, the hon. Solicitor General agrees entirely with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). He does not agree with his constitutional argument altogether, but there is this statement of the Solicitor General, who is a member of the government, and it ought to have considerable weight emanating from such a source, that the whole question must be a constitutional question and in
his judgment that is the only question to he decided. But, the way the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. tlourassa) and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken skate over that constitutional question is a marvel to me. I do not pretend to be capable of entering into the argument of the constitutional question, but it reminds me a great deal of a story I once heard of an American, a breezy westerner, who came down to see his member of congress at Washington. He had in his mind a Bill of tremendous importance of some kind or other, and he thought that he had only to speak to his member about it to get it through the House. But, on presenting it to his member, this is what the latter said to him :	Well, my dear fellow
that is contrary to the constitution ; it cannot be done, to which the westerner made reply:	To the devil with the constitution;
what is the American constitution between friends! That is about the attitude of these hon. gentlemen in giving to the Catholic minority in the western provinces, not absolute justice, but more than they are entitled to. What does the constitution amount to so long as they can deal out what they consider to be fair-play, but what we consider is a little_ beyond fair play ? There is no one in this House who will not accord to the Catholic minority such absolute fair-play as they are entitled to under the constitution. I do not believe there is a man on this side who would not be willing to give that fair-play, and when these questions are fraught with so much doubt and so much difficulty there is only one course, as I shall state presently, to be adopted in order to satisfy the public mind. The debate so far has been a very exhaustive one, and the arguments pro and con have been so exhaustive that it Is almost impossible for any member addressing the House at this late stage of the debate to say anything new or anything of interest to the country, hut I simply desire to impress upon the members of the House this view in regard to the constitution. The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Lauder) in introducing these Bills stated that he was going to give absolute autonomy to the Northwest provinces. I have already stated what that autonomy amounts to where these reservations are made and I desire simply to call the attention of the House to the fact that the light hon. gentleman, in introducing his Bills, stated distinctly that he stood upon the rock of the constitution. He agrees thus far with the hon. Solicitor Genera! and with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. But, Sir, the arguments that he brought forward in regard to his standing on the rock of the constitution were not in my view, very strong, and after H1'; speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, which, I must say, appealed to every hon. member who will express his

convictions in that regard, the right hon. leader of the government stood no longer upon the rock of the constitution but he had shifted the pedestal on -which he stood to a sand bank. There is no question about that, and I will tell the House where the confirmation of the views of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition stands. The confirmation of his views stands in this way that there is not one hon. gentleman on that side of the House since his speech was delivered who has made any attempt whatever to controvert his statements. No successful controversion of his statements has been made, and I say that when so much doubt has been placed upon the constitutional point there is only one course which will satisfy the public mind that can be taken by the right lion, leader of the government, and that is to have the point in dispute submitted to the Privy Council in England along with all other questions which should be submitted, so that we may have this constitutional question absolutely decided one way or the other and so that there may be no further controversy upon the point. It is the dutv of the government and the duty of the right hon. gentleman not to press tiiis clause upon the House, but to submit for one question : Do tile subsections of clause 93 of the British North America Act apply to these provinces? If they do that settles the question. If they do not a further question should be submitted as to whether or not this government has any power to go any further and force these separate schools upon these two provinces.
There is not only that question which is in doubt, but we all know, after listening to the speech of the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), that a conflict of opinion has arisen between him and the premier of the Northwest Territories. We have read the interview with the premier of the North-west Territories published in last Friday's ' News,' in which that gentleman contends ^ clause 16 is passed in its present shape, it will.impose upon the new provinces exactly the state of affairs which existed in 1875 after the passage of the Act of that rear giving the Territories the constitution thev now enjoy. In the face of all these doubtful points of law- affecting the constitution, there should be a submission to fae Privv Council in England, perhaps to the Supreme Court first, and the public mind would be set at rest by a decision from that quarter in a way in which it could not be otherwise.
I do not propose to take up the time of the House any longer on this question, because I think that at this late stage of the debate speeches should be curtailed as far as possible ; but I would make this appeal to the right lion, leader of the government, to submit the points I have mentioned : First, as to whether or not the subsections of section 93 of the British North America Act apply to these new provinces. Second, if Mr. WARD.
they do not, has the government power to pass this legislation ? And, third, does clause 16 give greater powers than are on the face of it intended ?
I have nothing further to say upon this question, except to express the hope that iu future there will be no necessity for any unkind remarks to be made from either side of the House. We on this side of the House have been accused of fomenting this agitation in the country. Well, that is for the public to decide. -I contend that this measure, as it was originally proposed in this House by the right iron, leader of the government, has done more to foment and bring about the state of affairs that exists in this country to-day than anything else, and I do not believe that there has been one thing said on this side of the House that would induce the people to agitate in any sense of the word. I, therefore, trust, after the whole matter is over and the question is decided one way or the other, that we shall have peace, good order and good government in this country.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT (South Renfrew).: Mr. Speaker, a great deal has be'en said upon this question ; almost every phase of it has been threshed out; and after all that has been said on both sides of the House and all that has been written in the various newspapers, I would have said nothing upon the question, but that if I gave a silent vote, it might be inferred that I was unwilling to say one word in favour of this Bill. I iwould not have it supposed for one moment that I wished to shirk any responsibility which rests upon me in this regard. I think the House and you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that I have not troubled the House very much or spoken unduly on every subject that came before it since I have been a member. I do not think any one can accuse me of that terrible disease which has been properly termed a running at the mouth. If there is one disease which I abhor above another, it is that; and I only feel justified in speaking on subjects in which I am specially interested. . With reference to this Bill, more perhaps has been said and written upon it in the city of Toronto than in any other place in the Dominion of Canada. It is there that the great volcanic eruption has taken place; the great craters are found in the newspaper offices and on the platforms of that city. I have great respect for the people of Toronto and for the papers published there ; but I must say that it is not conferred upon any newspaper or anv city to know all that is to be known in this world. It is not permitted to any one individual to monopolize all the intelligence in the country ; and I think there are other sections of the Dominion of Canada, particularly in the province of Ontario,' that should be heard from, that have views entirely different from those set forth in some of the newspapers and expressed on most of

the platforms of the city of Toronto of late ; and that is the reason why I am now speaking on this Bill,
The first feature of the Bill to which I wish to draw your attention has reference to the ownership of the lands. It has been said that the lands should be owned by the provinces themselves. That may be true in many cases ; but in view of the fact that Ithis government has expended so much money in bringing the proper kinds of immigrants into this country, and has got the immigration system on a good basis, we surely ought to leave that matter in the hands of those who have brought it to such a successful issue. We want the best class of immigrants we can have in this country, and I believe the government are exercising precautions to secure that class. We have never before had such a rush of immigrants into this country as we have to-day. We are delighted to have so many coming from the American union-Our own Canadian sons coming back to live with us again and bringing their families with them, and others who went from European countries to the United States and graduated in the school of agriculture there and learned how to farm on a system suitable to a prairie country. These are the kind of people we want, and when this government is doing so much to bring them, why should we not leave the immigration in their hands ? The only way we can do that is to leave in their hands the control of the lands.
There is another thing which we should take into consideration. You know that we have in the Northwest a large extent of country which is very fertile, provided it is supplied with fresh water by means of a proper system of irrigation. There are millions of acres of that kind of lands in the west and we want to see these lands brought into the best possible state of cultivation. They are being settled by a thrifty class of people, progressive farmers who are doing well on these lands and we want to have it clear for all time to come that there shall be a sufficient amount of water for proper irrigation there. This brings us into direct antagonism with some of the States of the American Union. There are some streams which originate in the United States and flow into our country and difficulties are already cropping up between this country and the border states. Surely we ought to have this matter in the hands of the Canadian government so that they will be able to take hold of it and carry it through to a successful issue.
There is one feature in particular about which I wish to speak, that is the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. Not much has ibeen said of late about the extension of her boundaries to the west because as has been made quite apparent by the members from the west the people in that portion of the Territories do not want to have themselves annexed to the province of Manitoba. But there is a more serious feature about this question, that is the extension of her boundaries to the east. Here is the serious feature of that question. Reports have been sent broadcast that this extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba to the east is being taken advantage of by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Canada in order to secure an extension of the facilities for separate schools in Manitoba, and the worst feature of it is that an attempt is being made to cause the belief that the Prime Minister has been a party to the intrigue, and that he was responsible for the interview between the Manitoba ministers and Mousei-gneur Sbarretti, the Papal ablegate, that lie is the man who is responsible for having this agreement attempted and by which an increase of territory should be granted to Manitoba on condition that the Roman Catholics in (Manitoba should be given increased privileges in regard to separate schools in that province. I am exceedingly anxious that this thing should be set in its proper light before the people of Ontario because if these newspapers in the city of Toronto and these speakers on the platform at Toronto who are sending broadcast through Ontario this infamous news and trying to antagonize the good people of this province, against the good people of Quebec and our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens in Manitoba. I wish to read you the exact words which the Prime Minister used in refuting this statement. He said :
Before I proceed any further, I may say at once, referring to the whole tenor of this document, that in so far as there is a charge that there was an understanding between Monseigneur Sbarretti and myself to have the school question considered in connection with the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, there is not a shadow nor a tittle of truth in it. Mr. Rogers uses this language :
It is certainly idle for any person to assume that Monseigneur Sbarretti, occupying the position he does, would presume to make the suggestion of terms and conditions which he did without the full knowledge and consent of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues.
I assert that if Mr. Rogers states that Monseigneur Sbarretti did press him to make the suggestion of terms and conditions which he says Monseigneur Sbarretti did with my knowledge, he states something which is not in accordance with truth. If that has taken place it has taken place without my participation, and I never heard of it in any way whatever until last Saturday, when the matter was brought to my notice by a telegram from the Toronto ' Globe.' Then Mr. Rogers goes on to say :
I am delighted to know and I think every one of my friends in Ontario is delighted to know that the Prime Minister was able to give such an emphatic denial to this as he did and I wish to have it felt throughout Ontario that we should have just the same amount of respect and trust the Prime Minister to the same degree now, as we

have always done. So far as I am concerned nothing that he has done with reference to this Bill has abated by one jot or tittle the respect which I have always had for him, and I think these stories which are being spread broadcast over the country will do him in the end more good than harm. I may say that we should not be deluded by the amount of noise that is emanating from the city of Toronto. It is more noise and wind than anything else, and I think you will find in the end that it will not have that responsive answer from Ontario that the agitators expect, nor do I think that there is so much at the bottom of it as some have thought. There are not so many sounding the big trombone in Toronto as they would have us believe. It reminds me of a story which I heard of a commercial gentleman who came from the city of New York to a rural section where there was a large pond. The New Yorker wanted to buy a large number of frogs and he went to a farmer and said : I want to contract with you for 1,000 frogs.
Yes, the farmer said, I will undertake to supply them.
The terms were agreed upon and the next day the buyer came back and said : Where are my frogs ?
The farmer replied : Well, Sir, to tell you the truth I have just five frogs.
But, I thought you were to deliver the number we agreed upon, 1,000.
The farmer answered : Well now, to tell you the truth, when I heard the immense amount of noise these frogs made I certainly thought there must be 10,000 of them, but when I came to catch them, all I could really find, was five.
Now, I think when this matter comes to simmer down in the end you will find there are not the thousands of people in Toronto who are shouting and howling; they will come down to a very small number indeed, and so far as I am concerned, I do not fear the trouble which they may make in Ontario when all the facts are brought out and made clear to the people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They will make you give a beautiful croak.


Aaron Abel Wright: I did not hear the hon. gentleman.


Mr. TAYLOR.: He wants to know where the frogs were caught.


Aaron Abel Wright: I do not know where they were caught, but I think it must have been in Toronto. There may have been some caught in Leeds, but not many, because I come from Leeds myself.
The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) has been giving us some good advice from the 'Globe.'


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: It is a frog too.


Aaron Abel Wright: He read an article from that paper, and although I did not catch Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.
all that he said I understood him to say that the Reform members in the House of Commons were living in a fool's paradise. That is what the 'Globe' said, I understand. I have been in this House for five sessions and I think I have enjoyed this House just about as well as anybody else, but so far as I am concerned even in my wildest admiration for a seat in this House, I never dreamed for a moment that I had a seat in Paradise. And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, on the 5th day of this month when the electrical currents were surcharged and were going fast and swift from side to side of this House to the other and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was hurling anathemas across the floor against the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for East Grey was hurling them back at him, I never for one moment dreamt that this was paradise. On the contrary, I thought it was almost anything else, and it seemed to me that if at any moment a spark were set to this electric current, so highly charged, going at the rate of ten thousand volts and one hundred amperes per hour, I do not know what the result might have been. All I can say is that if the editor of that newspaper thinks the House of Commons a paradise, when I come to be judged after death I do not want to be sent to that kind of a paradise. Just at the clpse of that article the 'Globe' advised us to consult our constituents and the country at large. I thoroughly endorse that advice. They say that great minds think alike, and the right hon. the First Minister evidently took the same view. The result was that he opened the constituency of Edmonton just to see what the people really did think, and the moment the telegraph wires carried the glad news to that district that there was to be an election and that Mr. Oliver was to be the government candidate and Minister of the Interior, what happened? Did the thousand and one opponents jump up there like a Hydra's-head antagonist ? Not at all. On the contrary there was not the slightest opposition. The people out there said:	This
is the man we want. In every corner of that constituency meetings were held, and both Tories and Reformers agreed that Mr. Oliver was the man for Galway. The result was that he was elected by acclamation. Surely this is one of the constituencies chiefly interested; and if that is not good evidence that the country is with us, I do not know what better we could have.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


Mr.   ARCH@: CAMPBELL moved the third j reading of Bill (No. 99) to incorporate the Title Guarantee and Trust Company.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) wanted this Bill to stand. He does not happen to be in his place this evening. I believe he wished to place some observations with regard to it on record. Perhaps the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) will have no objection to allowing it to stand.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was here when the Bill was in committee, and at his request it was allowed to stand. It had ah-eady been fully considered in the Banking and Commerce Committee, and the consideration of it in this House has stood over several times. It was amended m Committee of the Whole to meet lire suggestions of the hon. member for North Toronto, and those amendments I agreed to.
I hope the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) will not insist upon his objection.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not specially insist upon it. The Bill, having been amended in Committee of the Whole, could not be read the third time at the sitting at which it was reported from committee. This is the first occasion when the third reading could be proposed. Therefore, it has not stood over unnecessarily thus far. I have not made my suggestion at the request of the hon. member for North Toronto, but I remember that he said he wished to make some remarks, and, I think, to enter sonic protest against the provisions of the Bill.


Archibald Campbell: The hon. member (Mr. Foster) did enter his protest when the Bill was in Committee of the Whole. The Bill has been amended, and I do not think he has any serious objection to it now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.
Mr. CAMPBELL moved that the Bill be now passed, and that the title be 1 An Act to incorporate the Title and Trust Company.'
Motion agreed to.
OTT -\ \Y \ AND NEW YORK RAILWAY COMPANY.
House in committee on Bill (No. 92) respecting the Ottawa and New York Railway Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
On the preamble,
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to understand what the object of the Bill is.


William Stevens Fielding: I think this Bill involves a pro-posed departure from the general rule that has been laid down, and I prefer that it be not proceeded with in the absence of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson). I suggest to the promoter that he allow me to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Robert Laird Borden: The object of the Bill seems to be to except this company from the provision of a statute passed in 1904, by which all, or a majority-I am not sure which-of the directors of a company receiving aid from the government shall be British subjects. This statute arose out of a debate in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway measure. We on this side of the House at that time offered an amendment requiring that a provision should be inserted in the Act incorporating the proposed company similar to that contained in the Act incorporating the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That amendment was voted down for the reason, as I recollect it, that it was inadvisable to make special exception of any company, and that it would be better in the public interest to provide for the matter by a general statute. In view of the attitude of the government at that time, I would suggest that it is extremely important at this juncture, when this Bill is up for consideration, to have the views upon it of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the government generally, as to why a principle so strongly insisted upon at that time is to be departed from.


William Stevens Fielding: I agree that, if the principle is to be departed from, a reason should be given. And that is why I prefer that the Bill should not be proceeded with now.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON.: 
Mr. BELCOURT.: I have charge of this Bill, and I may perhaps say a few words to the committee in explanation of the reasons which were deemed sufficient in the Railway Committee to allow the Bill to go through. It is true, as stated by tne leader of the opposition, that the object of the Bill is to create an exception to section 32 of the statute of 1904, which provided that the majority of the directors of a railway company should be British subjects, it was provided by the same section that the effect of the amendment should not come into force until the 31st of January, 1905. This railway was built in 1897. There was paid to the railway $375,000 in subsidies, the company expending $750,000 of their own money. All the stockholders of the company and the bondholders as well, at the time of construe-tion, were Americans, they are still Americans without any exception. The money that built the railway was all American money, and there is at present no shareholder or bondholder who is a Canadian in the company. The railway, I understand, has been acquired by the New York Central, it is being operated to-day under the management of the New York Central, altogether under American management. At the time this company was incorporated and at the time the railway was built, the law in force made it permissible that all the directors might be Americans. Section 87 of the Railway Act of 1888 says:
All shareholders in the company, whether British subjects or aliens, or resident in Canada or elsewhere, shall have equal rights to hold stock in the company and to vote on the

same, and shall be eligible to office in the company.
If this company has to comply with the amendment of 1904. they have no shareholder in Canada and are not in a position to have a board composed of Canadians. The New York Central proposes in the near future to expend at least $400,000 in the betterment of this railway, all of that money will be American money. Under the circumstances it seemed natural to the company, and it seems natural to me, and I think it ought to seem natural to the House, that the expenditure of the money should be under the control of the people who find it. Those reasons seemed convincing to the committee who passed the Bill unanimously.


Mr. INGRAM.: When this Bill was before the Railway Committee I am inclined to think the hon. gentleman was not present. But before the amendment was put to the committee the Minister of Railways was asked what the policy of the government was on this question, and he declined to state what the government's position was on this important Bill. , It was pointed out that the Canada Southern Railway, which is also an American road, was situated similarly to this one, but they were compelled to comply with the law as it is at present. This Bill being amended on the line stated by the hon. gentleman will be a precedent to go by in future, and if the Canada Southern Railway Company come here asking for this legislation-


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I should have stated that this is not a Canadian railway, it is not a Canadian corporation, it is an'American railway and an American corporation.


Andrew B. Ingram: Just the same as the Canada Southern, which is a connecting link between the Michigan Central and the New York Central, a railway in Canada owned and controlled by American capital. It has never received a dollar of money from this government. Therefore, it is in the same position as the road we are now discussing in the matter of directors. I simply wish to point out that if the government have no policy on this question, and if a railway built by American capital is to be relieved from this condition, then it will be a precedent for treating other railways in the same way.


Mr. BARKER.: The excuse made by the member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) for the change from the general law which he asks for, is that this particular railway is owned by foreigners. But if it were not owned by foreigners it would come under the ordinary law, and there would be no trouble, the directors would be all Canadians. The very object of the change in the general law was to provide that where a Canadian railway was owned by foreigners there should be a certain Canadian representation upon it. The hon. gentleman says that here is an exception, here is a railway which is owned
entirely by foreigners. It seems to me that rather aggravates the difficulty; that shows that it there is any sense whatever in the change in the law, it should apply particularly to the railway we are now dealing with.
J*r- HENDERSON. I merely rise to say that I think perhaps the leader of the opposition did a slight injustice to the Minister of Finance, because I think myself that the Minister of Finance attends to his duties in this House more assiduously than any other member of the government. I want to give him credit for being in his seat on all occasions. or nearly so. As for the Minister of Justice I cannot agree that he is here so frequently. I think the government should have a policy on every question, and that in the case of every Bill that comes before this House, a private Bill as well as others, some officer of the government should have investigated it thoroughly, so that a member of the government may be able to stand up and say that the government assumes entire responsibility for what it contains and commends it to the House.
Now, we have not had that to-night. I heard this Bill discussed in the Railway Committee. It is quite true that it did not come here from the Private Bills Committee. It came from the Railway Committee. It was briefly discussed there and I think the discussion that has taken place to-night perhaps has done no harm. There is one very important feature in connection with this Bill, and if we adopt this measure tonight we lay down a precedent that hon. gentlemen will ask us to follow for many years to come. A minister occupying the prominent position in the government that the hon. Minister of Justice does, I think, ought to be in his place and say, especially in the absence of the hon. Minister of Railways, whether or not he commends that particular feature of this Bill to this House. I am glad the hon. Minister of Finance has taken what I consider to be a very sensible view of the matter and that in the absence of the hon. Minister of Justice from his place and the Minister of Railways and Canals from his duties here he has advised the promoter to allow the Bill to go over until some other occasion when these hon. gentlemen will be in their places. I trust that when they do appear here they will be able to announce the policy of the government on this particular ' question. I have no desire to stop the Bill in its progress through the committee. It may be all right but this is a new feature and I have to confess that I have some objections to it. Explanations may be given sufficient to warrant us in overlooking these. But, whatever we do, I think that in an important matter like this we should not, without very good consideration, establish a precedent that may work very great injury to some other corporations in the country.
Progress reported.



DOMINION ATLANTIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 10G) respecting tlie Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Black.
.On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: I liave not the slightest objection to this Bill ; I think it is a very desirable thing that the railway should be made part of the Dominion Atlantic Railway, but what I rose to inquire about was as to the effect of this legislation. The Dominion Atlantic Railway Company is a company subject to and its railway is subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament, because it has been declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. I do not think the Midland Railway occupies that position. It struck me just a moment ago, looking at the Bill, that there must be some question as to what would be the status of the Midland division of the Dominion Atlantic Railway after the passing of that statute, and I would suggest to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Black) in charge of this Bill that perhaps it would be well for him to consider that question. Perhaps there has been an amendment made: if so, I am not aware of it. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) suggests that an amendment was made to the second clause covering that very question. I am not a member of the Railway Committee, so that I do not know. Perhaps that may cover the point.


William Stevens Fielding: We will go on until we reach that.


David Henderson: The very Bill that is before us certainly shows to us the absolute necessity of having the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) in his place while these private Bills are being passed through. We had a considerable discussion on this question in the Railway Committee, and I think the question arose as to whether we could pass a Bill authorizing the amalgamation or purchase of a local railway, or a railway chartered by the legislature of Nova Scotia, by enacting a Bill in this House. To my mind there is a nice legal question and the hon. Minister of Justice should be here in his place to solve that question, to tell us that his officers had looked into the whole matter and that he is satisfied that the Bill is all right in that particular. I would go farther than my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. It. L. Borden) in this matter. I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who is leading the House tonight, to ask the promoter of the Bill to allow it to stand over until the hon. Minister of Justice is in his place to give us that assurance. I think it is hardly fair to ask the committee to pass legislation of this kind on a mere assumption, on a mere venture. It may turn out that it is all wrong, Mr. HENDERSON.
it may turn out that the charter that we are giving this company is of no value, and I think the promoter of the Bill would act wisely if he would wait until the hon. Minister of Justice finds it convenient to be in his place and say that he has investigated the matter, that his officers have gone into it thoroughly and that he is satisfied that the Bill itself will work out all right. I merely throw out that suggestion. The promoter of the Bill may or may not accept it, but I think that is the proper course to pursue. There are more of us interested in this Bill than the promoter. We want to know that legislation, once it goes through this House, is complete, that it is without flaw, that it is something that may be relied upon, not something that would simply end in litigation, and I trust that the promoter of the Bill will wait the convenience of the hon. Minister of Justice until he can find an opportunity of being in his place and giving us his assurance that he regards the Bill as being perfectly correct.


Mr. LAURENCE.: It would not necessarily follow that every hon. member would accept the assurance of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) even if he gave it. Of course, I admit it ought to command a great deal of respect but it might happen that there would be very serious objections to the Bill even then. However, that is outside of the question. This Bill was sufficiently discussed, it seems to me, in the Railway 'Committee, and I think the decision was arrived at and was correctly arrived at that this legislature could deal with a proposition of this kind. The Dominion Atlantic has a charter from this legislature. The Midland has a charter from the province of Nova Scotia. There are concurrently going through the two legislatures Bills to effect not the amalgamation so much as the actual purchase of the franchise, property and rights of the smaller corporation by the greater, and it seems to me that between the two legislatures there ought to be no loophole or lapse. It seems to me that the purpose of the legislation ought to be accomplished, that is to turn over the property, assets and franchise of the provincial company to the Dominion chartered company. I do not quite appreciate myself the objection that is made, to tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker. I have not quite become seized of the point that my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) makes against this legislation.


Mr.   R L. BORDEN@: Is the hon. gentleman referring to the point I made ?


Frederick Andrew Laurence: No, the point made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). I quite appreciate the point of the hon. leader of the opposition, and I think it is provided for in a subsequent section.


Samuel Barker: With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Halton, I

agree with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. This Bill is simply an enabling Bill so far as the Dominion company is concerned ; it enables the Dominion company to purchase. It does not profess to enable the provincial company to sell. Therefore, so far as the Bill goes, it is quite within our powers. The point raised by the hon. leader of the opposition, which he raised before he saw the amendment, which is not printed, has reference to the operation of the local railway after it is acquired. I recollect suggesting that point in the Railway Committee, and I think the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill agreed to it and inserted some words in the second clause providing that the local railway should be operated under the Dominion laws. The rest of the powers must be obtained from the local legislature. We have no power over the local company, and this Bill does not profess to exercise any power over it.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not investigated the amended clause, because I have only seen it this moment. Speaking offhand and without any great consideration, I would suggest whether it would not be in the interest of the promoters of this Bill to go a little further. The very last thing they would desire would be that there should be any doubt as to the legislative jurisdiction over any portion of the combined railway which they propose to operate. We have no authority to legislate with regard to the Midland Railway until we have declared it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. That is as I understand the law. The amendment which has been proposed has been carefully considered, I am sure, by gentlemen having legal training and experience, and I have every deference to that consideration ; but it seems to me that to express what is necessary you should go a little further than this second clause, which merely says that the Midland Railway shall become a part of the Dominion Atlantic and shall be subject to the Railway Act of 1903. If by the expression, 'the said railway, when acquired, shall become part of the Dominion Atlantic Railway,' you bring into force the statute of this parliament passed about ten years ago which declared a definitely stated line of railway to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, you are all right; but if this expression will not bear that interpretation. you are entirely wrong. What 1 would consider desirable, is to have it declared in the Bill that the Midland Railway shall be a work for the general advantage of Canada as the Dominion Atlantic has already been declared.


Frederick Andrew Laurence: I am only too anxious to accept any suggestion that would promote the object of the legislaton ; and, while I am not very strongly impressed with the contention of the hon. leader of the opposition, yet if he thinks there is any advantage to be gained


Mr.   I@: How in the future shall you say that this Midland Railway is subject to the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament?


Frederick Andrew Laurence: I do not say so, and I do not think it is essential to say so. If we give the Dominion Atlantic power to purchase this property, that is as much as we can do.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has considered it much more than I have, and I may be entirely wrong ; but unless you go further than that, do you not have the main division of the Dominion Atlantic Railway subject to the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament and the Midland division subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the legislature of Nova Scotia.


Frederick Andrew Laurence: It seems to me that the purchase effects that result. It is all Dominion Atlantic property and all subject to the Dominion Atlantic charter.


Robert Laird Borden: The mere purchase by the Dominion Atlantic Company of a particular piece of property would hardly make that property subject to the. legislative jurisdiction of parliament unless you had a declaration on the statute-book, which you have not up to this moment, that everything the Dominion Atlantic shall purchase in the way of a railway shall be subject to the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament.


Frederick Andrew Laurence: Any doubt about it can easily be removed, but it seems to me that it would stand in the same position as an additional mile that might be built by the Dominion Atlantic. The moment it is built it becomes a part of the Dominion Atlantic line. Surely there is no distinction between building a mile and buying a mile.


William Stevens Fielding: The property purchased is subject to the jurisdiction of the province. The Dominion Atlantic Company could buy it, but the question ds could they operate it ?


Frederick Andrew Laurence: Why not operate it as well as a mile that they build?


William Stevens Fielding: The section provides that this road shall be the property of the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company, and shall be subject to the Dominion Railway Act of 1903. I suppose these words were intended to bring it under the operation of the Railway Act. The question remains whether you have any but the one way of bringing such a railway under the authority of this parliament and that is the way provided by the British North America Act which says that you must declare that property to be a railway for the general advantage of Canada. I would not presume of course to discuss the legal as-



' COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
pect of the question but I think there is enough in it to justify us in asking the promoter of the Bill to think it over before the third reading.
Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) I see has the same idea, whether it is right or not, as I had in my mind, that is that there is but one way of enabling- this parliament to have jurisdiction over a railway constructed under a provincial charter and under provincial legislation. You cannot do it by declaring that the railway is subject to the Railway Act. You must do it under the British North America Act by declaring it to be for the general advantage of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: That is the only way in which it can be brought under Dominion jurisdiction unless the member for Colchester (Mr. Laurence) is right as to the effect of purchase.


Frederick Andrew Laurence: I may say that I have no objection to the Bill standing over. The amended Bill now before the committee is not yet printed, and it is a little difficult to know exactly the proper place to insert the words that would remove the objection.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would be well to allow it to stand until Friday. Personally I would be very glad to talk it over with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Laurence).


Frederick Andrew Laurence: I presume there is no
objection to that; let it stand over.


David Henderson: The action which is about to be taken is just an evidence of the necessity of the Minister of Justice being in his place when his opinion is required, i think that the time I have spent in remonstrating against the absence of the Minister of Justice has been very well spent indeed, and i trust his colleagues will notify him that in future it is absolutely necessary he should be here.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I do not think it can be said that the Minister of Justice has been a frequent offender in this respect. It is true he was unable to be here to-night but I do not think that justifies my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) in going for him and remonstrating in the way he has done. I may say that I do not think the Minister of Justice is responsible for any private legislation which is brought before parliament. This is a principle which we should not forget when we are discussing the absence or the presence of the Minister of Justice. The Minister, of Justice is no more obliged to advise the House of Commons than any other member of the House on private legislation. If there is anybody whose duty it is to advise the House it would be the Law Clerk of the House, not the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is the adviser of the government and the government is supposed to follow his advice, but when it I


William Stevens Fielding: comes to the House, as my hon. friend knows very well, the House is not bound by the advice of the Minister of Justice and my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) does not follow his advice very often. I think then the criticism of my hon. friend with regard to the absence of the Minister of Justice is not well founded.


Andrew B. Ingram: Hon. gentlemen opposite are taking different views from those which they entertained in days gone by. ' When the position of Solicitor General was created it was with a view to his assisting the Minister of Justice in matters of this kind, that the House might have the benefit of their opinion. That was the view of hon. gentlemen opposite who were then on this side of the House when that office was created, so it is rather surprising to find this change of front.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think the duty of the Solicitor General is to advise the House of Commons. I would be much surprised if that was the reason given when the office was created. I always understood, although there is no definition of the duties of the office, that the Solicitor General was simply called upon to argue cases in which the government was interested.


Robert Laird Borden: I am going to take the part of the Minister of Justice as I did a moment ago, although my view of the situation did not seem to be appreciated by hon. gentlemen opposite. Although the Minister of Justice does not advise the House of Commons, he advises the government and the government guides this private legislation. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) shakes his head. He is so new a member of the government that he does not understand the workings of the department. Does he not know that these private Bills go to experts in the different departments ? Certain of them which relate to banking and commerce always go to the experts in the Department of Finance. Does he not know that the government undertake certain duties with regard to them ? Does he not know that where questions which require legal advice arise in connection with Bills they are always placed before the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General ? I am not making any criticism myself upon the Minister of Justice, although he has given a very good opportunity to my hon. friend from Halton to make a certain retort to an observation of his the other afternoon, but I think it is just as well that we should have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon any question of tin's kind which arises. I remember very well hearing Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons in connection with the Government of Ireland Bill giving simply one answer and making one justification when lawyers on different sides of the House were making strong arguments pro and con with regard to a section of that Bill. He said : The

government are simply bound to abide by the opinion of the law officers of the Crown and that is all there is about it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On what Bill 1


Robert Laird Borden: The Government of Ireland Bill.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A public Bill V


Robert Laird Borden: A public Bill certainly. But as I have pointed out the government have duties with regard to private legislation. If the minister looks at any book on parliamentary government he will see that. Otherwise why go through the form of having these private Bills submitted to the experts in the different departments V It is in order to see that in matters concerning the public interest, as this does, the legislation shall be in such shape as will best conserve the public interest.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me rather strange that the government should not look at the legislation in this House. That is the object of having a government. When a Bill of this kind appears before the Railway Committee it is the Minister of Railways who objects to certain clauses and his expert Mr. Collingwood Schreiber is always there with him. He is there for two reasons ; first to see that there is nothing in the Bill which conflicts with the government's policy or aims and that the Bill is in accordance with the usual principles of such Bills. The government overlooks these Bills at every stage and the law clerk of course goes over them as well. This is all under the direction and control of the government, because the government is responsible for all legislation which passes this House ; whether it be a private or a public measure, it makes no difference.
Progress reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 139) respecting the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Duncan Ross.
Bill (No. 140) respecting the Northwest Coal and Coke Railway Company, and to change its name to the Great West Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 141) respecting the Ivaslo and Lardo-Duncan Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 145) respecting a patent, No. 69772, of the Underwood Typewriter Company.-Mr. Grant.
Bill (No. 146) respecting certain patents of the Underwood Typewriter Company.-Mr. Grant.
Bill (No. 137) respecting the Kingston, Smith's Palls and Ottawa Railway Company.

Mr. Galliher.
3ill (No. 143) to incorporate the Owen Sound and Meaford Railway Company.-Mr. Telford.
Bill (No. 144) to incorporate the Fessenden Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada.- Mr. Telford.
Bill (No. 136) to incorporate the Anthracite Coal Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Aaron Abel Wright: When the House took recess at six o'clock, I was referring to the most excellent advice given by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), in the ' Globe ' and other Toronto newspapers, to the government to open a constituency and see whether the people were in accord with them on this Autonomy Bill. I referred also to the success which had met this appeal to the people of Edmonton. My hon. friend from Durham (Mr. Ward) undertook to explain how it was the good people of that constituency had given such an unmistakable expression of their opinion by returning the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) by acclamation. The reason was, he said, because sixty per cent of the people in that section are Roman Catholics. But if sixty per cent of the people of that section belong to that faith, and if, during the thirty long years in which they had been enjoying the splendid advantages given them by the separate school system now in operation in the west, they had acquired such an amount of common sense and intelligence as to return the Minister of the Interior by acclamation, I think that is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the continuance of that system. That system cannot surely be other than a good one which instils so much common sense, foresight and sterling wisdom into the minds of the people.
There is one factor which, I think, should not be lost sight of, and that is this. When the good news reached the city of Edmonton that the mantle of the ex-Minister of the Interior had fallen on the shoulders of so worthy a representative as Mr. Oliver, they came to the conclusion that it was only just and right that they should give the new minister a reception worthy of the occasion. And they did so. They turned out in magnificent force. Thousands of the stalwart voters of that constituency, thousands of tht^


Andrew B. Ingram: When did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) change his opinion?


Aaron Abel Wright: Well, I may explain
that to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) before I get through. I did not know that I had given my opinion to the hon. member or any body else on this subject, but I purpose giving it now, and I am not ashamed or afraid to do it, either. Now. the question is, why do I support this Bill? I support it, in the first place, because the Prime Minister and his government, having carefully considered the clauses of the British North America Act and of the Act of 1875 which established the Northwest Territories, have come to the conclusion that power was constitutionally given to the Northwest to establish separate schools. And, looking at the history of those Territories for the last thirty years, I find that they have been in the enjoyment of these separate schools. I find also that everybody who took part in the enactment of this Act of 1875 thought that the establishment of separate schools was a permanent thing. That being the case, I think we should act in good faith and maintain that system, especially when it has resulted in so much good. I believe that nations should have the same respect for their word that an individual has. And when a man gives his word he should stand by it. I believe with Voltaire who in his history of Charles XII., of Sweden, informs us that he could not see why a nation's word should not be as true as the word of an individual. We have promised the people of the Northwest Territories that they should have the privilege of separate schools, and surely we are not going back on our word. Another reason why I believe this Bill should be passed is that it secures good public schools to the people in the Northwest Territories. You may call them separate schools, but in reality they are public schools. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Scbaffner)-I think it was- stated that he did not want these schools to be called separate schools, but to be called two sets of schools.
Mr. Speaker, I was engaged in teaching for a good many years. I taught, fitst of all, in the province of Ontario. And now I would ask the hon. gentleman who asked me why I changed my mind to pay particular attention to what I am about to say. I attended the normal school in Toronto and took out a first-class certificate there. I taught school in tlyi province of Ontario for three years. I then decided that I would go to the province of Quebee and take a course in the French language and see what kind of a system of schools they had there. Before I went to Quebec I had a terrible idea of separate schools. I had the same idea of



49S2

[Stage Direction]
them as the most arrant Orangeman. It had been dinned into my. ears all my days that separate schools were dangerous and that we should have nothing to do with them. Well, I went to the normal school in the province of Quebec, passed my examiuation and took out my certificate as a teacher in that province. And I taught school in the province of Quebec for four years. Then it was that I began to see that that separate schools as they existed there were not as bad as I had thought they were. The separate schools seemed a different thing as I saw it in Quebec from what I thought it was when I saw it in Ontario. I saw that the people who enjoyed the advantage of separate schools in Quebec would hardly know what to do without them. And when I taught in one of those separate schools and saw what difficulties we should have to contend with if we had no separate schools. I began to see that the system was not such a bad thing after all. And I thought that if the Roman Catholics in Quebec give even-handed justice to the Protestants of that province, we Protestants in Ontario should do no less for the Roman Catholics here. And we are doing it. Having had a long experience in teaching, there is one thing I wish above all others, and that is that our children should have a first-class common school education. And I believe that if this Bill is passed the children in the Northwest Territories will have an education of that kind. I have no belief 'in the words of Pope:
A little learning is a dangerous thing
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring. I
I believe that even a small amount of education is a good thing for anybody. If they cannot have a great deal of education, let them have what they can get. If one of our boys or girls has the benefit of a common school education and then will read regularly one of our influential daily newspapers he will become an educated man. He may not be highly instructed in some of the specialities, but he will be a man well qualified to fit himself for any walk in life.
This is what I want, that every boy and girl who lives in the Northwest Territories and in those new provinces which are to come into the union on the 1st of July next, shall have a first class education so that they can go out into the world qualified to occupy any walk in life. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this school system which they have adopted in the Northwest Territories is one of the best separate school systems, if you can call it so, that is to be found in the world. We live here in a mixed community, and there has got to be a certain amount of respect for one another's feelings. We do not all worship at the same altar, we do not all believe in the same doctrines. We Protestants believe that the main things our children should 1584
be taught are the usual scholastic subjects taught in schools ; the Roman Catholics believe that a certain amount of attention should be given to teaching the Christian religion. Now, if they believe that and are sincere in it, and are willing to pay for such teaching to their children, why should we not allow them to have schools of that character? Now, here in these Northwest Territories is a system of schools to which I cannot see there should be any objection. It is in reality a national school every hour in the day except from half past three in the afternoon until four o'clock. Now, Sir, I want in particular to draw attention to a description which has been given of these schools by the ex-Minister of the Interior when he was speaking on this question, and I am particularly desirous that this description should go on record in my speech in order that my friends who will read it may know the reasons why I support this Bill. The ex-minister spoke as follows :
My hon. friend the Minister of Customs discussed the matter with great clearness 'last evening, and read from the ordinances to give the House a definite idea of what the condition of affairs was. Let me give what I conceive to be an accurate resume of the provinces which are in force and carried out by these ordinances.
Here are the ordinances as described by the ex-Minister of the Interior:
We have one normal school with uniform normal training for all teachers, and when I say all teachers, I mean teachers of all schools, separate and public ; uniform curricula and courses of study for all schools of the same grade ; uniform text books for all schools whatever ; uniform qualification of teachers for all schools whatever ; complete and absolute control of all schools as to their government and conduct, by the central school authority set up by the legislature under the ordinances ; complete secularization of all schools between 9 o'clock in the morning and 3.30 in the afternoon, except that any school, if the trustees so desire, may be opened with the Lord's prayer ; distribution of the legislative grant to all schools according to educational efficiency on principles set out in chapter 31.
Then, where there is a public school, the minority, Protestant or Roman Catholic, may organize a separate school ; but every separate school is subject absolutely to all the foregoing provisions, and is in every sense of the term a public school. If the Protestants are in the minority in a district, their school is called a separate school ; if the Catholics are in the minority in a district, their school is called a separate school ; hut both are public schools. They are absolutely similar save for one distinction : where the trustees are Protestant, there is Protestant teaching from half-past three to four, and where the trustees are Roman Catholic, there is Roman Catholic teaching from half-past three to four. That is absolutely the only distinction between these schools.
[Stage Direction]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I c-aunot for the life of me see liow the people in tlie Northwest can do anything else than support such a school system as that. This class of schools has been in operation now for thirty years, it was instituted by the people themselves, it has been voted upon and approved as it now stands, ever since 1892. It has given the very best of satisfaction, and the people say themselves that if it were left to them to decide they would continue this identical system. Now why should we not allow them to do so, especially when we find the system itself so excellent? Now we are told by people in Toronto and other places that the people in the Northwest Territories do not want these schools, that there is a terrible state of excitement in the Northwest. Well, Sir, I would like to give you a little evidence of how the people in the Northwest look at this subject, and I will read a letter which has just appeared in the ' Globe ' from a gentleman in the Northwest. He is one of my constituents and has lived in my constituency for many years, but at present he is travelling on the road. The letter is written by Mr. A. B. Howe. He says :
I have been in the west-meaning British Columbia, the Territories and Western Manitoba-since the new year, visiting the lodges of our brotherhood, the Maintenance of Way Employees on the Canadian Pacific Railway-
Mr. Speaker, I do not feel able to go on any further ; I regret that I shall have to stop.
Mr. [DOT]CAMPBELL moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Your committee recommend :
1.	That the services of H. R. Fiset, a member of the staff of translators of the offcial report of the debates be dispensed with and that his salary he paid him up to the 30th instant.
2.	That the chairman of the committee be authorized to employ, in a temporary capacity, the services of a substitute to replace Mr. Fiset, and that such substitute be paid during the time he is employed as translator at the same rate as that paid the other members of the staff.
3.	That the necessary authorization he given the committee to appoint an additional proof reader on the staff and that the said appointment and remuneration, viz., $1,500 per annum, date from the 1st May next.
4.	That with a view of expediting the printing of the French edition of the debates the services of a competent person be secured to superintend the printing of the edition in question.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

[Stage Direction]
Chairman.
Mr. GERVAIS moved that the said report be now concurred in.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that several important changes are recommended there, and as the report has only been presented to-day, I suggest that it be allowed to stand.



REPORT OF AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE-DISCRIMINATION IN RAILWAY RATES.

Mr. PETER H. McKENZIE moved :: That the House do now concur in the third report of the Select Standing 'Committee on Agriculture and Colonization in so far as said report recommends that It be referred to the Railway Commission of Canada.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 0.25 p.m.	.

Thursday, April 27, 1905.