1905-03-28

Mr. A. LAVERGNE.: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to bring to the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice, the part played by some newspaper reporters whose duty it is to acquaint the public with murder cases and other sensational crimes which unfortunately occur now and then in this country. Thus, we see in ' La Presse ' of the 18th instant that a reporter of that newspaper boasts of his having extorted confessions from an unfortunate man charged with murder. I do not think the reporters have the right, nor that it is their duty, to play the part of a detective, and such acts are calculated to harm a person who is

presumed to be innocent until found guilty. It seems to me they are also designed to injure the community by battling the aims of the law.
This report has in large types, among others, the following heading : ' A Visit to the Dungeon.' The reporter says that having asked the prisoner several questions he added :
I went on : Yes, that woman Sclater has made a clean breast of it. and this very day ' La Presse ' shall inform its readers that you are really the murderer, that there is no more doubt about that.
I understand that this is a matter more particularly within the province of the local government, hut it seems to me that [DOT]such conduct is inconsistent with our criminal law and that the lion. Minister of Justice should take some steps in order to put a stop to it. It is with that end in view that I bring this matter to his attention.


Hon. GHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, my attention had not been drawn to the newspaper report which my hon. friend has just read to this House. But I can tell him I am fully in accord with him to blame such an unjustifiable interference by newspaper men in murder cases. On tbe other hand, I must remind the hon. member that the administration of criminal law is not within the jurisdiction of this parliament, which has no other right than to define what constitutes criminal offences. A prisoner does not come under the control of the Department' of Justice until the jury have found him guilty and sentence has been passed upon him by the court.



VACANCY.

Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to refer to the issue of Mr. Speaker's writ with respect to the vacancy in Centre Toronto, and to ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether any steps have been taken by the government to give effect to that writ ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: The matter has been referred to the Secretary of State, who informs me that registration will need to take place. I believe he has attended to that; but if my bon. friend (Mr. Foster) will call attention to the matter to-morrow, I will be able to give a more definite answer.


Mr. E. B. OSLER.: Do I understand tbe Prime Minister to say that a new list must be prepared ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Registration must take place for manhood suffrage voters, I understand.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is that usual ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I believe so.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: 


Edmund Boyd Osler: I understood the election was to be held on the lists of the last election that had taken place.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, I understand not. The last lists may be used, I believe, if they are not more than a year old. But, in any case, I believe there must be a registration of manhood suffrage voters.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is not that an unusual course to take ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think not.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I understand that that is not the course taken as a rule. I may be misinformed, but I believe


Wilfrid Laurier: I am pretty sure my hon. friend is misinformed. In any case to-morrow we will be able to give a final answer.



VACANCY IN THE CABINET.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) might condescend to add a word as to when the government intend to fill the present vacancy in the cabinet by taking in a representative from the Northwest Territories. There are constituencies out there where there is no necessity for registration before an election takes place.


Wilfrid Laurier: That does not occur there.



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir AVilfrid 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. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelie).: Mr. Speaker, in resuming the debate upon'what I hold to be tbe most important piece of legislation tliat bas been discussed by the Canadian parliament since confederation, I feel deeply the responsibility resting upon me both for the vote I shall give as a member of this House and for the opinions I shall express to-day. In the course of the very remarkable speech in which the Prime Minister introduced this legislation over a month ago, I was especially struck with one sentence, and that sentence has remained in my memory ever since. Haying reviewed the legislation through which these Territories had passed since then- entrance into confederation, the Prime Minister said :
' Now the time has come to put upon these Territories the stamp of Canadian nationality.' It is under the light of that principle that I intend to, carry on this discussion. It seems to be that, through the turmoil, passions and prejudices that have been aroused, in sincerity perhaps on the part of people, but surely with no other purpose on

the part of others than to snatch at popular favour at the expense of the better judgment of the country-I say that perhaps through the * turmoil, passions and prejudices we have been passing through for the last month, too many Canadian citizens and Canadian representatives have unfortunately forgotten the important duty they have to perform, and what will be the result of that duty. Sir, we should not forget that those Territories for which we are now legislating will probably contain within half a century or a century, one-half the population of Canada ; therefore if we have any interest in what is going to be the future of our common land, we should be very careful of all the articles of this piece of legislation, as well as of the comments we make upon them.
It is not my intention to discuss at any length, or even to discuss at all, the other features of this Bill, but this one clause so much commented upon-I mean the school question. However, I may say in passing that I thoroughly agree with the position that was taken by the government on the land question. Starting from the same point of view I have just stated, namely, that we must put the stamp of Canadian nationality on these Territories, I think it was the duty of the federal government to retain within their powers the right to legislate over the granting of the lands upon which one half of the population of Canada will be called upon at no distant period to live and to prosper. Although I have the greatest confidence in the public spirit and patriotism of the men who are now at the head of public affairs in the Northwest Territories, I say that before long the time may come when they will not be powerful enough to resist the pressure of the newcomers into that country, men that have perhaps no interest in the unity of Canada, who are not attached to the soil of Canada, who have had no part in the past history of Canada, and who, therefore, by numerical strength, may try to force some obnoxious legislation on the government of these Territories. I say, therefore, that for the protection of the Northwest, for the protection of the present representatives of the Northwest, for the protection of the statesmanship of the men who are now at the head of affairs there, it was good policy on the part of the government to retain the control and administration of the public lands in the Northwest.
Now, coming to the question that has occupied the field of discussion for the last month, I may say that I intend to discuss it from a threefold point of view : from the constitutional point of view, from the religious point of view and from the national point of view. In doing so I shall, as it is my custom, express frankly and clearly what I believe to be true, and in doing so I hope that I shall not offend any man in this House, because every man who is attached to his convictions will understand that in this free parliament of ours every true con-104
vietion should be frankly and sincerely expressed. I may say at once that if there is a regrettable feature in all this discussion, it is not that passions have been aroused, it is not that prejudices have been raised. I entirely agree with the Prime Minister when he says that many of the passions that are now aroused spring from one of the noblest feelings in humanity, they come from an exaggeration, or from a perversion, of that which constitutes the most stable basis of a nation, namely, attachment to religious creed and attachment to national feeling. The men who are committing a crime against this nation are those who, having opinions of their own, are trying to shelter themselves under a constitutional pretense. The great argument which is being used by the opponents of this measure is, I may say, the shibboleth of provincial rights. Now, Sir, there is no man in this parliament who is more attached to provincial rights than I am. I am the descendant of a race that has claimed provincial rights for many years, and just because I am a sincere adherent of provincial rights, I say that if provincial rights are going to be maintained in this country, they canno't be maintained on any sham basis, they can only be maintained on a basis of equal justice to every part of our population and every section, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. What are provincial rights as they relate to the school question ? I am not' going into an acute analysis of every word and every letter in the text of the law, though I am not afraid to take up the study of the constitutional question with any man. But I think that once in a while when lawyers get into a muddle about small points of law, sometimes a cool and common sense outsider may throw a little light upon common truths that are too much forgotten by lawyers.
A few days ago the Prime Minister gave to this House a short history of one clause contained in our national constitution, that clause relating to school matters. But to my mind, if I may be permitted to say so, when a motion was made in this House in 1893 by the late Minister of Public Works, then the member for L'lslet, the Prime Minister gave a still clearer and more complete history of the educational policy of Canada, he gave us the true origin of clause 93 of the British North America Act. What was that origin ? That although for a century the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec had been treated, not only in the most just, but also in the most generous manner, still that minority was averse to joining the confederation compact unless their privileges and rights in the province of Quebec were made absolutely secure. Thereupon it was proposed that the same measure of guarantee which was asked by the Protestant minority of Quebec should be given to the Catholic minority in the province of Ontario and the other provinces. Now, Sir,
I am bound to say that there was at that



time something of the same feeling that exists now, but that feeling was frank enough not to take refuge in legal quibbles. It was stated then, as it is now outside of this parliament, that there should be one rule of justice for the Catholics and another rule of justice for Protestants ; that there should not be one law for both the Catholics and Protestants, but that the Catholics should have one law requiring them to respect the Protestant rights in the province of Quebec, while in the province of Ontario the Catholics should rely upon the generosity of the majority. Indeed, the Hon. A. T. Galt, then the accredited representative of the Protestant minority in Quebec, went to England to secure the adoption of clause 93. Now, eminent legal men in this House, eminent jurists, have tried to make out a case that this clause 93 in the British North America Act should be cut in two, and that wherever a Protestant province outside of Ontario is concerned you should read only the first paragraph of it, thereby giving an absolute freedom to the majority to do whatever they like. I will not give you my own authority, I will not give you the authority of any man of my creed and nationality in opposing the proposition laid down by the leader of the opposition and by Mr. Haul-tain ; I will go to the highest authority in this empire to prove that this argument is but a sham pretense, because the opposition in this parliament is afraid on the one hand to grant justice to the minority in the west and is afraid on the other hand to state it frankly before the people of Quebec.
When the British North America Act was presented to the British parliament, Lord Carnarvon was Secretary of State for the Colonies and was responsible for the legislation as such, and Lord Carnarvon has given a definition of what were the respective powers of the federal and provincial authority. I respectfully beg the liberty of commending that opinion of Lord Carnarvon to the leader of the opposition in this House. That hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) has charged the government with trying to confuse the federal and the provincial powers in this Bill, and throughout the country the press has stated that education belonged to the provinces, and that there was no interference of the federal parliament possible in educational matters, unless in Ontario and Quebec. It has been stated that the powers of the British North America Act are divided into three classes ; those that belong exclusively to the federal government in clause 91 ; those that belong exclusively to the provinces in clause 92 ; and those questions on which both the federal and provincial parliaments have concurrent jurisdiction. A clearer definition was given in the British parliament when the Bill was introduced there, and I suppose we will all accept the good British theory that if there is a division of opinion as to the effect of a law, we must go to Mr. BOURASSA.
the real thought of the enacting legislature in order to properly understand it. Lord Carnarvon said in the House of Lord^ on the 19th of February, 18G7, when moving the second reading of the British North America Act :
In this Bill the division ol powers has been mainly effected by a distinct classification.
Does he say that the classification is threefold ? No, sir.
That classification is fourfold : First, those subjects of legislation which are attributed to the central parliament exclusively. Secondly, those which belong to the provincial legislature exclusively. Third, those which are the subject of concurrent legislation, and fourth, a particular clause which is dealt with exceptionally.
He then enumerates the powers that belong to the provinces and the powers that belong to the federal parliament, none of which includes education ; and he continues :
Lastly, in the 93rd clause which contains the exceptional provisions to which I refer, your lordships will observe some rather complicated arrangement in reference to education. I need hardly say that that great question gives rise to nearly as much earnestness and division of opinion on that as on this side of the Atlantic. This clause has been framed after long and anxious controversy in which all parties have been represented and on conditions to w-hich all have given their consent. The object of the clause is to secure

Complete autonomy to the provinces ? No, Sir.
The object of the clause is to . secure to the religious minority of one province the same rights, privileges and protection which the religious minority of another province may enjoy. The Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada, the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, and the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime provinces will thus stand on a footing of entire equality.
It is true that the origin of that clause was a compact between the delegates from Upper Canada and the delegates from Lower Canada, but fortunately at that time there were at the head of both parties in this country men who had enough sense of justice to understand that iu laying the basis of our confederation the result of a compact between the provinces should be crystallized under law into a triumphant principle, and it was that principle which was embodied in this clause-not to furnish arguments to legal quibblers who might come thirty years later, but on the contrary, to lay down as the basis of justice in this Dominion, that a man, in whatever province of Canada he may choose his abode, can rest assured that justice and equality will reign and that no matter what the majority may attempt to do they cannot persecute the minority.
Later on an interpretation was put upon that clause of the British North America

armaments and rifles ? No. it relied on still more effective means. Were there then any cries raised about the powerful domination of the hierarchy ? No, the Prime Minister of that day, Sir John Macdonald, begged Archbishop Tache, who was then in Rome, for Heaven sake, to come back at once to Canada and establish peace in the Red River settlement. There is no hesitation to call in the hierarchy, when we can benefit by its aid. As the editor of ' La Patrie ' very happily put it the other day : What we are denied is not our right to pay. Oh, no, it is our right to have full freedom. Archbishop Tache acted at once on this appeal. He abandoned his functions at the Ecumenical Council at Rome and came to the Red River settlement, and on his way stopped at Ottawa to meet Sir John Macdonald. ' Take any steps, said Sir John to him, to appease the Indians and the halfbreeds.' Archbishop Tache however did not wrant to impose any pledges on politicians which perhaps they would not be strong enough to keep, and all he promised the native population was that the division of their lands would be respected and that they would have the free exercise of their religion and the schools they preferred for their children. What has become of those pledges ? The lands were divided against the wishes of those people and a second rebellion took place-a rebellion which has been justified by no less an authority than Colonel Denison who will not be charged with disloyalty and French demagogy.
What has become of the religious liberty, of the liberty of teaching of the Catholic population of the Northwest ? It has been abolished in Manitoba, against all pledges, against all words of honour ; and the author of that legislation can gain applause in this House by saying : ' If I have a title to the approval and support of the people of Canada, it is because I have gone back upon the pledges given in the name of the Queen of England to a law-abiding and peaceful population.' This, Mr. Speaker, is what we have come to. And now we are called upon to bow to this storm of feeling that has been aroused and to allow a still greater invasion of the rights of the people of that territory. It is time to face the storm. The powers that have raised that storm do not deserve that we should acknowledge their sovereignty. The principle of provincial rights is against them. The constitution is against them. The law is against them. Past pledges are against them. I will go further and say that a religious principle is at stake in this matter.
Under the terms of the capitulation of Montreal, in 1760, and of the Treaty of Paris of 1763, the free exercise of the Catholic religion was promised to the settlers who remained in Canada. And I say that there is no free exercise of the Catholic religion unless the Catholic parent has the full right to give to his child the education he wishes to give according to his conscientious be-Mr. BOtTRASSA.
fiefs. It is strange that there should exist in this country a prepossession in the minds of some people to the effect that in matters of education Roman Catholics have nothing to complain of if, in the public schools aided by the government, there is no sectarian education. As against this, let me put the authority, not of Roman Catholics, not of French Canadians, not of Canadian politicians, but of members of the Privy Council. During the appeal cases on the Manitoba school question this argument to whicii I Iiave referred was brought forward-that there was no injustice under the laws of Manitoba, that the Catholics were on exactly the same footing as all others with respect to education, because education in the public schools was perfectly non-sectarian. What did Lord Watson say about that ?
These kind of questions were more or less burning questions in Great Britain about the year 1865 or 1866. and during the whole of that period, as far as my knowledge and experience goes, there were large classes of Protestants, and especially Presbyterian Protestants, who I am glad to sqe are recognized as Christians in Manitoba, who wrere in favour of secular education, and think that religious education ought to be imparted in the family, or by the church, and not in a secular school, where they are learning the rudiments of knowledge. On the other hand there are a great number of Episcopalian Protestants who take a different view ; but I have never yet met a Roman Catholic who took that view.
And what did Lord Morris say later on ? The point had been urged that the Catholics ought to accept these schools, and Lord Morris said :
But what is the use of discussing other matters ? Nobody can deny that Roman Catholics cannot avail themselves of the system.
And Lord Watson, speaking especially of the idea of the denominational school in the mind of the Roman Catholics, said :
I rather think that the original idea of denominational schools is a school of a sect of people who are desirous that their own religion should be taught in it, and taught in their own w'ay-a doctrinal religion ; and not only taught because religion Is taught in a non-sectarian school, but, in the view of those who founded denominational schools originally, the theory was that their views of religion and teaching of their religion should permeate and run through all the education given in the school-that, whether it were rudimentary science or anything else, there should be an innoeulation of the youthful mind with particular religious views.
And, in the judgment that was delivered in the second case. Lord Herschell said, speaking of the public schools system of Manitoba :
While the Catholic inhabitants remain liable to local assessment, for school purposes, the proceeds of that assessment are no longer destined to any extent for the support of Catholic schools, but afford the means of maintaining schools which they regard as no more suitable for the education of Catholic children than if

they were distinctly Protestant in their character. ... It is true that the religious exercises prescribed for public schools are not to be distinctively Protestant, for they are to be ' non-sectarian,' and any parent may withdraw his child from them. There may be many who share the view expressed in one of the affidavits in Barrett's case, that there should not be any conscientious objections on the part of Roman Catholics to attend such schools, if adequate means be provided elsewhere of giving such moral and religious training as may be desired. But all this is not to the purpose. As a matter of fact the objection of Roman Catholics to schools such as alone receive state aid under the Act of 1890 is conscientious and deeply rooted.
Is it not a strange fact that in England, the centre and heart of Protestantism, where the Catholic population is but a mere handful, where the idea of Roman Catholicism is generally associated in the public mind with the Irish land question or the agitation in favour of home rule for Ireland-is it not strange that Protestant statesmen and lawyers should have a better understanding and a broader view of what the rights of Roman Catholics are than in this country, where Roman Catholics form two-fifths of the population, and where no man can point to an action, individual or collective, to the discredit of Roman Catholics so far as their loyalty, their observance of the law, or their national spirit, is concerned ?
And this brings me to a question that has been lightly touched upon in this House by-I was going to say the yellow hierarchy-which has been lightly touched upon by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. iSproule). And-it is just as well to frankly admit it-this question is the very basis of this discussion. I wish to treat completely, if I can, the question of the influence of the hierarchy and the alleged sinister motives animating the Roman Catholics in this House. I have referred to the case of Archbishop Tachfi in 1870. That was only one instance. Let us take our history since the beginning ; and I may say that when I read what is now appearing in the Ontario newspapers, I cannot help asking myself what kind of history can be taught in the public schools of Ontario ? Eleven years after this country had been acquired by England by treaty, when practically the .whole population of Canada was French and Catholic, when the Englishspeaking Protestant population consisted almost wholly of a few traders in the city of Quebec, as the House knows, some trouble arose in certain English-speaking Protestant communities to the south, and some regiments, entirely composed of Anglo-Saxons and Protestants, came to besiege Quebec. The Governor of that day was named Guy Carleton-I do not know whether his name is ever mentioned in the public school histories of Ontario. When it was known that these regiments were on their way to Quebec, Governor Carleton issued a proclamation requiring all those who were not loyal to the British Crown to leave the city, and
calling upon those who were loyal to the Crown to remain and defend it. Who went out ? Who staid in ? All the English Protestants left the city and went to the Island of Orleans to wait for the result. The French Canadians, who have been conquered twelve years before, remained there and saved Canada to the British Crown. Mind j'ou. there were among the Anglo-Saxon rebels men of our race and creed. There were French regiments in the American army. Appeals were made to us by men of our blood, men whom the French race had no reason to be ashamed of. Among them was the Marquis de Lafayette. And what was our answer to the Marquis de Lafayette ? Under the guidance of that dominating hierarchy, we declared that we believed in the pledge given us by the King of England. We declared : The free practise of our religion is guaranteed to us ; and, so long as the King will not go back on us. we will never go back on him.
Thirty-six years later there was another little disturbance between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant family. Canada was again invaded ; and remember that in those 36 years of time, the French Canadians had been ill-treated, their public men had been put in gaol because they wanted to have what ? The same right that British citizens enjoyed in any other part of the empire. Their bishops had been ,threatened, with the same (treatment if they still dared to appoint parish priests instead of allowing Governor Craig to nominate them himself. In spite of that when the time of danger came, what did the representative of that obnoxious hierarchy say? He said : ' My brethren, it is true we have been ill-treated, but I still believe that the law of justice will be stronger with our King than injustice ; stand by him, be loyal, be constitutional and the time of justice will come.' The French Canadians fought at Chateauguay and elsewhere and once again contributed to save Canada.
Twenty-five years later, the same ill-treatment having been carried on, some of our people rebelled, wrongly I think, not because their case was not just, but because, as then' leader at the time, Papineau, told them, the rule of any British citizen was to carry on constitutional agitation but to avoid rebellion. In any case, at the request of an English speaking Protestant physician of the British army they rebelled in arms. Who stood out against the rebellion ? The same obnoxious representatives of the hierarchy who asked the French Canadians to remain peaceful.
A few years later an annexation movement was started in Canada. By whom ? By the hierarchy ? By the Jesuits ? By French Canadians and Catholics ? No, by the very political fathers of the hon. gentlemen opposite, because the British Crown at last had opened Its ears to the claims of its French speaking subjects and was beginning to grant justice, and as those gen-

tlemen had been fed on injustice for years and years they rebelled against the Crown and pelted the governor because he had granted a measure of justice to the French Canadians; and immediately after that they issued an annexation manifesto. Some French Canadians signed it and others were disposed to sign it. Again came the obnoxious power of the hierarchy who told the people of Canada :	' No, be true and
loyal, the day of justice is beginning to dawn and it will come by and by.' Cater on when Confederation was being discussed it was not, entirely acceptable to the people of Quebec. They had some suspicion of the treatment they might receive at the hands of the English speaking majority which up to that moment had not been such as to give them much confidence for the future. Again the hierarchy stood up and asked the people of Quebec to accept the compact which had been entered into. Has the hon. member for East Grey <Mr. Sproule) and his colleagues of the same- might I say hierarchy or sect ? no, of the same group of thought, if there is any thought in that group-have these gentlemen ever reflected on that point ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Heap it on strong.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They have, I think, one group of allies in Quebec. There has been for many years past a small anticlerical party that has been using all these arguments against the domination of the priests, against the power of the hierarchy, but what has been their aim and object ? It has always been to throw down the British flag; and the great grievance they have against the bishops is that the bishops prevented us from joining the United States in 1774, again in 1812, and opposed the rebellion of 1837, supported British supremacy in 1849 and induced us to accept confederation. When newspapers in Ontario are tilling their sheets with attacks and insults on the hierarchy they are simply insulting the men who, for 100 years have been the bulwark of British government in Canada. If there was any sincerity in these men, who are the great apostles and preachers ot loyalty, they should feel ashamed of the attack they are now launching on the Catholic bishops of Canada, because when they attack the hierarchy they attack the party that has always stood by the British Crown, that has always stood by law, that has always stood by the flag that has given us the basis of a nation in this country.
Coming back to the point where I left m.v argument, it is just as well to realize the position in which we are. When you speak of the liberty granted to the Roman Catholic to go into a non-sectarian school there is no such thing as liberty. He may abide by the law if he be forced to send his child to such a school, but his religious liberty is interfered with. When, by any measure in this House or in any provincial parliament Mr. BOURASSA.
you force a Roman Catholic to send his children to a non-sectarian school, you are committing an act of injustice just as direct, just as much against the conscience of the Roman Catholic, as if you would force the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec to contribute to Roman Catholic denominational schools. This is the position urged upon and this is what was acknowledged frankly by Ford Watson, Ford Morris and Ford Herschell. May I say that there should be in this House a little more of that broad British spirit of tolerance, so that at last when we come to judge the feelings and the convictions of our fellow-citizens we should not trample on their feelings and override their convictions-we should endeavour to know the convictions of their hearts and to learn their thoughts ?
Sir, there is no solid ground left for those who are opposing this legislation as far as school matters are concerned. There is just one ground ; it may be a good one for some, but on the whole it is not a lasting one : and that is the right of might. If the rule is to be laid down that there is to be one law to protect the Protestant minority of the province of Quebec, and that the same law shall not apply to Catholic minorities elsewhere, so far, so good ! But let men be strong enough to stand up here and say : ' No, the Catholics of the western provinces cannot enjoy in the west what the Protestants enjoy in Quebec, because, on the one hand, they are Catholic and on the other hand they are Protestants.' Pet a statesman be strong enough to stand up in the House and say that, and he will strike the root of this question of legislation. There was only one man who came near that point, and I acknowledge his sincerity. It was the hon. member for Brandon the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton).


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Sir, on this ground, I know my words are useless. I know that I probably represent the views of very few men in this House, but there is one thing i would like to impress upon the minds of my Protestant English speaking fellow members. It is that when one party gets up and says that justice cannot be done to the Roman Catholics in the Northwest and another party gets up and says there must be only a scant measure of justice because it cannot afford to have the people accept a full measure of justice, allow me to say that I think the good people of Ontario are not fairly represented in this House.


An hon. MEMBER.: Bosh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I cannot believe that if any member in this House would go to his constituency, even the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)-although I think the great process with that hon. gentleman would be to bring his mind to the point of understanding the question-I do not be-

32 TO
lieve that if any lion, member in this House, even if he represents the most Protestant constituency, would go to his county and say :	' Here is the treatment which is accorded to our fellow citizens in the province of Quebec, here is the treatment which is accorded not only under the written law but under the law of the humane heart of the French Canadians who even at the time when they were persecuted by the British Crown always gave an ample measure of justice to the Protestant minority. Now. we ask yon to stand by us in giving the same treatment to the Catholics of the western provinces that the Protestants have in the east. We ask you to remain true to the pledges given to that effect by the greatest statesmen of this country-I do not believe that such language would fail to bring a fair reply from the good people of Ontario.
Let the Liberals be true to the memory of Mr. Blake, of Mr. Mackenzie and even of Mr. George Brown, because when Mr. George Brown made up his mind that this compact should be observed, he was courageous enough to say that it should be observed in fact and for ever. So far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned, I do not wish, on an occasion like this, to speak from a party point of view. I may say to the leader of the opposition, for whom, on all other questions I have had up to this time the greatest respect, that when I listened to him the other day, I came to the conclusion that he was not speaking for the Conservative party, he was not showing himself to be the heir of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper, but he was only voicing the opinions of a gentleman who was obliged to find an abode in the county of Carleton in order to obtain a seat in this House. The hon. gentleman is broad enough-I render him that justice- be is broad enough by birth, by nature and by education to be fair-minded, that he had rot the courage to stand by his new flag ; and he felt obliged to gather up a pile of small documents and papers behind which to shelter himself in his denial of justice.
We have frequently been told :	Why
can't you trust the majority of the people of the Northwest ? Well, Sir, here again I must speak frankly ; and I say :	No. we
cannot. Suppose we could trust the people who are living there now ; is there a man in this House childish enough to say that the condition of things which exists now is sure to exist in the Northwest fifty years hence ? What will be the population up there ? Who knows what feelings will dominate the majority there ? Who knows but that the great majority of the people there will be settlers coming from a land where the idea, not only of non-sectarian schools but of Godless schools, now prevails, and to my mind, to the great detriment of the future of the republic ? Who can tell what the future will be ? But confining myself entirely to a survey of past events, I say now7 that we cannot trust the present majority of the people of the Northwest to stand for right and justice. Their record is before us. It is my intention to make a comparison, for the enlightenment of our friends up there, if my words can reach them, and for the enlightenment of my English speaking Protestant friends in the House and out of it ; I am going to make a comparison between the history . of the school legislation in the Nortlvwest and the history of the school legislation in Quebec, and I am ready to abide by the judgment that w7ill be passed by any fair minded man, it not by his vote, at least by his conscience.
The leader of the opposition made another fine legal argument to show that the people of the Northwest have never legislated on that subject. I admit that from a narrow legal point of view the people of the Northwest did not legislate freely, because they were bound by the Northwest Territories Act, just as this parliament cannot legislate freely because we are bound by the British North America Act, and just as any parliament in this country is not free because all the powers possessed by any legislative body in Canada is limited by imperial legislation. But I presume that we can ascertain the feelings of the people of the Northwest by considering their legislation. In 1885, ten years after the Northwest Territories Act was passed, legist latiou v7as enacted by the legislature which, within its scope, was just as free as this parliament. And wjiat did they do ? As the ex-Minister of the Interior clearly told us the other day, they passed a law quite in accord with the letter and with the spirit of clause 11 of the Act of 1875. They passed a law7 similar to the one we have in Quebec, a law by which Catholics had the management of their own schools, had the choice of their own text books, and had the right to have their schools inspected by men of their own creed-but all under government supervision. They enjoyed separate schools, not only in name but in fact, as the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) well stated the other day. The inspectors had to be appointed by the government, but they were chosen by the Catholic section, just as in the province of Quebec Protestant schools are inspected by inspectors chosen by the Protestant section of the Board of Education. The books used in the separate schools of the Northwest were also selected by the Catholic section, and approved by the government. That state of things went on for some years, and then, in 1892, after several other ordin-anees had been passed, the separate school system, as the member for Brandon stated the other day, was w7iped out. Lately. Mr. Haultain, who is now here claiming liberties for his people, has given utterance to his lofty opinions on this matter, he has

said :	If I were a dictator to-morrow I
would not abolish separate schools, all I want is freedom for my province. But Mr. Haultain never told the country of a little fact in his political career which I will take the liberty of divulging to the House. When Mr. Dalton McCarthy, in 1892 and in 1894, brought into this House a Bill to abolish separate schools and the French language in the Northwest Territories, he was acting upon an address voted in the legislature of the Northwest Territories, moved by Mr. Cayley and seconded by Mr. Haultain. Therefore I think I now have the right to say, as claiming some liberty for the minority in the Northwest, that I have no confidence in Mr. Haultain, who now comes here posing as our friend, but who was one of the first men to start a movement in the legislative assembly to abolish the separate schools.


Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY.: Would the hon. gentleman allow me ? I think he is a little inaccurate in stating that this was legislation to abolish separate schools. The legislation then sought was only to delegate to the legislative assembly the right to do as they saw fit; and they will of course continue the separate school system if they so choose.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am glad my hon. friend has interrupted me, because he "affords me an opportunity of illustrating once more what I said a little while ago, that every time an act of persecution is committed, it is committed under a false pretense. Everybody knew the views of the hon. gentleman-and whose views I certainly respect-who was so closely connected with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L. McCarthy). The motion which was made m this House by Mr. Dalton McCarthy, and which he developed by a very eloquent argument, was to wipe out the separate schools and wipe out the French language on the ground that there should be only one race and one language in this country. It is useless to resort to legal quibbles. The purpose of Mr. Haultain and of Mr. McCarthy was to abolish Catholic education and the French language ; they succeeded so far as the language is concerned, and they succeeded to a large extent in so far as schools are concerned, according to the testimony of the hon. member for Brandon.
There is one fruther point I would like to draw to the attention of our friends on this side of the House. I have listened to the very nice words, words with which I agree completely, spoken to us by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs ; I entirely agree with their conciliatory sentiments. I especially coincide with the Minister of Finance, who gave us a good illustration and a strong re-enforcement of the argument I have tried to make, when he painted the happy condition of Mr. BOURASSA.
things which exist in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, where the majority, in order to do justice to their Catholic fellow citizens, had to grant them separate schools in fact. So it is not only in Quebec and Ontario that we have separate schools. I have visited the maritime provinces frequently, and was happy to observe the good relations which exist between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants there.
But, may I suggest to the Minister of Finance, if the Roman Catholic minority had not developed the strength of numbers that it represents to-day in those provinces, would it be treated as it is treated ? We know the history of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I do not want to bring up old feuds, but I am bound to say, looking through the history of all the-provinces of Canada, that while in the province of Quebec the same ample measure of justice was always granted to the minority, unfortunately in all the English speaking provinces there was a time when the passions of the majority were aroused and successfully aroused against the Catholic minority. In consequence, a feeling has developed-not of distrust-but a feeliug has developed amongst us that if we want equality and peace to reign in this country, we must give to the representatives of the majorities in the English speaking provinces the right to do what Sir Oliver Mowat did. I took an active part in two elections in the province of Ontario ; I was but a boy at the time, but I was proud to stand by Sir Oliver Mowat and help in his campaign for justice and equality. I was living on the borders of the province of Ontario and I crossed the river of my own free will without being asked by anybody, without being known by anybody, to do what I could in support of the old statesman. What was the argument used by Sir Oliver Mowat? He was prudent and he knew of the power of the appeals made by such men as the member of East Grey. When the system of separate schools was attacked in Ontario, Sir Oliver Mowat said. 'I shall not discuss the relative merits of separate schools and public schools ; I am not any partisan of separate schools ; but separate schools have been established in this province under law, and therefore it is useless to agitate against the law of the land.' What I want is that the future rulers of the Northwest may be put in such a position that when passions are aroused and prejudices fomented by such men as we have in this House, by such newspapers as we have in this country, these future rulers of the Northwest will be in a position to say-when passion is too strong or when they are not strong enough to oppose it-
' What is the use ? there is a law protecting the minority.' I do not wish ito cast any aspersion on the breadth of mind of any

future statesman of Canada, but it is no harm for the peace of the country, it is no harm for the good of our land, that should prejudices exist between creeds and nationalities, every Canadian statesman, whether he be weak or strong, whether he be popular or unpopular, can always find a shelter under the constitution of our country and be able to point out to all men that there is laid down in our constitution the clear written principle that equal justice exists for all and that Catholics as well as Protestants have the right to live in this country.
it may be said : But what is all this trouble about ? The minority in the west is satisfied ; it is only the hierarchy, it is only the Quebec crowd who are trying to impose their will upon the Territories. Sir, that is one of the most cynical arguments that lias been used so far. We have the testimony of the member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton), who ought to know, that when the ordinances abolishing separate schools were passed in the Northwest, a protest was made. The member for Brandon-I do not know if it was in a moment of forgetfulness. .or if it was because he also has been drawn into the dangerous abyss in which some gentlemen opposite are having such a fine time these days-but the member for Brandon said the protest came from the Roman Catholic clergy and in order to convince us. he immediately gave the opinion of two of the most eminent laymen of the Northwest Territories ; two fathers of families, two representatives of the people, one the Lieutenant Governor to-day and the other a judge of the Supreme Court. These were the members of the hierarchy quoted by the hon. member from Brandon. Tnese gentlemen came here and they said:	1 An injustice has been done us ; we
are deprived of the right of giving to our children the education which our conscience binds us to give ; our money is taken for the support of schools we cannot attend.' But, they were sent away from Ottawa ; they were not numerous enough probably to obtain justice. Then they went to the provincial assembly and again they laid their case at the foot of the Crown-as the Crown was represented there-and again they were found to be too weak and too few. Because they did not rebel in arms, because they accepted the established state of things; a state of things which was a breach of the compact, a state of things which in the words of Sir John Thompson and the words of the member for Brandon, constituted a legal encroachment upon their rights; because they did not rebel in arms; because they followed the advice that has always been given by the hierarchy to the Catholics of this country to be peaceful ; now they are told : ' You are satisfied ; ask for nothing more because you can't expect it.' To my friends who are saying to us :
' Be conciliatory ; let us cut in two what remains.' I shall cite a little illustration which may perhaps help some of them to realize the situation. Suppose that Canada stands in the position of a father having two sons, big Peter and little Paul. He gives $4 to big Peter and $2 to little Paul and he says : ' Now, boys, agree together, work together, do the best you can with the money I gave you.' Once they are on the street big Peter gets after little Paul, beats him and takes $1.50 of his two dollars. These gentlemen opposite stand up and say : Don't tyrannize big Peter ; but force little Paul to give Peter the 50 cents he has left. And hon. gentlemen on this side of the House get up and say : Be conciliatory, take those 50 cents left to Paul, and divide it with big Peter, for after all big Peter is a good fellow.


Mr. W. P. MAOLEAN.: Little Paul comes from Nova Scotia.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not going to be dragged into provincial limits just now. Now, Sir, there is another subject which is much talked of in the public press, but which has not been treated of in this House and X think one voice at least should be raised in parliament to protest against it. It is said : ' Admitting that the constitution allows you to grant separate schools to the Northwest, yet you should not fasten upon these people such a bad system of education which has made of Spain, of Italy, of France, of all Catholic countries, the scum of the earth.' And we are told : Look at the province of Quebec, look at the south of Ireland, a degraded population, a low-minded ignorant people.
I propose to deal for a few moments with the subject of Catholic education, with what it has done for the world, in what way it has succeeded and why it has not always succeeded. Here again I am tempted to ask: What kind of history is taught in the public schools of this country ? I know as well as any man, and I have learned to know in the Catholic schools where I was educated, that there is such a thing as the evolution of nations, that nations in our own age as well as nations in the past, and as well as nations to come for all time, have and will have their periods of prosperity, and their days of decadence.
The race from which I sprung has done so much for the enlightenment and civilization of this world that I can, without undue baseness, admit that the Anglo-Saxon is now ahead among the nations. But I may remind my English speaking friends that three centuries before there was anything like English civilization, Catholic Spain had covered the world not only with physical power, but with civilization and enlightenment-with schools of higher education and primary education and with a knowledge of all then available sciences that no nation

lias since surpassed ; and this is no disparagement of the English any more than the present pre-eminence of the Anglo-Saxon is a disparagement of the Spanish. May I remind my Englisr-speak-ing friends also that three hundred years ago, in Venice and Genoa, those Catholic-ridden states, the system of book-keeping, of stock exchange, of currency, of everything which the Anglo-Saxon is using now with such success, was practiced to an extent which brought to those little republics a degree of prosperity and civilization which, considering their time and their size, has never been surpassed. I could go on with examples like these ; I could make a history of the world with such examples, after the manner of a speech which was made in this House some years ago by I think my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes), who began at the creation and ended with the end of the world. I will content myself with stating the truism that nations grow, develop, prosper, and then pass into oblivion. The Greeks have passed ; the Romans have passed ; the Italians and Spanish have passed. Let the Anglo-Saxon look to the Slav and the Japanese before he concludes that he possesses the world for ever. But this is not the point. The point is, what has Catholic education done for Catholic countries ? If our friends who are making so much noise about the [DOT]corruption of Catholic countries would go to the depth of the history of those countries, they would find that their greatest time of material as well as moral prosperity coincided with the time when the Catholic church, not dominated, but inspired those countries, and when Catholic education high or low, was given to all classes of the people. Spain began to decay when greeders in the colonies displaced the missionaries-when the King of Spain lent himself to the anti-Catholic movement which started in France and which led to the abolition of the Jesuit order. The same thing happened in France. But why not go for an example to countries which are now under Catholic influence ? The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)-I do not know what text book he got his information from, but if it is authorized in any province, it should be taken from the schools at once-spoke of the national non-sectarian system of education carried on in Belgium. Now, Belgium is one of the most prosperous countries on earth, and there you have Catholic education right through, from the primary school to the university. But let me point to a Protestant nation, Germany, where thirty-three years ago the Prussians abolished Catholic education and expelled the Jesuits and other religious orders from the country. What do you see there now ? The German Emperor. observing the progress which Catholic education has made in the empire, is turning to the Catholic hierarchy and asking them to save his empire from the dangers Mr. BOURASSA.
of socialism. Might I refer some of our friends also to the comments appearing daily in the American papers and reviews, coming not from Catholic priests or bishops or Catholic religious orders, but from Protestants, eminent Protestants, men of science, professors of universities and statesmen, among a few statesmen who find their way to political life in the United States, who recognize that what must save the United States from the social plague which is going to involve all nations between the crushing burden of capitalism and the equally crushing burden of standing armies, is the influence of the Catholic church on the working classes. I am not saying this in disparagement of any other creed ; but, in view of the fact that during the past two months railing attacks have been made against the creed of two millions of the subjects of His Majesty in this country, I feel that I should stand up here and say that the Catholic people and the Catholic hierarchy will never suffer when compared with any other creed or sect.
But, leaving aside foreign countries, and coming to my own poor province, the province of Quebec, let us study for a moment what has been the influence of the Catholic church on the development of education in that province ? It is generally contended in all English-speaking provinces that we are-I will not say an inferior race, because I do not think that is accepted by a great number of the English-speaking people ; but it is very often contended that the system of education in the province of Quebec is an inferior one, and that that province has a greater number of illiterate people than any of the other provinces. It may be that a little insight into the history of the educational system of Quebec will throw some light on the subject. Before the conquest, the French government had given lavishly what was necessary for the support of public education in New France. At the time of the cession there was necessarily a great disturbance of the whole system. Five years after the cession of Canada the Jesuit order was suppressed by the Pope ; and, strange to say, there was nobody at the time to raise an argument against -the English government for using a papal bull. On the day that papal decision was registered, all the estates belonging to the Jesuits were seized by the British government. Those estates had been given to the Jesuits with the legal obligation of founding colleges and secondary and primary schools ; and before the conquest they had established two colleges and a great number of primary schools-a greater proportion being given to the people of New France than were given in the British colonies to the south. After the estates of the Jesuits were seized by the British government, were the proceeds used for the education of the people ? No. The Montreal College was destroyed, and was replaced by the Champ de Mars.

ue Quebec College was seized and the pupils and professors turned out, and soldiers put in. For thirty years after representative institutions were given to us, we petitioned the British government to give us back those estates, not to return them to the Jesuits, but to use them for the purposes of education, and we were refused. For twenty-seven years we were refused any education law. In 1801 the government imposed on us a system of education under the control of the Anglican bishop of Quebec, through which Anglican students of theology were sent to all the Catholic centres with the avowed object-because at that time they had the frankness to avow the purpose of their operations-of tutning young French Canadians into English-speaking Protestants. Naturally our people refused to send their children to those schools: but while the legislative assembly was voting money for educational purposes, the English governors handed the proceeds over to the Protestant schools and gave not one cent to the Catholics. That continued during 24 years until at last the legislative assembly passed a law which gave the Catholic church wardens the right to take a part of the revenues of their poor parish churches and devote it to the building and maintaining of their own schools. And at the same time the Protestant schools were kept up with the moneys paid by the Catholics and appropriated by the government. That went on until 1841, when the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada became united. It was only then that the province of Quebec obtained its first school law. What was that law? It was a law which Lord Sydenham forced upon his advisers. Under it the whole school system was put under the municipal authorities, who were appointed by the governor personally, and the governor was careful to appoint a majority of English speaking Protestants to regulate the school system of a population, nine-tenths of which were French speaking Catholics. It was only in 1846 that we finally secured a system of schools satisfactory to our people. So that during 100 years we were deprived of the right of using our own money for the education of our own people. Is it then surprising that there should be some people in our province to-day who can neither read or write? While the English speaking immigrants who did not profess the Catholic religion, found on our shores, even in the Catholic province of Quebec, a system of education suited to their consciences, under which their own schools were entitled to their proper share of the public money, and while thesje people thud come from the British Isles or the United States, from countries where there was an established system of education which suited them, for a hundred years the great majority of the province of Quebec were deprived of the opportunity of educating their children. Am
I not then justified in saying that if you will compare the results of our education, which ig only fifty years old, with those of the education in the English speaking provinces, which practically had no beginning, because it was simply the continuation of the American and English systems, we have no reason to be ashamed. As far as higher education is concerned-and that education with us is entirely in the hands of our clergy-let me give, not my testimony, but that of a professor of McGill University, Dr. Johnstone, who some yeax-s ago made certain comments upon the difference between the attainments of the pupils of McGill University who came from the Catholic colleges and those who came from the high schools. He was struck with the fact that thei'e was always a preponderance of points secured by those who came from the Catholic colleges, and he said:
There was no possibility ot mistaking the superiority of the men with classical training. I was so struck with what appeared to be a marked difference between the two divisions of the classes that without suspecting what I now believe to be the true course of it, I, many years ago, assigned separate rows of seats in the lecture room to them, in order to make quite sure of the fact. Year after year there was the same invariable result.
May I also refer to the results of .the examinations carried on at the Manitoba University, where the pupils of the Jesuits college of St. Boniface compete in the pro-poi'tion of 1 to 15 or 18-thi-ee or five out of 80 or 100 altogether ? Those pupils of the Jesuits' college generally carry off from thii'ty to thirty-five per cent of the points and medals given. True, we are not now discussing higher education, but prim-ai-y schools. Well, if the primary school system be so l'otten as it is said to be, surely it could not send to our colleges young men who are so successful when they come into competition with the students from the other schools. But I look at the question from another point of view. Suppose there should be a little less book-keeping taught in our primary schools than is taught in the public schools. I lay it down as a basis of social law that the right to educate the child belongs in the first place to its parents; and, therefore, when the state takes the place of the parent, it is bound to give that child the same moral education which the father would give it in his own house. Secondly, the duty of the government is to develop law-abiding, broad-minded citizens; and, thirdly, to give the child school knowledge. I claim if that rule is considered our system has given better results than any other. We never see in the province of Quebec or in any pai't of the country in which Catholics can have any control, the display of passion and prejudice whicli we are now witnessing among those who advocate public schools as against separate schools. We see in the outbursts to-day

in which sectarian prejudice is appealed to, the result of public school education, and we are justified in saying that in the province of Quebec, under our system, we have never produced any thing of the kind.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has pointed with pride to his own province. But there is still one province ahead of Nova Scotia as far as the spirit of tolerance is concerned, and that is the province of Quebec. Do some of our friends who make so much noise about the illiteracy and narrow mindedness of that province under priestly control, know that Lower Canada was the first self-governing part of the British Empire, not excluding Great Britain and Ireland, where disabilities were removed from the Jews? We emancipated the Jews in the province of Quebec before the Catholics were emancipated in England. At the very time that we in the province of Quebec were denied our most sacred natural rights, every new creed that came to that province was given complete civil and corporate powers. Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists were granted by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec the same powers to keep civil registers and act as corporate bodies as were given Catholics. Do they know that at the time when we were denied the right of teaching our children according to our conscience, we always put Protestant schools on the same footing as our own as regards the law and the constitution? I go further, as far as the working of our system of education is concerned. May I refer hon. members to a speech made by the right hon. the First Minister in 1893 in which he said in substance : ' I know that the law protects the minority in the province of Quebec, but there are many ways in which an unwilling majority can evade the law-and we have evidence of that in several provinces of the Dominion. Suppose, for instance, the government of the province of Quebec were to abolish the Protestant section of the Council of Education. Would not that be an infamous thing which would call for redress at the hands of a federal government?' Well, that was done by the government of the Northwest Territories some years ago. But if it be infamous to abolish the supervision of Protestant schools by Protestants, how comes it to be perfectly proper to abolish the supervision of Catholic schools by Catholics? How can one thing be good in the west and bad in the east? How can it be just in the west and unjust in the east? If we are to make a nation of this country, surely every one will admit that the principle must prevail, not in word but in fact, of equal rights and equal justice to all.
To again give the House an idea of what kind of argument is offered to our English speaking friends these days on this question, may I read a few lines written by a very talented gentleman in the city of Quebec. and an Anglican minister, the Rev. F. G. Scott:


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If we are to be a house divided againsr *

if we are to set province against province and perpetuate our racial discords, there can be but one ultimate result, and that is the submergence of Canada by the United States and the grand sweeping away of all of our civil strife by the uprooting of treaties, rights and legal safeguards under a nation that recognizes no state religion and tolerates no duality of speech.
To avert that, to save Canada to Canadians, we must establish, as I have said a broad spirit of Canadian sentiment and that can only be done by a system of national common schools. The day is past when we looked to England's interests first. Canada comes first to Canadians ; and to the west, broad, tolerant and expansive, we look for the light and healing of the spirit of true Canadianism that will put an end to the inherited animosities which darken and strangle the national life of the older Canada.
And then there is this still better :
Of course, the true inwardness of, this attempt to force upon the new provinces a school system distasteful to them, is the desire to establish^ French Canadian colonies in the west, where separate schools would enable them to establish the French language over wide areas. The means for doing this would be readily furnished by the religious communities expelled from France, and it would not be many years before there would grow up in the west a new Quebec, with all its racial, lingual and sectarian animosities, eating the life out of true Canadian nationalism.
There are English-speaking Protestants from my province in this House. I wish the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) were here. I see here my hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Parmelee). And the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) is present. I will ask any one of these Protestant representatives from my province, whether present at the moment or not, and whether Conservative or Liberal, and regardless of their opinions in the legislation that is now before us, to state frankly in this House whether there is, in (heir opinion, in any part of Canada, or in any part of the world, so much toleration of so much breadth of mind as that shown by French Canadians towards their Englishspeaking Protestant compatriots. The other day a letter was published in the Toronto 1 News ' which attracted my attention. It was written by a gentleman in the town o1 Aylmer in the neighbouring county of Wright. This is what it said, speaking of the schools of Quebec :
The separate school system is one of distrust, suspicion and antagonism. ... As it is, the priesthood are given control and proficiency, while they teach the merest rubbish for history, while the teaching of the catechism leaves no other impression possible but that Protestants are a curse to the earth.
Now, that letter was written in the county of Wright opposite Ottawa. That county is two-thirds French Canadian and four-fifths Catholic. There was a by-election in that county three weeks
*3281

before that letter was written. Three candidates were in the field. The Liberal candidate was an Irish Canadian without a drop of French blood in his veins. The Conservative candidate was a Scotch Presbyterian without any trace of French Canadian biood. A third candidate came into the field and appealed to my fellow-countrymen, saying : ' This county is two-thirds French Canadian ; you should not vote for an Irishman or a Scotchman ; you should vote for me, a French Canadian.' And what was the result ? The French Canadian who appealed to racial passion in that county, notwithstanding that the voters were brought up under this priestly education, notwithstanding that they were educated in schools where they were ' taught that Protestants were a curse Co the earth '-this French Canadian lost his deposit. The Irish Canadian was elected. And the Scotch Pres-[DOT] byterian received the strongest Conservative vote that had been cast in the county for years and years. And, in the city of Hull, where the whole population is under * priestly education,' where the teachers are not merely the ordinary parish priests, but priests who belong to the monastic orders, some of these ' abominable orders ' of which the Reverend Scott is so afraid ; in the city of Hull where the schools are wholly in the hands of friars and nuns, and where any man who spent his childhood there has received no other education than that given by these friars and nuns under the control of the hierarchy ; in that Liberal Catholic and French Canadian city of Hull the Scotch Presbyterian Conservative candidate had a majority of the votes. Sir," the province of Quebec, where you may so frequently notice Protestant Englishmen elected by a Frenchspeaking majority, is the only province where you find such proofs of toleration and breadth of view. And the same has been true since confederation and long before confederation.
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to speak of a little experience I have had in this relation ? It shows the working of the school laws in my province. There is a small country newspaper in the county of Quebec which has declared that the result of the separate school larv in Quebec was to drive the Protestants out of the province. I refer to the Huntingdon ' Gleaner.' And the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has re-echoed that declaration. I passed most of my life-and my happiest days, because they were before I entered public life-* in a small village on the borders of the Ottawa river forming one municipality of eight hundred souls. This village was separated municipally and for school purposes from the parish in which it was situated and which also contained some eight hundred souls, m these two municipalities there were three English-speaking Protestant families. The father of one family was the
head of a large lumbering firm and the fathers of the other two families were the other's clerks. These three families lived in the village. They organized a separate school under the law. Then the lumbering company bought immense properties in the parish. Under our ' priest-administered ' law, the Protestant ratepayers-as they were entitled to do by law-annexed this property to the village for school purposes, thus depriving the Catholic ratepayers of the parish of all the receipts of their schools on account of that land. But there was not a word of dispute. There came a time when the separate school was not carried on according to law, because, in our province as in others, it -requires a certain school attendance to make a school under the law. There came a time when all the taxes paid by the Protestants went to support a school where there were only five or six children, which is only half or one-third of the number required under the law. One of the Catholic ratepayers suggested : ' Why don't we abolish the separate school and get all that money ? ' I put my foot upon the proposition at once. I said: ' My friend, if you think as I do and as, I believe, the people of this parish and of this village do, you will never ask a man, rich or poor, to contribute a cent to the maintenance of a school system in which he does not believe.' And the whole population was with me. That whole ' priest-ridden population '-and they were poor farmers-preferred to pay twice as much as they otherwise would rather than ask these Protestant ratepayers to contribute, as they were legally bound to do, to the maintenance of any other than this separate school. Show me such au example in any of the English-speaking Protestant provinces of this Dominion, and I will admit that the separate school system cannot develop a national spirit.
Let me refer my hon. friends to the example of a country, that, perhaps above all the nations of the earth, has done most for the development of ideas of liberty and toleration : the little republic of Switzerland. There is in Switzerland a population composed of three nationalities with clearly marked differences of religion. They have tlie Protestant Germans and the Catholic French and Italians. After their common struggle for liberty, they fought among themselves for years and for centuries-the Germans to impose the German language and the Protestant religion upon the others and the French seeking to impose the French language and the Catholic religion upon the Germans. But the day came when they found out that only principle under which they could maintain their union was that every man should be free to w'orship God in ills own church and to educate his children in his own school. And upon that principle ct' toleration they have carried on their schools ; and to my mind, their national

spirit is much more united, than unfortunately ours is at the present day.
Now, Sir, there is one last point I wish to make. I contend that if we look upon this question from the point of view of a broad national ideal, not only should we propose the widest measure of liberty for the minority of the Northwest, but, even if it were not asked for and if we were not bound to give it, we should, in duty to Canada and to the integrity of the empire, establish separate schools in the Northwest in the fullest sense of the word.
I have stated, at the opening of my remarks, that nobody knows what the population of that country will be fifty or one hundred years hence. Do you want to make it safely Canadian ? Do yo want to have there a nucleus of population whose only love, whose only care will be for this soil of ours, who will have no other devotion but to the future and the welfare of Canada ? Open the Northwest to the French Canadian, emplant him there and give him all his freedom and liberty. Make him feel that he is at home in the west just as much as in the east, make him feel that he can have there the same religious liberty that he enjoys at home, and which he gives to his neighbour at home and you will have there a growing tree that will stand the storm, resist the influence of American absorption and the development of foreign ideals, because the French Canadian is the oldest Canadian, because the French Cana-adian has founded on the soil of our country the whole of his hopes. He has abandoned the past; he has ceased to look to any foreign country for the development of his moral and material forces and when you compare the past with the present, when you think that all the French Canadians. whether living in this country under the British flag or in the United States under the stars and stripes, that these 3.000,000 French Canadians are all the descendants of 00,000 peasants who were abandoned on this land by the French government 150 years ago. who had been ruined by the French government, robbed by French intendants whose methods British governors faithfully followed ; when it will be remembered that those 60.000 peasants, unaided by any- influx whatever of immigration and capital, have developed their education, their agriculture and their trade; that they have done all they could for Canada whether in peace or war, and if you consider the point at which they started and the result they have achieved, there is no reason why any man in this House should be afraid of the hold the French Canadians may obtain in the west.
Again referring to past history might I once more appeal to my English speaking friends in this House and say to them : Do not trust the religious zealot. Remember the New England Puritan who burned witches 200 years ago. He condemned the Mr. BOURASSA.
British Government because it granted religious liberty to the French Canadians, but ten years later he rebelled against the British Crown and was stopped from entering Canada only by the French Canadians. Do not trust too much to the political jingo. Remember 1849, when the fathers of the Tories wrecked the parliament buildings and rotten-egged the governor for giving freedom to all. I simply say this and I leave my friends with these words ; Be just to the French Canadians. That is all I ask. I do not ask you to be generous, if the state of mind of your province has not yet been brought up to the state of mind that we have in Quebec. If you cannot afford to be generous, all I ask you is to be just. Give us the same rule that we have given you, do for us what we have done for you and trust the French Canadians under the guidance of that hierarchy which has stood for British connection in the past. The' French Canadian's heart is generous, his heart is grateful and he will never forget what you have done. But on the other hand-and in this I am not uttering any threat-I regret every time I go back to my province to find developing that feeling that Canada is not Canada for all Canadians. We are sometimes in Quebec accused of being provincialists. We are not provincialists by nature. We have stood for the defence of the whole soil of Canada and have contributed our share for the benefit of the whole of Canada. But after such examples as we have had in New Brunswick, in Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories, after such, attempts as were made in Ontario itself where we were preserved only because there was a text of law, we are bound to come to the conclusion that Quebec is our only country because we have no liberty elsewhere. I do not say that we are treated as slaves ; but we are proud enough and I contend that we have rendered service enough to claim at the hands of the majority of this country not only such treatment as you would grant to a good natured inferior being, but such treatment as I think we, as your brethren, are entitled to receive at your hands. If you do that, if you are just and just without quibbling, just and just without trying to take with one hand what you give with the other, I say : Trust the French Canadian in the west or in the east, trust the French Canadian anywhere in Canada ; he will be true to you, true to the British Crown, if you do not expel from his mind the belief that Canada is a free country and that the British Crown is in this country the protector of equal justice and equal law.


Mr. RICHARD  BRAIN@Peeb. I do not propose to follow the very lengthy address of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa: I am quite sure that the people of the province of Quebec and of the

other portions of Canada are quite well aware that the hon. gentleman has been delivering this same lecture in different parts of Canada for several years past. While I do not wish to make any comparisons, for I do not think it is the duty of a member of parliament, living in a country of this kind, to make too many comparisons between the different nationalities of this country, may X be permitted after the reference that my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) has made to the narrowness of the English-speaking people of Canada to say that I come from the province of Ontario. We had a general election for the local legislature there a few weeks ago and I might say to my hon. friend that the city of Toronto sent a Roman Catholic representative to that legislature and that Roman Catholic has the honour of a seat in Mr. Whitney's cabinet at this moment. And may I be permitted to remind my hon. friends of the French nationality that for the first time in the history of the province of Ontario your own town, Mr. Speaker, has been recognized by the putting into office of the Hon. Dr. Rheaume, Minister of Public Works in Mr. Whitney's cabinet. And of course I need not refer to my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Claude Macdonell), who sits on this side of the House, as another example of the generosity of the English speaking people of that important province, I was a little interested to, hear my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) dealing with those legal questions and I thought I would look up the history of the hon. gentleman to see what knowledge he had to bring to bear in competition with that of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. B. Borden). I find on examination that my hon. friend had one special Act of parliament passed in his own province of Quebec to permit, him to study law in that province. Then on further examination, I find another special Act of parliament passed for the hon. gentleman to allow him to pass an examination that he has never yet passed and he has not to this date practised law in his own province, and yet my hon. friend wall put his opinion on these legal questions in competition with the opinion of the distinguished leader of fhe opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). On February 21, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) introduced the two Bills that are to constitute new provinces in what is now known as the Northwest Territories. The right hon. gentleman gave to the House a very lengthy history of different matters in connection with those Bills. I have here Bill (No. 69) ' An Act to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta,'
Clause 12 of the Act reads:
Until the said legislature otherwise provides, the legislative assembly shall be composed of twenty-live members to be elected to represent the electoral divisions defined.
'	105
Clause 3 of the Bill says:
The said province shall be represented in the Senate of Canada by four members : provided that such representation may, after the completion of the next decennial census, be from time to time increased to six by the parliament of Canada.
Clause 8 says:
Unless and until the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the said province otherwise directs, by proclamation under the great seal, the seat of government of the said province shall be at Edmonton.	*
Clause 20 of the Bill says:
The Dominion lands in the said province shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of Canada.
Clause 24 enacts:
This Act shall come into force on the 1st day of July, one thousand nine hundred and five.
I may be permitted briefly to refer to Bill No. 70 to establish and provide for the government of the province of Saskatchewan. The same number of representatives, 25, are to be elected in that province; the same number of senators, four, are to be appointed to the senate of Canada, with the privilege of parliament increasing the number to six. The capital of the province is to be Regina ; and this Act also is to come into force on the 1st of July next. I will now give the areas in square miles of the various provinces :
Amount to be paid annually to each province. Support to government.. .. $	50,000
Estimated population of 250,000 at SO cents per
head	 200,000
Interest at 5 per cent, per
annum on $8,107,500..	..	405,375	'
In lieu of lands retained by the Dominion government	  375,000
Construction of public buildings to be paid yearly for five years only	 94,500
Total	$1,124,875	each.
For two provinces	$2,249,750
This to increase from time to time until it reaches an annual payment	of.. $2,207,875 each.
For two provinces	$4,415,750
Prince Edward Island	 2,284
Nova Scotia	 21,428
New Brunswick	 27,985
Quebec	 351,873
Ontario	 260,862
Manitoba	 73,732
British Columbia	 372|630
Total	1,110,694
New Provinces.
Alberta	 250,000
Saskatchewan	 250,000



I wish now to point out the financial assistance that is to be given to these two new provinces. This, briefly, is the substance of some clauses in the Bill.
Now, Sir, when the right lion, gentleman introduced this Bill he expressed some surprise at the references made by newspapers and by some distinguished gentlemen in this country. Of course the people of Canada everywhere were very much interested in the introduction of these Bills. This question had been up for consideration in this parliament.. Indeed, the leader of the opposition had moved a resolution in the session of 1903 and again in 1904 in favour of absolute provincial autonomy being given to these Territories, unrestricted right to deal with every thing of a provincial character. That was the policy of the opposition in this House in the sessions of 1903 and 1904. May I be permitted to tell the right hon. gentleman what was the chief reason for the adverse newspaper comment and criticism which he has read from distinguished men in this country ? It is because they had known the stand the right hon. gentleman had taken in 1896 on this educational or religious question. The people did not distrust the right hon. gentleman, they never thought for a moment that he would go back on his record of 1896, and venture to introduce into this House certain clauses in the Autonomy Bills which would stir up religious strife in this country. Therefore, he had at his back the whole Canadian people; he had not only the. confidence of the Liberal party, but the confidence of a great number of Liberal-Conservatives in this country, many of whom voted for him in 1896 on this very question. So, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman would not have far to go to find a reason why the newspapers and leading gentlemen who had supported him in 1896 were very much surprised to find that he had now changed his policy in regard to provincial rights. Some hon. gentlemen who have spoken from the other side of the House ventured to say that those who have criticised this Bill are not well acquainted with the question. Well, that may be the case as to some of the criticisms, but I do not think the right hon. gentleman or any member of his government would say this applies to all the criticisms that have been offered to the educational clauses in these Bills. I have here a protest from the Presbyterian body. I am glad to see my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, who as I am informed is a distinguished member of that denomination, in his seat. I will read this protest from the Presbytery of Guelph:
Another protest against the Educational Provisions of the Autonomy Bill.
A meeting of the Guelph Presbytery was held in Melville church, Fergus, to-day. Thfe following resolution was moved by Major Hood, Guelph, seconded by Rev. Mr. Horne, Elora : The Presbytery of Guelph, representing a large Mr. BLAIN.
portion of the counties of Waterloo, Wellington and Halton, hereby presents its strong protest to the parliament of Canada against the educational clauses of the Provincial Autonomy Bills now before the House for consideration. The presbytery regrets that any attempt is being made to debar a free people from the exercise of their constitutional prerogative, the right to decide for themselves the character of their school system. It is the conviction of the presbytery that should the proposed legislation become law it would involve the new provinces in perpetual racial and sectarian discord, which would be a most serious obstacle to the future prosperity and happiness of the people. Believing that the plaoing of such an Act on the statute book would be a misuse of the powers of the federal government, members of the presbytery pledge themselves to do all in their power to oppose and prevent such proposed invasion of provincial rights, and most respectfully urge the government and both Houses to grant to the two new provinces complete control over their educational system.
I have here a statement by a gentleman who stands at the head of the Presbyterian Church in the province of Ontario, and who spoke at a mass meeting in Toronto, in Massey Hall, on March 20. I refer to Rev. Dr. Milligan, moderator of the Presbyterian Church, who declares:
That, believing in a commonwealth with equal rights for all and favours for none, and believing that a great'crisis had arisen in the national history, demanding united and patriotic action by every citizen, irrespective of creed or politics.
The premier's policy in the present issue, he continued, had come to him like a clap of thunder from a clear sky. It was a direct controversion of the attitude taken in 1896.
Wherever one party had privileges at the expense of another there could never be peace. Let there be no restrictions imposed on the new west, but one common brotherhood and one common school system. He noted that the federal separate school legislation in regard to Ontario and Quebec was in the nature of an exception, and he urged the fallacy of the argument which sought to make this exceptional case apply to all the provinces.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that statement voices the views of all the Presbyterians in Canada-or, to be more correct, of nearly all the Presbyterians in Canada, who believe that the government are now invad- . ing provincial rights in attempting to fasten upon the new provinces a dual system of education.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Mr. BLAIN.: Who says ' no, no ' ? I say that the Presbyterian body in Canada and the leading Presbyterians who are as well versed as the member who calls out ' no, no,' have sent in their protest with these facts before me. I have the right to say that the Presbyterian body of this country are almost a unit in opposition to the government forcing upon the people of the west this educational clause. Here is a protest from the Church of England.

Keep hands off-Provinces must be free in matter of education.
In a sermon preached in this city by a distinguished gentleman, the Rev. Dr. Spencer, in Emmanuel Reformed Episcopal Church :
He argued that the scriptures do not warrant a state church in any form. The union of church and state, he said, would be fraught with trouble. National money should be used for national purposes only and not for the promotion of any propaganda or teaching of dogmas of any sect.
He concludes by saying :
We should say to any church : Keep your hands off the public treasury-and we would say to the state : Keep your hands off the church. Give to no denomination privileges not common to all and to no one of them precedence by right.
That is a protest from the Church of England body in this country, and I would remind the right hon. gentleman that it represents in the main the feeljng of the Church of England people in every province in Canada. I am therefore right in saying that the Church of England denomination of this country are opposed to the Autonomy Bill in so far as It takes away the rights of the people in the western provinces to deal with their own educational matters. What is the opinion of the Baptist Church ?
Baptists state their position. Let new provinces determine their policy. Bill was a surprise. A large and representative meeting of Baptists was held last evening in the lecture room of the Bloor Street Baptist Church, Toronto, to consider the situation arising out of the introduction in parliament of the Autonomy Bills creating the new provinces. A resolution was unanimously carried by a standing vote protesting against the proposed legislation.
I think I shall read that resolution, because I am anxious that the Baptists shall be put on record. I heard the Minister of Customs say the other night that some of the criticism was from gentlemen who did not understand the question and were unable to give a fair and honest opinion, but I invite the attention of the Minister of Customs to this resolution, and I will ask him whether it does not speak as if those behind it understood the question quite as well as some gentlemen on the other side of the House and possibly as some members of the government. The resolution reads as follows :
Whereas, the British North America Act, as to provinces other than Ontario and Quebec, provides that each province may exclusively make laws In relation to education, subject to the right of the Dominion parliament when appealed to in a specific case to enact remedial legislation ; and the imperial Amending Act of 1871 empowers the Dominion parliament to establish new provinces, and to define the constitution thereof, but prohibits sucb parliament from ever afterwards altering such constitution ;
105*
And whereas, the Bill establishing the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan proposes to make the maintenance of a separate school system a permanent constitutional obligation of these new provinces, thus depriving them of their full provincial rights and fettering their whole future educational development ;
And whereas, the introduction at any time of such a question into federal politics is calculated to awaken ill-feeling on a subject in regard to which the Canadian people are peculiarly sensitive ; and more especially at this time, since no intimation was given to the electorate prior or during the recent general elections that it was intended in connection with the granting of autonomy to the Territories to impose any such fetters.
Therefore this meeting of Baptist citizens respectfully protest against the proposed legislation, and expresses the hope that the government may so modify its Bills as to leave the determination of their future educational policy to the free action of the new provinces.
I may say to the right hon. Prime Minister that Mayor Urquhart, of Toronto, the gentleman to whom he sent a very interesting telegram last election was present at this meeting and he stood up with the others and endorsed this resolution in favour of leaving educational matters to the provinces. Mr. D. E. Thomson, K.C., a distinguished gentleman in the city of Toronto, spoke thus in support of this resolution :
Under the powerful leadership of Hon. George Brown the Liberal party had made a stand for the principle of local government and provincial rights. The Liberal party were returned to power in 1896 on that stand. ... To pass the Autonomy Bills now before parliament would be a complete reversal of the policy, both of the Liberal leader and party. If Sir Wilfrid Laurier he sincere in his suggestion that the provisions of the British North America Act cover the ground, why not leave the question to the Act ? .... If Sir Wilfrid Laurier had told his policy in advance he would have come out of the election twenty short.
Mr. Thomson points out that if this matter had been submitted to the people in the last election, instead of my right hon. friend sitting on that side of the House he would be sitting on this side in opposition. That speaks for the Baptist people of Canada, and I leave it for the consideration of the Prime Minister.
There is another denomination, called the Congregationallsts, not very large, yet very important. The Rev. Dr. Wild, a gentleman well versed in those questions, spoke at a meeting in Toronto a few days ago and said :
Of the thirty-two nationalities that will compose these two new provinces, most of them of different churches and creeds, we cannot expect to favour any one race or creed at the expense of the others. Thq. state has its rights and must look especially to the education of its citizens. If we are to have an intelligent population as voters this is essential. No church, creed or race must have special legislation that will discriminate against others. A

state form of education is the only sure way and just way.
That, I think, represents the Congregational body. Then I have the opinion of the Methodist people of Canada. On March 15, 1905, the ' Christian Guardian,' the leading Methodist newspaper wrote :
Sooner or later the Roman Catholic church in this country must be taught conclusively that it does not and cannot dominate its public affairs. It must be taught that it is only a sect among sects, a church among churches, and that the adherents of the smallest and weakest among them has equal rights with its own adherents in all political and social relations. It must be taught that its sinister influence upon public men and public life will no longer be tolerated, and that it must be content with holding precisely the same relation to governments and laws as are held by other communions. It must be taught that, while absolutely free and untrammelled in its spiritual functions, it has no status in law or In fact that differentiates it from any other body of Christians in the wide Dominion.
Then, I have here a resolution passed by the Methodist ministers of the city of Toronto, a few days ago and addressed to the right hon. leader of the government:



METHODIST MINISTERS' PROTEST.

[Stage Direction]
The Question of Education is Entirely Provincial.
The following letter has been sent to the premier by the Methodist ministers of Toronto :-
To the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., P.C., President of the King's Privy Council, Ottawa :
Honoured Sir,-The assembled ministers of the Methodist church of Toronto, in their regular meeting on Monday morning, March 13, 1905, unanimously beg to advise you as follows
That we view with alarm the introduction into the Autonomy Bill of that clause relating . to separate schools against the wishes and contrary to the vehement protests of the peoples most deeply affected in the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Our position is clear and firm that the question of education is purely and entirely a provincial matter, as defined by the British North America Act, and should he left to the exclusive authority _of the provinces to determine.	"
We therefore most respectfully urge the government and both Houses of parliament to grant to the two new provinces full provincial rights, and to each complete control of its educational system. By so doing these new provinces will develop a true, healthy, selfgoverning citizenship, which will he an element of strength to the Dominion.
Signed on behalf of the Methodist Ministers' Association of Toronto
Yours rspectfully,

Chairman. ROBT. R. CADE.: Secretary.
The Rev. 0. O. Johnston, a leading Methodist minister, opposed to separate schools in any form, says this :


Richard Blain: 

A. CARMAN.

[Stage Direction]
Toronto, March 2, 1905.
That is a letter to the Toronto ' News.' Now, that is the feeling of the church members of Canada. I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Customs is not more anxious to keep peace with his government than he is with his church. My hon. friend will have to take care of that himself.
Now, the Liberal party had something to say about this. I take the following from the Toronto ' Globe ' of March 14, 1905 :
At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Liberal Association of Centre Toronto held on Saturday the following resolution was unanimously passed :-
*
3293	MARCH 28, 1905	3291
That whereas the Liberal party has always taken strong ground on the question of provincial rights ; and
Whereas all matters pertaining to education are by the British North America Act delegated to the provinces ;
Therefore, we, the Executive of the Liberal Association of Centre Toronto, desire to place ourselves on record as being of the opinion that the government should expunge entirely the clauses from the Autonomy Bills relating to education, and that all matters pertaining to education be left entirely to the new provinces.
This is a voice from the right hon. gentleman's own party in the city of Toronto. The right hon. gentleman might issue the writ for an election in Centre Toronto and test the question. Then we would see whether or not this Reform Association expresses the views of the people regardless of politics in that great city. I am reading these extracts because I think they are stronger than any statement I could make to show why the people of this country were aroused when the right hon. gentleman introduced this measure. The Toronto * Globe ' of March 8, 1905, has a long article which I will not stop to read. It is well known throughout the country that the Toronto 1 Globe ' is very much opposed to the educational clauses in the Bill, and in this article it warns the government not to force them through parliament. Then, I have a heading of the Toronto ' News ' of March 14, and continued from day to day : ' A Free West, A Common School, Provincial Rights and Religious Equality.' With that I may give a statement from the editor of this important and valuable independent journal, who, I may say, is a personal friend of the right hon. Prime Minister. Indeed. I think he wrote his life some little time ago.
An hon. MEMBER.: A part of it.


Richard Blain: A part of it, I mean. My hon, friend says he may not get out a second edition. The editor of the ' News,' Mr. J. S. Willison, speaking on the school question, made this statement:
He took the ground that nowhere was education provided by separate schools as efficient as the public schools, and many Roman Catholic citizens and lay Catholic educationists were gravely dissatisfied with the conditions of elementary Catholic education in this province. The future of Canada depended largely on the measure of success achieved in resolving the many nationalities which compose the population into common Canadian citizenship, and it was vain to argue that such a process could be served by a school system which tended for separation rather than union.
That is the statement of the editor of the independent Toronto 'News,' which is doing so much service for the people of Canada at the present time. I have here the authority of the Huntingdon ' Gleaner,' published in the province of Quebec, and which, if I am correctly informed, is one of the
leading English speaking journals of that province.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Richard Blain: My hon. friends say no, but I rather think I am correct in that state-' ment because in the earlier days, before my right hon. friend came into the House, it was quoted very often in the interest of the Reform party. Dealing with the statement of the First Minister that the Protestants in the province of Quebec have nothing to complain of, the editor writes as follows:
How does the premier reconcile this declaration of his with the fact that the Englishspeaking people outside of the island of Montreal have largely disappeared and are continuing to disappear ? Whole townships, settled by them and which prospered under them, are to-day French. Protestant churches are to be found in which no service is held and that the spot where Protestants were buried for three generations and more are now to be found in the corners of farms of French Canadians. In only one of the counties that compose the Eastern Townships have the Protestants a majority, yet once they had absolute control. Do men throw up their farms and leave a province where they have no cause of complaint ? Let Sir Wilfrid explain this-the extraordinary spectacle of a people abandoning the land of their birth, to which they are bound by every tie of affection and patriotism, to seek new homes in the United States, for the proportion has been trifling who have gone to our Northwest. What is it they find under an alien flag they could not in the province of Quebec ? We want no rhetorical generalities, no vapouring about justice and toleration. Here is a plain problem-Why are the Protestant farmers of ,the province of Quebec going away ? Do men flee a province where they have no cause of complaint ?
There is no more saddening aspect in the condition of our province than the groups of Protestant children to be found here and there all over it destitute of the means of acquiring the elements of education, and threatening us with a coming generation of Protestant farmers as ignorant as Russian moujiks. This is a fruit of separate schools. If we had national schools, instead of sectarian schools, no child in the province would be without opportunity to learn to read and write. Another consequence of these sectarian schools should never be lost sight of,-and that is, where Protestant farmers are too ijew to have a school, they are taxed to support Catholic schools, which, sometimes, have as their teachers nuns and Christian brothers. There are hundreds of Protestant farmers who are forced either to support Catholic schools or sell out.
That is the statement of the Huntingdon 'Gleamer,' and I commend it to the consideration of my right hon. friend.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Blain: Before you left the ichair, Mr. Speaker, I was giving some quotations

from leading newspapers of Canada showing their opinion of the educational clauses of the Autonomy Bills. As there was some slight reference to the politics of the Huntingdon 'Gleaner,' from which I quoted, X thought I would produce a newspaper which will be acknowledged to be a supporter of the government. I turn to the Toronto ' Globe,' which is looked upon as the leading government organ of the province of Ontario, and a very creditable journal indeed. I quote from the issue of February 28, 1905:
Why not leave the question to him

Referring to Mr. Haultain, the premier of the Northwest Territories.

and his colleagues in the new provincial
government ? It belongs there by the terms of the Confederation Act. If it is dealt with at Ottawa there may develop opposition from the provincial governments, not because they would abolish separate schools, but because they would resent federal dictation in matters of provincial rights. If the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta want separate schools, let them have them on their own motion and in the way provided by the constitution. If they do not want them, any attempt at constitutional compulsion, even if it succeeds, would awaken antagonism which would embitter local politics and be disastrous to the separate schools themselves. And for that proposition we can ask the support of Catholics and Protestants alike. It involves the principles of provincial rights. On that ground all classes and creeds can stand together.
I have another opinion, which I regard as a very valuable one, objecting to the educational clauses. This is from Mr. Haultain, the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories. I quote from his letter addressed to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and bearing the date of March 11th, 1905 :
I must take strong exception to the way in which the subject of education has been treated both in the conferences and in the Bills. I must remind you of the fact that your proposition was not laid before my colleague or myself until noon of the day upon which you introduced the Bills. Up to that time the question had not received any attention beyond a casual reference to it on the previous Friday, and I certainly believe that we should have an opportunity of discussing your proposals before tw-elve o'clock on the day the Bills received their first reading. No such opportunity, however, was afforded.
He continues :
With regard to the question of education generally, you are, no doubt, aware that the pcsi-tion taken by us was that the provinces should be left to deal with the subject exclusively, subject to the provisions of the British North America Act, thus putting them on the same footing in this regard as all the other provinces in the Dominion, except Ontario and Quebce.
That I regard as a very valuable opinion indeed. It is the opinion of the duly authorized representative of the Territories, the man who has the right, and whose duty it is. to speak on behalf of the 500.000 people Mr. BLAIN.
there. Of course, it will be a little surprising to the people of Canada to know that, though the Prime Minister of that Territory was sent for by this government to consult with upon the clauses of the Autonomy Bills, yet the educational clauses, the allimportant clauses seemingly to the people of Canada, were not submitted to that hon. gentleman until noon of the very day when the Prime Minister introduced these Bills in the House. I will not make any comment upon that further than to ask the Canadian people to consider what it means. Perhaps they will be able to answer it to their own satisfaction.
I come now to the county I have the honour to represent, the county of Peel. I have presented some petitions from the county. I have here the resolution of the Brampton Ministerial Association, held at the residence of the Rev. W. S. McAlpine, B.A., on the 6th of March, 1905 :
Moved by the Rev. J. G. Bowles, B.D., and seconded by the Rev. R. N. Burns, B.A., and carried unanimously :
That the premier of the Dominion government has introduced a Bill by which separate schools are to be fastened on the Territories to be organized into new provinces ;
And whereas, we do not favour separate schools in principle and practice ;
And whereas, the matter should be left wholly to the new provinces to decide ;
Therefore be it resolved, that we, the members of the Brampton Ministerial Association, place ourselves on record as being unalterably opposed to the educational clause of the Bill, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to R. Blain, M.P., the representative of the county in the Commons.



W. S. McALPINE,

[Stage Direction]
President.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
I have, in addition to that, the names of several leading gentlemen in my own county who have signed the petition that was circulated and afterwards presented to the House. Among the others, I find the following :	George A. Robinson, Claude; John
McEachrine, merchant, Englewood ; Alex. Dick, manufacturer, Alton ; Rev. G. C. Balfour, Inglewood ; David Graham, Inglewood, David McGregor, Inglewood ; T. H. Graham, Inglewood; and H. H. Shaver, Cooksville. These are the names of some of the leading Reformers whom I have the honour to reprensent, who willingly signed a petition to this government protesting against the educational clauses of the Autonomy Bills. And I may say that, while I have had the honour of sitting in this House since 1900, no question has ever arisen on which I represent so large a proportion of the electorate of my county as I do in protesting against the educational clauses of this Bill.
Some very unfair criticism was offered this afternoon by the hon. member for LabeDe

(Mr. Bourassa) against the Orange Association of Canada. That association does not require any defence at my hands. But when that lion, gentleman thought it his duty to cast reflection upon the Orange Association, already numbering about 400,000 members, and those not now affiliated, I thought that some slight reference "to the association, though it may seem a -littly beside the question. may be in order. I turn up the Act to incorporate the Grand Orange Lodge of British America, which was assented to on April 24th, 1890. Among the names of the corporators are those of the late Hon. N. Clarke Wallace, the late Edward F. Clarke and other leading men. I have looked very briefly over the clauses of this Act of incorporation of the Grand Orange Lodge of British America to see if any special favours had been given to the association by this parliament. I find that no special favours were given-this is simply a Bill permitting the members of the association to organize, to hold property and to take care of their own rights, and to extend those rights to every other loyal citizen in Canada, whatever his creed may be. And I have here a copy of the Orange constitution, which I will be glad to send to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), for evidently he has not looked into this ddcument before venturing upon the statements which he made this afternoon. This constitution is open to every man in Canada, and from beginning to end there is no clause in it that interferes with the rights and privileges of any class of people in this country. I think it does not come with a good grace from the hon. gentleman to cast reflection upon this important body. Other references were made to the Orange Association a few days ago, one by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I thought I would try to learn what part the Orange Association has taken in the agitation since this Bill was introduced on the 21st of February last. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who holds the highest position in the gift of the Orange Association in Canada, felt it to be his duty to sound a note of warning to the Canadian people, and he issued this letter and sent it to the different Orange Associations throughout the Dominion :
Ottawa, February 16th, 1905.
Dear Sir and Brother,-
We believe an effort is about to be made to impose separate schools for all time on the people of the new provinces, now being established in the Northwest Territories. It behooves every lover of liberty, and especially every Orangeman, to lend a helping hand, to prevent this injustice being perpetrated on a liberty-loving people. Being comparatively weak and. helpless they must largely depend on others to fight their battles for them.
The effort made in 1896 to compel Manitoba to grant separate schools nearly drove the people of that province into rebellion, and had it not been abandoned, would doubtless have resulted in serious consequences. In view of this, is it
not little short of criminal folly to attempt to deprive the people of these new provinces of the right to control their own educational affairs as to them seems best. I would suggest that every member of our order lend a helping hand to prevent this outrage by writing or wiring and getting others to do so as well, the member for his constituency to oppose any legislation or enactment for that purpose. If we speak out freely and do our duty no government would dare to disobey our request. Brethren, let us do our duty ; also get accompanying blank petitions signed by all friendly to our cause, giving name and occupation in every case, and forward to me to House of Commons post office, Ottawa, at earliest possible date.

[Stage Direction]
I shall also read the petition sent out which is referred to in this letter :
To the Honourable the Senate and House of
Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled :
We, the undei signed electors of the electoral division of	do pray that in granting
provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territories the Dominion parliament will not by any enactment or otherwise withhold from the newly -created provinces full and unrestricted freedom of action in all matters affecting the establishment, maintenance and administration of schools-
That is the document sent out by the hon. gentleman who holds a distinguished position as head of the Orange Association, and I would like to ask any hon. gentleman on either side of the House what objection he could take to the statements either in the letter or in the petition. These petitions have been returned, signed not by Orangemen altogether, but by hundreds and thousands of electors of Canada not all Liberal-Conservatives, but very many of them Reformers who supported this government at the last election. The petitions have been presented from both sides of the House entering protest against the educational clauses contained in the Bill.
Leaving the educational question for a moment, clause 20 of the Bill reads thus :
The Dominion lands in the said province shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of Canada.
I was wondering what the hon. gentlemen! representing western constituencies would think about that clause, a clause which says that the provincial governments of these two territories cannot control their lands, but that the lands shall be controlled by the parliament sitting at Ottawa. 1 therefore looked up the records of some of these hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) speaking in the debate of October 13, 1903, on a resolution moved in this House by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) for provincial autonomy for the Northwest Territories made this statement at page 13892 of ' Hansard ' of 1903 :
[Stage Direction]
I may say that I have had a long acquaintance with Mr Haultain, and I am quite satisfied that he is able to protect himself ; and from my more brief acquaintance with the members of the present government, I believe they are able to take their own part, and that we can leave that matter to be settled between them
The House will bear in mind that Mr. Haultain had submitted a proposition for provincial autonomy to the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, and in that proposition he said he would ask that the lands be retained to the provincial government and the hon. member for Alberta said that he had entire confidence in Mr. Haul-tain, that he would take care of himself and his provinces. I was a little surprised the other evening when the lion, gentleman addressed the House on these Bills that he should say nothing or almost nothing about the land. It is a well known fact that the gentlemen who have been representing the western constituencies in this House for several years stated in this House on more than one occasion that the lands should be vested in the provincial governments. I shall read from the remarks of Mr. Davis, an hon. gentleman who represented Saskatchewan in the last parliament, but who has now gone to the Senate. At page 13896 of the ' Hansard ' 1903, he made this statement:
I have taken the liberty of boiling down the demands, and I think I can give in brief just what Mr. Haultain asks this House to give him, If we are prepared to give provincial autonomy. He wants first all the public lands. The leader of the opposition said he was prepared to support that part of the proposition. X am glad to see that he has approached the matter in that spirit. We in the west would like to see the lands given to the government of the Northwest Territories.
That was the statement of an hon. gentleman who represented a western constituency. We have another statement from an hon. gentleman who represented West As-siniboia in the last parliament and who is also in this parliament (Mr. Scott). Indeed it is said by some Ottawa newspapers, that the hon. gentleman is about to go into the position lately given up by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and to become Minister of the Interior in the government. 1 shall read to the House what he said on this land question, because he has been bubbling over in support of these Bills. On October 13, 1903, at page 13926 of ' Hansard ' the hon. member said :
I wish to take occasion to thank the hon. leader of the opposition for the expression of opinion which he gave in favour of the view which we in that country unanimously take, that when a province is formed it is only fair, just and proper that the lands, timber and mineral resources in that province should be handed over to the people dwelling there to be managed and owned by them. This should be done in the Northwest Territories.
Richard Blain: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Only?


Richard Blain: Not only, because I am opposed to the land clauses and I believe that the people of western Canada can take care of their own lands better than the federal government. I would vote to postpone provincial autonomy for five or even ten years rather than fasten for all time on the new provinces a dual school system, both systems receiving public aid and sharing in the revenue from the public school lands. That is my position. I would rather vote for an increased subsidy from this government to western Canada for five or ten years yet to come than I would record my vote to take away the rights of the people of that western country to deal with their education as they see fit. That is my policy and I have nothing to add to and nothing to detract from what I have said. I am in favour of absolute provincial rights for western Canada in all matters. The people of that country are the sons and daughters of the people of older Canada, living there with the people who are coming from foreign countries, and X am anxious that their children shall have the best education that can be given them. I do not believe in dividing the school money (part of it going to the separate school system and part of it to the national school system.) I do not believe they can perfect these two educational systems in that way. If the people of the west wish to do so then let them be responsible for it themselves. For my part I do not wish to take the responsibility of recording my vote to fasten Mr. BLAIN.
this separate school system upon them. I have, therefore, much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition which reads :
Upon the establishment of a province in the Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed by Bill (69), the legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Acts 1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy full powers of provincial self-government including power to exclusively make laws in relation to education.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUN (Solicitor General).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much pleasure to the able speech delivered by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), and if I had not been within the precincts of parliament when he was reciting all the protests which have been sent from the province of Ontario and elsewhere, I would have thought that I was present at a church meeting and not in a legislative chamber. Listening to my hon. friend reciting the protests from the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Congregationalists and the Methodists, uttered as they were in his own sweet voice, I thought we were listening to a preacher and not to a parliamentarian. The thought crossed my mind, that if we in the province of Quebec are to be accused of being priest-ridden, my hon. friend (Mr. Blain, well deserves the compliment of being himself ridden by some of the ministers of the dissenting sects. Let me tell my hon. friend further, that if there came from the pulpits and from religious bodies in Ontario and other provinces protests against the educational clauses of this Bill, I can appeal to him to point to one speech, one word, one sentence delivered by a member of that fearful Quebec hierarchy. Not one word, not one phrase, not one sentence of protest was uttered in the province of Quebec for or against the educational clauses.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about the petitions?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will explain the origin of those petitions. In this matter, the Conservative party has played the same old double game it played years ago when it stirred up the feelings of the austere Protestants in Ontario and the ultramontane element in the province of Quebec. When petitions were, so to speak, commanded from the Orange lodges by the member from East Grey, at the same time an order was given by the Conservative organization in Montreal to get protests from some of the counties in Quebec. We presented these petitions to parliament, as it was the right of the petitioners to ask us, but we said we were not responsible for them. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) stated this afternoon that the right hon. the Prime Minister had obtained power in 1896 by riding the Catholic horse in the province of Quebec, and he told us that if the Liberal party were in power to-day it

*was due to its alliance with the Catholic clergy in that province. Sir, the hon. gentleman ought to know better; he ought to know that during the elections of 1896 in the province of Quebec, every Liberal candidate was asked by his Conservative opponent to choose between the Catholic church and the leader of the Liberal party, and in spite of the hurricane of protests which came from some presbyteries and some pulpits the candidates of the Liberal party in Quebec stood to their guns and won the battle.
My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) quoted not only the opinions of some clergymen in Ontario and other provinces, but he also referred to the defection of the Toronto ' Globe. I have been a reader of the 'Globe' for many years; every Liberal in this country is proud of the great Liberal organ in the province of Ontario, and I, for one deeply regret the defection of the ' Globe ' on this question. I regret that it forgets what the policy of George Brown did for the Liberal party. The Toronto 'Globe' should remember that the policy of George Brown on certain questions, kept the Liberal party out of office for a quarter of a century. But I must say yiis to the credit of the Toronto ' Globe': Though it fought the government and is still fighting the government on the educational clauses of this Bill, it has made no wild appeals such as those made by my hon. friend from South Tork (Mr. W. F. Maclean) in his paper. The Toronto ' Globe ' has discussed fairly the question from its own point of view. It has appealed to its own readers who belong to the school of George Brown, and it has loyally severed its connection with the government on this question. But what has been the policy pursued by my hon. friend, the editor of the Toronto ' World.'


William Findlay Maclean: A consistent one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What has been the policy of Mr. Willison, of the Toronto ' News ' ? What has been the policy of the ' Mail and Empire ' ? Have they presented calmly to their readers the question now before the House, like men desirous to create an opinion, or have they not discussed it like men anxious to stir up passions and bad feelings? Sir, I have known my hon. friend since 1896. I have been a Journalist myself, and I have read his paper for many years ; I have followed his career in this House very closely; and I say to him that he would not dare to utter before me, eye to eye, what he has published in his paper since the biginning of this debate.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) quoted from the Huntingdon ' Gleaner,' which he said was a leading Liberal organ in the province of Quebec. I admit that the editor of the Huntingdon * Gleaner ' Mr. Robert Sellar, is an old Journalist.
He resides in the county of Huntingdon, a county where the French Canadians and Catholics form nearly a majority of the electors, and elect Protestant members. Luring the last election they elected an Irish Protestant. Mr. Robert Sellar is an intelligent man, an Iionest and pious man ; but, Sir, he is a doctrinaire. My hon. friend who is ready to accept the statement of Mr. Robert Sellars, whom he does not know ; who is ready to accept the statement of the Huntingdon ' Gleaner ' which he does not read once a year, because the paper has but a limited circulation in the county of Huntingdon, should, instead of accepting blindly such statements, look around him and ask his friend the member for the county of Huntingdon (Mr. Walsh), and his friend the member for the county of Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington), and my hon. 1'riend who represents St. Antoine division of Montreal (Mr. Ames), and my hon. friend who represents Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), to read the article referred to and he will learn then whether it is true or not that the French Canadian majority in the province of Quebec is driving away the English-speaking minority.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I say this to the hon. member, that I remember distinctly that some years ago an application was made to the government of the day-and two maps were brought here showing how the country had been peopled with Englishspeaking people years ago and the condition it was in then-to lend or grant them money enough to take them to the Northwest Territories, because they were becoming so few that it was utterly impossible for them to keep up their schools and churches and to have English-speaking communities, as they had before.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has not made even a point. Does he for one moment believe that the French Canadians in the province of Quebec are driving away the English-speaking Protestant minority ? Does he believe that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. member will allow me to explain, I say I believe it-not that they are driving them away offensively, by any means ; but here is the system that was represented to us :	that whenever a
farm was offered for sale, or a farmer was at all willing to sell, a French Canadian was prepared to buy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will hon gentlemen extend to me that courtesy which I always extend to them ? Not that the French Canadians were desirous of getting the farms at less than their value ; but it was said that they were always ready to buy, and that they had a fund at their disposal to

buy out the English-speaking farmers. They could get money at a very low rate of interest-


Mr. BRODEUR.: The hon. gentleman refers to a fund. What fund is that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A fund supplied by the church.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That may be something laughable, or it may be something absurd.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Will the hon. gentleman-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now, the hon. gentleman made it a point to interrupt me repeatedly when I was up before. 1 simply made the request to be allowed to explain. Then it was said that the farm was purchased-[DOT] why ? For this reason, that as soon as the farm got into the hands of a Roman Catholic it was subject to the tithes which the church could collect, and thus became a supporter of the church ; but that so long as it was owned by a Protestant, it was not a supporter of the church. Therefore there was a strong inducement for the Roman Catholic to purchase it. It was said that a fund was raised by the church for this purpose- not improperly at all-and that one farm after another was taken over in that way until the English-speaking population got to be so few that they were unable to keep up their schools and churches, and these were closed ; the people had no community of interest amongst themselves because they could not keep up their schools, their children were raised in ignorance ; and this application was made to the government for assistance or for a loan to enable a number of these people to go to the Northwest Territories. That is the explanation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, you have there an evidence of the ignorance-the honest ignorance, I must say-of my hon. friend. I appeal to his neighbour, my hon. friend from Beauharnois, to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, to my hon. friend from St. Antoine, to my hon. friend from the county of Huntingdon, where the Huntingdon ' Gleaner ' is published, and I ask them to stamp at once such statement as arrant nonsense. To think that the church, which is greatly indebted in the province of Quebec, and which is even borrowing money from English insurance companies and English banks, has a fund to buy farms from the English-speaking people of the province of Quebec, why ! it is simply preposterous.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the tolerance that is extended to a member who wishes to say a word on behalf of Protestantism in this country ? I treat those hon. gentlemen Mr. SPROULE.
*
with respect and am entitled to expect a like return from them. I rise to say that the Huntingdon ' Gleaner ' gives an account of the very same thing described in the letter I read.


Mr. FISHER.: It is altogether astray.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) quoted some of the authorities against this measure, and did not fail to mention the name of Mr. Haultain. I have very much respect for the First Minister of the Northwest Territories. Mr. Haultain is a talented young statesman from the west. He has been in Ottawa a few weeks, and no doubt feels compelled to speak in accord with the Tory press, because he is also a Tory statesman. During the last elections he took a very prominent and active part against this government in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Haultain is therefore bound to be against the government. But there is another gentleman who accompanied Mr. Haultain on his mission to the Ottawa government. We saw him on the floor of this House when this Bill was introduced. I refer to Mr. Bulyea. I understand that Mr. Bulyea gave an expression of his opinion to the Toronto press not long ago, and when I compare the statements of Mr. Haultain with those of Mr. Bulyea, I find that they differ toto coelo. Mr. Haultain has taken this government to task on the educational clauses, the land clauses and on the division of the provinces, But Mr. Bulyea declares, speaking for his province and himself, that he is perfectly satisfied with the measure as presented by the government.
Sir, the question now before the House and the country marks an epoch in the history of Canada. It deserves our best attention and all our solicitude, as it is surrounded with immense difficulties. I must crave the indulgence of the House during the few remarks I will offer, remembering always that the more contentious an issue is the more it must be approached in a spirit of conciliation and tolerance, and I earnestly hope that not one word, not one sentence, will fall from my lips that will in the least offend even the most sturdy opponent of the measure.
As to the principle of autonomy, I do not believe that there is in the House one dissenting voice. From every part of Canada the birth of the twin jn'ovinces has been hailed with joy ; nay, more, with a legitimate pride.
The Northwest Territories are the creation of the Canadian commonwealth. They are its offspring. The fathers of confederation were not satisfied with the union of the different British colonies scattered from one end of the continent to the other. They thought-and wisely so-that the immense prairies extending from the great lakes to the Rocky mountains should also be included in the Dominion, so as to unite, under the British flag, all the territories extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They did

not hesitate to pledge the credit of the country to what was then considered a huge amount of money-but which has since been found to be but a trifling sum-in order to secure for Canada that great lone land, known only in those days from the early pioneers, from the missionaries, from the voyageurs and the trappers of the Hudson Bay Company.
Sir, the more we study the history of confederation the more we appreciate the spirit which guided its fathers. They were nation-builders, the men who sat at the conference of Quebec. Their vision of the future extended much beyond the union of the four original provinces. They foresaw that, in the years to come, the existence of a g'reat Canadian nation, under the fegis of British monarchical institutions was not only a dream, but a striking reality ; aye, even by the side of by far the greatest of all modern and ancient republics.
Before I proceed any further, let me express the hope that the day is not far distant when the last link will be added to the chain of Canadian provinces by the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. More so, now that the vexed French shore dispute has been settled between England and France. It seems to me that nothing stands in the way to prevent the union of Newfoundland with the Dominion on fail-terms. The public men of both countries would indeed be remiss to their duty if they did not grapple and overcome the objections or the difficulties which have been raised in the past whenever the question was brought up for discussion.
As I said, a moment ago, the granting of autonomy to the Northwest Territories has been received with favour by the country at large. Long ago, it was felt, that if ever the tide of immigration would turn our way it would never recede. The tide is on us-more especially since the last five or six years-and from all parts of the world, immigration is pouring so to say, towards the new promised land of western Canada. With a population of half a million inhabitants ; with the expectation of doubling that figure before many years have elapsed ; having fairly passed the period of infancy, it was but just and fair that the Northwest Territories should be given the full control of their local government.
I insist however on two points : 1. The Northwest Territories have been acquired by Canada.-they are our creation ;	2.
Whilst in the case of Canada, the constitution was framed by the imperial parliament, in the present instance, with regard to the Northwest Territories, their constitution is framed by the Canadian parliament. It seems to me that at this stage of the debate, it is well to bear in mind those two peculiar features of the situation. Though not eternal, constitutions are not by any means of a transitory nature. They are framed to be permanent-as permanent as human institutions can possibly be. I
therefore quite understand the keen and lively interest which the two Bills now under consideration, have aroused from one end of the country to the other. I less understand, however, the sentiment of bitterness which, of latter days, they have so intensely developed.
Sir, I do not intend to discuss the several clauses contained in the Bill. The masterly effort of the right lion, the leader of the House, when he introduced this measure, has made our task an easy one indeed-I will confine myself to the land question and the school question.
I wish, however, before taking up those two features of the Bill, to say a word or two concerning the division of the Northwest Territories into two provinces. This is one of Mr. Haultain's grievances-but from all appearances, it seems to be a personal grievance. Is it because, as future premier of one of the provinces, he will command less influence ? That, I would not venture to say. But be it a personal grievance or not, the fact remains that the division of the Northwest Territories into two provinces is in accord with public opinion all over Canada. Sir, we are legislating for the future whilst Mr. Haultain-if his views on this question were adopted-would bind us to the present only. Moreover, we, live in a confederation. Should not the history of other confederacies be an object lesson to us? The danger may be remote, but do you not agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that by carving two provinces out of that immense western territory, the balance of power is more equally, more equitably distributed as among all the others ? At the time of the first republic of France, _ a great orator, Vergniaud, said of the French revolution that it resembled Saturn devouring his own progeny. Sir, I am not a pessimist, but I fear that the very reverse would likely happen, if we did create one huge province extending from Manitoba to the Rockies; in this instance the child abnormally overgrown, would soon devour his father.
The hon. gentlemen opposite and the Conservative press throughout the Dominion, have been very loud-in their protests against the clause of the Bill which vests in the Dominion the property of the public lands in the Northwest Territories. ' Why is the west deprived of its birthright ' ? is the question put by those who, by all means, are bound to find fault with this measure. ' Why not treat the west as well as the other provinces ' ? Sir, such appeals may perhaps stir up the feelings of those who do not know under what peculiar and exceptional circumstances the Northwest Territories entered confederation. But surely, they cannot aiid will not bias the judgment of any of the hon. gentlemen who sit in this House. True it is. that the British North America Act stipulates that each province


Mr. MONK.: Would my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) allow me to ask him a question ? If the land in the Northwest remains vested in the Dominion, why was it necessary in the case of Manitoba to put a special provision in the Bill creating that province to reserve the lands of that province ? It does not seem to have been necessary, according to the hon. gentleman's argument.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was to avoid litigation. The province of Manitoba might have said:	We must be treated as the
other provinces have been treated; the other provinces have their public lands and we must have our public lands. Therefore there was a special enactment in the Act of 1870, that Manitoba' should not have its lands but that these should remain vested in the Dominion.
We were told the other day by the right hon. leader of the House how Sir John Macdonald refused the request of Manitoba when in 1884 that province raised a claim to the property of her public lands. The same policy has been followed with regard to every new state entering the American union. It seems to me therefore that we would not have been justified to adopt a different policy with regard to the two new provinces. Their territory covers in round figures a total area of 345,000,000 acres- one-third of which has already been reserved or sold. We must deduct from that total area, the land grants made to railway companies by the Conservative administrations, the Indian reserves, the'timber limits, the school lands, the Hudson bav lands, and the homesteads already taken, which leaves a balance of about 225,000,000 acres. Sir,


Rodolphe Lemieux: I claim that this domain is the property of the whole Dominion of Canada. Administered by Canada since 1870, it has added not a little burden to the public exchequer. We had to pay the cost of two rebellions and besides, we have-in order to maintain law, peace and order-equipped a corps of mounted police, which has patrolled the west and afforded ample protection against the Indians and the rough element. Again, the Dominion has spent millions to advertise and settle the west. We have subsidized the vast system of railways which is now netting so rapidly the prairies from north to south, from east to west. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific are in a sense national highways, but who will deny that the Northwest Territories are not the most interested in their completion ?
All this vast expenditure has enhanced the value of the Northwest Territories and the Dominion has yet to draw the interest to which any creditor is entitled on an investment. Would it be fair, Mr. Speaker, to divest ourselves of our lands, under such circumstances ? Would not that policy be inopportune and unwise ?


Mr.   R.@: ,L.' BORDEN. My hon. friend will of course remember, and he will pardon me for interrupting, that this is exactly the argument which was made fifty or sixty or seventy years ago in Great Britain as a reason for not handing over to the people of the various provinces the control of their lands and their minerals.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, it is always well to borrow from Great Britain. Sir, I have read some very wild statements in the press, concerning this question of public lands. Having myself been a journalist; far be it from my mind to minimize the influence of the press-but it thus happens that sometimes the press finds grievances which are more imaginary than real. Some people have that weakness ;-they are happy -yet a grievance heretofore unsuspected comes to them as a relief. Let me, Mr. Speaker, answer some of the statements made in favour of entrusting the lands to the new provinces. First, it must be admitted that a revenue had to be provided to run the machinery of the local government. This is what is being done by granting a subsidy in lieu of lands. Is this subsidy a fair equivalent for the public lands surrendered to us ? In order to answer this question, one must bear in mind the following facts. The lands are not sold by the federal government, but are given away as an inducement to the settlers. Suppose the lands were left to the now provinces, would they depart from the policy of free grants to the settlers ? I assume that they would -in all wisdom-continue the issuing of free grants. Thus, the revenue which otherwise would accrue from the sale of these

lands, would amount to nothing-with perhaps the exception of very limited receipts arising from stumpage dues or timber limits and royalties on coal lands. Let us suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the lands would be vested in the new provinces. What would happen ? One of two things would have to be done-either issue free grants to the settlers or sell the lands. In the first instance, i.e., issuing free grants, the provinces would get uo revenue. In the second instance, i.e. selling the lands, true they would derive a revenue from the sales, but at the same time, they would fatally restrain and check the growth of population. On the contrary, the continuation of the free grants system will, by increasing the population increase aiso the annual payments made by the Dominion government. The actual revenue which the Dominion government draws from the Northwest Territories is derived mainly from (a) homesteading fees and from (b) royalties on coal mines-but without worrying the House with figures, we may take it as granted that this revenue is quite insignificant compared to the cost of surveying, settling and administering the lands. I say, Sir, that if these lands were in the future offered for sale, instead of being free, the Dominion government would hardly be justified in maintaining as it does, a costly scheme of immigration at the general expense of the country, which would chiefly benefit the land speculators of the Northwest Territories.
I claim, .Sir, that the new provinces have received a generous, a liberal treatment at the hands of their government. The financial clauses of the Bill bear evidence of our generosity. What do they receive besides their autonomy ? Each province at the very start-off will have in addition to the usual federal subventions, an income in lieu of its lands of $375,000. This amount will grow with the growth of population to $362,500 when either of the provinces has 400,000 souls ; to $750,000 when it has 1,200,-OOO souls, and when it exceeds that number, the payment will reach $1,125,000 yearly. In addition, interest will be paid on swamp lands talued at $4,250,000 which will increase eventually to a capital amount of $7,500,000.
Moreover, the Dominion will-and this fact should not be overlooked-still maintain our corps of mounted police in the Northwest Territories-a maintenance which entails an annual cost of $300,000. feir, I will not begrudge the Northwest Territories the happy circumstances under which they assume their political autonomy. This is not the time-and it is not in my nature to be envious. The prosperity, the happiness of my neighbour rejoices me; it never saddens me. But may I not pause for a moment and remind the House that the older provinces might well envy the fortune of Alberta and Saskatchewan ? They, of
their own volition, acquired the great lone land in 1870 ; they-patriotically-pledged their credit for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; they unreservedly launched themselves into a vast scheme of colonization in order to settle the prairies, Yet to-day, after thirty-five years of sacrifices, saddled with their own obligations, cheerfully assess themselves again, to endow generously their two younger associates, in order to complete the gigantic work of confederation.
Again I say that I do not begrudge the Northwest Territories their good fortune. The ideal which we, as Canadians, pursue in this North American continent is too noble, too exalted, not to call for some sacrifices. The game is well worthy of the stake; the aspirations of Canada call forth our common efforts ; the task of today is not unbecoming the attainments of ro-morrow. In the language of the poet:
In the race, not in the prize,
Glory's true distinction lies.
I have now reached, Sir, the educational clauses of the Bill-which, in the present instances, might well be termed the crucial clauses if one can judge by the storm- nay, by the tornado they have raised in the Dominion. Political agitation is always fraught with danger even in a country where one race alone is dominant, but, Sir, far more dangerous is a religious agitation in a country like Canada, where two races and two creeds are staring at each other. Experience has taught us how easy it is to inflame religious passions and how difficult to quell them. Yet, it seems as if this sad experiment was to be renewed periodically in this fair land of ours. As a Canadian, I deplore the intolerant spirit which of late Iras pervaded spheres, where one would expect Christian charity, broad-mindedness, fair-play, to inhabit. After the bitterness displayed from one end of the country to the other on this school question, after the abuse heaped upon one particular class of His Majesty's loyal subjects, I fear not to say, Sir, that unless reason and wise counsels prevail, the future of this confederation is doomed and the cause of union buried for ever. Well might we apply to the present situation the prophetic word of Thiers when the 2nd empire was on the eve of crumbling to pieces : II n'y a plus qu'une seule faute & commettre	
I fail to understand, Sir, why the educational clauses have roused such anger amongst men who, by their calling in life, should be specially guarded against any display of temper. I quite agree with you that there are firebrands who delight in seeing the country ablaze, but I am not referring to the professional demagogues. I am addressing myself to that honest yet credulous class of people, whose sleep is haunted by nightmares, and who-once led astray-

talk of rebellion instead of constitution. And yet, Sir, that matter or rather this difficulty is purely a constitutional one. 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 ? This is, in my judgment the only question to be decided. But before I answer it, let me, Sir, add a few missing links to a chapter of the history of the Northwest Territories. I do so, in no hostile spirit,
I am only refreshing the memory of some Canadians who are too apt to forget. Sir, in the early part of the 18th century-nay even in the 17th century, the explorers of the Northwest were men of my race. La Verendrye and his sons, were the first Europeans who climbed up the Kocky mountains. The French missionaries soon found their way towards those distant lands to' preach the Gospel to the Indian tribes. The fur traders, the voyageurs, the trappeurs and coureurs des bois followed-filling the early history of these vast domains with their adventurous yet heroic exploits. Not a river, not a lake, not a hill, not a valley that was not discovered by them. One has only to read carefully the deed of transfer of Ruperts land to Canada in 1870, to realize that nearly all the posts of the Hudson Bay Company, in the far west, bear most picturesque French names. After the conquest, when the Hudson Bay company took full possession of that immense territory, the French Canadian element continued to be an important factor in the affairs of the west. So much so, that the Bishop of Quebec, whose diocese included all British North America decided to send missionaries in those distant regions. By referring to the archives of the Quebec Archbishopric, one will see that in 1818, the first school in the Northwest Territories was established at the request of Monseigneur Plessis, Sir John Cope Sherbrooke was then our Governor and it is under his protection that the three missionaries sent by Monseigneur Plessis entered the Northwest. The instructions of Governor Sherbrooke, given in writing, are well worth reading.
I do hereby call on all His Majesty's subjects, civil and military, and do request all other persons whomsoever to whom these presents shall come, not only to permit the said missionaries to pass without hindrance or molestation, but render them all good offices, assistance and protection wherever they shall find it necessary to go in the exercise of their holy calling.
That is what Sir John Sherbrooke said when the three first missionaries left Quebec to evangelize the Indian tribes of the Northwest Territories. They did not go there as marauders. The object of their mission, as indicated by the Bishop of Quebec, can be read in a very few lines :


Rodolphe Lemieux: The missionaries will make known to the people the religious faith they enjoy in remaining under the government of His Majesty, will teach them by words and example the respect and fidelity they should have for the sovereign, will accustom them to offer to God fervent prayers for the prosperity of His Most Gracious Majesty, of his august family and his empire.
These are the missionaries who explored the west, who discovered the west, so to speak, and opened it to civilization, and who preached the Gospel to the Indian tribes. Sir, they belonged to a noble race ; and when they bade farewell to their families, to their homes and to their province, they went knowing that some of them might not come back to civilization, in order to fulfil a sacred duty towards God and their King.
Now, before I refer to the legislation of 1871 and 1875, let me examine this section 93 of the British North America Act. First of all. I would like to say that the right bon. leader of the government has been taunted by many hon. gentlemen opposite and by the Conservative press throughout the country, because, forsooth, he had given us a page of history in explaining to the House, as he did on the 21st February last, when he introduced this measure, how that clause came to be inserted in the British North America Act. Now, it is usual, when we have legislation of a somewhat complicated character, as this is, to go to the root of that legislation and to inquire under what circumstances it was enacted. There is, therefore, nothing extraordinary in the fact that the right hon. leader of the government should have explained the peculiar circumstances under which that clause 93 was enacted. In the case of the (St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Company versus the Queen, Mr. Justice Strong, in giving his judgment, used these words :
In construing this enactment of the British North America Act we are not only entitled, but bound

Mark his word, ' bound.'

to apply that well established rule which
requires us, in placing a meaning upon descriptive terms and definitions contained in statutes, to have recourse to external aids-derived from the surrounding circumstances and the history of the subject matter dealt with, and to construe the enactment by the light derived from such sources, and so to put ourselves as far as possible in the position of the legislature whose language we have to expound. If this rule were subjected and the language of the statute were considered without such assistance from extrinsic facts, it is manifest that the task of interpretation would degenerate into mere speculation and guess work.
This is the language of the ex-Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, the highest court of our land, which he used a few years ago in a very important case. In that case Sir Oliver Mowat was defending the rights of the province of Ontario-I think it was tlie Provincial Streams case. The province of Ontario was deeply interested in that

case, and was represented by that upholder of provincial rights, Sir Oliver Mowat. He used this language :
In various cases it has been decided, I am not quite sure whether in this court or in other courts, reference has been made to the resolutions upon which the British North America Act was founded. What degree of importance should be attached to them has not been stated, but at all events it is reasonable for judges to look at them, and if they do find that they throw any light on the subject they should avail themselves of that light.
Therefore, I say that the right hon. leader of this government was right in going back to the history of confederation, to the origin of clause 93 of the British North America Act, in order that he might the better interpret it as the basis of the present measure. We know, from the history he gave this House, that if clause 93 was embalmed in the constitution of this country it was at the request of the Protestant minority of the province of Quebec. Now, Sir, I may say at once that it was not necessary to embalm that principle of religious equality in the constitution. If we examine the words of Sir John Bose, in the confederation debates, one may easily see that the Protestant minority of the province of Quebec did not require the enactment of clause 93 in the British North America Act. Here is the statement made by Sir John Rose :
Now, we the English Protestant minority of Lower Canada, cannot forget, that whatever right of separate education we have, was accorded to us in the most unrestricted way before the union of the provinces, when we were in a minority and entirely in the hands of the French population. We cannot forget that in no way was there any attempt to prevent us educating our children in the manner we saw fit, and deemed best; and I would be untrue to what is just, if I forgot to state that the distribution of state funds for educational purposes was made in such a way as to cause no complaint on the part of the minority.
That was the statement made by Sir John Rose at the time of confederation. Therefore, I say that in the light of this testimony it was not even necessary for the minority to exact the enactment of that clause 93. Nevertheless, Sir A. T. Galt, in fulfilment of the pledge given to tile Protestant minority of Lower Canada, went to London and had that clause inserted in our constitution. Now, the first question which presents itself is that which has been treated this afternoon by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), namely, does this clause 93 apply to Quebec and Ontariq only, or does it apply to all the provinces ? My hon. friend from Labelle has cited the opinion of Lord Carnarvon. I will not wearjT the House by giving the quotation again, but I will only quote a few words. Lord Carnarvon, in 18C6, used the following language :
The object of this clause is to secure to the religious minority of one province the same rights, privileges and protection which the religious minority of another province may enjoy.
The Roman Catholics of Upper Canada and the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime provinces will thus stand on a footing of equality.
But has the local legislature exclusive jurisdiction in matters of education ? We are told that the jurisdiction of the provinces is absolute in matters of education. It is not so-on the contrary, it is limited. It is precisely what the Lord Chancellor said in rendering judgment on the second appeal to the Privy Council of the Manitoba minority :
The Act imposes a limitation on the legisla- [DOT] tive powers conferred. Any enactment contravening its provisions is beyond the competency of the provincial legislation and consequently null and void. In relation to the subject spec!-, fled in section 92 of the British North America Act the exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures may be said to be absolute. But this is not so as regards education.
Sir, not only is the jurisdiction of provincial legislature restricted in matters of education, but to use the language of Lord Carnarvon :
In the event of any wrong at the hand of local majority, the minority may appeal to the Governor in Council and claim the application of any remedial laws that may be necessary from the central parliament of Canada.
Therefore, the Privy Council declared that in all matters enumerated in section 92, the powers of the legislature are supreme and exclusive, but we have the authority of the Privy Council-the highest authority in the British Empire-that on matters of education this Dominion parliament has certain authority. I can quote not only authorities from the other side of the Atlantic, tout I can quote the authority of Mr. Edward Blake, of. the late Sir John Thompson, and even of Mr. Dalton McCarthy, the champion of the public school system in this country. On March 6, 1893, Sir John Thompson, speaking in the House of Commons, and addressing himself to the scope of section 93, at a time when the separate school controversy in Manitoba was becoming acute, said :
I take it that the principle is well settled and well agreed upon by both parties in this country, as well as by lawyers and tribunals of justice, that that provision, that qualification, nullifies any Act of a provincial legislature which conflicts with it ; and that the legislature of a province, while to a great extent its powers are exclusive with regard to education, steps beyond its power and enacts a void enactment when it enacts a law which prejudicially afiects any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons had by law in any province at the time of the union.
Sir John Thompson also quoted from Mr. Edward Blake, who some years before lin'd introduced resolutions for referring a certain class of semi-political questions to the Supreme Court of Canada, and Mr. Blake dealt inter alia with section 93, and said :

,3319

Under these clauses a limited power to make educational laws is granted to a province, provided, amongst other things, that nothing therein contained shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any of the provinces had by law or, in the case of Manitoba, by practice at the union.
Mr. Dalton McCarthy's opinion will be found at page 73 of the official report of his argument before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the city of Winnipeg vs. Barrett. He was explaining to their lordships the meaning of section 93, and went on to call their attention to section 146 in these words :
By this section 146 the Dominion was to take in the province of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, and also It was assumed Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories would be acquired, and would be ultimately divided into provinces, just as the Northwestern Territories had been divided into states.- And provision was made for taking in these various provinces, and accordingly they were taken in, British Columbia first, if my memory serves right, in 1871, and then Prince Edward Island. This clause (section 93) was made applicable to British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, but in neither of these provinces were there any denominational rights, nor has it been so pretended, in respect of schools to be protected or reserved. But the scheme was to apply to the provinces as they came in the general terms of the British North America Act where there were not special circumstances which rendered some other legislation necessary.
And now, as to the contention that section 93 applies only to the four original provinces, or, as some contend, only to the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, let me state what occurred in the province of Prince Edward Island. That province came into confederation, in the year 1873. Although the delegates met at Charlottetown, although they had debated the union in Prince Edward Island, yet in 1867 that province declared that she would not join confederation, and she did not join at that date. Before 1873, there had existed in that province a system of public schools, and side by side with it had grown up a system of separate schools. There were French schools in several parishes, and in 1875 an Act was passed by the local legislature of Prince Edward Island, abolishing the separate schools system. An appeal was made to the Governor General in Council. On that appeal it was admitted by the appellants, the Roman Catholic minority, and by the respondents, the local legislature, that although Prince Edward Island had joined confederation only in 1873, clause 93 applied, and the late lion. Rodolphe Laflamme, who was then Minister of Justice, submitted a lengthy report, in which he said that clause 93 could not be of any avail to the minority in the province of Prince Edward Island, because Mr. LEMIEUX.
the system of separate schools had grown up illegally by the side of the public schools system. There was no legislation to warrant it. and therefore clause 93 could be of no avail.
But we a.re told by Mr. Haultain and a portion of the press that what may apply to a province does not apply to a territory. This is indeed a very fine and very subtle distinction. Mr. Haultain's objection is not serious. That it is only sophistry is quite obvious. In 1871, doubts had arisen [DOT] as to the right of the federal parliament to establish provinces out of the Territories admitted in the union. The imperial parliament then passed a statute amending the British North America Act in order to remove any such doubts. What does section 2 of that Act declare ? Our parliament was authorized
To make provision for the constitution and administration of the provinces carved out of those regions, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government thereof.
I claim that by the clear and concise enactment I have just quoted, ample authority was given this parliament to frame a constitution for the Territories. Mr. Haultain's interpretation of the British North America Act is this one : He wishes to date the entry into confederation of the two new provinces back to July 15, 1870-because, forsooth, at that time there was no system of separate schools established by law-such as there is under the law of 1875 and under the ordinances 29, 30, 31. As section 93 of the British North America Act does not mention Territories, hut provinces. Mr. Haultain concludes that it cannot benefit the new provinces. But the hon. gentleman cannot alter facts. Territories were admitted in the union in 1870. But in 1905 we admit provinces-according to section 2 of the imperial statute of 1871.
It is only this year that this Bill will be in force; it is only on the first of July next that the Northwest Territories will join the union as provinces, and therefore the legislation enacted in 1875 by this parliament granting a system of separate schools, can be retained by the present legislation. I could cite the ablest authorities on the American constitution, Cooley, Randolph Tucker, Sutherland, and others, to show that when the Territories are acquired they do not become states, and so it is with our own Territories. When 1 hey were purchased by Canada they did not become full-fledged provinces. And how did these Territories come into Canada ? We are aware that there was some doubt expressed as to the validity of the Act of 1870. Some people believed that we could not carve provinces out of these Territories, and therefore Sir John Macdonald, who was Frime Minister, applied to the imperial authorities to have the legislation of 1870 confirmed by an imperial statute. It is well to refer to the memoran-

dum sent to the home government by Sir John A. Macdonald in order that we may see the scope of the imperial statute. Writing to the Earl of Kimberly, he asked the imperial parliament to enact legislation in its next session :
1.	' Confirming the Act of the Canadian parliament, 33 Victoria, chapter 3, above referred to, as if it had been an imperial statute, and legalizing whatever may have been done under it according to its true interests.
2.	Empowering the Dominion parliament from time to time to establish other provinces in the Northwestern Territory, with such local government, legislature and constitution as it may think proper, provided that no such local government or legislature shall have greater powers than those conferred on the local governments and legislatures by the British North America Act, 1867, and also empowering it to grant such provinces representation in the parliament of the Dominion.
These were the purposes, as stated by Sir John Macdonald, for which the imperial parliament passed the Act of 1871.
With regard to this Bill, the British North America Act of 1867 cannot alone apply. The British North America Act of 1871 must also apply. The two must be construed together.
Let me go one step further. Are the educational clauses of this Bill inconsistent with the spirit of our constitution? Read the preamble of the British North America Act and what do you find ?
Whereas the phovinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.
I ask you, Sir, is there anything in the educational clause contrary in principle to the constitution of the United Kingdom?
Sir, if there is a redeeming feature in the present debate for the partisans of the separate schools system, it is the fact that in Great Britain, in the mother country, there is also [DOT] a system whereby denominational schools are state aided. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in England, the country wherefrom we borrowed our parliamentary institutions ; in England, wherefrom we borrowed a constitution; in England, minorities enjoy their full liberty in matters of education. I, o Canadian and a Roman Catholic, am proud to cite this example of tolerance given by our mother country. I ask my friend from "Grey would he be in Canada less generous, less tolerant than the average English Protestant in England ?
Sir, I need not refer at any length to the history of the school question in England. But I may say at the outset that the right hon. leader of the House is not the only statesman who has had to face grave difficulties with regard to an Educational Bill. Sir, the greatest of all modern British statesmen has also had his hours of anxiety 1061
when in 1870 he attempted to legislate upon a similar question. Mr. Gladstone lost many a warm friend, many a Arm supporter, when he introduced the Educational Bill of 1870.
Eor years, I might say for centuries, there had been in England a system of national schools. But there were many sects, many creeds in England, and it was felt that it would be a violation of the principle of religious liberty if the dissenters were forced to send their children to schools, tlie religious teaching of which was not in conformity with their views. So, by the side of national schools, grew up a system of voluntary schools-that is to say, separate schools-where the dissenters of ail sects and denominations sent their children. The secular teaching did not differ much from that of the national schools; but the religious teaching given the children was in accordance with the tenets of the parents' faith. Catholics, Wesleyans, Quakers established all over the realm voluntary schools. So much so, that a time came when more children frequented the voluntary schools than the national schools. The board schools were state aided; the voluntary schools were self-sustaining. There were in England, as there are in this country, partisans of the neutral school. There were also men who thought that the children had a right to a religious teaching according to the religious belief of their parents.
Such was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone. Such was also the opinion of Lord Salisbury. Let me quote, Mr. Speaker, the opinion of those two great British statesmen. As far back as 1856 Mr. Gladstone said:
We have happily found it practicable in England to associate together in the most perfect harmony these two principles, the principle of voluntary exertion, through which yon get heart and love and moral influence infused into your school instruction, and the principle of material aid from the state, by which the skeleton and framework of your education is provided. I am convinced that the harmony which has hitherto been maintained between them, even in times of doubt and difficulty, will continue, and, if possible, increase, but if I were driven utterly to abandon the voluntary, or to place exclusive reliance upon it, I would not hesitate a moment in making my choice. In such an emergency, I would say at once, give me the real education, the affection of the heart, the moral influence operating upon character, the human love, that are obtained through the medium of the voluntary principle carried by men whose main motive is one of Ghristain philantropy rather than throw me upon a system which, whatever the intentions of its mover may he, must sooner or later degenerate into hard irreligion.
Lord Salisbury, on another occasion, spoke as follows :
There is only one sound principle in religious education to which you should cling, which you should relentlessly enforce against all the conveniences and experiences of official

We can have no illusion. Efforts have been made to strangle the liberty of education. One is not free to think when one is not free to propagate one's thoughts publicly, and one is not free to think when one is not permitted to have one's children brought up in accordance with one's ideas, conviction and faith. To suppress the liberty of education, the government dares not act openly, but invokes hypocritically a law of which the apparent and declared object was to extend the scope of the liberties indispensable to a democracy. ... To grant the monopoly of education to one party doctrine and opinion is to establish a censorship over matters of public instruction, to organize the servitude of thought, and to prepare political tyranny.
This is what the elite of the French litterateurs think of the school policy of the French government. Let me tell my friend from Grey that he is greatly mistaken if he really believes that the denominational schools in France have produced a race of illiterates. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the land of Racine, of Moliere, of Corneille, of Bossuet, is not a land of illiterates ? Surely the schools and the lycees which have produced men like Victor Hugo, Lamartine, Thiers and Guizot, were not mere hotbeds of ignorance and cretinism ! The hon. gentleman, in his endeavour to give the public schools a superiority over the denominational schools, might have spared his French Canadian friends in the House his untimely reference to the so-called illiteracy of Frenchmen. For my part, Sir, I am a British subject, and an admirer of the British institutions. I may add that, politically speaking, I am more at home in London than in Paris -that my ideals in politics are at Westminster, not at the Palais Bourbon ; yet no one will ever deny-I for one will never do so-that in literature and in fine arts, France is second to no other nation in the world. But if France is still, at the beginning of this twentieth century, the leading nation of the world in the field of literature and fine arts, she has nothing to regret of the teachings given to her sons in the old church schools.
Reference has been made during this debate to the American settlers in the west. We are told that we must have public schools, because the settlers happen to come from across the boundary line, where a system of public schools exists. In other words, we must ignore the spirit and the letter of our constitution because the Americans are coming to our country. I shall not discuss the school system as it exists in the United States, but I have enough pride in the institutions of my country to believe that our system is not inferior to theirs. I have enough patriotism to stand by the rights of a Canadian minority, even if it does not suit the American settlers. And I am amazed, Sir, to see the ultra loyalist element of Canada so subservient to the desires, to the wishes, of the newcomers. Let them come from Dakota, from Arkansas, Illinois, or from any other Mr. LEMIEUX.
state of the union. I do not object to that ; but, in the name of common sense and for our own dignity, let us not trample upon our own constitution because it happens to please these people. .
Sir, it has been suggested in the course of this debate that the Northwest Act of 1875 provided only for a temporary state of things. There is no such declaration in the Act. Let me say, Sir, that the men who enacted that law had taken part in the battle for confederation. They knew what had been the stumbling block of the union and what compromise had been reached. They, therefore, deliberately pledged the faith, the honour of parliament, that as long as there would be a Catholic minority in the west it would be entitled to its schools. Thirty years have elapsed since 1875. The separate school system has been adopted, and to-day we are told that those who have settled in the west with that guarantee should do without it. The Act of 1875 was passed under Mr. Mackenzie's government, and it was supported by Sir John Macdonald. It was amended in 1882 under a Conservative administration, and the separate school system was maintained.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the British empire, if there was some sympathy for the Uitlanders, it was because it was asserted that President Kruger had not kept faith with them. In 1880 President Kruger went to London, and he then invited immigration to the Transvaal, promising the immigrants full citizenship. I have read several books on the South African war, and in them I found that the chief cause of the war was the lack of faith of Kruger in his stringent naturalization laws. Sir, laws concerning education are also with us fundamental laws. We enjoy religious liberty in Canada. Religious education is to a large degree considered essential by Roman Catholics. Why then should v e deprive them of their right to schools ?
Mr. Speaker, we are told, those of us who favour this measure, that we should trust the western people. Such is the language of the * Globe ', such is the language of the Toronto ' News.' For my part, I would trust, and I do trust, the western people as well as the eastern people ; but the present issue has been made a religious one. The protests which have been made from the pulpit, the petitions which have been sent to this House, all bear the mark of religion. We have had petitions from the Orange Order, from the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists ; and there is between the opponents of the separate schools and the opponents of the public schools such a wide breach that, if left to the popular vote in the west, it would be impossible to bridge the difficulty. Those who sincerely believe in the separate school system would soon come to grief, because tlieir opponents are unquestionably the majority. Besides the opposition to the separate schools seems to be doctrinal, and I do not see how you could reconcile both

systems. By the census of 1901 I find that the several religious denominations in the Northwest Territories stand as follows :
Presbyterians		.. .. 27,800	
Methodists		.. .. 22.151	
Baptists		.. .. 5,340	
Lutherans		.. .. 12,097	67,394


Roman Catholics .. ..: .. .. 20,073	
Anglicans		.. .. 25,366	55,439
15,949
Having those figures in hand, I find that there is a majority against the system of separate schools of 11,955 in comparing the relative strength of the two factions, tinder these circumstances, and in the interest of peace and harmony, do you not believe that it is far better to settle the difficulty at once, by an honourable compromise satisfactory to all those who believe in moderation and fair-play ?
We have been told the other day by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the Catholics of the United States were paying something like fifty million dollars per year, in order to have Their separate schools. Is it not far better to enact the present legislation, which, although giving the minority their right to religious teaching of their own, brings their schools to the standard of the public schools system in secular matters ? If you were to refuse them what they are getting by the ordinances, they would be left to their own pri-[DOT] vate resources ; they would be self-sustaining. How could they compete with the state-aided public schools ? What interest have you to starve them ' Surely the half hour of religious instruction should not debar the Catholics from government assistance.
I ask any fair-minded Protestant if he believes, in his heart and conscience, that my son can be taught history, for instance, in the same book as his son ? Is it possible for an honest Protestant and an honest Catholic to think alike, and to see in the same light any of the historical events connected with say, the Reformation, Mary Stuart, Henry VIII, Queen Mary, John Knox or Thomas Beckett ? Are there not, on such questions, deep differences which it is almost impossible to reconcile ?
We are told that this legislation is an infringement on what is called provincial rights. As a consistent Liberal, I claim myself to be an upholder of such rights. After the battles fought by the late Sir Oliver Mowat and by the Hon. Edward, Blake, we on this side of the House cannot but defend the rights of the provinces. But. as I have already demonstrated, the rights of the provinces are clearly defined by section 92 of the British North America Act. Section 93 gives also the federal parliament a jurisdiction on matters of education. At the time of the Equal Rights movement, when parliament was asked too to disallow the Jesuits' Estate Act, we too invoked provincial rights, and we were answered by the late leader of that campaign, the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy, as follows :
The worship of what was called local autonomy, which some gentlemen have become addicted to, is fraught, I venture to say, with great evils to this Dominion. Our allegiance is due to the Dominion of Canada. The separation into provinces, the right of local self-government which we possess, is not to make us less citizens of the Dominion, is not to make us less anxious for the promotion and welfare of the Dominion, and it is ho argument to say that, because a certain piece of legislation is within the power of a local parliament, therefore the legislation is not to he disturbed. By the. same Act of parliament by which the power is conferred upon the local legislature, the . duty and power-because where there is a power there is a corresponding duty-are cast upon the Governor in Council to revise, and review, the Acts of the legislative bodies. If you are to say that because a law has been passed within the legislative authority of the province, therefore it must remain, we can easily see, Sir, that before long these provinces, instead of coming nearer together, will go further and further apart. We can see that the only way of making a united Canada, and building up a national life and sentiment in the Dominion, is by seeing that the laws of one province are not offensive to the laws and institutions, and it may he to the feelings, of another-I will go so far as to say that they must he to some extent taken into consideration.
I have quoted the above extract in order to show that the principle of provincial rights i^ not always adhered to by those Who are quite ready, when circumstances arise, to invoke it. Let me, however, give the opinion on this subject of one of the fathers of confederation. In an address to his constituents, October, .1864, Sir A. T. Galt said :
It was clear that in confiding the general subject of education to the local legislatures, it was absolutely necessary it should he accompanied with such restrictions as would prevent injustice in any respect from being done to the minority.	.
Now this applied to Lower Canada, but it also applied, with equal force, to Upper Canada and the other provinces, for in Lower Canada there was a Protestant minority, and in the other provinces a Catholic minority. The same privileges belong of right here, as belonged to the other right elsewhere. There could be no greater injustice to a population than to compel them to have their children educated in a manner contrary to their own religious belief.
Therefore, I say, Sir, that I am within the scope of provincial rights in asking that this parliament should protect the minority in the Northwest. But, there is something else than provincial rights. We, the Liberal party, stand for provincial rights. That was the policy of our old leader, Alexander Mackenzie; it was the policy of Sir Oliver Mowat; it was the policy of Mr. Edward Blake. It is still the policy of the Liberal party. But, Sir, with provincial

goes directly to the' principle of the Bill which we are discussing. In order that I may. not misquote the hon. gentleman I will read what he said :
I represent a section of the people of the Northwest Territories and I say that the people or the Northwest Territories have never asked for provincial autonomy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know who represents the people of the Territories the better, the thirty-five representatives in the local legislature at Regina or the hon. gentleman who represents Edmonton. I do not know what he means by stating that the people of the Northwest Territories never asked for provincial autonomy. I would remind him of the fact that on July 20, 1900, an address was sent to this government by the legislative assembly at Regina, and that on December 7, 1901, a draft Bill was prepared to which reference has been made and the terms of which were familiar to the thirty-five local representatives at Regina. In the year 1901, the Board of Trade of Edmonton, the town the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) lives in, passed a resolution asking that the Territories be created into two provinces. On April 2, 1902, the Eastern Assiniboia Liberal Association met at Indian Head and passed similar resolutions. I am not quite sure, but I have a suspicion that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) was present at that meeting in company with Mr. Bulyea. In 1902, there was a local election in the Territories, and in the platform put forward by Mr. Haultain there were these two planks :
1.	Equal rights with all the other provinces of the Dominion.
2.	Control of the public domain in the west.
These are the matters that the government
of the Territories are now fighting for and these are the matters upon which your judgment is invited in my appeal to you for re-election in the legislature. A similar appeal has been made in every constituency in the country by every candidate whose election will give support to the government at this particular period in the history of the Territories. The issue is plain ; it is for the people of the Territories to decide.
The election took place and the result of that election demonstrated that Mr. Haul-tain and liis supporters represented public opinion iu the Territories ou the question of provincial autonomy. I find that four resolutions have subsequently been passed by the territorial assembly demanding the provincial status ; I find also that the very strongest advocate of the stand taken by Mr. Haultain, was, up to a short time ago, the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). He complimented Mr. Haultain ou the stand he had taken in asking for provincial autonomy, but a short time afterwards the hon. member (Mr. Scott) changed his opinion, and assigned as a reason "for Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
delay that litigation was now pending as to the exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway from taxation, and he held it would be folly for the government to put through a Bill leaving that matter an open question. But to-day, the hon. member (Mr. Scott) is supporting a Bill which contains a clause continuing that exemption for ever. I also find that on April the 3rd, the Prince Albert Board of Trade passed a resolution declaring that the government should grant provincial autonomy. On March the 3rd, there was a similar resolution from the Calgary Board of Trade. On March 25th, the Conservative convention at Moosejaw at which there were over 200 delegates, some of whom came 700 miles to attend, passed a resolution declaring in favour of the immediate granting of full provincial autonomy including the ownership of the public lauds, mines and minerals. I also find that the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), speaking on October 13, 1908, used these words :
I would wish to point out to the hon. members and to the gentlemen on both sides, that it is not we who are objecting to provincial autonomy. We are asking provincial autonomy, hut we want it on certain terms.
In January, 1904, the Liberal convention in nominating a candidate for Southern Alberta, passed a resolution in favour of provincial autonomy. On September 29 last, the right hon. the First Minister wrote to Mr. Haultain promising that if his government were returned to power they would immediately take into consideration the question of granting provincial autonomy to the Territories. I may point out that seven of the Liberal candidates were returned to this House, and not one of these gentlemen, so far as 1 know, has been instructed by his constituents to repudiate the pledge given to the people by the Liberal leader. I say, Sir, that the resolution I have read, asking that the mines, lands and minerals be left to tbe provinces, represents the true sentiment of the people of the west. They have the conviction that they are entitled to have in the local government the administration of the mines, lands and minerals in their territory, and without that they will not be satisfied. The only argument which I have heard presented ' in support of the overturning of the principles of the union, is that there might be a conflict between the local and federal authorities, and that the federal government might not be able to carry on its immigration policy. That argument was used by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton), but he has not always thought that way because in the province of Manitoba in days gone by he contended for full provincial rights and he advocated handing over the lands to his province ; later on he advi-eated handing over the school lan Is as well.

The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) seemed to fear greatly that if the control of the public domain should be given to the provinces, the provinces would use the lands for revenue and would not settle the outlying districts. Well, Sir, X dm uot so willing as he is to suspect the foresight and business-like management of the local assembly. That assembly has undertaken no function up to date that the people of that country would consent to have abrogated, and the enlargements heretofore made in the powers of the local assembly have been amply justified by the results. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) also entertained a different view of this question in days gone by, and on the 24th of July, 1884, he moved in the local legislature a resolution which expressed his views at that date, and which are not his views of to-day. lie tells us that the lands might be exploited by the people of the west, but let me ask him if the people of the west are not tlhe most interested in the proper administration of these lands, and do they not realize that by settling these lands they would be enhancing the value of their heritage. For my part, Sir, I am not prepared to say that if the immigration policy wete handed over to the local government, they would continue the present system in its entirety. I do uot know that a large expenditure out of the immigration vote for campaign literature would be carried on ; I do not know that the large army of officials now in the Northwest would be continued in office, and I do not know that the local governs ment would hand over its lands in blocks of 250,000 acres at one dollar an acre.
We are told now, Sir, and it is common report throughout the country, that the duties of the Department of the Interior have become too onerous for one man. We were told that the ex-minister (Mr. Sifton) was so broken down in health that he of all men was unable to attend the conference with regard to the granting of autonomy to the Territories. Is not this a very good opportunity to relieve the Department of the Interior of some of its work, and of handing over to the local administration of the Territories the control of the public lands, a right which is enjoyed by every other province but one in this Dominion ?
All that we have heard from the ex-Minister of the Interior is that there would be a conflict; but that will not satisfy the people of the west. They want soihe more satisfactory reason, in view of the attitude which the hon. gentleman assumed in days gone by. They will not endure in silence the withholding of their public lands. I doubt if some of the other Liberal members, in view of the statements which they have made in days gone by, will get up in this House and make the declaration that the people of the Northwest Territories are
not fit to be entrusted with the same measure of self-government that is enjoyed by the various provinces of this Dominion. If they do, I think we on this side of the House will have some reason to congratulate ourselves ou the. manner in which they will be received by the people of that country after such a declaration. In view of the statements that have been made, I think it is only fair to this House and to the people of that country that these hon. gentlemen should give the grounds for the conclusions at which they have arrived.
The hon. the Solicitor General was very pleased to exalt and extol the British constitution. He thought very much of the British constitution in certain respects; but if the British constitution applies in one direction, why should it not apply in the other ? If we are going to follow the British constitution in respect of education, why should we depart from it in regard to the important matter of the control of the public domain ? Are hon. gentlemen opposite, in withholding from the new provinces the control of the public domain, following the British colonial policy ? What was that policy ? It is perhaps unnecessary for me to state to the House that the original idea of the British statesmen was to control the lands in the colonies; but when they tried to put that idea into practice, they had to abandon it for a better policy, namely, that the people on the spot were best qualified to manage their own lands, and that was the policy they adopted. They felt that with local representation the management of the lands would be better looked after. Is that principle not equally applicable to-day? Here we have a territory two thousand miles away, represented In this House by only ten members. If those lands are handed over to the local government, there will be fifty members looking after their management in the interest of the people; and if mistakes or jobbery are liable to happen, are these not more likely to be detected by governments representing fifty members than by a government representing only ten ? I say that to withhold from the provinces the management of their own lands is directly contrary, not only to British colonial policy, but to the spirit of confederation. When confederation was formed, what was the arrangement made between the various provinces ? Was it not that each province retained the right to administer the public domain, while the customs and excise duties were surrendered to the Dominion ? That was the policy carried out with regard to Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Then, in what spirit are these provinces being created to-day ? I take it that It is under section 146 of the British North America Act, which especially provides that the admission shall be ' subject to the provisions of this Act.' The spirit is also in section 109, if the letter is not, un-

der which is handed over to the original provinces the right to administer their public domain. If there is any doubt as1 to the policy that was adopted by the fathers of confederation, let us see what was said. I find in the confederation debates, at page 40; that Sir John A. Macdonald said :
It will be seen that the local legislature have the control of all the local works; and it is a matter of great importance, and one of the chief advantages of the federal union and of local legislatures, that each province will have the power and means of developing its own resources and aiding its own progress after its own fashion and in its own way.
Another distinguished Canadian, also one of the fathers of confederation, the Hon. George Brown, referring to this matter, in the course of his speech, said :
Each province is to have charge of its own Crown lands, Crown timber and Crown minerals, and will be free to take such steps for developing them as each deems best.
Further on, the Hon. Mr. Holton, interrupting Mr. Brown, said :
Unfortunately for your argument, the lauds will be in the hands of the local governments.
Mr. Brown replied :
So much the better. My hon. friend can manage his public lands in Lower Canada as he likes, and we will manage ours.
At page 10 of the debates of 1809, Mr. Edward Blake made the following statement in opposing a resolution to admit Newfoundland into the union and to pay Newfoundland $150,000 a year in lieu of its lands ;
He was very strongly opposed to the Dominion acquiring the Crown lands of Newfoundland, and he has as strongly objected to Newfoundland being deprived of its Crown lands. He commended the policy of the framers of the constitution in leaving to each of the provinces the control of their own public lauds. This was from the Canadian point of view. Then as to Newfoundland the arrangement was equally objectionable :	(1) Its distance from the seat
of government (2) and its small representation in parliament would lead to an unsatisfactory management.
The local government would be deprived of the control of these lands, which might by it be rendered valuable for the future development of the colony.
The development of mineral wealth could not be effected by raising a revenue, but by encouraging local enterprise. If the proposition was between giving Newfoundland $150,000 a year and taking her lands, and giving $150,000 a year and leaving her her lands, he would willingly vote for the latter (hear, hear). These lands under the local management of the government would contribute much .more largely to the prosperity of Newfoundland than if they were in the hands of the government of Canada.
And lie closed with an amendment to the resolution to this effect :
That the public lands can be managed more efficiently, economically and satisfactorily by Mr. m. s. McCarthy. '
the provinces in which these lands are situated than by Canada, and that there is no good reason for a departure from the principle of the Union Act.
That is a statement which I desire to impress upon the members of this House in regard to the principles of the Union Act, as Mr. Blake regarded them in 1869.
But, Mr. Speaker, if there can be any doubt at all as to what was in the minds of those gentlemen at that day, I will refer to another statement which was made on June 10 in the same debate by Mr. Alexander Mackenzie. Mr. Blake bad made his argument first, and had been twitted by the members of the government for voting to pay money to the Hudson Bay Company. If there could be anything plainer or clearer as- to what was in their minds at that time, it would be hard to find it. Mr. Mackenzie said :
The Minister of Public Works, and the premier said they were surprised that the member for West Durham should object to our acquiring the public lands of Newfoundland after voting for the acquisition of lands in the Northwest Territories.
There was (a) difference between the two cases, in the Northwest Territories there were at present no constituted authorities as there were in Newfoundland, and it would not be pretended that after a government was established in the Northwest Territories we would administer its lands from Ottawa.
That statement to my mind is most significant because it was made in the year 1869, the very year- when the surrender was taken from the Hudson Bay Company ; and 1 am sure that' the First Minister and the Solicitor General will pardon the more obscure members from the west if we venture to differ from them in opinion, backed as we are by the statements of these jnen at the very time the contract went through. These were the views that prevailed at that time ; and in the consideration of this question we look to our fellow-citizens in the other provinces to admit our right to be put on an equal footing with them and be given the administration of our own public domain. I have shown what the arrangements were when the four original provinces entered confederation. Let us trace what the subsequent arrangements were in the case of those provinces which entered later.
British Columbia, which entered in 1870, was a colony entitled to its public lands, and not only has it control of its lands, but the Dominion pays it annually the sum of $100,000 for a twenty mile strip through the Rocky Mountains that was alienated for railway purposes. Prince Edward Island entered in 1873, and I think at that time her Grown lands were in such a shape that an annual grant of $45,000 was given her in lieu thereof. Manitoba is the one exception. That province was not allowed to retain its public lands, and hon. gentlemen opposite take glory in the fact that

the arrangement with Manitoba was made by their predecessors. They are willing to shield themselves behind the example* of their predecessors in some things, but see how different were the circumstances in Manitoba then as compared with what they are to-day in the Territories. In Manitoba in the year 1870, there were only 12,000 people, and it was perhaps prudent to withhold from that mere handful of people, unaccustomed to self-government, living on the banks of ilie Red river, their right to administer their public lands, but the conditions which then existed no longer remain nor do they exist in the new provinces about to be established. Whereas in Manitoba you had only 12,000 people in 1870, you have in the Territories to-day, if we are to believe the Minister of the Interior (Mr Sifton) a population of 500,000 people, and a population accustomed to all the responsibilities that go with self-government. But fourteen y ears later, when the same party was in power, the government of Manitoba came down to this parliament and asked to be j given control of its public lands and its petition was refused. True the province of Manitoba agreed to waive her claim to the public lands in consideration of an annual payment of $100,000. But it was her privilege to do that, and that does not form a precedent to be followed in this case. Besides bon. gentlemen opposite have been holding themselves out as nation builders and carefully avoiding any errors into which previous governments have fallen, as all government must fall sometimes. But can any man, I ask, look into the negotiations which have taken place between Manitoba and the federal government, and say that the policy followed was a wise one ? Look at the negotiations which have taken place at frequent intervals between that province and the administration at Ottawa, and you will find that the result of that policy has been continued dissatisfaction and continued agitation for better terms. Look at what has taken place. It is a record of almost annual pilgrimages from Manitoba to Ottawa for better terms. In 1876 her subsidy was increased to $90,000. In 1879 it was increased to $105,653. Again in 1882, she came knocking at the federal door, and her subsidy was increased to $215,000. In 1885 she was still given further assistance. She was given swamp lands, 150,000 acres for a university, $100,000 a year in lieu of public lands, and a per capita grant on a basis of population of 150,000. But that was not the end. In 189S further application was made and she was given a cash grant to construct the government house, and in 1899 she was given better lands in exchange for the swamp lands. These are only a few of the begging trips of Manitoba ; and I ask : Is it good policy, is it wise administration to keep the provincial government at the
mercy of the federal ? I submit, Sir, that to the province of Manitoba as well as to the new provinces should be given the right to administer the public domain within her borders. Speaking for my own constituency,
I believe that a majority of the people of the Territories would be willing to take up the case of Manitoba and make the fight together, aud I believe that at no distant day7, when we receive the representation in this House to which we are entitled, we will be here in such numbers as to justify us in insisting upon equal rights with the other provinces to administer the public domain within our respective borders.
We have heard a great deal about representations with regard to educational matters which were made to certain people when they went out to that country. I have seen pamphlets in circulation claiming protection for a certain class in matters of education and in matters of religious teaching on the ground that they went into that country relying on the protection of a certain clause in the constitution. But let me ask lion, gentlemen opposite under what promise did the hardy pioneers go into that country? Under what constitution did these men go into that country and enhance the value of those one time unoccupied lands by their energy, thrift and enterprise ? Is there any difference in that respect between that part of the Dominion and any other part? When people went out to that part of the Dominion did they give up any portion of their birthright, and is it right, when they take up the burden of a province, that they should start out in confederation as a province on any less advantageous terms than any other province ?
But what is the real reason why these public lands are being retained by this government and withheld from the Territories ? Is it because the governments of the Territories are not capable of giving an honest administration ? No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason. We have in that country to-day a large population accustomed to self-government, and no one has as yet ventured to sugest the merest suspicion against the competency of the people In the Territories to manage their own public affairs in their own public interests. That is not the reason, but the reason is that the Ottawa administration realizes that as long as it can retain the immense army of officials which it has up there now, it will have under its control a great machinery for securing votes. That is the difficulty in the way of giving up the lands and no matter what party may be in power, there will always be the danger of its making an improper use of its machinery, because the recent experience we have had up there is not such as to allay our apprehensions in that regard. That this objection is a serious one cannot be denied and

such experience as we have recently had in the west is hardly sufficient to relieve our apprehension, and I assert, Sir, without fear of contradiction, that popular sentiment in the west emphatically condemns any attempt to use government officials for political purposes.
I will give you the names of a few officials who participated in the recent elections in one riding in the last election.
1.	Neil G. McCallum, Yorkton, H.I., acted as an agent for Liberal candidate at McKenzie.
2.	S. G. McKee, Yorkton, clerk, Dominion Land Ordinance, acted as an agent.
3.	John Komainitaky, clerk, interpreter, Dominion Land Ordinance, acted as an agent.
4.	Carl Cenik, Winnipeg, Interior Immigration Office, acted as an agent and canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
5.	Mr. Wolf, Winnipeg, Immigration Office, acted as an agent, and canvassed for the Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
6.	Paul Bredt, Immigration Agent at Regina, resigned and since promoted, addressed meetings and canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
7.	C. W. Speers, Central Colonization Agent, canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
8.	Mr. Halloquist, Scandinavian Interpreter, canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
9.	Thos. McNutt, acting Immigration Agent, canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
Some of these men, homestead Inspectors aud interpreters were brought all the way from Winnipeg. I merely mention this matter to direct the attention of the First Minister to it. I regret that he is not in his place. The Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), if I remember correctly, stated that a public officer should be persona grata to all the people. And the Prime Minister said :
I feel as strongly now in 1*03 as I did in 1896 that when a man has taken office under the government he should take no part in politics.
I mention this to the House to ask these hon. gentlemen, in view of the statements I have given as to the British colonial policy, is it sufficient reasons to withhold from these new provinces the right to administer their public domain ?
Now, coming to the educational clause, I desire to examine these clauses for a few minutes. Before I proceed to discuss the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) from its merits, I wish to direct my attention to the speech made a few evenings ago by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He claimed that the clause inserted in Mr. Haultain's draft Bill was identically the same as that of the Bill now before the House, so far as the educational question is concerned. And. for fear of misquoting him, let me give his own words as found at page 3163 of ' Hansard-' :
But I find that section 3 of this draft Bill, which was prepared by the Northwest government in 1901-and these provisions were re-Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
peated in 1903-is almost word for word with section 2 of the Autonomy Bill which is before the *House and as a matter of fact is a reproduction of the similar section in the Act admitting each individual province into the Dominion. It reads:
Now, before this matter could be discussed, or even fairly understood, I presume, it would be necessary to make sure that we realize the difference between 'continue' and ' perpetuate.' Does the hon. member for Edmonton propose that creating new provinces in the Northwest, we should get along without any law at all until the legislature can meet ? Surely not. And this section 3 simply perserves for the time being the laws in existence on the 1st of July next. A section similar to this has been put in every law creating a province, simply to provide a body of laws until the legislature can meet and pass laws to continue the laws that have been handed over or repeal or amend them. Yet, the hon. member for Edmonton tries to construe this Bill as simply giving to the people of the Northwest what they asked for in their draft Bill. But I have already indicated the difference-we may have asked for it for the time being; but we do not ask to have the present system of schools perpetuated or the power to repeal the existing system taken away. We have a law with regard to brands. Does the hon, member for Edmonton want to discontinue that and have no law? We have a law with regard to bulls. If there was a law in the Northwest with regard to strikes, no doubt the hon. member for Edmonton would like to have it kept on the statute-book until the legislature could meet and pass such a law. He says also :
I say that In view of the fact that these separate schools have been in existence for 20 years absolutely at the disposal of this parliament, without a word of objection from the legislature of the Northwest Territories

But I find that on reference to the Journals of the legislative assembly, for 1889, page 65 and for 1890, page 129, that there were certain proceedings of that assembly of which the hon. member for Edmonton did not inform the House. Now I find that the Act of 1875 deals with education, and I am going to trouble the House while I read a few words from one section, as it is necessary for the point I desire to make. Section 14, the much-discussed section says:
14. .The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education but it shall therein always be provided, that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor ; and also that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic may esta-

blish separate schools therein-and in such case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
I find that in 1889, a petition was sent to the Dominion authorities by the local legislature at Regina, of which the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was then a member, praying to this effect :
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, the Senate and the House of Commons, praying for the amendment of ' The Northwest Territories Act ' by repealing that portion of subsection 1 of section 14 after the word * education ' in the second line.
And the hon. member for Edmonton supported that. So did the hon. member for East Asslniboia (Mr. Turriff), then a member of the assembly. Thus they prayed this administration that everything that had to do with education should be shut out of the law, which would leave the province a free hand with the matter of education. In view of that point, 1 think that hardly all the facts were stated by the bon. member (Mr. Oliver) when he said that there was no feeling in the Northwest with regard to this Bill and no objection taken to it. If the prayer of the petitions had been granted, I think these gentlemen would have been in nearly the same position as the amendment of the leader of the opposition would place them in. Apparently, their opinions have changed. But it did not stop at the point I have indicated. In the following session of the legislative assembly, they repeated their prayer. And the hon. member for Edmonton and the hon. member for East Assiniboia supported that contention, that education should be left entirely to the provinces. Now, apparently, they have changed their mind as they did with regard to the land policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, in proceeding to discuss these educational clauses of these Bills, I cannot say that I shall be able to show, but shall contend, that the amendments presented to this1 House to-day do not differ in the slightest degree from the original Bill as brought down. But, before I proceed to discuss the amendment and the original Bill let me point out the contrast between the position taken by the right hon. leader of the government and the ex-Minister of the Interior. the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). [DOT]
The right hon. the First Minister has said in introducing the Bill that it was obliga-[DOT] tory upon this government to preserve certain rights and conditions which by reason of good faith were inviolable, and lest I should misquote him I shall read what be said. These rights and conditions are inviolable because they are given under the Act of 1875, and he says:
It is open to any man to break his word, it is open to any man to violate his engagement, it is open to any man to trample under foot his plighted troth. Now if it is open to any man to do that, it is also open to parliament ; and if it be the view that parliament is not bound by the acts of any preceding parliament, that parliament may violate its plighted troth, then we have a double opportunity on this occasion to signalize ourselves.
Proceeding further in reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption:
But does anybody in this House think of removing from the Canadian Pacific Railway the powers and immunities which have been granted to that company ? Does anybody in this House think for a moment of giving to those new provinces the power to levy taxation upon the Canadian Pacific Railway ? No, we respect our engagements. Then I ask if we respect our engagements in the one ease, why should we not respect our engagements in the other case.
That is the position he took that certain rights under the Act of 1875 were created and were inviolable. He took the position that these rights which were created should be guaranteed to the minority. But the hon. member from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has endeavoured to show that there is a vast difference between the rights of the minorities under the Act of 1875 and their right to-day under local ordinances. He said that under the Act of 1875 the minority were entitled to and were given a complete dual system. This is what he says on page 3239:
That was the clause in the Act of 1876. X read it because it is important in view of the remarks I intend to address to the House, that its exact terms should be in the minds of the gentlemen who are honouring me with their attention.
What followed the passage of this law ? There was established in the Northwest Territories a complete dual system of schools.
Further down on the same page he says :
This system went on for some time in the Territories, and then the legislature began to interfere and to curtail the privileges of the separate schools. This curtailment proceeded from time to time until the year 1892 when what was known as the dual system was entirely swept away and that system which we have in the Northwest Territories, substantially as we have at present, was established.
So there is a vast difference in the views taken by the right hon. the First Minister and the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). There is a vast difference between the rights conferred under the Act of 1875 and under the ordinances according to the member for Brandon. The bon. member for Brandon has compared these rights and further says that these rights were conferred under the Act of 1875 and that the local ordinances curtailing them were unconstitutional and ultra vires. He will not consent to the preservation of the conditions which are inviolable, but be will agree to perpetuate the curtailed rights, although lie intimated that such an invasion was an illegal and uncon-

stitutional invasion of the rights conferred under the Act of 1875. I shall cite his exact woru.s. At page 3241 he says :
We have it that the clerical control of these schools was absolutely abolished. Every one recognizes that it was absolutely abolished and in addition to that, I desire to say-whatever we may think of the justification for the action which was taken-it seems to me perfectly clear, that in abolishing the distinctive character of the schools, the legislature of the Northwest Territories did go beyond the powers that were bestowed upon it by this section of the Act of 1875.
There is the opinion of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), that when the local ordinances abolished these rights they went beyond the power given to them under the Act of 1875. Upon that point Sir John Thompson expressed his opinion:
In making a report on one of the ordinances passed shortly before 1802 but somewhat similar in its effect-not so sweeping in its effect-Sir John Thompson in substance reported that this ordinance, contracts or diminishes the rights of minorities to an extent not contemplated by the Act of 1875, and that the Act of 1875 must nevertheless be held to remain in force notwithstanding the passage of the ordinance.
Now, there is the position. The First Minister insists upon the inviolabi'ity of that Apt. The ex-Minister of the Interior finds that under the Act the minority were entitled to a complete dual system. This was taken away by an ordinance. If they had the right to have them then they have the right now in spite of any ordinances to the contrary. I propose a little further on to deal with that section which specifically continues these rights of the minority in force in that country. The p isition then is this, that the Prime Minister repudiates his speech and accepts a yio ation of the Act of 1875 and accedes to a proposition to perpetuate a violation of the inviolable. There is the position between the Prime Minister and the hon member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton).
But let us examine into these clauses for a moment, and we shall see just who has been making a compromise, who has been giving away his rights or his religious opinions. I find that the objections of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) are, first, that he objects to subsection 2 of section 16, and it is on account of this clause he says that he resigned, because he says that in that all the evils which he has dilated upon existed under the Act of 1875 in Manitoba. I wish to make myself clear, but I am not going to be dragged into the discussion of the merits or demerits of a separate school system. That is a matter of which 1 know nothing, and I am simply taking the argument and citing the cases cited by the hon. gentlemen opposite who have had more experience in dealing with these systems than I have had. He says that he objects to subsection 2 of section 16 because in that Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
all the evils he has dilated upon exists, and he has persuaded the First Minister to accept a proposition that in his opinion has eliminated all the essential characteristics of a separate school system. What does subsection 2 of section 16 to which he makes objection contain? It says:
That a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the said province, or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name it is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit.
On that he builds up what he calls his university argument. He takes the general word 'education' at the beginning of that clause and ignores the fact that this general word is followed by a number of particular words. The reading of it is:
3. In the appropriation of public moneys by the legislature in aid of education, and in the distribution of any moneys paid to the government of the said province arising from the school fund established by the Dominion Lands Act, there shall be no discrimination between the public schools and the separate schools.
He takes the comprehensive word 'education' and tries to read into that that there was some risk and danger of endowing a Catholic university, ignoring altogether the fact that the general word education is followed afterwards by the particular words 'separate schools and public schools,' so he creates a man of straw in this so-eailed university argument and then proceeds to demolish it. I submit that it is based upon a fallacious construction of that clause to which he raises his objection. Now, what are his other objections and why did he resign ? Now, he objects to endowing a separate university, he objects to ear-marking the public land fund. But what does the amendment do? Does it not create and endow schools from the same funds? Does the amendment make any distinction between these two sections? Now, let us deal with the position as it is. How does the amendment change the Bill, if it changes it at all? I desire to point out that if the rights of the minority to separate schools were created under the Act of 1875, and if they were entitled under it to a complete dual system, then I say that under the amendment exactly the same state of affairs will prevail. Let me read subsection 1 of the amended section:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudically affect any right or privilege with respect to separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing' of this Act under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinance of the Northwest Territories passed in the year 1901.
Now I find that section 41 of chapter 29 of these ordinances reads as follows :
The minority of the ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish a separate school therein, and in such case the ratepayers establishing such

Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school shall be liable only to the assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves .in respect thereof.
Now, in that section is everything that is included in the Act of 1875, which gives these people the right to separate schools, and which gives them the rights the member for Brandon dilated upon a few days ago. Therefore, X take the position that there is not the slightest difference to-day between the amended Bill and the Bill that was originally presented to this House. Now an attempt was made by the Minister' of Customs, who is not in his seat, and by a number of other gentlemen, to show that all the amendment gives to these local legislatures is the power to give a half hour's religions instruction at the end of the day. Now, Sir, there is nothing in these1 ordinances which pares down the rights given to them under section 41, so far as I have been able to find, except to designate at what time this religious teaching shall take place. They have attempted to make this House believe that under this amendment it is not possible to have a dual system of text books, a dual system of inspection, but that everything given under the Act of 1875 is preserved by the introduction of section 41 in chapter 29. Now, this amendment, which they argue will preserve to the people of that country what they have got today, simply continues the lawT, it does not continue the administration. The dual system of text hooks, the dual inspection and all that is a matter of administration. Therefore, if the argument of the member for Brandon is sound that the action of the local legislation in paring down the rights these people had under the Act of 1S75 was ultra vires, then any Order in Council which was passed by the commissioner of education would be equally ultra vires.
Then the minority, under this section 41 which gives them the rights they had under the Act of 1875. and which are preserved to them under this amendment, would be able to demand that these rights be enforced.


Mr. SCOTT.: Does my hon. friend understand that after the 1st of .July they will not he able to do that ? That after this legislation takes effect they will not he able to do as he says they can do at present ?


Mir.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Why not ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Because this legislation removes any defects that may exist in the present; ordinance.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: No, it does not.


Thomas Walter Scott: Does my hon. friend say that this Act, when it passes, will not confirm chapters 29 and 30 as law ?


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Yes.


Thomas Walter Scott: Then that is the end of your argument.


Mir.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The hon. gentleman may think so. Let him take chapters 29 and 30 and show the section to this House where the rights under the Act of 1875 or of section 41 are pared down by them.


Thomas Walter Scott: Are not those the ordinances which abolish the ecclesiastical schools in the Northwest Territories 7


Mir.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The hon. gentle-yon will see that if you cannot take rights away by legislaton you cannot take them away by Order in Council. If the opinion of the hon. member for Brandon is correct, that the local ordinances which pared down the Act of 1875 were ultra vires, then any Order in Council which is passed paring down the rights which are continued to them under section 41. would also he ultra vires, and they would have a right to insist upon their privileges.


Thomas Walter Scott: He will not contend that these ordinances will he ultra vires after these Bills have passed this House.


Mir.  M. S.@: McCarthy. You will find that this amended Act does not preserve the administration, it simply preserves these ordinances, and ail there is in these ordinances paring down the rights given under section 41. would be identically the same rights they had under the Act of 1875. The only thing that is pared down is the half hour I have mentioned.	,


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend is mistaken. One of the conditions that was pared down was the existence of dual management and dual boards, one board managing tbe Roman Catbolie schools, and the other board managing the public schools.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Is that not under the regulations of the Commissioners of Education '?


Thomas Walter Scott: Certainly not, it is a provision of the ordinance.


Mir.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I differ from the hon. gentleman entirely and I want to impress upon the House the fact that this amended Act continues these ordinances only, and it does not continue the administration of them ; and if the Commissioner of Education passes certain Orders in Council which contravene the rights given under section 41, then this Order in Council will be just as much ultra vires and unconstitutional as the ordinances that were passed paring down the Act of 1875.


Mr.  D. D.@: McKENZIE, How does the hon. gentleman suppose that the administration of these new provinces would formulate and try to pass ordinances that will be beyond the terms of the constitution ? The hon, gentleman makes the statement that ordinances ultra vires of the constitution



REVISED EDITION '3351 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
will be passed. If the lion, gentleman is making a legal argument, I would like to know what authority he has for saying that they will go beyond their rights in chapters 29 and 30 ?
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think it is very difficult to understand the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). He says that if the ordinances were invalid we are validating these ordinances now, but we are not validating the Order in Council passed by the Commissioner of Education in the Northwest Territories, and consequently the invalidity of the ordinances still remains.


Thomas Walter Scott: Could they not have passed identical Orders in Council, which will be validated under this Bill ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is anothe" thing ; he speaks of the Orders in Council that have been passed.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: If the contention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. S. M. McCarthy) is right, surely we are leaving it to the provincial government to pass these Orders in Council.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Does not the hon. gentleman see that, if anything were done by ordinance or by Order in Council paring down the rights under the Act of 1875, then, if the hon. member for Brandon is correct, it would be equally ultra vires and could be set aside. If he cannot see that, I am sorry for him. Under the conditions existing to-day the Commissioner of Education can go back and establish a dual system of inspection and a dual system of text books.


Thomas Walter Scott: Certainly.


Mir.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Then if you are protecting the rights of the minority, why not protect the rights of the majority ; you say that all you want is what you have today. I am assuming that all the rights created under the Act of 1875 are preserved in section 41 ; and that being so, what would a stranger coming into this House think of the picture that has been presented to us by some gentlemen on the other side of the House ? I repeat that I know nothing of the separate school system, of its merits or demerits. What I know of it has come from hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Finance, although he declared himself opposed to separate schools, has gone on record with the statement that he will support this Bill. I quote from ' Hansard ' : I
I am firmly persuaded that the difference is so slight that it we reach a wise decision now, if we refrain from fanning the flame of political passion-I withdraw the word political, I am not discussing this from a party standpoint, and I did not intend to use that word, and I v. ithdraw it-If we refrain from doing and saying anything which can fan the flame of religious excitement in the Northwest Territories now, my honest conviction is that the separate schools will diminish, and the free, common,
Mr. d. d. mckenzie.
public schools will increase. I am persuaded that the difference is so small that the mass of the people in the Northwest Territories will hardly find it to their advantage to keep it up except in a few instances.
I take these words to mean nothing else than that he is supporting this legislation because it is going to kill the very thing that it is intended to create. I have spent some time of my life in the study of law, and that class of legislation is new to me. I do not know what name to call it, but if it were not unparliamentary I would suggest that it is boomerang legislation, something that comes back, something that has an opposite effect to that intended. And what can we say of the position taken by the Minister of Finance. He says that he wants separate schools abolished, but in his mind the longest way round is evidently the shortest way home. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) claims to have a great experience in matters of education, and. speaking of the Act of 1875, which I contend is continued in section 41, he says :
We had in the Northwest Territories at that time, under that Act. to all intents and purposes w'hat are generally known as church schools or clerical controlled schools. That was the system that was built up under this Act of 1875. It went on for some time. It was exactly the same system-I do not know as to the efficiency, for I am not familiar with that-but in principle it was the same system wre had in Manitoba up to the year 1890. when it was abolished by the Public School Act of that year.
Further on, at page 3110, he says :
When we, in the province of Manitoba undertook to remove what wras a school system, that I said was ' inefficient to a point of absurdity ' we found ourselves confronted with many and serious difficulties.
The school system which we abolished by the Public School Act of 1890 in the province of Manitoba, was precisely the same school system as the system that was abolished by the ordinance of the Northwest Territories in 1892,
There you have the ex-Minister of the Interior saying that the Act of 1875 gives to the people of the Territories exactly the same system that they had in Manitoba, and which, according to him, was inefficient to the point of absurdity. Again the exMinister of the Interior says :
Although we took strong ground upon that principle, yet the attacks we made were not so much on that account as they were on account of the fact that the school system of the province was admittedly inefficient, and that children were being allowed by thousands to grow up in absolute ignorance and illiteracy. That was the ground upon which we attacked successfully that system. We said then : Your system is inefficient ; you have taken the public money and you have not applied it for the purpose of giving the children the education they ought to have ; and w-e pointed to the fact that in districts where this clerically controlled system had been in force, the children had grown up in ignorance and the population was

illiterate, and that fact could not be disputed.
Sir, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, speaking last night, referred to the fact that it was said that the province of Manitoba had been harsh in abolishing that system. Well, Sir, I am here to say that you cannot abolish abuses of that kind by handling people with kid gloves. I am here to say that if there is any act in my public life I am proud of, it is the fact that I was one of those who helped to abolish that system of education in Manitoba in the year 1890.
The hon. member for Edmonton, at page 3160, places himself on record as follows :
I am one of these who pin their faith unreservedly to a system of national schools, established for the purpose of educating the people of the country, of imparting to them knowledge in secular subjects. I am one of those who believe that religion can best be taught by those whose special training is the teaching of religion, that geography can be better taught by those whose special training is for the purpose of teaching geography.
Now, Sir, we have the opinion of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) that the systems are identical. We have his view, tlie correctness of which I do not know, as to the efficiency of the system in Manitoba. We have also the hon. member for Lisgar i Mr. Greeuway), in liis election address In July, 1892, appealing to the people of Manitoba for a further return to office, one of the grounds which he strongly urges being that his government had abolished the dual system. I may state to the House that the hon. gentleman has not deputed me to state what his views are ; we have been anxious for him to speak for himself. I find that among those supporting him on that occasion, were : Mr. Clifford Sifton of Brandon; Mr. Burrows of Dauphin ; Mr. Jackson of Selkirk, and Mr. Crawford of Portage la Prairie, all of whom sit in this House to-day. If these hon. gentlemen have assigned to that system its true character, I can only take the position that nothing but absolute freedom in this matter of education can satisfy the people of the west. They should be left free to legislate in years to come and to profit by the experience of the past. If the present system proves to be satisfactory, if it can be preserved ; if the time comes when it does not prove satisfactory, the people of the west desire to have reserved the right to repeal it. I desire to point out to this House that the people of that country have never had an opportunity of< deciding upon that question for themselves. They differ from a colony. They are not coming into this confederation with a separate school system that they have chosen for themselves ; but I believe that if tbis administration bad trusted the people of tbe west any rights possessed by minorities there would have been respected. I am not here to say that that system would be abolished, if we had the power, on the second day of 1071
July; but what I plead for on behalf of those provinces is that they be allowed to legislate in that matter as they see fit, in view of the experience they have had.
Iu 1875, when the Act to which so much reference has been made was passed, there were only 500 people living there ; and the hon. Minister of Finance, a few evenings ago, stated that he never would be a party to the passing of an Act to override a local ordinance or local statute-that would be a gross interference with provincial rights. But to my mind time is not a very great distinction between overriding an Act in existence to-day, and picking out of our ordinance a certain portion and saying that suits us, and we will adopt it so that you cannot repeal it for all time to come. it seems to me that the one is no greater infringement or invasion than the other. The hon. Minister of Finance holds up as a model of tolerance the province of Nova Scotia, which I have no doubt is all that he claims for it; hut it did not strike me that the attitude he took in passing legislation which was going to kill what it was going to create was a very tolerant attitude. I think I can say for my own constituents that they will exercise as much tolerance and give as much fair-play to the minority in that country as any class of people that can be found in Canada. If you come with me to the foot-hills of the Rocky Mountains, you will find there public school boys from Eton, Harrow and Charterhouse ; Cheltenham and Clifton in city of Calgary ; those for whom I can claim just as much intellect and spirit of fairness as can be found in the people of Nova Scotia.
I have been surprised to hear the statement made by some people that many immigrants have come into that country on the faith of that Act of 1875, or of these ordinances existing in the Territories at present. Well, Mr. Speaker, while I believe that the people of that country are as good and as law-abiding as they are anywhere else, I am convinced that it is not the condition of the schools out there which has attracted the young men to it. What has attracted immigration is the land and the great possibilities in that country, and the settler always knows that if the educational facilities do nut suit him, he is at liberty to return home again. If you will take the statements issued by the land agent giving replies to the many inquiries sent to them, you will not find in. any one of them any reference to the schools, separate or otherwise, which is most convincing proof that the school question has nothing to do with the influx 6f settlers. Let me also point out that if people are coming into that country under misrepresentations regarding the schools, then the literature issued by the Department of tin? Interior must be misleading because it states

the schools out there are non-sectarian and national. In this connection. I would also draw attention to the fact that the great mass of immigration to-day is from the United States, where there are no separate schools. Therefore, the argument that certain people have come out there by virtue of representations regarding a system of separate schools, is not borne out by facts. The hon. the Minister of Finance stated that he would be quite willing to accept the views of seven out of the ten representatives coming from the Territories. Let me congratulate him and the government on their change of front, because they have not always been ready to accept those views. If they had, we would like to know whether the seven gentlemen from the Northwest Territories are responsible for this legislation, because it is generally understood that they stood out against it until it was amended. But if there are seven gentlemen from the Territories who say that the people out there are satisfied with a separate school system and want that system to be continued and are in favour of having the right to establish any system they please taken from them, let me tell you that that has not always been the case, because the hon. members from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) voted in the local legislature up there to cut out everything in the Act of 1S75 after the word ' education,' which would have the effect of handing that matter entirely over to the local legislature, i would also suggest that if the government desire to feel the pulse of the people on the question, let them open up a constituency there and appeal to the electors.
I see that the hour is getting late and I do not desire to trespass too much upon the time of this House, but there are certain matters which I feel bound to bring to its attention; and if I am transgressing the time allotted a new member, I shall only have to appeal to the indulgence of the House and point to the fact that there are none but new members on the Conservative side from the Northwest Territories. There are certain other important features in this Bill to which I wish to refer. There is first the placing of the boundary line at the fourth meridian. A few days ago I called attention to a resolution passed at a public meeting in the town of Medicine Hat which pointed out the objections to this line. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) let the cat out of the bag the other day when lie said he was of the opinion that the dividing line should be sixty miles further east. Thus we see the disadvantage of not having in this cabinet a representative from the west. I was accused of having indulged in ill-natured criticism the other day when I said that the minister who was in charge of the Territories should have been consulted, but I certainly did not intend to make any ill-natured reflec-Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
tion, and shall continue to call the attention ! of the government at every opportunity to the injustice they are inflicting on the Territories in not filling the vacant portfolio. To-day we are in this position that there is not a man in the cabinet west of the city of London, Ont., except one, and that gentleman is- only half in. And the result of having no man in the cabinet charged with the supervision of the task of dividing that country has been that local interests have been allowed to prevail. The boundaries have been fixed to suit particular localities without regard to the ranching industry or anything else. It will be found, on examining the map published by the Department of the Interior, that only a very small amount of the ranching country remains to-day in the eastern province, and the danger will be that the ranching industry, which is a very important one, will not be sufficiently represented in the local House to have its interests properly looked after. That industry in the eastern province will be a mere side issue. Take, for instance, the difficulties which will probably arise out of conflicting branding laws. That may seem a very small matter to the man in the east, but it is very important to the west. The other day it was pointed out. in the discussion of an Order in Couucil passed by the Department of Agriculture, that 411,000 cattle, were treated under that order in an area practically abutting this dividing line. The badge of ownership to-day in that country is the brand, and the result of drawing this line and so splitting up the ranching country will be a conflict of brands. One province may or may not enact a branding law. One province may declare that cattle and horses not branded may be sold irrespective of the owner, and you will have a conflict in that way, whereas if the line went a little bit further east, where the Minister of the Tn-iterlior says it should go, that difficulty would not arise and you would include practically all the ranching country in the western province.
Again, one province may adopt a free open range, while the other may make restrictions. We have the same difficulty to-day on the international boundary, although there is the same grazing country on the boundary as we have at the dividing line of the two provinces, and although we have customs officers and the mounted police who assist in keeping matters in order. Yet difficulties have always arisen. Another difficulty we are creating is that you will leave such a very little portion of the irrigated land in the eastern province that it will be hardly worth while passing legislation respecting it. While that difficulty may be got over by the provisions of the Bill under which the matters are left with the federal administration. But, if I understood the ex-Minister of the Interior

(lir. Sifton) correctly, lie stated that it was only for the time being that this was going to be retained, but that in time to come, after certain international difficulties had disappeared this jurisdiction would be handed back to the provinces. As the dividing line runs now the area of the two provinces will show a considerable difference. As I figure it the area of the eastern province will be 258,400 square miles and that of the western province 249,000, or a difference of 8.SOO square miles. So, this line must have been crowded west for some purpose and perhaps I may be able to point out before X sit down what that was for. I desire also to call attention of the advisability of including in the new provinces the great northern country. I pointed out that no man in the west but would hope that their great expectations would be realized, yet to-day in view of what the Prime Minister has said we cannot consider that an agricultural country. I have already shown that the census of 1901 shows that the population of Atlialmska was 242 white people. 2,395 half-breeds and 3,700 Indians, and 202 unspecified. Now, there may have been people who have gone in there since 1901, * but there are also people who have eorne out. To my mind the-very best evidence that there is not much permanent settlement in that country is seen in looking at the map published by the Department of the Interior only a year ago. We find that land does not appear to have been surveyed. There may have been preliminary surveys, but from the map as it stands, we do not find any township subdivisions. And a man cannot go very far wrong in saying that there will not be much permanent settlement where there is no assurance of title. Settlers do not squat to-day in advance of survey. And the conditions of the country are not such as will make the administration cheaply handled by the provincial government. It is not that the people of the new provinces are desirous of shirking the duties of administering it, but the district to the north of the provinces will be still under Dominion administration. It would cost practically very little to admin-jster this through the Dominion government. The questions that wnll arise will be - mainly interprovincial. Take ' the regulation and preservation of the fur trade, for instance. Suppose that one province establishes a certain close season for certain animals while the other does not: and the Dominion government may have a different law with regard to the same matter further north. If the inland fisheries are handed over to the new provinces, the same difficulty is likely to arise in regard to these-there will be -the same conflict of jurisdiction. I have spoken of the boundaries not having been fixed with a view to economical and efficient administration. It seems to me that political
considerations have had a great deal to do with the making of the eastern boundary. If we look at the map and see the dividing line; it will be found, if you take the Rocky Mountains out of the western province, the western province is practically a triangle with the apex at the south. And, if you look at the election returns, you wnll find that the south elects two Conservatives and the north two Liberals. Now, I submit, in all fairness, that considerations of this kind should not Interfere when you are creating limits to provinces for all time to come. It seems to me that the fathers of confederation sat down in a spirit of give and take and tried to make a compact free from political consideration ; and I (think that is an example that might well he followed. The result of making these boundaries for the western province Is that the further north you go the greater the Liberal majority. And that is the reason why the line is fixed sixty miles west of where the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) thinks it ought to lie.
There is only one other question I wish to refer to for a moment, and it is the selection of the provisional capital. The First Minister when he introduced the Bill stated that this was a matter that gave them some trouble, hut they looked at the map aud selected the centre. Well, if that is the principle that governed and they are selecting the centre, why did they not select Ath-abaska Landing, for that is the centre and it would be more convenient for the population of Athabaska to whom I referred a few moments ago. If lie wishes to consider the convenience of the pieople let him take a point half way between Edmonton and any point on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and be will find in the southern portion there are constructed 980 miles of railway, and in the northern only 150 miles. I introduced the deputation from Calgary who interviewed the members of the government and asked them to select a non-competitive point as the provisional capital. They suggested the selection of Medicine Hat, Banff, Lethbridge, Macleod, Red Deer or any other point that would be near the centre of trade and the centre of population, and that would meet the convenience of the people whose business called them to tlie capital and the convenience of the members of the first legislature. But, for some reason, I cannot say what, the government has seen fit to select the point at the end of railway construction and away froni what I hope to be able to show when the clause comes up in committee is the centre of trade and the centre of population. If it is the convenience of the people that is being considered, I would ask the First Minister to look at the map again and to look at the distribution in the local House for Alberta. In the local House there are

35 representatives; 14 of these come from Alberta and of these Alberta constituencies only three, and but a small portion of these three, run north of Edmonton, while 11 are south of Edmonton. I must ask the Prime Minister to again look at the map if the convenience of the people is being consulted. But, in conclusion, let me say that I desire to congratulate the government for being original for once, because surely if the convenience of the people had been consulted in the choice of a site for the capital it would have been placed at the centre of population and trade. The ' government's manner of selecting a central point is an original one. The method adopted in this case would not have led the people of Ontario to select Toronto instead of Whiteflsh or some other point on Lake Superior, the people of Quebec to select Quebec, the people of Manitoba to select Winnipeg, or the people of British Columbia to select Victoria on Vancouver Island.
There is but one other question on which I wish to touch, that is the financial terms. I am glad in that to he able to agree with the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). It seems to me that in discussing these terms it is not fair to make comparisons with the terms of eastern provinces. The conditions are altogether different. In the west school houses and roads have to be provided, matters which are done in Ontario and Quebec by local taxation which it is practically impossible to do in that country by reason of the great distances. The financial terms in comparison with those granted to the other provinces are none too generous, and the development of that country is proceeding at such a rate that it is impossible for us to sit here and calculate what its future needs will be.
Mr. CLEMENTS moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Wednesday.
knows, in the Criminal Code of Canada, 1892, it is provided that there shall be an appeal from any judgment or any verdict given by any court of criminal jurisdiction, whether this court has an inferior or a superior jurisdiction in criminal matters. If hon. gentlemen will look up articles 742, 743 and 782, they will see that there is an appeal from any verdict or judgment given by a court having superior jurisdiction in criminal matters. There is an appeal in cases of jury trial, summary trial and speedy trial, whether the case is proceeded with under articles 742, 743 or 782, or under articles G59, 765, 782, 7S3 or 842 of the Criminal Code. Then, in cases of summary conviction, under article 879, there is an appeal under certain conditions and in accordance with certain formalities. All the litigants who have had anything to do with the application of the Canada Temperance Act have been complaining about the denial of an appeal. This feature of the law is enacted in section 119 of chapter 106 of the Revised Statutes of Canada as amended by the Act 51 Victoria, chapter 34. We think, and everybody thinks, that it is most unfair and unjust that the right of appeal which is given under the criminal law in any case should have been denied under section 119 of the Canada Temperance Act. Even in a case of summary conviction, in which the accused is condemned to pay a fine of $5 or go to jail for one day, he has the right of appeal, while, on the contrary, under section 119 he has no such right of appeal in most cases, though he may have been fined heavily or condemned to a long imprisonment. We desire this amendment so that the law giving the right of appeal in ordinary cases shall be made applicable to the Canada Temperance Act. Moreover, by this amendment, we wish that no litigant having to appear either before a criminal court or a civil court, be denied that useful remedy, the British writ of ' certiorari.'
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first "time.



HOUSE 0E COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 29, 1905.
* The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

Mr.  H. H.@: GERVAIS (Montreal, St. James) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 128) to amend the Canada Temperance Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Explain.


Mr. GERVAIS.: Mr. Speaker, the object of this Bill is very simple. As every one Mr. m. s. McCarthy.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Is there in existence a lease to John Froth-ingham, or to the estate of the late John Frothingham, from the government, of water-powers at C6te St. Paul on the Laehine canal?
2.	What is the amount of the annual rent payable under said lease ?
3.	What is the period of duration of said lease ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: ,
1,	2, 3. There is no such lease.


LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXHIBITION-EM-
[Stage Direction]
, PLOYMENT OF MR. N. J. GILLIS.
Mr. A. A. McLEAN asked :: 1.	Was N. J. Gillis, said to be a member for Cape Breton county in the legislature of Nova Scotia, employed as an official of the government of Canada at the St. Louis Exhibition ?
2.	How long was he employed, and in what capacity ?
3.	What were the terms of his employment ?
4.	How much did he receive, and what amount, if any, is due him ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: [DOT]
1.	Mr. N. J. Gillis, a meinoer for Cape Breton county in the legislature of Nova Scotia, was employed as an official of the Dominion government at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition.
2.	From the 8th day of May to the 8th day of October, 1904. He was assigned to the mineral section. He was employed in a general way, his particular duty being to give information to the general public in regard to minerals.
3.	$7 per day, with transportation to and from St. Louis.
4.	For services, $1,078 ; for travelling expenses, $130.80 ; total, $1,208.80. He was paid in full.


SAVAGE HARBOUR, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
Mr. A. A. McLEAN asked :: [DOT]
1.	Is the government doing anything to improve the entrance to Savage harbour, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the work done or proposed to be done ?
3.	Has a government engineer made any report on the work ?
4.	If so, what is his recommendation as to the cost and feasibility of improving this harbour ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (for the Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The works now being constructed consist of brusb-work placed on the beach for the purpose of accumulating the drifting sand, to prevent high tides from washing over said beach.
3.	Yes.
4.	The engineer considers that the present works will cost $2,000.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr.  H. H.@: That from this date to the end of the session, Government Orders have precedence on Mondays, immediately after Private Bills and questions to be put by members.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I do not know whether or not there are any other Bills or orders on the order paper. If so, we might at least pass those.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think there are any orders except those for the production of papers. If there are, we have no objection to taking them up.


William Findlay Maclean: I have some objection to this motion carrying to-day. I and some others In the House have public Bills that we would like to have discussed. Some of them have been called up on one or two occasions. I think that the hon. member who has a Bill on the order paper in connection with the Exchequer Court has it nearly through, and probably he would like to get it through. I have a public Bill that I would like to have discussed, on which I have been collecting information, and in connection with which I hope to get some information from the committee of the House now investigating the telephone question. I am ready to go on with that measure if I had another day. I can accomplish my purpose, however. if the Prime Minister will say that it is the intention of the government to go on with their Bill to amend the Railway Act; and If on that Bill I am allowed to discuss my proposals, I promise that I will not take up a great deal of time. AVill the Prime Minister say that the government Bill to amend the Railway Act shall come up this session1?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, the Bill will come up.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the Prime Minister consent to my. discussing my Bill in connection with that?


Wilfrid Laurier: Personally I have no objection, but, of course, any member can object who wishes to.


William Findlay Maclean: I will bring it up to-morrow.	,



VACANCY.

Wilfrid Laurier: I promised my hon. friend opposite that I would make a statement to-day about the vacancy in Centre Toronto. A writ lias been issued and the nomination will take place on Tuesday the 11th of April. I said yesterday that we might have to take a registration vote, but on inquiry I find there is no necessity for that as the registration of last election will do.



VACANCY IN THE CABINET.

Mr.   R L. BORDEN@: Has the right hon. gentleman any information to give to the House as to'when the vacant portfolio of the Department of the Interior will be filled? The right hon. gentleman promised to give information at an early date.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not to-day.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: To-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: Weil, some time, if not to-morrow. .



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 09), to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. II. L. Borden thereto.
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, the proposition which is at present under the consideration of the House, and the discussion which has so far ensued upon it, have not lacked for variety and dramatic incident. No legislation introduced into this parliament in my time has been more prolific of change and of the unexpected. Changes in principle and in policy and in modes of thought may be discerned comparing the present with the past. Time was when gentlemen who within a few years made an entire-change of front in regard to their method of thinking and acting upon any given subject, thought it was at least worth while and in a certain measure necessary that they should endeavour to satisfy the desire of the House and of tlie country for reasonable explanation. In those days consistency was somewhat prized, but in the later days of the new Liberalism cabinet ministers have grown too practical for that consideration and do not even deign to give an explanation for a complete and entire change of front brought about within tlie space of a very few years. A time there was when principle was considered as something somewhat precious and not to be repudiated ; a time there was when responsibility attached to principle was considered to be of weight and importance. But, this new Liberalism which is Confronting us, jjeems, when it starts for parliament, to put into its valise every other thing necessary or utilizable, and the last tiling thought of is principle. Party fealty and party attachments are carefully stowed therein, and these gentlemen think that these fill the bill-or at all events till the valise. There was a time when the constitution of this country had something stable and sacred about it. The fathers of confederation who met in Quebec and modelled our constitution, tlie palladium of the rights of the provinces and the Dominion alike : they believed the constitution to be ail important, a stable and sacred thing. But to-day the constitution is thrown idly aside, relegated to the garret of the archives, and ministers are too practical to think of the constitution stopping them when they want to carry out their desires. And, although the Prime Minister had courage, and old-fashioned thought and method enough to bring it out and lift it to something of its old-time importance, the ministers who spoke after him kicked it as a football from floor to ceiling, and where we are, to-day we scarcely know.


Wilfrid Laurier: Changes of principles once cherished are apparent to the most casual observer, but they are treated with so delightful a carelessness as to consistency and consequence, that it makes it interestingjo the mere spectator, even though it is somewhat painful to the man of thought.
Let us take into consideration for a moment the circumstances which have preceded and up to this time have accompanied the introduction and discussion of this matter in the House. Weighing these circumstances, would not the unimpassioned spectator come to tlie hypothesis that some time ago the Prime Minister of Canada, smarting under events which took place in 1896 and since, had determined that with reference to the great Northwest the situation should be retrieved from a certain point of view, and that in the constitution which should be given to the new provinces tlie principle of separate schools should be embodied, cost wbat it might. Would that be a violent hypothesis? Let us see how the circumstances fit in with it. For two, or three, or four years previous to the election of 1904 in the Northwest, in this parliament, aud to a certain extent in the whole Dominion, the question of autonomy for the Northwest Territories was to the' front. It was particularly to the front 'in the Northwest Territories; in 1901 a draft Bill was prepared and resolutions which met with the approval of the Northwest Legisjature were adopted.
Negotiations were undertaken ; the matter was pressed ; the matter was considered, as we know from the speech made here by the ex-Minister of the Interior, and considered often, and to a certain extent carefully and ou all sides. But the Prime Minister had determined that to that creative body whose duty it should be to give substance to the consti tution of the new provinces, no possible mandate should be given by the electorate of this country before they came to this parliament and were asked to consummate the creative Act. That is important to he remembered. The Prime Minister himself refused to undertake the erection of provinces two years ago, although there cannot be any sufficient reason given as to why. if the Territories to-day are equal to the work and the duties that follow therefrom, they were not ready to an almost equal degree to be constituted two years ago. or oue year previous to the elections of 1904. But it did not suit the purposes of the Prime Minister to undertake the erection of those provinces before the general election. Little less did it suit him to have the subject mooted during the time of the election of the responsible and representative body which was to be asked to consummate the Act of creation of the provinces. And so the word went forth. His own minister of the Interior. long a resident of the country, one of the most prominent if not the mftst prominent men from that district, one who prob-

ably knew more about tbe circumstances and the history- of that country than any other man he had in his cabinet, and probably than any other man in this country, went to the Northwest, if not under seal and pledge not to open his mouth with reference to the conditions of the creation of those provinces into an autonomy, yet certainly practically carrying out such instructions by absolutely refusing to be led into the utterance of a single word which would go to show the people of the Northwest under wflat probable or possible conditions autonomy should be given. But it cannot be said that the question was not mooted. The premier of that country, speaking in Regina one week before the Minister of the Interior spoke there, challenged an expression of opinion from the Minister of the Interior ; left a certain number of questions to be answered, if the Minister of the Interior would have the goodness to answer them, as to the information to be given to the people of the Northwest just then, when they were about to elect representatives who would be called upon to consummate the Act of formation into provinces, as to the conditions, with reference to territorial division, lands, education and finances, under which the new provinces would be brought in. Was it not a subject which might well have engaged the attention of the Minister of the Interior ? Were those points of information which it would not have been right and proper for the minister to discuss before the people whose interests were chiefly to be affected V	But the minister's only reply was : You must trust the government ; and to the gentleman who put the question his only reply was. you are a mischief-maker, that is what you are. The question was also put to the candidates who were running in the Northwest. They were challenged. They had one reply- the reply of the drilled and the taught : You ask us what the probable conditions will be ; we tritst the government ;'we have faith in the government. The cry of the minister was :	Trust the government ;
and the declaration of the candidates was :	We have faith in the government. But from neither minister nor candidate was there a single intimation as to what would be the probable conditions. So much with reference to that. Carrying out my hypothesis, when the elections were over and the first of the probable five years of the government's term commenced, with those incidental advantages which every one knows quite well, immediately negotiations were taken up, immediately the government set to work, immediately the Northwest candidates who were elected were called into council, immediately the representatives of the government of the Northwest Territories were called to Ottawa. Negotiations wore undertaken, conferences took place, and in the course of a few weeks or a few
months parliament was called together and the Bill was introduced. The creative instrument was formed, and it was presented to parliament. That creative instrument, as it was brought down on the 21st of February, was accompanied by a certificate of parentage given to it by the premier. He himself as premier, his united government, the representatives of the Northwest, on that side of the House at least, whose advice he had the advantage of, and the representatives of the government of the Northwest Territories, all had had their part in consultation or information ; and this child was brought forward with the certificate of parentage of a strong and united government, having had full consultation with the representatives of the Territories to be affected. Shortly after that was brought down, something occurred. A trouble arose, disruption took place, and within a few days one of the most considerable ministers of the cabinet handed in his resignation, and gave as his reason that he had not been consulted with reference to the educational clause, that he dissented from it on the record of his life, and on account of the principles so often and so loudly professed, and that on that account he could not remain longer a member of the government. We immediately asked explanations and we soon found out that another minister of the government,- if not the most important at least one of the most important-had not been consulted upon the measure. Absent from the city and absent from the country, he had not been allowed an opportunity-why such haste ?-of reading the clause of the Bill before it was brought down to this House. There were then two facts of importance. There was the fact that the government, as a united body had not formed that measure and there was the additional fact that there was displayed a haste almost undignified to get the Bill before the House and the country before those two important members of the cabinet should have an opportunity of being present in Council and expressing their views. What was still more remarkable was this, that on the most important clauses of the Bill, two members of the cabinet, who had been the strongest in their opposition to the principles embodied in that clause, were the very two members in whose temporary absence the Bill had been passed by the Council and submitted to parliament.
Other facts came out. It became known in the course of time that if the members from the Northwest supporting the government had been consulted and if they had been aware of the import of the clauses in question, they had not been careful enough or had been too indifferent to make their opinion felt. These lion, gentlemen, every one of them, so far as I know, expressed his dissent immediately after the Bill was brought down and the

Minister of the Interior had returned, and went into, if not open yet secret revolt. Something else came out. It came out that the representatives of the only government which the Territories have- there are three members in that government-based on the agitation of the subject in their country and tbMr legislature, based on a draft Bill which they themselves had drawn, based on a desire and agitation for autonomy-it came out that two of the three, backed and supported by the third member of the government, came down to Ottawa, as the authorized negotiators on behalf of the Territories, to confer with the Dominion government. Was, it not to be expected that these properly authenticated representatives of the legislature of the Territories and the people of the Northwest would have been given an opportunity to say something in a matter which meant everything to their people, which meant everything to the country which they governed, and governed under large representative institutions ? Was it an unheard of thing or was it too bold a thing to ask that these representatives should have been loyally met and conferred with ? Yet what came out ? It ca.me out that with reference to the most important clause of the Bill, the only clause which to-day, you may say, is claiming the attention of this House and the country-the representatives of that government were casually informed about it on a Friday and were given an opportunity to confer and discuss just exactly three hours before that Bill with that clause was submitted to parliament. What reason was there that in the case of a territory containing half a million people, with immense interests at stake, represented by its own government, the choice of its own legislature, the legislators in which were the choice of the constituents of that same broad territory-what reason was there that the representatives of these Territories should not have had some kind of determining voice in what was to be their constitution ? Was it not to be expected that they should at least have had the courtesy of constant and frequent and loyal and thorough conference ? Was there any reason why the First Minister, who in previous times has been always foremost and loud in his assertion of the rights and duties of provinces in these compacts that are made and are merged into a constitution, should have treated them so cavalierly as to have mentioned the subject on a certain Friday, and only within three hours before the Bill was introduced into parliament sent .a sub-committee to talk over the matter with these representatives. Two excuses have been made, both by members of the government. The first was made by my bon. friend the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding). What was it ? Oh, said he, Mr. Haultain is only the premier of that province, Mr. Bulyea is a member of his government, Mr. FOSTER.
Mr. Bulyea has expressed his satisfaction with these clauses, and Mr. Haultain only represents his own opinion. Did I say a while ago that there used to be such a thing as a fair deference for constitutional methods ? That evidently does not exist in the mind of the Finance Minister to-day. That hon. gentleman thinks that when the representatives of a local government are accredited to carry on negotiations with the Dominion government, and when one of these representatives is the First Minister of that local government ancf the other a member of its cabinet, if the one who is a sub-member, so to speak, signifies his adhesion to the measure, the other who is the First Minister, does not count. It is the tail that swings the body according to the Finance Minister. I wonder why the tail from the Northwest, in the person of the Minister of the Interior, did not swing the Prime Minister ? But another member of the government had a still more ingenious excuse. He said that Mr. Haultain was a very estimable gentleman but only a Tory gentleman and it was his duty and purpose to oppose this government. Delightful constitutional doctrine, that is, especially coming from an almost member of the cabinet, the Solicitor General. If Mr. Bulyea has signified-and I do not know that he has- his assent to that clause, it seems to me that the First Minister of the Territories is still left as a man to be accounted with and negotiated with. Is it true or is it not that during the course of those negotiations- if you can call them such-which took place before the 21st February, the First Minister had frequent conferences with Mr. Bulyea when Mr. Haultain was absent, and unknown to Mr. Haultain.
Is it true that the Liberal members-from the Northwest collogued with Mr. Bulyea and the Prime Minister unknown to Mr. Haultain and without any invitation to Mr. Haultain to be present ? Thai can be answered ; it is either true or not true. But, if it is not answered, and therefore we take it to be true, it is another odd illustration of the strange metamorphosis that has taken place in our constitutional methods. These things are a part of what has occurred. But something more strange and startling and dramatic even than all this has occurred. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) stood in his place in this House and said that he had resigned because clause 16, introduced without his knowledge and without his consent, was in contravention of his principles and of his life-long political record, and consequently he had nothing to do but to resign from the cabinet. And, after three weeks of fightings within and rumours without, of multitudinous midnight parleys and countless journeys by noonday, the Minister of the Interior came down and told us that at last he had been able to put the ring into the nose of the government

and bring it to its knees. He had lassoed a wild steer of the prairies and brought it up to the ring-bolt. Now, a strange, a luminous, in some respects a lurid, light is thrown upon this whole transaction by this speech of the Minister of the Interior.
Au hon. MEMBER. Ex-minister.


George Eulas Foster: He was minister before he resigned.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: And he may be minister now.


George Eulas Foster: We do not know. This may be the last day he will be out. What did the Minister of the Interior say ? He stated that he had dissented from clause 10 because he was opposed to the principle of it. And what did the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) say the other day ? He said that the moment he read that clause, he went to the Prime Minister and discussed the matter with him and . iaid before him his objections to it. Did the Prime Minister meet him in any way ? We only know that the result of that conference was that Mr. Sifton, the Minister of the Interior, resigned because he could not accept clause 10. And, now. a strange thing happens, and one most difficult to reconcile with all that has gone before. The Prime Minister ('Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself, in his place in parliament, declared : I never intended that in that legislation any more should be granted than is at present enjoyed under the ordinances of the Northwest. And the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) from his place in this House declared that it was never the intention of the government that anything more should be put into the constitution of the new provinces than absolutely what was enjoyed under the ordinances I have spoken of. Now, it is to be presumed-at least, it ought to be presumable-that when the Minister of the Interior, an intelligent man, went to the Prime Minister, another intelligent man and, as we suppose, told him that because of his [DOT] reading of clause 16 he was obliged to dissent and leave the cabinet, it ought to be presumable in that case that the other intelligent man the Prime Minister must have said to him :	Mr. Sifton, I never meant
what you read in that clause ; all that I meant, or mean to-day, is that the Northwest shall enjoy, as to separate schools, only the privileges that it has at the present time. Did that conversation take place? The moment it did, Mr. Sifton, and the Prime Minister were at one, and there was no cause for resignation. Did that conversation not take place, at least so far as the Prime Minister is concerned ? Then, if the Prime Minister's statement, made in this House, is correct and he never intended anything but what is in the present ordinances, it was clearly his duty to
state that fact to his Minister of the Interior and so make the resignation of that minister unnecessary. But the Prime Minister does not appear, so far as the records show, to have done either the one thing or the other-or else there is a mystery, a most mysterious mystery, as to why the Minister of the Interior resigned. Was it on the cards that he should resign anyway ? And was this misunderstanding allowed to continue in order to give him a chance to resign? For, what happens at the end of three weeks time? The clause is brought down exactly to the liking of the Minister of the Interior. If the Prime Minister did not wish to get rid of his Minister of the Interior, why did not he agree with him in the way and before the breaking out took place. Can there be any explanation of that mystery? I leave it to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.
But, Sir, something else happens. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), the other day, gave us the reason why it was impossible for him to agree to clause 16. I am not going to make a scrap-book of myself in these remarks, because it is not pleasant to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to hear scrap-book quotations. But let me give, in effect, the reason why the Minister of the Interior could not assent to clause 10, as that reason was given by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) himself. He said, in the first place, that the Prime Minister had been very ill-advised to bring down that clause without giving him a chance to impart his knowledge and opinions concerning it. It turns out that that was correct on the part of the Minister of the Interior anyway. But the reason why the Minister of the Interior could not swallow clause 16 was this-that in the verbiage, compact, well thought out, put together by the hand of a master, there was something concealed. Not altogether concealed from himself, the Minister of the Interior said-lie knew too much for that. But what was concealed in that verbiage ? There was an irrevocable constitutional ear-mark upon the public funds devouring them for ever to a separate school minority in those Territories, an ear-mark which made one of the greatest endowments in the whole history of the world for sectarian institutions and sectarian purposes, in the fifty million dollars' worth of Northwest lands. That is why the Minister of the Interior could not swallow clause 16. Now, it would be a pity if we could not take the Minister of the Interior at his own valuation.
But we have endorsements, for when the Minister of the Interior stated that in no unequivocal language, in face of his former leader, his former leader assented by utter silence, the Minister of Justice assented by utter silence, and the Postmaster General applauded to the echo, as did also the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Fin-

mice. Now the further question that arises is this :	What potent and soporific drug
had been administered to the Postmaster General, that lynx-eyed man of business anil reader of constitutional law, what strange mixture had been administered to the Minister of Finance, generally clear-headed, and long-sighted, and to our incomparable Minister of Customs-what had been administered in order to put them into a sleep of months, whilst that aptly-worded, finely phrased clause concealed within its innocent outside the foundation and formation of an irrevocable constitutionally ear-marked sectarian endowment, than which there has been none greater in the history of the world ? The Postmaster General was a member of the sub-committee that framed the Bill. The Postmaster General has only one of two alternatives :	Either he
did not know what was in that clause, and consequently he is unworthy of his position ; or he did know it, and he assented to it ; and if it had not been for the superior nerve of the Minister of the Interior, this country would have been no wiser to this day, that clause might have gone through, and the Postmaster General would have had to father the responsibility of it. Now has the Postmaster General any excuse to offer ? Was he on that sub-committee ? Did he help to frame that clause ? Did he assent to what the ex-Minister of the Interior said the other day ? He applauded his utterance, silent under the lash, but he assented to it. What excuse has he, with his former record staring him in the face, read and known of all men in this country ? What excuse had he for attempting to ear-mark with a constitutional and irrevocable ear-mark, such an endowment as that for sectarian purposes in the great Northwest ? That is a question which the Postmaster General must answer. The same question may be put to the Minister of Customs and to the Minister of Finance.
But I thought I noticed-am I wrong, Mr. Speaker ?-I thought I noticed that when the ex-Minister of the Interior was nourishing that lash, lead-loaded, and bringing it. down on the backs of certain former colleagues, and when he mentioned casually the existence of a draftsman, he was most particularly-not with a tear in his eye, not with a mournful countenance, but it seemed to me with something like a manly glee -watching the effect of the tip of the lash on the back of the Minister of Justice. May be I was wrong in my supposition. It so, I give it just for what it is worth. But other things aside, the Minister of Justice, I am sure, will not shelter himself behind the back of a draftsman, the Minister of Justice will take the responsibility for that clause, and in common parlance, it will be up to him to explain why, surreptitiously, shall I say, concealed in fine legal phrase, he got ahead of the Minister of Customs' got ahead of the lynx-eyed Postmaster Gen-


George Eulas Foster: eral, got ahead even of his premier, it may be, and concealed in that verbiage the potency and power of a most wonderful, and remarkable, and enduring instrument. It is for the Minister of Justice to explain that matter.
Now, either the Minister of the Interior is right or he is wrong. Why do I conclude that he is right ? Because he has abisoluitely forced the government, after he had gone out of the government, to come to his terms, and they had three weeks afterwards to employ another draftsman

I am glad to say they did not get another Minister of Justice-but certainly to employ another draftsman, and to take out the concealed virus that was in section 10, No. 1, and substitute for it the plain and easily read verbiage of section 16, No. 2. Now the Minister of the Interior made liis protest on these grounds. Three weeks brought him back into this House triumphant, leading the premier and his colleagues in leash,, and administering the lash to those sleepy, or Incompetent, or careless minister* who allowed such a thing to get into clause 10, No. 1, and came near doing it to the everlasting deatli of the sturdy yoeman of the Northwest. This last incident is the most dramatic of any that has occurred so far. But we live in a time and we are in a House where we may expect almost anything. Does anybody suppose that this is the last dramatic incident that .will take place? To-morrow, may be, we will have the anonuncement that the Minister of the Interior, formerly the victorious man in his three weeks coptest, will be re-seated on the government benches and in possession of liis old portfolio. It may be-the premier was. not ready to answer the question to-day, hut lie thought that he might t o-morrow. By the efflux of time I believe It will be a pietty near to-morrow if it is to be in the affirmative.
But here is another thought that comes up at the same time. All this, as I said at first, is in pursuance of an hypothesis that the Prime Minister had determined cd put this thing through, cost what it might, and these are the methods he has taken to put it through-the autocratic methods. What is the inducement that brought back the Minister of the Interior and joined him again to his colleagues, liis leader and his party, in the advocacy-no, not in the advocacy, but in the voting support of this measure that is now before the House ? What was the inducement-because there were strong inducements on the other side. On tile other side were his principles, on the other side was his record from the old Manitoba times up to the present; on the other side was his reputation before the country as an adherent of principle. What was on this side in order to induce tlie Minister of the Interior to come back and put himself en rapport with his leader and his party on a question and

upon a clause to Hie principle of which he still declares he is opposed, and to which his whole record is opposed ?
Well, Sir, we have seen things. We have seen in this government three of its ablest j ministers go out in the prime and vigour of ; their years. One, the former Minister of Railways and Canals, heralded, lauded, de-dared to be the strong man of the government, took a stand upon principle upon a certain most important measure and handed in his resignation as a protest because he believed that the measure which was introduced would be a measure fraught with incalculable injury to his country and he could not give his assent to it. The only i logical course for a man who did that was j to see that a measure so fraught with evil was fought to its latest and did not become part of the statutes of this country. But, Sir, the Prime Minister knows a thing or two. He approached the Minister of Railways and Canals, pistol in one hand, soporific in the other. It is not on record, because these negotiations were verbal largely, as to whether the trigger of the pistol was pulled or not, but it is on record that the soporific was taken and taken effectually. With a fine disregard of the principles of the lion. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) that public offices and public emoluments should not be used for j purely and solely party interests the right lion. First Minister used the money and public offices of this country as a soporific to lull for the time being and until his purposes were accomplished the dissent and protest of one of his strongest ministers. To-day he meets his former Minister of the Interior, pistol in one hand and soporific in the other. Here again the communications are verbal, there is no written record, we do not know whether the pistol had to be drawn positively or not, and we do not know yet what the soporific is, but it is to be powerful and effective. One other minister remained, not by any means the least strong or the least active. On what principle he went out, or assumed to go out, I do not quite know nor do I quite know how he views it. The pistol was evidently applied but whether there is a compensating soporific yet to come or not we shall have to wait for time to reveal. Let me hope and express some confidence in the hope that out of the three there will be at least one minister who will have the manliness to stand firm, and having gone out on principle will stay out on principle.
Now, Sir, having got that far, let me put a question to the Northwest members who are supporting the government in this House. They were like sheep without a shepherd. Their shepherd was sporting peacefully and pastorally in the far off southern hills and his sheep here were without an efficient shepherd, without what we call the leading one-I will not say the leading sheep, it is only a simile anyway. While
the leading one was away the others unled fell into an artful design, a trap, laid -shall I say by the lion. Minister of Justice ?-No, not perhaps laid, but that facility of verbiage, that savoir faire way of putting a thing so that it shall be preserved and yet not seen was too much for the members from the Northwest in the absence of their lynx-eyed, keen and well informed leader. They all fell into the pit, they groaned in the pit and tumbled about m the pit until their leader came back and gently led them by paths out of the wilderness back to firmer and higher ground. But, for ever and for ever, say what you may, or think what you may, to the seven members from the Northwest who were conferred with, who gave their advice to help to formulate this Bill, who knew what was in it-for ever and for ever have they to bear the onus either of ignorance of what was in the Bill, or of indifference as to what was in it or of complicity in what the lion. ex-Minister of the Interior declared was the purpose of the clause. Now, this ought to give food for thought not only to the people of the Northwest but to the people of this country through and through. Then, I put this question to the right hon. Prime Minister : If, before the last election, he had made known his intention to develop two provinces out of the Territories and in giving them autonomy to withhold from them the power over their lands and the unlimited power to control their educational interests, how many men would he have had back here from the Northwest ? I ask the right hon. gentleman what would have been his status in this country to-day ? Is it to his credit that he kept back from the people that information or even an intimation of it and secured a following absolutely unpledged and without a mandate on this subject ? My hon. friend knows that there is only one answer to that. I will put another question to him. If the hon. exMinister of the Interior had stood out on his principle as he called it, would one single member from the Northwest have dared to go against him ? If he had stood out and if the rest had stood out with him would the right hon. leader of the government have dared to have attempted to put through his Bill ? That is the question. Therefore, there was an incentive and a motive either for the use of the pistol or the soporific. One or the other has been used undoubtedly as no man would have repudiated his principles and the record of a lifetime on, a most grave question, unless there had been some further inducement than the ex-Minister of the Interior declared before us here the other day.
Now, sir, let us go a little further. We heard yesterday an interesting speech from the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I do not propose to undertake the ungracious task of criticising that speech as every speech, the Prince Minister's and my

own included, has its defects, X * suppose, and this speech certainly had its defects as well as its beauties. As I listened to that speech, whilst many thoughts coursed through my brain, two or three might be mentioned this afternoon. The first one was this : what a mild and erudite and tactful pleader for toleration and national unity the hoh. member proved himself yesterday ! How helpful it is, when we come to the decision of a constitutional .question in the twentieth century, to have a very fine, a very learned discourse offered to us as to the wonderful, enduring and preservative power of the church in the far gone centuries in keeping the light of knowledge and science burning ! But we live in the 20th century; we cannot decide now as to the merits of a common school system on what were the excellencies of the repositories of learning two, or three, or four centuries ago; we have to take the conditions as they are to-day and by weighing those conditions come to our own best conclusion.
One other thing came to my mind. I could not help but look alternately from the hon. member for babel le (Mr. Bourassa) to the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) ; the member for Labelle chock full of religious fervour and enthusiasm, a fervour and enthusiasm that does him infinite credit, declaring, as the culmination of his argument, that it was impossible for Catholics to thoroughly enjoy their religion unless they have complete control of their education. If that is the belief of the member for Labelle, or of any other good Catholic, X quarrel with no man's belief. It has been the fashion during this debate, and it follows from good feeling, to disclaim any personal bias when we speak of each other as Protestants or Catholics. I do not want to enter upon that apology, or to even affirm it is necessary, but I want to say this in justice to myself. I have been in public life since 1882, I have been on the back benches and on the front benches, I have spoken considerably often in this House (gentlemen opposite think quite too often), I have spoken a good deal through the country, and my speeches have been reported ; if any man can put his finger on one single sentence spoken here or spoken elsewhere in which I have uttered one illiberal or bigoted thought with reference to my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, I would be thankful for him to do it. I don't think any man can. There is one circle which envelops every man that is sacred ground, it is the circle in which his God and his conscience meet. Against what occurs in that inner circle I have absolutely no right to intrude, and I claim the same treatment for myself. But this is what I mean : If these were the opinions of the member for Labelle, and undoubtedly they were, what kind of education does he want in these provinces ? What else can he want Mr. FOSTER.
but one that will do him good from his point of view, a thing that is absolutely essential if he is not going to have a mere sham. The half hour privilege at the end of the school day to permit a priest in the school room to teach the dogmas of the church-'will that satisfy him ? Is that the culmination of his depth of belief and his power of argument all verging towards the one conclusion ? Evidently not. Beside the member for Labelle sat the ex-Minister of the Interior, who, the other day, whittled it all down to the one half hour of religious teaching ; whittled it down to only that and nothing more. There, near the member for Labelle, sat the Prime Minister, who. in 1896, had the opportunity to prevent what the member for Labelle deplored as the robbery of the rights of the minority in the province of Manitoba. Never before in the history of confederation had such an opportunity arrived ; it is very probable it will never arrive again. The Prime Minister told us, with a convenient forgetfulness of the whole clause 93 : I was opposed to remedial legislation in 1896, because the law of the province of Manitoba had been declared to be a valid law, and I was against forcing Manitoba to relinquish what Manitoba had the right to enact. Is that the worship of the constitution that my right hon. friend lias ; is that the only part of the constitution he reads ? There were two things in the Manitoba case in 1896. They had a right to their law and it was valid on one count, and that count was, that before Manitoba became a province there was no system of sectarian or denominational schools by law or practice. But there was another point which was covered by the British North America Act, and for which mdst especially the British North America Act was framed to cover. When Manitoba became a province it enacted a separate school law, and in 1890 it repealed that separate school law, and, under such circumstances the British North America Act, section 93, came in. and it is the only way in which it possibly could come in. Hoes my right hon. friend deny the fact ; does he" deny the constitution ?
Then, Sir, the Roman Catholic minority came to him in 1896 and said : True, we were thrown down on the bad drafting or the insufficiency of the law, whichever you choose, but the Privy Council have declared that we have the right to get to the federal parliament through the federal government and to appeal as a last resort, if parliament considers it best to give us remedial legislation in order to restore, as far as possible, the rights of the minority. When that appeal was made to the hon. gentleman, could he take a part of section 93 and relieve himself from the duty, because that particular part of the section did not apply, whilst right before him was the other and pertinent part of the constitution which absolutely did apply ?

Now, Sir, I never was a separate school adherent, I 'never believed in separate [DOT]schools as against national schools. In 1896 I stated my belief, as I state it now ; I knew it was not politically to my advantage, I knew it was not politically to the advantage of the Liberal-Conservative party ; but, Sir, without thinking of ulterior things, I said to myself : There is the constitution, there is the pronouncement of the highest judicial tribunal in this empire, there is the minority coming with a grievance and having the right to appeal to the Dominion government and the Dominion parliament, the only power that has jurisdiction to right their wrongs ; I said to myself : I believe it is right,^ I believe in the policy of attempting to carry out the constitution. Let me ask this question : If my right hon. friend, in 1896, had thrown his forces with the forces that made for remedial legislation, who can doubt that we would have carried it in this parliament. No one can doubt it. And why was it not carried ? The ex-Minister of the Interior told why when he said here the other day : The member for North Toronto wished to restore the schools, but he failed, and he failed because the right hon. the leader of this government threw himself across the way and prevented it.
Why should not the member for Labelle save some of his argument that he so generously distributed yesterday, and apply it to his own chief, the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, and tax him for two things. When he said that they had been robbed of their rights in Manitoba and were suffering from injustice there to-day, why did he not add :	and that, Sir, was
due to the action of the present Prime Minister, my own leader. More than that: when in clause 16, as brought down on the 21st of February, his leader had provided for sectarian education in these provinces for ever with an endowment from the fund, why did he, at the beck and call of the Minister of the Interior, who was their enemy, looked upon in that light, who destroyed their schools system in Manitoba, who prevented them from obtaining and retaining their rights there-why did he take out the clause that gave them something, and substitute the clause that which according to the Finance Minister, the Minister of Customs and the ex-Minister of the Interior, gives you absolutely nothing but the last weary half hour of instruction at the day's end and the name of a separate school. I am carrying out now strictly the argument of the ex-Minister of the Interior, acquiesced in by all the members of the government who have spoken ; and no one who has not spoken has deemed if necessary to rise and express his dissent from that argument. If his argument is correct and his facts are right-and they are assented to by the members opposite- what, may I ask the member for Labelle,
does the Northwest Bill provide at present, under those ordinances that are put into the constitution, and that are to become the measure, and standard for all time to come ? Listen to what Archbishop Tachfi says :
Nothing essential now distinguishes the Catholic schools from the Protestant schools but the designation, now ironical, of separate schools.
There is the church authority. Judge Rouleau says :
If separate schools exist now in name, they do not exist in fact.
There is the legal side of it.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. Is that in Manitoba?


George Eulas Foster: No, that is in the Northwest. We have those two, the one representing-shall I mention the word ?-the hierarchy. I do not think hierarchy is an objectionable name ; I think it is an honourable name, and I am quite sure it is an honoured name, and I venture to use it, and to use it in that sense. The one the representative of the hierarchy, the other the representative of the bench, both of them strong Catholics, both speaking the French language, and both on the spot and able to speak from knowledge, thus express themselves. Now, may I ask the member for Labelle, if he is absolutely convinced of liis theory and if he drives it to its logical conclusion, why did he sit still Snd not open his lips when the malign influence of the Minister of the Interior and the ex-Minister of the Interior was dragging out of the Bill clause 16, No. 1, which gave to the Northwest minority that which they demand, and which was conclusively demanded by tbe argument of tbe member for Labelle ? Must we again and again come to the conclusion, that with the member for Labelle it is the same as with the member for Brandon-they are both strong in the enunciation of their principles, hut both very lax in carrying them out. On principle I am with Borden, but when it comes to a vote, I am with Laurier- that is the cynical and outspoken declaration of the ex-Minister of the Interior.
Now, let me come back to the Manitoba ease. I was finishing that by saying that section 93 has two parts, and that the Prime Minister cannot get out of the obligation of the constitution by quoting only one part, in which he is relieved by a judgment of the Privy Council, and ignoring tbe other part, in which he is absolutely bound by tlie judgment of the Privy Council in so far as having a clear case for the action of this body under its jurisdiction. So much with reference to that.
One other point might be brought up. The ex-Minister of the Interior, speaking of the Manitoba question in 1896, said from his place in the House the other day :

The member for North Toronto and the cabinet to which he belonged endeavoured to put back on Manitoba a useless and inefficient and expensive system of education.
1 deny it. All that we proposed to do waS to embody the principle of remedial legislation to the largest extent to which it could be embodied ; but never with the idea that we should make permanent there a system of schools which should not be up-to-date, well inspected, well grounded and well carried out.. We were not advocates of an inefficient school, neither do I think that the gentlemen who represented the cause of Manitoba were advocates of that kind of a school. No, it was not that. ' But,' said the ex-Minister of the Interior. ' when the commissioners came from -Sir Charles Tup-per's government, we offered them a compromise. which they refused to accept.' 'After the 1896 elections were over,' he added, ' we offered to the Laurier government, the right hon. gentleman's government, the very same compromise, ipsissima verba '- the very words he used-' and they accepted it.' What does the First Minister say ? When fresh from that settlement, of which there was no written but only a verbal record, lie went down to tbe city of Montreal, and, standing up amongst his own people there, he said :
Yet after we have accepted from the provincial government of Manitoba much more than the commissioners of the late government asked last spring, we are now to be denounced none the less in the name of religion as traitors to our race and religion.
There was the statement made by the exMinister of the Interior, and here is the statement made by the right hon. gentleman himself. Which is true, which is correct ? -the prime actor in the one case, with his memory fresh, with all the scars and all the laurels from the conflict still fresh upon him, and the Prime Minister of this country, who could not have gone through those negotiations and that contest of 1890 without having his memory also fresh with reference to what had happened. 'There is what the Prime Minister says in December, 1896 ; here is what the Minister of the Interior says in March, 1905 ; which is correct ? Did the theory that was put forth by the Solicitor General exercise its malign influence then, and did a responsible government in Manitoba, with important interests and grave issues at stake deliberately make up its mind that it would not give to a Tory government what it was prepared to give to a Liberal government ?
Now, Sir, look again at what takes place. The Prime Minister comes down and makes his argument absolutely on the constitutional phase of the question. He disclaims the breeding of strife, the letting loose of the demon of discord in this great parliament where different races and religions are represented. He says: Though I believe Mr. FOSTER.
in separate schools, yet I argue this out on the constitution. His statement, is in so many words, that the constitution binds us, compels us, to give to the minority in these provinces that we are forming in the Northwest the same rights that are given under the constitution to Quebec and Ontario minorities. That is his exact statement :	it is in the unrevised ' Hansard it is in the revised ' Hansard it has been quoted before ; it has not been denied ; lie will not deny it. Well, Sir, I do not commend that version of tlie compact of confederation to this House, and X do ask the House and the country to look into that for a little. So much has been said about toleration in Quebec, so much has been said about tbe binding power of the constitution, that, if my bon. friends opposite will allow me, I want to reason that out with them for a moment, i do it in the broadest and kindest spirit. You say you are tolerant to the Protestant minority in Quebec. I am glad to hear it. I am not going to stand here and deny it. But, when you say that you are tolerant to the minority, I ask you, ought not you so to be? They are your l'ellow-citizens. They are not your wards ; they contribute to your finances ; they build up your country ; they live side by side with your families ; the weal or woe of the province of Quebec must he shared equally by them and you. Ought you not to be tolerant toward them ? But, will the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) allow me one word to show why he should be a little self-contained when he makes this the plea for any extraordinary toleration for those of his own faith and race in other provinces. Here is a Protestant child in Quebec. Tie goes one morning to what is called the Quebec school. You may call these your national schools if you like ; hut am I wrong in saying that, from the time that child enters the school at nine o'clock in the morning until lie leaves It at four o'clock in the afternoon, he is under the direct, impressive, constant, inculcatory spirit and teaching of the Roman Catholic church ? I am not mistating the facts in that. For, the hon. member for Labelle, speaking on behalf of his people, says : We believe we cannot, properly exercise our religion unless we have the right to teach our children our religion as and when we please. So, does it not come to this, in all reason- that your schools in Quebec are pot national schools; they are Roman Catholic schools ? The influence of the church, in the books, in the teachers, in the adornments in the positive dogmatic teaching is there from nine o'clock in the* morning until four o'clock in the afternoon. And the Protestant boy has no other school to go to, unless t ou make provision for him. Is it extraordinary toleration that, having no national schools, no schools that are undog-matie and unseetarian. if there is a Pro-

testant minority in the province of Quebec, you are bound, to make provision for the Protestant-who is just as honest in allegiance to his creed and maintenance of his religious belief as is the Catholic-to give to him a place where he will not be constantly under the watchful and persuasive power and teaching of the Catholic Church. I am not going outside of the record in saying that. When you talk of toleration, I want you to think of that. And, now take the other case. Here is a Protestant child in Ontario. He goes to the public school. Prom the time he enters the school at nine o'clock in the morning until he goes out of it at four o'clock in the afternoon, there is no vestige of denominational or clerical teaching influence. The Catholic child comes from the bosom of a Catholic family and returns to the bosom of that family at night absolutely unassailed and uninfluenced by any dogma denominational or clerical which is against his belief or against the course of his religious training. That is to say, in Ontario there are national schools. Now, the only ground you have to stand upon in objecting to this system in Ontario, is that it is the very absence of dogmatical teaching that you object to. Then, if you object to that, but not to any direct teaching' or persuasion, that is the limit of your plea. But you cannot say that the Catholic child is under perverting influenee. In the province of Quebec it is absolutely different from what it is in Ontario ; do you not see that ?-and consequently you must not stretch this claim of your toleration too far.
Mr. BOUBASS-A. Will the hon. gentleman allow me a word ?


George Eulas Foster: Certainly.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would like to impress upon the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Foster's) mind the point of view we take we say that it is as unjust to compel a Catholic child to go to a non-sectarian school as it is to compel a Protestant child to go to a Catholic school. And that has been acknowledged by the highest Protestant authorities in England.


George Eulas Foster: I do not dissent from the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bourassa's) statement of the Catholic position. But what I answer is this : Is it as unjust to have a child forced by necessity, or by environment, to go to a national school in the province of Ontario where he is not perverted, as it would be if these national schools taught Methodism or Presbyterianism from morning until night and perverted your child ? We must take all these things into the consideration.
Now, we go back to the compact. And I may say that whatever may be the similarity of words, I see a difference between the compact of confederation and the British North America Act. By whom was the 108 '
compact made, and where ? The compact was made in 1864 by the representatives of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. These representatives met together to form a confederation. They made what we call the constitution. In that consti-tuiqon you find two divisions of powers. One division puts certain things exclusively under the control of the pro-\ince, and the other puts certain things exclusively under the control of the Dominion. Now, read these over, and do you find anything in the list of powers given to the exclusive control of the Dominion which has the remotest relation to or connection with education ? You cannot find it. What was the dominant idea in the minds of all the representatives ? The dominant idea was that education was a local concern, and the Dominion must keep its hands off.
And that was Mr. Oliver Mowat's original resolution, what was afterwards added was only an incident. Do not let us confuse the incidental with the essential. One is the powers themselves. The other comes from an after thought, viz: Granting those powers, can they be used to prejudice the rights of the minority? If so, let us put on a check. That is the incidental, but the other is the essential. Now the essential thing is that the province should have exclusive control of its education. But those wise men sitting there in Quebec city said ; Here is Ontario and here is Quebec [DOT] we have separate schools for Catholics in Ontario and for Protestants in Quebec, and a suggestion was made by Mr. McGee to this effect : Yes, we will give the exclusive power, hut we will add this rider to it, ' save and except the minority rights of the two Canadas.' That is all that was done at Quebec. That is all to the very letter, and that was passed by the legislature of Upper and Uowei' Canada. There were present representatives from the [DOT] maritime provinces and also the representatives from tlie two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. That was their compact, and that was all of it. But this gave no right for anybody to say that, because they saved by that compact the rights of the minorities in those two provinces, when forty or fifty years later you make provinces out of the Northwest Territories, you are obliged on account of that compact, to establish separate schools for the minorities in those provinces. Not in the least. This compact in order to become law went to London. The Protestant minority, voiced by Mr. Galt, said : That compact does not suit the Protestants in Quebec; we are peculiarly situated ; we have been trying to get certain amendments to our Act to better protect us ; these have been promised us, but you have not been able to carry them out ; now we cannot willingly go into confederation unless we



get those. In the last analysis, It came to this: The Protestant minority could not get the legislation until after confederation. Then Mr. Galt said at London : Very well, then we must make that promise binding by the constitution ; we must add that other clause that not only if at the time of confederation separate schools exist but if legislation is had after confederation giving separate school privileges and then that these should be taken away, and the rights of the minority thereby be prejudiced, there will be an appeal to the sovereign power, the parliament of the colonies. That is the history of it and the whole history of it. You may search the whole history of it from first to last and that is a fair statement of the case. For New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, not by compact, but in London, was this united Upper and Lower Canada saving clause extended into a saving clause which applied to all the provinces at the time of the union. It was generalized, it was the compact principle extended to the other provinces. That is the Confederation Act. When you come to the British North America Act, you can get all there is in that Act and you have a right to get it. But I say to the right lion, gentleman who contends that he is bound by the Confederation Act to give to' these Northwest provinces the same rights that are possessed by Ontario and Quebec, that he has pushed the contract beyond its absolute and reasonable meaning, and in the opinion of lawyers equally as good as himself he has no warrant for saying that he is compelled by the British North America Act to place into the constitution of the Northwest Territories such a principle as he proposes to embalm in that constitution.
One point more with reference to the Manitoba case. I have said that the Catholic or any minority in this Dominion never had a case so clear for remedial legislation as had the Manitoba minority in 1896. All the legal difficulties were out of the way, all the decisions were given, and the path was absolutely clear between that minority with its grievance and the power which had jurisdiction to remedy it, namely, this parliament. But the right lion, gentleman threw himself across the way and prevented it ; and if my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) complains that the Manitoba minority is suffering from injustice today, it is because his leader threw himself across the path of the Remedial Bill and prevented its enactment. More has happened since that. I regret in no single jot or tittle my act in 1896. Under similar circumstances, I would do the same thing, but I do not at all say that I will ever do the same thing under the circumstances that may arise after this. Why ? Because there is a power which after all is mightier than the constitution. We invoked the constitution in 1896. We tried Mr. FOSTER.
to give it its full force in a clear case and we were prevented by the leader of a great party. After we were prevented, that leader and his party went to the people in 1896, 1900 and 1904, and the people declared that they did not want remedial legislation. In the interests of the 41 per cent which has been talked about in this House, in the interests of the province of Quebec which was specially interested, we on this side tried to get for the minority their rights in the only way we possibly could under the constitution. We were prevented from doing it by the Liberal party, and during three successive elections the Liberal party have endorsed the contention that no hands be laid on any province even though it deprives the minority of that province of the rights guaranteed it under the constitution. And I make bold to say that as long as grass grows and water runs, I shall not feel disposed to contravene that will three times expressed by the people of this country. Aye, Mr. Speaker, three times expressed, and expressed especially by that very 41 per cent we hear so much about, and in the province where it is strong set. To the man who says that this agitation is on to-day simply because we are opposed to a French premier-to the gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) I have no answer to make. A statement of the case is quite sufficient. To the same gentleman who said in another part of his speech that this is on because it is a party agitation, I have no answer to make. His statement answers Itself. We read the newspapers, we scan the petitions, we know what is going on in this country, and if this is a party agitation very suddenly the Tory party must have greatly enlarged its sphere. Sir, I want to state one other thing. Whatever may have been said in 1896, I approached that question, and the government of which I was. a member approached it, against the wishes of many of our best friends, not because we thought we had a political cinch in prospect, not at all ; but knowing that in all probability we were going down to our political death, and doing it because we thought we were under a constitutional obligation.
Now, Sir, I had intended to address an argument to the Minister of the Interior, but that hon. gentleman is not' present : perhaps it will be better to keep it for another time. But there-is one point I cannot afford to let pass, because it is a point made by the Minister of Finance as well as by the ex-Minister of the Interior. It used to be good doctrine, good constitutional doctrine, it is yet-it used to be good Liberal doctrine, I don't know that it is now-but it used to be, formerly they coincided,-that if there was a member of the government who, on a grave question of principle, did not agree with his party on a measure involving that principle, he had no other hon-

curable course than to go out from the government and voice bis opposition to that measure. Is that a good Liberal principle to-day ? Is it, or is it not ? That is the only raison d'etre that the Minister of the Interior had. He has not abjured his principles, he keeps them still. He declares that it is with reluctance that he will vote for the measure. He says, " section 1 is an interference, and he wishes it were not there ; but on one consideration he will vote for that interference. Why ? Because it is supplemented by a subsection which declares that money shall be put behind the interference to make it effective. There is consistency for you. He. hates the plague, he says it destroys the family, it decimates society, but if only you support it by a money vote by which you can scatter the plague far and wide, then he welcomes it. That is the argument, that is the reasoning of the Minister of the Interior, if he has any left at all. He declares that his principles are not abjured, but he straightway repudiates them by his vote. The man who cried for freedom from slavery, cried it from 1890 to 1896, through all the concessions and counties of the west, and of Ontario, cried for unshackled limbs in the provinces, comes in to-day, and while declaring that he has not abjured his principles in the least, he votes to do what he declares himself shackles and creates an interference with the free life of two great provinces in the west, enduring and irrevocable. Time was when a man who held a principle as strong as that on so grave an issue, would not have dared to stand before the public an instant after having gone back upon his principles. Why does he do it ? Why ? I am not going to search for any reasons at all, I am going to give the reason that he gives-the King's government must go on. The Finance Minister says, the King's government must go on. Do they not mean in their heart of hearts that the Liberal government must go on ? It is the Liberal government which must go on, and principle, consistency, constitution, everything must be sacrificed, but the King's-to wit, the Liberal-government must go on. The Minister of Finance used it as a threat-I never heard a more unworthy argument in this House, and hope never to hear such an argument again. If that principle and that method is adopted what government can be pure and well conducted ; for never, if not in this case, will men go out because they do not agree in principle with the legislation which is proposed. Yet the King's government must go on, that is to say, the party must be kept in power, principle and constitution may be thrown to the winds.
But the Minister of the Interior has wonderful knowledge from his acquaintance on the street. He has been too much on the street. Too close a connection w-ith the man 108J
on the street is apt to becloud the moral sense, is apt to throw a pall over principle, it is not conducive to the highest and clearest thought. What is his argument ? The constitution orders this, says the right hon. premier. The constitution does not compel it, says the leader of the opposition. So the ex-Minister of the Interior says that the man on the street gets confused. He hears both say that they are correct, sees both stand on the same rock. The man on the street says, he cannot understand the constitution, but wants to know what you are going to enact. But there are men on the street and men on the street. I can conceive of a man on the street who cultivates a very valuable farm out in Carleton county. I go to him and say : My good friend, you think you - own that farm.-Yes.-Well, I think I own it. Let us sit down now and let us discuss what is the best method of cultivating that farm. What does the man on the street say to me ? The first thing he says is, Sir, don't you think I had better know first how- the title reads ? If the title in in me, I wil take your advice, but I will not take your domination ; if the title is in you, I may give you advice, but I will not try to dominate you. My first duty A to ascertain the title of the property. I will discuss the details of the business afterwards.
So there are men on the street and men on the street, and it is not the better class of men on the street from whom the Minister of the Interior has received his inspiration. Forty-one per cent of the people of this country, the Minister of Finance says, bids us put this article into the constitution. Forty-one per cent of this country in 1896 seemed to be up in arms against remedial legislation in the province of Manitoba. What right has the Minister of Finance to say that forty-one per cent of the people of this country demand it ? But does he pay a compliment to the forty-one per cent of the intelligent, educated, law-abiding, patriotic Catholics in this country, if, when a question comes up and has been fought out in the high court of parliament, and the majority is against them, he makes them say that they will make government impossible in this country
What Catholic says that ? No intelligent, patriotic Catholic says it. Every patriotic and intelligent Catholic throws that back in the teeth both of the hon. exMinister of the Interior and the hon. Minister of Finance and that when they want an excuse for going back on their principles and their records they should get a better excuse than to say that 41 per cent of the citizens of this country, if they cannot get what they want, will cause anarchy and revolution. The Minister of Finance ventured something else, and I commend it to the hon. member for Labelle. He said : Oh yes, we can afford to be tolerant; we must recollect that 41 per cent of the people are

Catholics. They have some rights and we must not be too hard hearted. Let the constitution go ; let us be tolerant ; give them a large and tolerant measure, and what is the measure ? All they get up there is their half-hour of the spent day ; all they get up there is a decrease in their separate schools instead of an increase. Oh, the generosity, the lofty, wide toleration of the Finance Minister ! I did not blame the hon. member for Labelle at all yesterday when he put that little quiet spoke in his wheel and said : Oh yes, Mr. Finance Minister you are quite tolerant down there but you were not always so. You are so now because there is a very respectable number of Catholic votes in your province. What more right has this parliament to put separate schools under the constitution iu these two great provinces out there in the interest of the minority than it has to bid the province of Nova Scotia, or the province of New Brunswick or the province of Prince Edward Island to give separate schools to the Roman Catholic minority of those provinces ? When you come down to the essence of the thing and leave forms aside what more right has parliament to do it in one case than in the other ? Would even the hon. member for Labelle introduce a proposition looking to an interference with the province of Nova Scotia. Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick, or to force them to give a legal separate school system to the minority ? No, and why not ? It is more manly, Sir, to attack a full fledged province able to defend itself and say to it:	We
will make you respect law and justice ; we will make you respect the rights of the minority and we will put a law in force in your province which will compel you to do it under pains and penalties. You have a man to fight then. It is a fair battle, but in this case you take the child, your own ward, the infant in your arms growing up to his maturity who will by and by attain a mighty estate, with powerful, untold possibilities stretching out into the endless future and while he is a child in your lap you bind his limbs with an irrevocable bond, so that however strong he may grow he never can get rid of the bond or the badge that marks him as inferior. The plea for toleration is a good one, the argument for separate schools, as strong as it can be made, may be a good one, but you are in the wrong court when you come here. That is the only mistake. How did you get your separate school privileges in the province of Nova Scotia ? Not by the hfft-d letter of the law. It was the good, tolerant sense of the majority which gave you there all you asked. How did you get your privileges in the province of New Brunswick ? New Brunswick fought the minority, fought it out in the province, went to the elections on it, fought it out in the courts, made no change in jot or tittle, Mr FOSTER.
but when it had ascertained and maintained its full rights the majority turned around and said to their brethren that lived in their midst :	We are not so intolerant
as you thought, we give you those privileges and to-day, in the city of St. John and in every portion of New Brunswick, you have practically better separate schools than you will have in the Northwest. Why cannot you trust the Northwest ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not the same kind.


George Eulas Foster: Not the same kind? I do not respect very much that judgment, which, standing on the small pivot of the present, cannot look out into the future with its progress, its advancement, its increasing light and knowledge and its ever growing generosity and tolerance and be broad enough to say : Men will be men when I am dead and gone, with the same generous impulses in their hearts as those which they have to-day. Men will treat their brethren as brethren then as they treat them now. The argument of the hog. gentleman carried to its full extent is an argument for tyranny, and a bondage complete and enduring.
Now, let me reason for a moment with my friends. You say :	We want a separate school system ; we believe in it. Will you look for a moment at the Protestant view ? I do not know whether I am able to speak for all Protestantism or not, but I think I can fairly and reasonably outline the view of that Protestantism which stands behind t-he national schools. What it it? That the schools shall be national, shall be free, shall be non-sectarian, busying themselves with education alone, not leaving out education in morals and on the general lines of right and religious conduct, but absolutely free from all sectarianism.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is the American system.


George Eulas Foster: It is not the American system alone, it is the Canadian system in every province except Quebec. Where did the right hon. leader of the government get his information when he stated in parliament here the other day that in the schools of Canada religion and religious dogmas were taught from morning till night ? Has the right hon. gentleman ever looked into our school systems ? Go to the province of Ontario, go to the province of Manitoba, go to the province of New Brunswick, go to all of them and that is absolutely the wrong explanation and the wrong interpretation. These schools are free, non-sectarian and consequently national. They do not allow dogma to be taught whether it is dogma of the Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Anglican or the Roman Catholic. All are treated alike. Is there no reasonableness in the proposition, that, if the great majority of the people of the country feel that the best kind of a system is such a system as that, so
3389"

long as It in no way offends against the religious belief, the teachings and the dogma of any class or creed, it shall be a national system to which we shall all contribute ? In that way they declare that the children meet together and that there are no distinctions between them. In their sports, in their studies, in their social growth they mingle and commingle, they learn to know each other, they grow up with a common bond and a common interest in their country and the affairs of their country. That is their view. It may be wrong or it may be right. Then they say that by that system we avoid the divisions into separate districts with their consequent inefficiency, and increased cost. Therefore, they say, we have a more efficient system and we have also a less costly system. That is their point of view. Let manners and morals, let the bases of right conduct be taught in the schools, let those be inculcated, but no dogma of any sect. Let each class teach their dogma where they please ; it may be in the Sunday school, or in the church, or in some other place, but if there is any sect, Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of England or Roman Catholic which wishes to teach their own belief and their own religion in any institution governed by themselves, there is no law which forbids them to do it in this country. There is no prohibition. These are in broad terms the distinctive characteristics of the national school system. Suppose the Presbyterians were to say : We want dogmatic teaching, the answer to them would be : Provide for it as best you may: you have your churches, you have your Sunday schools, teach religion in them : you can have your colleges and your seminaries and your institutions which are entirely under your religious dom* ination, teach religion in them. And the same answer is given to every body. Protestant sect, Catholic sect, any sect. Where is the tyranny in that ?	[DOT]


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to interrupt?


Mr.   POSTER@: Yes.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The very agument which the hon. gentleman now makes was the argument presented by the government of Manitoba on the second appeal in the Barrett case, and the judgment of the Privy Council was that such a system of national schools was a glaring injustice to the Roman Catholics, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Poster) was in favour of passing remedial legislation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr.   POSTER@: I would advise my hon. friends not to applaud before they hear the answer. The assumption of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) is not correct. There were other circumstances in that case, and one was that the Manitoba legislature had
given rights to the minority under their full powers, that under the same full powers the Manitoba legislature had revoked these rights, and it was on account of the prejudicial effect of what has been given being taken back that the question came before the federal parliament. That was the principal idea that came into the case and upon which the decision rested.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend-


George Eulas Foster: Go on. '


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I simply wish to say that my interruption was not to discuss the legal question, but with the object of refuting the argument the hon. gentleman has made that such a system of national schools ought to be satisfactory to Catholics.


George Eulas Foster: 1 do not suppose we can see eye to eye about that, but as I wish to finish before six o'clock I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) will not think me discourteous if 1 do not follow the point further. For the few moments that are left me I wish to take my last point, not to treat it as fully as it deserves, but simply to throw out a few thoughts by way of suggestion. I want to ask in the first place why there should be any attempt to inject into the constitution of these new provinces the principle of separate schools, without authority from them, against the disposition and against the feelings of the people of the Northwest so far as we can judge ? Why is this attempt made to cripple these great provinces? Each of the other provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Manitoba, is absolutely free and sovereign in so far as such legislation is concerned. Each one of these provinces of her own good will may enact a separate school system and it may also abrogate that law, but If it does abrogate it it has to show cause before the jurisdiction- of the federal parliament and with the possible consequence of remedial legislation. And if we can trust all these other provinces what reason in the world is there that we should for ever tag with a badge of inferiority these two great coming provinces of the Northwest? When every other province stands clothed in the majesty of provincial rights, why should we single out Saskatchewan and Alberta, and because we happen to be the guardian of the children put upon them for ever a badge of inferiority ? Is it not a retrograde step in thought and in practice to stand on our small platform of 1905 and to hold up a statute of limitations for ever in the face of two provinces, in which, as the centuries roll on changes must inevitably come, systems come and systems go, new methods take the place of old. But the right hon. gentleman stands up here with his small statute of limitation and he declares against the whole possible progress of these great

parts of Canada with their coming millions of population, and their conditions in years and centuries to come, as diverse from this year and this century as the human mind can imagine. It is a task which is unwise to essay ; it is absolutely impossible of successful accomplishment. The right hon. gentleman may tag on this badge of bondage; he may put on his restrictions; he may utter an irrevocable decree of tutelage, but I tell him that, against the free thought and free will of these two provinces with their coming millions of people, his statute of limitation will be as waste paper and his chains of bondage as weak as thread of fibre. There is no hand which can fashion the chain and drive the rivet that will encompass and restrict these young giants of the Northwest in years to come. You may carry your project through and the Finance Minister may cry peace, peace, but the moment it is carried through and made irrevocable, that moment begins against it the warfare of an unwilling people. The feelings of free men that their right to freedom has been outraged and denied will not long lie dormant. Tolerant, if you appeal to his love of tolerance, the free man will forswear tolerance if you attempt to force upon him by superior and to a certain extent foreign and outside force, a measure which he believes restricts his freedom. Do not run away with the conclusion that we here are able to shackle the millions of the future in the Northwest.
What answer have you in face of the fact that every other province has this liberty, and has treated with remarkable toleration the minority within its boundaries

vaunted and boasted in every part of this House ? What right have you to say to the people of the Northwest : We can trust our fellow-citizens in the other provinces, but we cannot trust you. More illogical still, the member for Labelle said : We could trust the people who are there now. Trust the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who voted over and over again for resolutions to destroy the rights of the minority in the Northwest? Trust the member for Brandon, who has abandoned his principles for the sake of his party's success, but who, in the very moment that he abandons them, still plucks up courage to say, I believe in them still, I am -proud of my allegiance to them ? You can trust these, but you cannot trust the coming peoples of the Northwest. Never was there a more retrograde doctrine taught by the greatest Tory of the ages than is taught in that sentence by the hon. member for Babelle.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. gentleman is stating just the contrary of what I said.


George Eulas Foster: Will the hon. gentleman say what he said ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I said that even if I trusted the people at present in the North-Mr. FOSTER.
west, no one could tell what would happen in the future, when large numbers of people from the United States and other countries settled there ; and, so far as the present rulers of the Northwest were concerned, I said I could not trust them in the light of their past legislation.


George Eulas Foster: If the member for La-belie said that, then I misunderstood him, and my argument does not apply to him. 1 want only fair argument. There was an argument which somewhat cut the ground from under the feet of the member for La-belle. He said :	Put separate schools into
the Northwest and treat the French people well and the French people will flow into the Northwest and become your most stable settlers, lovers of the soil, as the French people always are, lovers of their home, as they are wherever they settle. But does the hon. member recollect that into the country to the south of us, with its Godless schools, its secular schools, its denial of the French language and all other rights of the minority, hundreds of thousands of the choice youth of the province of Quebec have gone and go from year to year to make their homes ? Will the restriction, if you put it upon the Northwest, in principle unjust and in practice irksome, be worth the paper it is written upon ? Under the ordinances as they are to-day rules are made by the commissioners. You do not crystallize one of those regulations into law. You simply provide that the ordinance shall stand, and the ordinance with reference to separate schools is absolutely the same as the provision in the law of 1875. Why is it that tor day those schools are not the same as they were twenty years ago ? Because with the power to make regulations which the commissioner has under these ordinances, regulations have been made which have transformed those schools into what they are today. Pass your ordinance and put it into the constitution, and if the people of the Northwest, in their provincial assemblies, are opposed to the principle, are opposed to reverting to the old form, they will make their regulations as they please, and I would like to know how you propose to stop them. It is absolutely impossible.
All this discussion, Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to say so, seems out of place in this House. To discuss the school systems of the United States, of Spain, of Germany, of France, of these provinces, to try to settle which has the greatest merits in all its principles and details, is something that is absolutely foreign to this House, and that never should be brought here-has no place here legitimately. As I said before, the plea may be good, but you are in the wrong court. To the province you should go for these tolerant privileges, these rights which you wish to have - by law. The province alone can give them, and, as the ex-Minister of the Interior said the other day : ' I

am still strongly of opinion that if the Catholic minority will trust to the legislatures of the Northwest, in the end they will be better off thereby.' If that is done, we can bid farewell to these discussions in tuis House, where different races and creeds are represented, and where the active passions, good or bad, are always aroused when you come to questions of religious belief and dogma. These questions will then no longer intervene to disquiet and paralyze the business of this country. Let these questions be fought out in the province, which is the ultimate tribunal ; and again I plead for absolute, unrestricted freedom and confidence in the tolerance of the Northwest people, now and in the future, for fair treatment to all their fellow-citizens.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Hr. GALLIHER moved third reading of Bill (No. 12) respecting the Ottawa Electric Company.
Mr. ROBERT STEWART (Ottawa).: 1 beg to move :
That the said Bill he not now read the third time, but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the same by providing that section five he struck out and the following he substituted therefor : Provided that the power to acquire shares in the capital stock and debentures or securities of other electric companies possessing powers similar to those of this company will not apply to the capital stock, debentures and securities of the Consumers Electric Company. Limited, or the Metropolitan Company, Limited, or their successors or assigns.
I desire merely to say a few words. The other day a statement was made by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) to the effect that the city of Ottawa had violated its contract with the Ottawa Electric Company. In making this statement, I presume the hon. gentleman had in his mind the resolution passed by the city council of Ottawa some years ago. A motion was then presented in the council asking that a monopoly be given the Ottawa Electric Company, and that motion was carried. But, of course, in order to become effective, it was necessary that it should be put in the form of an agreement and that a bylaw should he adopted by the council ratifying that agreement. This was never done. There was considerable feeling at the time, and no sooner was the motion carried than a notice of reconsideration was given. The following day it was pointed out by the city solicitor that it would be a violation of the common law to carry through any arrangement of that kind. Of course, the mere adopting of the motion by the council could have no more effect than the first reading of a Bill by this House. There was simply a resolution passed by the council, but that resolution was never put into the form of an agreement, and it was pointed out by the city solicitor that no corporation could have any power to enter into any such agreement. No contract having been -made, it is not correct to say that the city has violated any agreement it has with the company. I think it is only due to the city that I should make this correction of the statement of my hon. friend, who, I am sure, would not willingly do any injustice to the Ottawa city council. Another statement to which I wish to draw attention is that made by the Minister of Justice to the effect that the city of Ottawa was endeavouring to trespass on the rights of the Ottawa Electric Company. I wish to give that statement a positive contradiction. The city council of Ottawa are not endeavouring to trespass on any vested rights. It is the Ottawa Electric Company which is asking for this legislation, and the city council are simply asking to he guarded against any injustice. The feeling in this city is very strong against the passage of this Bill. We consider it to be an invasion of our municipal 1'ights. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron)' evidently misunderstood another statement which I made. I was pointing out that members of this House, who are not residents of the city of Ottawa, cannot have the same interest in this matter as the city representatives. We do not dispute the right of any member to make up his mind as to how he will vote on the Bill, but it is only fair that the members from outside the city should pause and consider the effect which this Bill will have on the rights of the municipality. I have nothing more to say on this question. The arguments are before the House. The people of this city consider that it would be an injustice to them to pass this Bill, and I appeal to members on both sides to vote against it.


William Findlay Maclean: I think that my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Stewart) has made out a very good case. The more we discuss this measure, the more it becomes evident that it is a raid on the revenues of the people of Ottawa, and that this parliament ought to refuse to pass it. This parliament has no reason to occupy itself with the domestic affairs of the city of Ottawa, especially in a matter so extremely local. The question never should have come to this House, and the Bill is evidently an invasion of the municipal rights of the province of Ontario. The matter should really be dealt with in the Ontario legislature. In Toronto this Bill is regarded as an invasion of municipal rights. We have had produced here the testimony of the two members represent-

ing this city, and a petition signed by a large number of the citizens of Ottawa has been laid on the table, in which this Bill is denounced as an invasion of the rights of the city. But this House, for some reason or another, proposes to override the rights of the people of Ottawa. What we see here to-day is a parliament prepared, not only to invade municipal rights, but public and provincial rights ; and the people outside are taking observations of these things. If parliament will persist in doing this, they will have to account to the common sense of the public. This proceeding cannot be justified on any pretext that it is in the interest of the Dominion. It is not in the interest of the Dominion that parliament should be used to break down the rights of any municipality. We find that the interests of great private corporations are protected and advanced here, and these corporations enabled to evade their obligations.
There was a solemn obligation on the part of this company not to amalgamate. It is seeking power to-day to make an amalgamation, and its object is nothing else than that it may be in a position to increase its charges for electricity to its consumers the citizens of Ottawa. This parliament is setting an example to the legislatures of this country to leave out of consideration the rights of the people wherever those rights are opposed to the interests of private corporations. I object to this, as I have objected to it; and I shall vote against it. I believe that when the people realize what this movement on the part of corporations means, they will put it down. I should like to see the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Stewart) make a fight to a finish. And I should like to hear from the other member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) that we may know what he says about this interference with the rights of the people.


Mr. BELCOURT.: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) permit me ? He surely will not say that he does not know where I stand in this matter. I have expressed myself clearly.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, but in these cases you have to do a good deal of talking too. Persistent talking and presentation of the case of the people must have a good effect. I believe that this Bill could be blocked ; it could be prevented from going through. I can say that I have done my best to put in a word for the rights of the people of Ottawa. The effort may not succeed now. Hon. gentlemen opposite make fun of municipal rights, and members from one province in particular like to take part in the invasion upon municipal rights. But the day is coming soon, when this parliament will be taken to task for the way it has treated the municipal rights of the' people not only in this province but all over the country. These companies may fobby this House and make themselves great friends of Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
the people in power ; but I say it is a shame that the political debts of hon. gentlemen opposite should be paid at the 'expense of the municipal rights of the people of this city.


Mr.  H. H.@: MILLER (South Grey), I saw in the funny column of the Toronto ' World ' the other day a statement to the effect that the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) had stirred up supporters of the government to vote against this Bill. I have been voting against this Bill on every occasion, and I intend to vote against it to-night ; but not because of, but in spite of the eloquent tirade of the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am glad to have the opportunity of putting myself on record against the principle of this measure, against the interference by parliament in contracts made by two parties outside. I said the other night, and I repeat, that parliament should not assist one party to a contract to dishonour that contract at the expense of the other party. But that is what we are doing in this case. I am opposed also to parliament playing into the hands of a monopoly, as it will be doing by putting through this Bill, for there can be no other object on the part of this company than to become possessed of the stock of competing companies in order that it may establish a monopoly in its line of business in the city of Ottawa. This is the tendency of the age, especially in commercial life, and parliament should not assist or endorse it in any way, but should rather fight against it and maintain the rights of the people. The people of Ottawa are plainly opposed to this measure. Thejj gave evidence of that as strongly as any people could in the petition sent to the Prime Minister. Over 2,000 citizens of Ottawa begged of him to oppose this measure on the ground that it was against the interest of the city. I take it that that means that the representatives of 2,000 families signed this petition, because I assume that it is only the heads of families that would be likely to sign it. The average family is said to be composed of five, so that this means that over 10,000 people of the city of Ottawa have petitioned against this measure. Yet, I am sure that not one-fifth of the people of Ottawa were asked to sign the petition, or that petition would have had many more signatures than appear upon it. Is not this an evidence of the desire of the residents of Ottawa that this Bill should not be passed ? Is not this plain evidence that we are going contrary to the will of the people of Ottawa in a matter in which they are deeply interested ? It is said that this company cannot earn a reasonable dividend. And the evidence given of that is their own statement, not verified or analysed to ascertain whether it is correct or not. We who have been in the House any length of time have often heard this

argument put up by corporations who desire to get rights that should not be granted them. Therefore we take this statement with some suspicion ; and, before acting upon it, we should at least verify it by inquiry. Then, we are told that this" Bill is one that, on its merits ought to pass. And in one of the newspapers of Ottawa we see arguments in support of the Bill. Naturally we ask ourselves, is this an independent authority ? Is this a disinterested party giving advice to the parliament of Canada as one of the ratepayers of the city of Ottawa ?[DOT] And when we inquire into the facts, we are told that this same paper is controlled by the corporation that desires to get these rights from parliament. What dependence can we place upon advice from such a source ?


Mr.  H. H.@: ,T. LOGAN (Cumberland). Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) allow me a word ? He says that the Ottawa ' Free Press ' is controlled by the Ottawa Electric Company. It is only fair to say that the 4 Free Press ' stated yesterday in its editorial column that it was not owned or controlled by the Electric Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can only say that my information is from one of the aldermen of the city of Ottawa whose truthfulness i have no reason to doubt.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Name.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not the hon. gentleman's business to get the name.


Alexander Johnston: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) allow me


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Johnston) inquired with a view to adding to his knowledge, it would not be so bad, for I am sure no member of this House needs it more. But his interruptions are invariably for the purpose of interfering with the hon. gentleman who has the floor for the time being. In the face of all the facts, should we accept the statement of this newspaper as independent evidence that what is proposed in this Bill is right ? I do not think we should. Nor do I think we are doing our duty here in interfering with a contract that was honourably made between this corporation and the corporation of the city of Ottawa. We are helping one of the parties to violate the contract they entered into with the people of Ottawa, the result of which must be to impose a very heavy tax upon the people of Ottawa who must use electric light in the future. Is parliament doing its highest duty if it permits that to be done ? I do not think it is. I think we are going into a domain which does not properly belong to us, and we are doing a great injustice to the people of Ottawa. We are doing an improper thing if we enable one of the parties to the contract to dishonour their own contract that they made with the city'
some years ago, and agreed to abide by. I think we should not do that, and I shall
vote in favour of	the amendment.
House divided	on. amendment (Mr. Stewart).	YEAS.
Messieurs	
Alcorn.	Kennedy,
Ames,	Lalor,
Barr,	Laurence,
Belcourt,	Lennox,
Bennett.	Lewis,
Blain,	Loggie,
Bland,	MacLaren,
Boyce,	[DOT]'Maclean (York, S.),
Brabazon,	McCarthy (Calgary),
Burrows,	McIntyre,
Campbell,	McKenzie (Bruce),
Chisholm,	Martin (Queen's, P.E.I.)
Christie,	Martin (Wellington),
Clarke,	Miller.
Clements,	Mulock (Sir William),
Cockshutt,	Oliver,
Daniel,	[DOT]Paterson,
Elson,	Ratz,
Foster.	Schaftner,
Gallery,	Sproule,
Gordon,	Staples,
Gunn,	Stewart,
Henderson,	Talbot (Strathcona),
Herron,	Thompson,
Hyman,	Walsh,
Ingram,	Wilson
Jackson (Selkirk),	(Lennox & Addington)
Johnston (Lamhton)	Zimmerman-56.
Kemp,	NAYS.
Messieurs	
Archambault,	Lavergne
Beauparlant,	(Drummond & Arth.),
Beiand,	LeBlanc,
Bergeron,	Lemieux,
Bickerdike,	Leonard,
Boyer,	Logan,
Brodeur,	Lovell,
Brown,	Macdonald,
Bruneau,	Maclean (Lunenburg),
Bureau,	Macpherson,
Caldwell,	McCarthy (Simcoe),
Calvert,	McColl,
Carney,	McCool,
Carvell,	Mclsaac,
Cash,	McKenzie
Copp,	(Cape Breton, N.),
Cyr,	McLennan,
Delisle,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Demers (St. John),	Mayrand,
Derbyshire,	Meigs,
Desjardins,	Monk,
Devlin,	Morin,
Dugas,	Parmelee,
Fielding,	Parent,
Finlay,	Pich6,
Finlayson,	Pickup,
Fitzpatrick,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fortier,	Riley,
Galliher,	Ross (Rimouski),
Gauvreau,	Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Geoffrion,	Rousseau,
Girard,	Savoie,
Hall.	Scott,

Harty,	Sinclair,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Talbot (Bellechasse), Hunt,	Telford,
Johnston	Tobin.
(Cape Breton, South), Turgeon,
Lachance,	Turriff,
Lamont,	Wilson (Russell),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Wright (Renfrew)-80. Laurier (L'Assomption),
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 102) respecting a certain patent of the Gold Medal Manufacturing Company.
On section 1,
George Eulas Foster: What are the facts with reference to this extension of a patent ?


Mr. CAMPBELL.: This Gold Medal Manufacturing Company acquired this patent some time ago, but through an oversight they allowed it to lapse, without paying the fees to renew the patent as they had a right to do. This was done through some oversight, I do not know whether it was their own fault or the fault of their solicitor, at all events it was done ; and they ask this parliament to allow them to renew the patent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there should be some provision in this Bill for companies or individuals rvho may have commenced manufacturing in the meantime. I see no provision in the Bill before me for any such case. We have made that a rule for a good many years, and I see no reason why it should be departed from in this instance. There may or may not have been any parties starting manufacturing in the meantime, but if so, their acquired rights should be protected.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS.: These parties represented to the committee that they had invested a large amount of money in that business, and that their time was going to expire, that they have only one year more. Since that patent was obtained, in 1891, I think it was, the law has been changed, and instead of giving fifteen years for the patent to run, now it is eighteen years. They represented to us that under the circumstances they had incurred great cost, and that having received only a poor return it would be only fair to give them an extension of six years. The objection was made that they should get only three years in order to put them on the same footing as a new patentee, but it has been represented by the department that the fees were usually paid for six years.. It is under these Mr. SPROULE.	,
circumstances that the committee has considered that the Bill should be adopted.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 115) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No-. 116) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company. -Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 127) for the relief of James Arthur Pryor.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 126) for the relief of Edward Albert Murphy.-Mr. Galliher.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the 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.
Mir.  M. S.@: Mr. Speaker, for three hours this afternoon the House had the advantage of hearing the views of the hou. gentleman, not upon the subject under discussion, but upon many matters totally foreign to the measure that the House is now considering. If, this afternoon, a stranger had been in our galleries, and many there were, and had not in advance been informed of the subject under debate, it would have been impossible for him to have known what the subject was that was properly in order before the House. For three hours this afternoon the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) occupied the attention of the House ostensibly in order to aid by some useful contribution in the solution of a very important public question, but instead of bringing to the aid of his country his great talents, I think it will be found on a careful perusal of his words that his efforts were rather to sow the seeds of discord to the injury of his country. He began by giving us, as he has on many occasions and as he also has given to the public, his view's on the question of political principles and political morality. It must be extremely elevating to the people of Canada to take their inspiration of political morality from such a source. He entered politics with principles. He describes the Liberal party as conveniently packing their principles in a remote corner of a small valise, and he states that they are able to get rid of them as conveniently as they can put them in or take them out of the valise. What about the principles of the hon. gentleman ? I can recall many of his professed principles, for perhaps his principles are not very deep-seated, and, like old garments, they are

easily disposed of in favour of new ones. I remember the first principle he advocated when he entered public life. He came here with a valise, and I suppose he had his political principles in the valise. What was the first principle he had in his valise ? It was a principle which served a useful purpose. His great political principle, and before it all other great questions faded into insignificance, was prohibition. 1 The welfare of the country demanded that the first consideration, higher than that of party, should be given to the question of prohibition. That was his political capital for many a year ; that was the only article in his political valise. He arrived in Ottawa with his political valise. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that he had only one principle. He had another stowed away which did not take up much room and did not occupy a very long time in that valise, but he entered this House pledged as an independent Conservative to stand up for all good measures. Party was a secondary consideration for him ; his country demanded his first attention. He had these two principles when he entered public life. What became of them ? The independent Conservative principle could not be allowed to stand, because it stood in the way of preferment, and so the first thing that happened his little valise was to deprive it of the presence in it of his principle of political independence. It stood in the way of his entering the cabinet. It was thrown overboard and he got a portfolio. But it was not enough to get a portfolio. It is one thing to get a portfolio ; it is another thing to retain a portfolio. He has had some experience in both of these. He had to get rid of his other principle, and prohibition was thrown overboard, and with it his little valise. As time advanced he deemed it necessary to avow his being devoutly possessed of another principle. What was that principle ? He had taken office. He had become a strict party man. It was essential to him an apostate now but then a party man, that he should stand by his party, that he should be true to the government of which he was a member and true to the premier under whom he enlisted. His principle was-and it was a right one ; it was a principle that he was bound to live up to -that he should be true and loyal to his chief.
That is one of the principles he made profession of, but how long did that principle remain in his valise? It was there until it suited his purpose to dispose of it, and when was that? Sir John Macdonald, who first took him into office, had disappeared, others had been his chiefs and had disappeared also, and at last he enlisted under the banner of Sir Mackenzie Bowell. The history of Canada tells what then became of his principle of loyalty to his chief; the scenes that took place in this chamber and in the ante-rooms and lobbies of this House tell
what he did with that principle. Lastly, in 1896, on the eve of an election, the hon. gentleman evidently believing that it was good politics to stand by the minority, declared his undying allegiance to the cause of minorities. In 1896 he advocated the cause of minorities, he talked of respect for the constitution, but he found it didn't pay and to-day he seizes the opportunity _ to sever himself from the last of his political principles. No longer has the hon. gentleman any use for a political valise; hereafter a carpet bag will take its place.	[DOT]


George Eulas Foster: A steamer trunk.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: The hon. gentleman spent part of this day attacking ministers and ex-ministers and in one of his outbursts he said that he hoped for once some minister would go out of office for the sake of principle and would remain out of office for the sake of principle. The thought of going out of oflice and remaining out of office is a disturbing dream to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster). He cannot address a public meeting nor can he speak in parliament without talking of ministerial explanations and the principles of public men. Let the hon. gentleman be frank and tell us if he resigned on principle. A few m'onths ago he told the electors of North Toronto, if he is reported correctly in his own organs, that he resigned office on a question of policy. I was present in this chamber when he stated to this House the reasons why he resigned office, and in those reasons there was no question of principle involved. He then declared that there was no difference between himself and his leader on any question of principle or of policy, hut what is the sequel? That has been told us of late, and it is an extraordinary explanation. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) told us in 1896 that he had resigned not from personal ambition of any kind, but for the good of the party and of the country. But. a few weeks ago. the Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell, his late chief and leader, speaking in another chamber, told us why he had resigned. Perhaps he will now admit or deny the accuracy of Sir Mackenzie Bowell's assertion. Sir Mackenze Bowell declared that the resignation of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) was not on account of any difference of policy or principle, but because of the overweening ambition of the hon. gentleman to become Prime Minister of Canada. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) smiles. I will make it clear to him. The hon. gentleman is setting himself up as a standard for the guidance of the public men of this country, but let us see whether he is a safe guide. Sir Mackenzie Bowel] said (I quote from Senate ' Hansard,' 1st March, 1905) :
When he told the people of Toronto at the last Dominion election that he left the government on account of differences of opinion, on questions of policy and that His Excellency

the Governor General knowing the facts called them back into the government,
I do not like to read the words, but here they are:
He knew he was telling what was not correct.
Sir Mackenzie Bowell continues:
I have in my hand copies of the renort of speeches delivered by him in Toronto during the last Dominion election as reported by the'Globe,' the * News ' and the ' Mail/ in which I find that in reply to questions put to him he said amongst other things, .when asked why he left the government, that he did not purpose to answer the question that belonged to the Privy Council, and that his mouth was shut.
We never find it in that condition in this chamber.
But added that on all points of importance they must have a union of ideas and that any one disagreeing must resign. That, he said, was all they had done. Continuing, he said, ' When a member of the cabinet or members disagreed with their leader they had done as they were bound on their honour to do-resigned.' In another speech he said : ' The Governor had been quite satisfied with the reasons for the resignation of six ministers on a question of policy, and had shown his confidence in them by reappointing them later.' That did not satisfy his hearers, one of whom exclaimed :
' That still leaves the question unanswered. Why did you resign ? ' To which Mr. Foster replied ' I don't intend to answer. I am not at liberty to reveal the secrets of the Privy Council.' An ingenious way of evading an answer. The fact is, the reasons given in the House of Commons for his resigning were never discussed in the Privy Council before he resigned, therefore, he had no oath to respect in that particular.	.
Again, speaking in this chamber not very long ago the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) said:
Am I not to be allowed to leave the government if I differ from it on points of policy or principle ?
That was the statement of the hon. gentleman in this House during the present session, but how does that fit in with the statement he made on the very occasion of his resignation when he was probably most likely to give an accurate account. Speaking from his seat in 1896 he said:
I may say in the first place that there is no disagreement between ourselves and the premier upon any question of public policy, trade or constitutional, with regard to which action has already been taken, or in respect to which attitude has been assumed by the government under the present premier. I
I leave my hon. friend to struggle with these two conflicting statements. He goes on to give what he deems to be the reason, namely, the desire to serve under a gentleman of perhaps greater power. In fact he Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
describes the cabinet as beyond the control of the First Minister. He was unable to keep those unruly members in order. There was disorder in the cabinet, and the hon. member for North Toronto added to the disorder by trying to break up the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman seems to be troubled when any retiring minister returns to the cabinet, and be seems to be troubled when any retiring minister lemains without the cabinet. He takes exception to Mr. Blair not having returned. No person can take exception to his conduct in that respect. But when the honourable member for North Toronto went out of the cabinet, he took precious good care that no one should get into his place. He rendered the reconstruction impossible except by his readmission to the cabinet. Does the bon. gentleman set up that method as a standard ? Is that bis idea of political morality ? Is that his conception of what should be the conduct of hon. gentlemen who take office to serve their country ? Surely it is time for him to throw off this hypocritical garb in which be seeks to give moral lectures as to how public men should be loyal to their principles.
To-day, running through the whole of his speech, I thought I was able to discover one distinct line of policy. The Bill before the House is one to deal with a very important question concerning the Northwest. It is a question upon which the people may be honestly divided in opinion; but it is the bounden duty of every loyal citizen and of every member of this House to i-ender such assistance as he can to bring about a satisfactory settlement of this question. What was the action of the hon. gentleman Y If I have correctly read his policy, if I have discovered the object he had in his speech, it was not to be a messenger of peace and harmony, but if possible to light the incendiary fires of religious and racial discord from one end of this Dominion to the other. The hon. gentleman represents North Toronto. In olden days he came from the east. He stayed there as long as the people would keep him. in olden days, Mr. Speaker, I doubt if be would have professed the principles that he has professed to-day. But, Sir, he has rested in another place, and his new principles of to-day are appropriate and fashionable in North Toronto, and he put them on, and with a great deal of force throws off the old discarded ones. What object had the hon. gentleman in asking the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) whether or not be was content with the amendments of the government ? The hon. member for North Toronto, holding up these amendments to the member for Labelle, who is as we all know a devout son of his church, said to him in triumph: All the comfort and consolation you can get from these amendments is that at' half-past three o'clock in

the afternoon, when practically the school day is over, a half-hour of religious training will be allowed ; and he asked the member for Labelle If he was content with such a meagre provision as that. What was the object of that ? It was too transparent-perhaps the hon. gentleman thought no one could see it. The object of that was to tell the people of Quebec : Sir Wilfrid Laurier is giving you, not bread, but a stone ; he is not giving you any measure that will meet the views and feelings and perhaps the prejudices of the people of Quebec ; he is deceiving you, and X want to convince the member for Labelle of that fact, and I trust to his being a missionary to disseminate that doctrine in Quebec, and to stir up the good people of the province to demand more from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and perhaps to embarrass his policy.
When the hon. member for North Toronto comes to deal with the Territories, what does he say ? In loud language and in violent terms he says, why bind these young-giants in this way ? And he goes on to say : If you give this measure to the Territories, Nova Scotia is entitled to the same, British Columbia is entitled to it, all the other provinces that do not enjoy it are entitled to it. He appeals to the Territories practically to rise in revolt against this measure if it becomes law, and, if possible to make it a great political question ; and at the same time he appeals to the minorities in the other provinces, saying to them : The minority in the new provinces have got something-you demand it too. He thus appeals to one class and another-to the French Catholics of Quebec, to the Irish Catholics in another province, to the Protestants in another, trusting that by raising these fires in each of these provinces, he may at last involve this whole Dominion in one huge, far-reaching religious conflagration. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. gentleman is here to voice the sentiments of his constituents. But, Sir, I regard them as taking a higher view of the duties of their representative than to demand of him that he shall play the role of the political incendiary on the floor of this House.
The hon. gentleman assailed the ex-Minister of the Interior. Whenever, for a moment, any other line of thought failed him, he turned to the ex-minister, who seemed to be the special object of his poisoned shafts. Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity of judging of the services rendered to this country by the ex-Minister of the Interior for the last eight years. He assumed the most important portfolio having regard to the needs of this country, that we have. Other men before him had held it. and had failed. For years our great prairies had remained almost a solitude. The late government had an opportunity for eighteen years to make an impression there, and failed; and when the member for
Brandon (Mr. Sifton) assumed that portfolio, and the Manitoba school question disappeared from the vexed question of the day, a complete change came over the conditions of this country. 1 venture to say, what I have said before-and I say it without seeking to discredit any person-that of all the ministers who have held portfolios since confederation, none has rendered as valuable services to Canada as the ex-Minister of the Interior, and his withdrawal from our cabinet is a national loss. The hon. member for North Toronto asked me if I was a member of the sub-committee that had had to do with considering the terms of the constitution of these Territories. I was. He asked me if I had discovered the meaning of section 16, containing the educational clauses, which he has described as worded in such a subtle way as really to conceal their true object. Had it not been, he said, for the disclosure made by the member for Brandon of the meaning of those clauses, they would have passed into law, and then this country would have been for ever under the obligation of maintaining an enormous endowment for the Catholic church. I do not admit, nor does the government, the correctness of the construction placed upon the original clause 16 by the ex-Minister of the Interior. Lawyers may differ, and according to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) 213 members of this House would have been deceived but for the ex-Minister of the Interior. Does the hon. gentleman think that ( am more astute to discover the weak points of the clause than the other 212 men ?


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of fact, I did not say that. I said that the clause was so worded that had it not been for the disclosure given of its meaning by the exMinister of the Interior, it doubtless would have passed through this House and its true meaning would have been undetected. That is what I said.


Sir WILLIAM MU LOCK.: Well, I do not pretend to be more astute than, or even as astute as a very large number of the members of this House, but when the hon. gentleman admits himself that he wovild not have discovered the hidden meaning in this clause and that all those around him would not have discovered it, surely he will be charitable to another weak member of humanity who was likewise not able to discover it.


George Eulas Foster: He was on duty.


William Mulock: I only plead that if the other 212 members of this House were as blind as myself, I am in very excellent company. May I not ask, after this question has been debated for three hours to-day, the House to come back to the real issue ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Mulock: Yes ; it is sometimes necessary to go outside tlie record, but I would ask tbe House to allow me to return to the real issue. Tbe bon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) spoke of tlie Quebec compact, which is to be found in the British North America Act, and declared that that compact, crystallized into the Confederation Act, did no more than secure separate schools to the minorities in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. He denied that any other part of this Dominion was entitled to separate schools under that Act. Let me remind him that he gave the contrary view to this House nine years ago. Then he was arguing in favour of the constitution. Then everything outside the constitutional argument was, in his judgment, out of order. When the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) ventured to interject something that did not appear to have any strict bearing on the constitution, he was immediately rebuked by his colleague from North Toronto. He was immediately told by him that the subject was one solely of the true construction of the constitution. To-day he tells us that under the British North America Act, and the compact out of which it grew, no province, except the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, is entitled to the benefit of the 93rd section of that Act. Speaking on the 13th March, 1896, in this House, as reported in ' Hansard,' page 3476, he made use of the following language :
The first question then for me to solve when I approach the consideration of this subject is this : Is there any compact or agreement arrived at in this country and embodied in the constitution under [DOT] which we live which has first to be considered before we can give our decision upon this question ? The answer is plain and definite. There is a compact in the constitution of the confederation ; there is a second compact in the constitution of Manitoba, ratified by the British parliament, and under which she became a part of the Dominion.
Then he proceeded to say, In answer to an interruption by the late Mr. Wallace :
If the hon. gentleman will allow me to proceed I will answer that question in due course, and I will answer it thoroughly. Arising out of long years of sectarian and religious strife under united Canada, opinions and convictions in reference to this matter became gradually modified, and when the representatives of the four provinces came together at Quebec to take up, discuss and settle articles of confederation, these convictions rapidly and definitely resolved themselves Into the determination that it should be laid down in the constitution of the country that whatever rights and privileges religious minorities had in the provinces at the time of confederation should maintain their status quo and shall not be changed. And so the first paragraph of the educational clauses of the confederation resolutions gave by general consent to the provinces the power to deal with respect to education :
Saving the rights and privileges which Catholic or Protestant minorities in both Canadas Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
may possess as to their denominational schools at the time when the union goes into operation.
The only change which took place in that clause was this, that instead of its being confined to both Canadas, it was broadened to include the provinces which entered confederation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: It does not matter very much ; but if the hon. gentleman will pardon an interruption, I would remind him that what he has just read is exactly what I stated to-day.


William Mulock: In that case, I think that on a perusal of his remarks the hon. gentleman will find that he did not give expression to the ideas which were in his mind. If he repeats and affirms what he said in 1896, we start from that ground instead of the new ground which, I think, he was taking to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Mulock: However, what is the isuue now ? Once to-day the hon. gentleman said it was a question of provincial rights. His leader moved an amendment, and in supporting that amendment said that the question was not, with him, one of separate schools, but of provincial rights, and he proposed to take his stand on that ground. And It is argued by some gentlemen that the proposed legislation would be a violation of provincial rights. But there can he no violation of a right until that right is created. First you must show that the province has a right, and then that the right which it possesses, is being violated. The first question in my judgment, therefore, is :	What are the rights
of a province when it is created ? There we immediately enter upon debatable ground, because there are two conflicting views as to how a province may derive its constitutional power and rights. If I understand my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, his contention is that the moment a territory acquires provincial status, that moment it automatically becomes possessed of certain rights under the British North America Act, that it inherits these rights that moment without more being done, without any act on the part of the Dominion parliament or the Dominion government, and without any imperial legislation-the moment you give the provincial status to a territory, that moment, according to the leader of the opposition, it acquires its provincial charter, and Its rights are there set forth or may be found. He' takes the literal interpretation and makes that the rock of the constitution. He would have us believe that the rock of the constitution is the letter and not the spirit of the British North America Act. Here we see the lawyer-he looks to what is nominated in the bond. I care not, he

says, whether it works well or ill ; I care not whether it is to the public good or the public injury-every province has the same constitutional charter the moment it becomes a province. The opposite view is that the province does not derive its charter automatically from the British North America Act, but that the spirit of the British North America Act must be considered, and so much of its provisions as may be reasonably adapted to the provincial status is given to the new province. The British North America Act, in conferring upon the people of Canada certain legislative powers, has set forth in a general way a scheme for the distribution of legislative powers to be exercised by the Dominion or the provinces. It suggests in a general way that some of these powers, of which it gives a list, may properly be given to a province, and the others may properly be left to the Dominion. But the British North America Act, according to those who look at its spirit rather than its letter, does not in itself contain a model constitution that automatically attaches, without the variation of a word or a letter, to every province the moment it becomes the province. If the reasoning of the leader of the opposition is right, there is no reason why, when a province is established, parliament should trouble itself to declare any of these powers. And yet, if yon trace the history of the several provinces of Canada from their creation up to the present, you will find that, in every instance, the parliament of Canada, or the government of Canada, or the imperial parliament, has conferred upon each province powers somewhat different from those that the Confederation Act would suggest. If each province gets its constitution automatically from the British North America Act, we in this House cannot in any way frame or limit the constitution of the new provinces. But if we interpret the British North America Act, not by its letter, but by its spirit and by the manner in which it has been applied in the creation of every one of the provinces from confederation down to the present time, we fail to find a single instance where the doctrine of the leader of the opposition has been adopted, where any province has been given a constitution exactly in harmony with the general scheme of the British North America Act. There are no two provinces whose constitutions are the same, though all derive their constitutions from the British North America Act. It is the spirit that suggests how the constitution shall be framed. So, where is the model ? And how can it be argued that when a province acquires the provincial status it acquires immediately certain rights and powers without any intervention or exercise of discretion on the part of the Dominion parliament or any other legislative body ? To illustrate what I mean, consider the character of the British North America Act. Sections 91, 92 and 93 cover
the distribution of powers, some powers to be exercised by the central parliament and others by the provincial parliament. Take, for instance, the important subject of divorce. Under the British North America Act, divorce is assigned to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. If the literal wording of the British North America Act is adopted in giving a constitution to another province, you would not find any province entitled to maintain a divorce court unless it was so authorized by this parliament. This parliament has never established a divorce court in any province. And yet to-day there are divorce courts in several provinces-in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick and, I think, in British Columbia. How comes it that the subject of divorce, which, under the British North America Act, is assigned to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament, is dealt with by several provinces ? Simply because, when it came to the creation of confederation, certain provinces had at that time this institution. Nova Scotia had a divorce court and desired to retain it. The British North America Act allowed it to be retained in that province. In that respect it allowed a departure from the British North America Act. The province of Quebec had no divorce court, and no divorce court was given it under the British North America Act-the Act recognized the status quo as respects that subject in the province of Quebec. New Brunswick had a divorce court and wished to retain it, and the British North America Act recognized the wash of that province and allowed it to retain the divorce court, thus making an exception from the letter of the Act. Ontario had no divorce court and was given no divorce court by the Act. Later on British Columbia came into confederation. As I understand it, British Columbia had a divorce court then, and it was left in the employment of that institution-the letter of the law was departed from, but the spirit was observed ; the general scheme of confederation was made applicable, but, with exceptions, recognizing local peculiarities and local institutions. Then-going rapidly over the subjects of special importance to the provinces -take the subject of languages. This is an English-speaking country ; and it was assumed, doubtless, that English would be the prevailing language throughout the country. The use of language in the courts and legislatures of the provinces is a civii right, and, as such, is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. Yet, turning to the constitution as affecting the province of Quebec, you will find that, unlike the other provinces, Quebec was not left to determine what languages shall or shall not be used in its courts and legislature, but the British North America Act declares that the English language, along with the French, shall be lawful in the courts and legislature of that province.

The letter of the constitution was departed from as to the subject of language in the province of Quebec, and was made suitable to the local conditions, needs and interests of that province. Yet if the letter of the law is to be regarded, you have no justification for this departure from the constitution which is to be found in the British North America Act. Take the subject of education. At the time of confederation it was found that the minority in the province of Quebec had separate schools, the British North America Act preserved- separate schools to them; it was found that there were separate schools in Ontario, and the British North America Act retained separate schools in Ontario; there were no separate schools in Nova Scotia, and the status quo was recognized there; there were no separate schools in New Brunswick, the status quo was recognized there. But although the British North America Act in its general scheme declared that the subject of education should be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, it made two exceptions in the case of Ontario and Quebec, as my hon. friend admits to-day, and that exception extends to other provinces as well. Yet, if you were to adopt the strict letter of the law, you have no right in a constitution resting on the bed rock of the British North America Act to make these exceptions in the constitution of any province. Take the subject of finance. Although this is not strictly a constitutional subject, you will find that whilst the general scheme is to treat all the provinces alike financially, in the case of Prince Edward Island there was a material departure made from the general scheme of finance. In fact, you do not find the same corresponding financial arrangements made in any two provinces. In fact, there are just two ways of looking at the British North America Act; you may look at it from the standpoint of a lawyer, or you may look at it from the standpoint of a statesman. If you look at it from the standpoint of a lawyer-and I submit that is the standpoint of the leader of the opposition-you take the letter of the constitution without regard to its bearings and its application to the time being, and apply it literally, whether tile application fits the time and occasion or not. But taking the spirit of the Act on each occasion of creating a new province, you adopt the constitution, as far as possible, to the new province, having due regard to the conditions then prevailing.
Take the case of Manitoba to which my hon. friend has referred. The province of Manitoba was established in 1870, prior to that it had been under the jurisdiction of the Hudson Bay Company. There were no laws there except the old common law of England. There were no schools established by law, but it was thought that there were some schools established by practice, Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
and, therefore, when it came to creating the province 'of Manitoba the educational question arose. What was done? They did not even adhere on that occasion to the language and to the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act dealing with the subject of legislation. The language of the British North America Act dealing with education reads as follows:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions:
Nothing in any such law should 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.
'Have by law.' The British North America Act only protected the rights of minorities which thejf have by law. When It came to creating a province out of Rupert's Land, the words 'by law' would have afforded no protection to the minority, and accordingly those who were engaged in framing this legislation sought in some other way to secure to the minority in Manitoba their right to whatever schools they might then have; and so the words 'by practice' were introduced, and the province of Manitoba was secured in its separate schools in these words:
Nothing in any such law should prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law or hy practice.
Now, the words 'by practice' are a radical departure from the letter of the British North America Act. Why was that departure ? How do we account for that departure? Simply because the strict letter of the British North America Act would not have met the case of Manitoba, and it was necessary to apply it in spirit, and in that way the legislators of those days felt justified, within the constitution, in so modifying section 93. Now, what happened after that? Manitoba was carved out of Rupert's Land, the Territories we are about to raise into provinces are part of the remainder of Rupert's Land. The Manitoba Act was confirmed by imperial legislation, and that same imperial legislation which confirmed the Act creating the province of Manitoba proceeded to confer upon the Dominion parliament power t.o grant a constitution to new provinces. Section 2 of the amendment to the British North America Act, 1871, is as follows :
The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included In any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such

province, and for its representation in the said parliament.
The very same Imperial Act that recognized the change in the words from the British North America Act to the words used in the Manitoba Act, gave to this parliament for the first time the power to give a constitution to new provinces. Now, what is the meaning of section 2 of this Act if it is not to give to this parliament discretionary power as to the kind of a constitution we may give to a province? If it was intended that this parliament should do no more than mark out the limits of a province and declare that it was made a province, the Act would have said so; but instead of that the Act proceeds to say that we may establish a province and make provision for its constitutional administration, for the passing of laws, for the peace, order and good government of such province and its representation in this parliament.
In mentioning these exceptions to the general scheme of confederation another instance occurs to my mind, the case of British Columbia. Under the British North America Act, representation by population in this parliament is the general scheme. The provinces may lose representation if their population falls, but as far as British Columbia is concerned its minimum representation is guaranteed by the British North America Act. No matter what the population of British Columbia may be, its representation here cannot go below a certain minimum-another departure from the letter of the Confederation Act. Under the British North America Act each province is given a legislature, but as regards the province of Quebec it is not permitted to control its own local provincial constitution as far as its parliament is concerned, for the British North America Act declares that there shall be two houses and it does not leave it in the power of the province of Quebec to alter that portion of its constitution. It does more. Take the matter of representation of the house of assembly in the province of Quebec. All the other provinces have the power themselves to alter their electoral districts, making boundaries as they see fit, but in the case of the province of Quebec it is entirely different. There are twelve constituencies in the province of Quebec that the legislature cannot interfere with. In the province of Ontario our legislature can, if it sees fit, alter the boundaries of all the electoral districts, and so it is in all the other provinces of the Dominion, Quebec alone excepted. Why was the exception made in the province of Quebec ?-simply to meet local conditions and thus we have from ocean to ocean all these provinces, deriving their constitutions from the British North America Act, but not one of them having the same constitution, all varying in some respects and yet all in substance formulated in accordance with 109-
the true spirit of the British North America Act. There are seven provinces in this Dominion. Four of these provinces were created at the same time and created by the same instrument, the British North America Act, which declared the constitution of all the provinces. But that very same instrument, that very same Act of legislation that gave life to our British North America Act gave four distinct kinds of constitution to the four different provinces that formed the original confederation of Canada. Yet, we are told that there is a model to be found within the four corners of the British North America Act, or in the constitutions of the different provinces created under the British North America Act, which furnishes to us full information as to what are to be the powers of each province when it becomes a province. For forty years parliament has been interpreting the meaning of the British North America Act and in no one instance lias parliament taken the view that the hon. leader of the opposition now presents to this House. In no one instance has parliament up to this moment felt that it was bound by the letter of the constitution', or that it was at no time to modify according to the local conditions the general scheme of confederation in applying that constitution to a particular province. I ask you then, if, up to this present moment, all who have been engaged in creating these seven provinces, if all the parliaments either here or in England have been disposed to look not to the letter, but to the spirit of the law, do you not think that the bed rock of our constitution is the spirit and not the mere letter of the British North America Act. Why, Sir, is it common sense to suppose that when the British North America Act was passed forty years ago the parliament of that day intended that that instrument which for all time was to form the constitution of this Dominion, with its changes and with its future, was literally to be applied, not having regard to the conditions of new provinces when its application was to be made but having regard to the dead past ? I can imagine a hundred years hence sofiTe question arising in this country ; perhaps it may be the question of taking away from a province some of its powers, or it may be a question of taking away from the Dominion some of its powers, or it may be a question in some way or other of rearranging legislative powers, and I can understand that it might be thought of vital importance to the safety of the country that some change should be made. Under these circumstances I can almost anticipate a lawyer of that day rising in his place in parliament and saying": You propose to alter the constitution for the public welfare. I admit that the public-welfare may call for a change of the constitution, but I take my stand on the letter of the constitution and I interpret it in the light of 150 or 200 years ago. Is that the spirit



In which laws are to be construed, or should they he construed as living and moving laws to be construed so as at all times to meet the altered conditions of the occasion ? I sympathize with the view of the premier and I put him in contrast on this occasion with the attitude of the leader of the opposition. In one case, you have an interpretation of the constitution by a lawyer; in the other case, may I he permitted to say, by a statesman ? Which view is the more likely to be correct ? Which view is the more likely to be in the best interests of the country ? I take this view of it then ; I began by arguing that there could be no infringement of a right until it has been created. A province possesses no rights until this parliament has declared what its rights are. According to the spirit of the British North America Act and according to the letter of the amending Act of 1871, it is iu the discretion of this parliament to-day to say what constitution we shall give to these two new provinces.
How have we dealt with education in the seven provinces of this Dominion ? We have left education as we found it when we came -to legislate. Nova Scotia' had no separate schools ; the British North America Act gave them no separate schools. In New Brunswick there were no separate schools ; when they joined confederation the Confederation Act gave them no separate schools. In Quebec at the time of confederation there were separate schools ; the Confederation Act recognized that condition of affairs and left them in the enjoyment of separate schools. In Ontario when it entered confederation there were separate schools ; the British North America Act recognized local conditions and left Ontario in the enjoyment of her separate schools. At the time Prince Edward Island joined the union there were no separate schools ; the Orders in Council, ratified by the imperial government, left Prince Edward Island in the condition it was in when it entered confederation, without separate schools. When we came to carve a new province out of the territory of Ruperts Land, when we came to establish Manitoba we found a peculiar condition there. They had separate schools but these schools did not fall within the language of the British North America Act. They were not there by right or law because there were no laws. The country was almost uninhabited, no constitution had been declared, it was working under the old law of England, and the legislators of that day, endeavouring to recognize the condition of affairs as they found it, when they were going to make Manitoba into a province said that although there are no schools in Manitoba by law there are some by practice and we will give you a constitution and allow you to retain whatever you had by law or practice. So, they departed from the letter of the law in the case of Manitoba. In British Columbia it is the same. There were no separate Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
schools in British Columbia, but when British Columbia came into the confederation the Confederation Act recognized the status quo and did not establish separate schools.
Thus, in the case of the whole seven provinces that now constitute this Dominion, each province was left either with or without separate schools just as the condition was at the time of its entering into the union. But what do we find in the case of the Territories ? In 1875, thirty years ago, this parliament passed an Act authorizing the legislature of the Territories to establish separate schools. The Act of 1875 did not declare the character of these schools ; they might be under church control or they might be under state control. I frankly confess that I disapprove of separate schools under church control, and on one occasion when I had the opportunity I recorded my vote against the maintenance of the status quo of 1875. I object to that feature of it which admits of a school under church control, but the Act remained on the statute-book and it is on the statute-book to-day. It is quite common practice in this House to belittle the jurisdiction of the territorial legislature, but within its limits and as to be subjects in respect of which it can legislate the territorial legislature is as supreme as is the legislature of any province. For thirty years the people of the Territories have been in the enjoyment of rights under the Act of *1875, and they have made clear their views on their educational system in the form of laws passed by their legislature. The ex-Minister of the Interior correctly described the educational laws of the Territories. He pointed out that under the ordinance, chapter 29, which we propose to accept as the standard, the separate schools as they are to-day are really national schools ; that the teachers must be qualified equally with the teachers in the public schools, that the schools must be organized under the state and not under the church, that the text books are prescribed by the state, that the inspection, the examination and the whole control of these schools called separate schools, is with the state. We have been assailed indeed by people opposed to us because these schools are not sufficiently under church control. The existing school system in the Territories is the outcome of thirty years of legislation by- the people of the Territories. Their educational laws have reached the present status, and they give supreme satisfaction I understand throughout the Territories. Although some gentlemen on the other side of the House are endeavouring to induce the people to rise in revolt, we do not find any such hysterical appeals made by the people of the Territories who are most directly concerned. I see before me the minister-I beg his pardon I was only anticipating a little perhaps-I see before me the member for East Grey (Mr. MARCH 29, 1905
Sproule). He is deeply interested in this question and from one standpoint is an authority upon it. I have something here which may interest him. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) went to Montreal a year ago and he was entertained by the Jacques Cartier Club of which we have heard a good deal of late in connection with the sending of petitions gotten up in the province of Quebec. I do not know how intimate are the relations between my hon. friend from Bast Grey and the Jacques Cartier Club, but let me remind him of a pleasing incident : a banquet to his leader and himself. The day after the banquet, the1 Montreal ' Gazette ' did itself the honour of reporting the hon. gentleman's speech, and I will do him the further honour of reading the report to the House. I may observe that on this occasion the member for East Grey was accompanied by his leader the member for Carleton. The Montreal ' Gazette ' of the 20th of June, 1904, reports :
Dr. Sproule, M.P., the well known Orange leader created loud laughter as he called those present his ' brethren.' He was loudly applauded as he told of his impressions on seeing Cartier for the first time. He wanted more French Conservatives at Ottawa to help carry out Mr. Borden's policy. Ontario, he said, had no desire to rule this country without the help of French Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Nothing wrong in that.


William Mulock: Does the hon. gentleman express himself that way up
west ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Exactly the same.


William Mulock: Well, we will see what happened after that.
The one province was necessary to the other.
Oh, here is something rather interesting :
He said that the much decried Orange lodge was nothing more or less than a Conservative committee room.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to correct the Postmaster General if he has read that as he finds it in the paper. There were two reports out, and I want to say that this is an incorrect report. What I said was that it was allegel by our opponents that it was nothing more or less than a Conservative committee room.


William Mulock: Well, I am reading the Montreal ' Gazette.'


Mr. TAYLOR.: Will the Postmaster General ask the hon. gentleman who sits immediately behind him if the member for East Grey said so.


Mr. FINLAY.: I am the only one sitting immediately behind the Postmaster and I do not know anything about it.
109A


William Mulock: There is something more that can be contradicted perhaps. At all events this is what the Montreal ' Gazette ' says :
He said the much decried Orange lodge was nothing more or less than a Conservative committee room where Catholics and Protestants met to do the good work of the Conservative party.
How far is that correctly reported ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not correct at all.


William Mulock: The report proceeds. Oh. Here is a dreadful threat,
I wonder if it is correct.
Dr. Sproule received another cheer when he declared that if Quebec did not do better at the next election he would come down and establish Orange lodges throughout the province.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I admit that.


William Mulock: That is correct?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, that is correct.


William Mulock: Has the hon. gentleman carried out his threat ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think I will carry it out.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman says that the ' Gazette ' report is not correct. I have the Montreal 'Star ' here and we will see what it says.
Dr. Sproule replied first for Ontario. He recalled the first time he had seen Cartier and the deeds of that distinguished Canadian with his twin brother Macdonald.
There is internal evidence about the genuineness of that, because the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is rather fond of the subject of twins.
He hoped to see the people of Quebec rally to Borden, as they had in the past to Macdonald and Cartier and Tupper and Pope. He asked them to rally to their Pope.


An hon. MEMBER.: Which Pope ?


William Mulock: The leader of the opposition. I can fancy the hon. member for East Grey making his confessions to the leader of the opposition when he came back from this gathering so unlike the gatherings which he is accustomed to assemble in the west.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is entirely out in his reference there.


William Mulock: Did not the hon. member for Grey ask them to rally to their Pope ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I will explain. I was facetiously making reference to the fact that we had in our ranks a Pope, pointing to the member for Compton, who was near by, and I said that if they were willing to sup-



A. COMMON'S

[Stage Direction]
port their Pope, surely they were willing to support our Pope.
William Mulock: The hon. gentleman has two Popes-his Pope and the leader of the opposition. It applied to both. Let me proceed :
The two nationalities were planted here together, and must live side by side, and work in harmony to build up a great and lusty young country. Mr. Borden had the people at his back, as did Macdonald and Cartier in the old days.
Yes, a long way behind his back.
The wise men had come from the east, and of late had saved a Daniel from the lion's den, Dr. Sproule raised a great shout of laughter-
I wish he would do the same here occasionally-

when he jokingly referred to the old story
that every Orange lodge in Ontario was a Conservative committee room. He would not take the trouble to deal with that theory. Suffice it to say that in Ontario the Orange and Green were working together as they had in the past, for the return to power of the true party of united Canadians.
A beautiful sentiment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there anything wrong there ?


William Mulock: Nothing wrong at all. Let us see now how they are working together.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will you be good enough to inform the House now what clause of the Bill that refers to ?


William Mulock: Mr. Speaker, this House is being favoured with petitions. The hon. gentleman says that the Orange and the Green are working together for the good of the Conservative party. He is doing his share in one way, and the Jacques Cartier Club, his host, appears to be doing its share in another way ; and thus the Orange and the Green are getting in their work. I hold in my hand a copy of a communication signed by Elie Maurault, Secretary of the Jacques Cartier Club. I do not know the gentleman ; but the writer of this communication does not appear to share the sentiments of the member for East Grey. The member for East Grey has been promoting one line of campaign, while his club in Quebec has been promoting another line. It is all right if it stirs up strife, so long as both get in their work for the good of the Conservative party ; the Orange and the Green, as he says, working together ; two fishermen out, he with his hook baited with the orange, and some one else with the green. May I ask the member for East Grey what part he took in getting this communication and these petitions from the province of Quebec. Fancy the Conservative party, through the Jacques Cartier Club, rallying to the support of the premier of Can-Mr. SPROULE.
ada against the member for East Grey. This letter is dated Montreal, 8th March, 1905, and it reads as follows :
Dear Sir,-Referring to the important matter which is at present being discussed in the House of Commons re the separate schools to be established in the new provinces in the Northwest, reliable information shows us that the opponents of those schools are doing their utmost to prevent justice being done to our compatriots and co-religionists, and are flooding parliament with petitions against the school system which is so dear to us.


Mr. LENNOX.: We have had It before.


William Mulock: Since you have had it before, I will only state the tenor of it. This is a letter from the Jacques Cartier Club of Montreal, sent broadcast throughout the province of Quebec, appealing to all parties to resist the action of the member for East Grey. The hon. gentleman may have had suggestions from the Jacques Cartier Club that he should put his fighting forces in order in Ontario, and so the two forces are working in harmony for the good of the Conservative party, the member for East Grey rallying one party and the Jacques Cartier Club rallying the other.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question ?


William Mulock: Certainly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A large number of petitions have been received in favour of this Bill from Reformers in Quebec. I hold one in my hand containing twenty-one names marked Liberals and fourteen marked Conservatives. These Liberals are asking that the Bill may not pass, while Liberals on other petitions are asking that it do pass. Were they working in concert ?


William Mulock: May I ask who marked them Liberals ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The gentleman who went around with the petition. I will pass it over to the hon. gentleman.


William Mulock: What is the name of the gentleman who marked them ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it that it was the gentleman who went around with the petition.


William Mulock: If the hon. gentleman does not know who marked them, T do not think the evidence amounts to much. I would like to show how the work is being done. The hon. gentleman is making his appeals to passion on the floors of this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.


William Mulock: Yes. He delivered an address in this House a short time ago, ostensibly on the school question, but the most of his speech was taken up with pointing out the infirmities of the

Roman Catholic church. What did the hon. gentleman mean when he said that certain races, such as the Galicians and the Douk-hobors, had come to Canada to escape the tyranny of their church in the old land.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The Doukhobors are not Catholics.


William Mulock: What did the hon. gentleman mean when he said that we were seeking to make use of the old cast-off tattered garments of the church in the old world as the swaddling clothes of these yonng giants in the west ? Was that not an attack on the church and an appeal to passion ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was an appeal to history.


William Mulock: That was not the occasion to give us history. It was an occasion for an appeal to the constitution. At all events, it is interesting to see the methods pursued in different parts of this Dominion.
We have in the province of Ontario a campaign denouncing these amendments as being concessions to the hierarchy. On the other hand, in the province of Quebec, the Liberal party is attacked by the Tory newspapers because the government are doing nothing for the Roman Catholics. Surely both these contentions cannot be well founded. Let me read from a couple of the leading Tory papers published in the city of Quebec in what terms they speak of what they declare to be a surrender of the rights of the minority. In 'L'Evenement' of the 10th March, 1905, which is one of the organs supporting the opposition in the province of Quebec, I And the following article:
The Northwest Territory Schools-A deep treason.
The rights of the Catholics of the Northwest are shamefully sacrificed.
The Liberal press has just received from Ottawa the pass-word and is cleverly preparing the electorate to accept and approve what Mr. Laurier and Mr. Fitzpatrick are asking parliament, the shameful sacrifice of the rights of our fellow men and co-religionists in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Laurier and Mr. Fitzpatrick are giving away before fanaticism, and in a retreat without glory they cowardly abandon rights which they themselves declared to be inalienable fifteen days ago. We ask our readers to read attentively what follows, and to seriously study the question which we will treat, and to open their eyes and see the deep treason of which French Canadians and Roman Catholics in the Territories are victims.
It is Catholic Laurier and Catholic Fitzpatrick who, for the purpose of retaining power, do not fear, do not hesitate, powerful as they are, to crush under the heels of their boots the French Catholic minority of the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
That is a Tory opinion for consumption in the province of Quebec, and the article proceeds in equally violent language to the
end. Another paper ot the same kind, published in the city of Quebec, 'La VeritS,' in its issue of the 18th March, has the following editorial:
Trebly deplorable.
In our article of last week we qualified as truly deplorable the letter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier to an old friend of George Brown, the full text of which we published at the time.
This letter is trebly deplorable, disastrous, heart-rending, we say, after having re-read this document calmly.
From a political point of view, a national point of view, from a religious point of view, it is all that ; and it is inconceivable that a chief of a party, a French Canadian and a Roman Catholic could have made up his mind to make public such a document.
Then it proceeds to say:
By bis cowardice and blindness, Mr. Laurier is on the way to depriving for ever bis co-religionists in the west, of separate schools, thoroughly Catholic. No, there is no possible comparison between the work of George Brown and that of Wilfrid Laurier, as political men on the educational question. The former has done for his people a work as durable as grau-ite. The latter, of his own free will, places his eo-religionists in a position of manifest inferiority. Such was the work of both meu from a purely political point of view.
Further on the writer says:
The separate schools of the far west will be so little separate, so little French that the teaching will be in English.
Lastly, a word as to the religious aspect of the question ; it is clear that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as a Catholic statesman, is perfectly satisfied of practically neutral schools for his co-religionists. Read over again attentively the diseription which he makes of the so-called separate schools which exist in the west, which his Bill proposes to maintain, which our people must accept, and which the Protestants are humbly requested to tolerate, and you will see that they are really neutral or national schools, because, in the mind of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the two terms are synonymous.
Where is the separation in these schools from a religious point of view ? It does not exist more than it does from the national point of view. They are institutions which are neutral, neutral, absolutely neutral.
The famous half hour of religious teaching at the closing of each class does not change the essentially national and neutral character of the class itself. Mr. Laurier proclaims this with persistency, and he is perfectly right.
Instead of this measure being a surrender to the Roman Catholic Church, which is the charge made against it in the west, it is denounced in the province of Quebec by our opponents because it simply allows the minority to enjoy what we call national schools. Both these contentions cannot be true. Either the contention of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), that we are surrendering to the Roman Catholic minority, is wrong, or the contention of his allies in Quebec that we are not doing justice to

the Roman Catholic minority is unfounded. Both cannot be correct. Perhaps my hon. friend from East Grey, in his supreme desire to do justice, will, in talking the matter over with his western friends, point out to them the view which the Quebec Tories take of this measure as compared with that which he and his friends take. But what is the attitude of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition? He simply takes his stand on provincial rights. The hon. member for East Grey does the passion part of the play. He acts the tragic role and appeals to passion; other members of the party opposite indulge in melodramatic appeals to sentiment; others attempt more or less skilfully to excite prejudice, but one and all they are working to the same end, and that is the success and glory of the Conservative party, no matter by what means that may be secured. But there is one thing which these gentlemen might well bear in mind. It is that the welfare of this country depends on our people living in harmony; and let this question be once settled in a broad spirit of tolerant justice and we wilj continue in that career of progress in which we have been advancing for the last eight years. For several years during the agitation accompanying the Manitoba school question, the progress of this country was stopped, and stopped it would be again if the opposition could have their way and succeed in throwing this question into the arena of political strife. But the good sense of parliament, I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, will prevail, and the country will breathe a sigh of relief when this question is settled for all time, without any sacrifice of principle on either side and in a manner which will enable all classes to live in harmony. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition said that because the Act of 1875 was passed when there were only 500 people in the Northwest it should now be done away with when there are 500,000 people in that country. But it seems to me that if 500,000 people have gone into that country, knowing the law and the conditions which prevailed, they furnish us, with 500,000 arguments in favour of the maintenance of the status quo. Why should we deal with the people of the Territories when we make them a province in a different manner from that in which we deal with the people in other provinces when they were brought into confederation? What we propose now is in harmony with the unbroken practice in similar cases, respected in every part of this broad Dominion. Therefore, I am unable to understand why, when we are raising these two Territories to the dignity of provinces this agitation should be excited. Some time ago, in reading a history of India, I came across a passage which might very well be brought to the attention of this House. Speaking of the treatment by Great Britain of the many nationalities throughout her broad empire-races with-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
out number and creeds without number- the writer said that he had yet to find an instance of the mother country having even oppressed a minority or failed to recognize the beliefs and feelings and sentiments and even the prejudices of that minority. And when at the close of the great mutiny in India, it was said that the imperial government might interfere with the religious views of the people, Her Majesty herself caused a proclamation to be issued to the people of India in which she pointed out that she had derived so much comfort and consolation from her own religion that she would never allow hands to be laid bn the religions or creeds of the various great tribes that composed her loyal citizens throughout India.
And, go where you will throughout this broad empire, with its. four hundred millions of people of different races and different creeds, you find all left in the enjoyment of those things that they regard as sacred. It is that policy, that method of treating the people, that has made Great Britain's empire, what it is to-day-widespread, powerful and stable, resting upon the affections of the whole people and holding the people together by the bonds of affection and not by force or coercion. If our own Dominion is to be held together we cannot do better than follow the example of the mother of nations and yield, if need be, occasionally to prejudices or sentiments involving no sacrifice of principle in order to enable the different classes that are coming to our shores to live in peace, in harmony and in the enjoyment of those institutions to which they attach great importance and the enjoyment of which by them makes them more loyal citizens, yet does no injury to the common welfare.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is to apologize, unless I do-for I suppose the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) will not-for the time that hon. gentleman has taken up in what was supposed to have been a discussion of Bill (No. 69) now before the House. I must say that I sympathize with those gentlemen supporting, or supposed to be supporting, the Postmaster General who have been brought back this evening to hear, as they supposed, a reply to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. E'oster) and who, after trying to listen for half an hour or so, were obliged to leave the Chamber because they could not under-, stand where the Postmaster General was or what subject he was dealing with. I sympathize with them, because we cannot blame them for thinking the Postmaster General would give them some information or some light-something which they could take to their constituents and offer as an apology or plea for forgiveness for their vote against the contentions of the hon. member for North Toronto. And what has the Post-

master General done ? He lias occupied the time of this House from nine o'clock until twenty minutes to eleven. And evidently he has tried to say something. Several times he has said : ' What is the question before the House ? ' But he never told us what that question was. I do not know whether he was' discussing the Manitoba remedial legislation of 1896-whether he was dreaming that he was out in the province of Ontario abusing Sir Charles Tup-per for granting that remedial legislation,- or whether he was trying to offer some plea for interfering with the autonomy of the Northwest. He did say at the opening of his speech, that there was a Bill before the House. But he did not read a single section of it. He evidently does not know the provisions of the British North America Act. He has never read that Act or he would not have made the wrong statements about it that he has made. He has simply wasted the time of the House for an hour and forty minutes-I say this with all deference; but i have as much respect for the members of this House as I have for the Postmaster General, and I think that some one ought to apologize. So, as one of the members constituting this House, as the Postmaster General does not apologize for wasting our time, I can only hope "that the House will accept the apology I offer. The House has as. much right to accept my apology as the Postmaster General has to propose, in the name of autonomy, a throttling piece of legislation for the Northwest Territories. This House has as much and more right to say that the member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) should apologize for the Postmaster General as to say that the provincial parliament of the Northwest shall not control its own affairs. At nine o'clock the Postmaster General began to address this House. X have kept track, as well as I could, of his wanderings about the question -if it can be said he was so near the question as to be wandering about it-and the discussion-if you can call it discussion- that he has inflicted upon the House. He spent half an hour in abusing the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster.)


Haughton Lennox: He apologized.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: X have no doubt he will apologize if somebody makes him do so, but he will not apologise out of the goodness of his heart;-he might to save a libel suit if a libel suit could be taken against him. Then for forty minutes he was supposed to discuss this Bill, if you can call it a discussion of the Bill to tell us over and over again that the British North America Act had dealt differently with different provinces-and I am in the judgment of the House when I say that that is all this discussion amounted to. Then, for the next thirty minutes he gave kind advice to the hon. * member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)
about his duty in regard to toleration. He talked about intolerant speeches in this House and about vehemence. And what was the other word he used ?-I have a note of it here ;-some word that, I think, we hardly understand as coming from the Postmaster General. He spoke once of brotherly love. He spoke also of inflammatory and impassioned speeches-but he did not tell u? at which side of the House he was directing his lecture. I have been in this House throughout this debate, and I am not in the habit of sitting here and not listening. I have not heard one impassioned sentence in this debate coming from this side of the IXouse, and neither has any other hon. member. The Postmaster General seems to think he has heard that kind of thing from this side. I heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), before the Bill was read the second time, make what I suppose the Fostmaster General would call a speech of brotherly love. The Minister of Justice said in effect :	If my brothers of the Dominion of Canada will not give me something to which I have no constitutional light; if they will not give me justice and let me be the judge of what is to be considered justice, there shall be no peace in this country. That is the style of speech we get from the King's chosen representative of justice in this House, the occupant of what ought to be the highest and grandest of cabinet positions. He told us that forty-one per cent of our people demanded this legislation. I take issue with him there. All the Roman Catholics in this country are not in favour of this legislation.


Mr. A. LAYERGNE.: Oh, oh.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But I tell my young friend from Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne), who has interrupted every speaker in this House since this question began, that he has got a lot of things to learn yet, and some things to learn about his own race in the province of Quebec. I will tell my young friend that if he wants to get any standing in this House, if he wants anybody to listen to him, he must be more tolerant, he must not take his lessons of tolerance from the Postmaster General and he must make less inflammatory speeches, and exercise more courtesy to hon. gentlemen who have just as much right to their opinions as he has.
Now, Sir, I say to all these gentlemen that in the county of Lincoln, which I have the honour to represent, I do not believe there ic, a single Roman Catholic who wants any thing done that is unconstitutional or contrary to the spirit of the constitution. When the Minister of Finance spoke on this question he sneered at the constitution. The Minister of Finance, acknowledging. I suppose, that the constitution was dead against him, tried to make out that the constitutional aspect of this legislation was of no

consequence. What did he say ? I am going to read it from the ' Hansard ' lest I make any mistake :
I do not propose to go into that constitutional question, not because I say it should not receive any consideration, but because I say it is not the great question involved, and I prefer to go on and deal with the practical questions which are before us. If it is a constitutional question above all others, then perhaps the best thing we can do will be to request the legal members of this House to adjourn to the Railway Committee room and thresh it out, while we who have not the good fortune to belong to that learned profession will stay down here and discuss the practical question involved, or proceed with the ordinary business of the House.
And further on :
Now the first question is whether or not the time has come when we should give a provincial constitution to these new Territories in the west.
But before saying that, and having been interrupted by the leader of the opposition, to whom he was apparently speaking, he said :
I believe the people of the Dominion to-day are not going to have their minds engaged with an elaborate analysis of constitutional questions which nine out of ten will never read, and which the whole ten will fail to understand. I believe that the people of Canada, since this unpleasant question is brought before us, will expect us to meet it plainly and openly, and discuss it with the hope of finding a happy solution.
Now, on behalf of the Catholic citizens of the garden county of Lincoln, I tell the Minister of Finance, who is now in his place, that they_ will resent as much as the Protestants will resent any such imputation on their fairness. They do not want things to be dope that-are unconstitutional. No true citizen of this country, be he Catholic or Protestant, wants legislation to be put through this House on the ground that it may be wise and practical, if it is not constitutional. If it is not constitutional, it cannot be either wise or practical. In saying this, I speak for three or four thousand Roman Catholic inhabitants in the fair county of Lincoln, and I speak for the Protestants as well. The Minister of Finance thinks that this educational section of the Bill cannot be supported on constitutional ground. He thinks, according to his speech, that the law is also against the government if they undertake to force this legislation through, for he says : I will not discuss it,
I will let the lawyers discuss it. But does he say he will leave it to the new provinces to do as they like ? Oh, no ; but he says :
I will butt in and take the provinces by the throat, while the lawyers may study the legal question. I think he ought to wait until the jury comes in ; I think he ought to keep his hands off these provinces until Mr. LANCASTER.
he finds out whether he had a right to put his hands on them. Now, let me suggest to the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of Customs, and to all those gentlemen who have spoken on this question : Supposing you do not interfere with the power of these provinces to deal with the educational question, are you doing a wrong thing or not ? The lawyers say there is a doubt whether we have a right to interfere with the provinces, but nobody says there is a doubt about the provinces having a right to deal with this question of separate schools. Now. if separate schools can be dealt with, as it is admitted they can be, by the provinces, why not let them deal with it ? Nobody suggests on either side of this House that these new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan cannot deal with the question of separate schools as soon as this Act is passed in any way that they like ; the whole dispute is as to whether there is power in the Dominion parliament to deal with the subject. But there is no question about the fact that the provinces can do it if the Dominion parliament does not interfere. Now, have hon. gentlemen made a good case for separate schools or have they not ? I am not going to discuss that question. I believe in provincial rights. If this question was up in the province of Ontario I would claim the right to record my vote upon it, and in the same manner I do not wish to take away the right of the people of the North west Territories to record their votes on the subject if they want to. I am willing to give my fellow-countrymen in the Northwest Territories the same right to do their own voting on this school question that I claim for myself. So in regard to every other question, they should be treated in the same way. Can it be suggested that if this was not an educational and, incidentally, a religious question, there would be any wrenching of the constitution to interfere with the provinces ? Everybody knows the answer. Everybody knows that if this was not a question that affected education and, incidentally, religion, nobody would dare to suggest that we should wrench the constitution of those provinces, that we should undertake to throttle them in regard to their right to say what system of education they shall have. Of course, if we are going to give provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territories, let us give them something that will be autonomy, and not a mere pretense. Why are the government dealing with this question of provincial autonomy ? Does the Prime Minister believe that these provinces have reached the stage where they are entitled to have autonomy ? If he says they are entitled now to have autonomy on all the subjects mentioned in the British North America Act, then are they not entitled to exercise the same judgment with regard to education ? If they have brains and intelligence enough, if they are far enough advanced to deal with all the other subjects

that are assigned to the provincial legislatures under section 92 of the British North America Act, surely they are intelligent enough and far enough advanced to deal with the subject of education? That section gives the provincial legislature exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the subjects of direct taxation, borrowing money on the credit of the province, management and sale of public lands, the establishment maintenance and management of reformatories and prisons, establishment and maintenance of hospitals and asylums, licenses, local public works, marriage, property and civil rights, administration of justice, and generally all matters of a merely local nature in the province. Now. if the Prime Minister thinks that the people of those Territories are sufficiently advanced to deal with all these subjects I have mentioned, surely he must believe that they are sufficiently advanced to deal with the subject of education.
It is idle for the right hon. Prime Minister or any person else to pretend that there is any other reason for excluding education from the operation of this Act or taking the question of education away from these provinces except it be on the religious ground. I say this and I say it forcibly because it is necessary as we are drifting away back into the dark ages. When we are dealing with this Bill this question ought to be dealt with exactly on its merits, the same as any other question would be, and if there is no meritorious reason for butting in the question of religion, or for sticking it in the Bill at all, if there is no logical, sound, businesslike reason for putting it in, there is no excuse for putting it there any more than there would be for putting in any other question that had no business to be there V Are we not sufficiently intelligent to deal with this question of education calmly, deliberately and as business men? Can we not ask ourselves the same question in regard to this question as in regard to any other question ? Cannot we say : Does this properly come within the subject of this Bill, is it proper that we should deal with this question any more than that we should deal with any other question ? There is not an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who has made up his mind to record his vote for the government on this question, but will admit or will conscientiously say to himself that a judgment of this kind should not be forced upon him more in respect to the religious question than it wrould be in regard to any other question. I venture to say that if the British North America Act were attacked in regard to some other of its features, if it were proposed, for instance, to give the Northwest Territories control of post offices instead of leaving it to the Dominion parliament the hon. Postmaster General would say : No, that is rinconstitution-al; that is one of the subjects that the British North America Act exclusively
leaves to the Dominion parliament to deal with, and you cannot change the British North America Act in that respect. But, the Postmaster General does not mind taking from the provinces the right to deal* with the subject of education although it is exclusively assigned to the provinces except in the cases that he has mentioned to-night. If a province after it was a province, being of age and able to do it, deliberately knowing what it was doing, inflicted upon itself a system of separate schools it could not abolish that system upon joining the union. There is no warrant whatever for dealing with this question except upon the lines of the British North America Act. And section 92, containing an enumeration of the different classes of cases which I have mentioned, lays it down that these cases are to be dealt -with exclusively by the provinces.


Mr.  L. P.@: DEMBltS. Do they mention education in clause 92 ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not in that section. Section 92 which I have just read says, and I have used that for a purpose, that:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated.
And so on. Section 93 says that the [DOT] legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education.' These provisions are exactly the same in the operative parts of these two sections. Section 92 dealing with matters which neither the Prime Minister nor any one else has dared to interfere with, which are subjects which are admitted to be exclusively within* the jurisdiction of the province and which are always to be dealt with by the province, contains exactly the same phraseology as section 93 does in regard to education :
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated.
Is one section, and
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education.
Is the other section. Exactly the same operative words are used in both sections. The province may make laws exclusively in relation to education
Subject and according to the following provisions.
Exception No. 1 no one but the premier pretends has anything to do with this case; exception No. 2 no one pretends has anything to do with this case. Exception No. 1, is as follows
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.

In the province at the union ! In the province at the time that it joined the union, as for instance, Ontario and Quebec as the hon. Postmaster General admitted to-night. He said-we have these schools here because we had them when we came into the union, and he then proves our case further by saying that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick do not have these schools because they did not have them when they came into the union, and that British Columbia did not have them when they came into the union. That was the reason why they did not have them. Now, here is where I begin to disagree with him. He says it is fair to say to the people in the Northwest : You are not a province, we are about to make you a province for the first time, we do not kfiow whether you will establish separate schools or not but we will take you by the throat and make you do it. That is great logic. That is a wonderful argument to come from a statesman like the hon. Postmaster General, as he called himself two or three times to-night, although nobody applauded him when he did it. That was the logic that came from this would be statesman. If we apply his logic it means this : Here are people twenty-one years of age having the right to vote who have voted for a certain thing, being fully enfranchised and entitled to vote on the question, while on the other hand we are going to enfranchise another man who has not now a vote and make him vote what we direct all his life. That is a fair interpretation of the argument which the Postmaster General has made. We are going to say because we are creating a province that you shall do exactly what Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia did not have to do. Although British' Columbia did not have to adopt a separate school system we say to these new provinces that if you come in you must establish a separate school system because they have one in Ontario and Quebec. No such thing was said to British Columbia. Prince Edward Island did not have to adopt the separate school system, but in regard to these new provinces we say : You have not a system of separate schools but we are going to make it certain you must have one because you cannot come into the union if you do not have separate schools as they have them in Ontario and Quebec, These other provinces were allowed to do as they liked. They were provinces that were fully enfranchised and entitled to make their own bargains. The hon. Postmaster General, the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Customs cannot see any distinction between enfranchising a man and letting him do as he likes after you have enfranchised him and taking a man by the throat and saying : You must do so and so or we will not enfranchise you at all. Both of these hon. gentlemen who are sitting beside each other at this moment and who spoke upon this question said that in effect. They did not Mr. LANCASTER.
want to bother with the legal aspect of this question. The hon. Minister of Customs was very anxious to get away from the legal question. He said that Christopher Robinson's opinion was not quite the same as that of the hon. leader of the oppostion, that they were both excellent lawyers-he spoke correctly about that-that the hon. the Minister of Justice disagreed with the legal opinion of these gentlemen and that he was a good lawyer. But I have not seen the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice yet. The hon. Minister of Customs may know quietly, or through some secret channel of the cabinet, what the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice is, but I do not know what it is. But, we will assume that it was contradictory of and different from the opinion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. What was the wise solution of the Minister of Customs ? What was the advice that he gave us in his great wisdom ? He says that as these lawyers differ about the question as to whether the Dominion of Canada has the power to go on and settle that question we should take the power.
The argument of the Minister of Customs was, that as the lawyers differed as to whether Canada has the power to enact this legislation, the wise thing to do to settle the question was for this parliament to take the power. It is an easy thing for the Minister of Customs to get away from the legal and constitutional aspect of the question, but it never occurred to him that there was a still more common sense solution, and that is that provinces could grant separate schools if they wanted to and nobody disputes that the provinces have the power-and that being so, it would be a wise thing to let the new provinces do as they like on the question of education. There is no dispute that the provinces have the power to legislate on education the *whole dispute is whether the Dominion government has the right to force a particular system of education upon them. The Minister of Customs could not see that the easiest solution of the difficulty was for us to say : as there is a great difference of opinion as to whether we have the right to do this or not, and as there is no difference as to the right of the province to do it, then let us trust the province. And so these gentlemen opposite believing they have a good case for separate schools on the merits, should have no reason to fear. But that solution did not occur to the champions of provincial rights. Sir. in that' beautiful garden city of St. Catharines in my fair county, early in the month of June, 1896, I heard the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier appeal to return Mr. Gibson (now Senator Gibson) to this House, and Mr. Gibson was returned by a majority of nearly 500. On that occasion I heard the Prime Minister of Canada declare, that when it came to the question of eoerciug a province even at the instance of people who belonged to

his own religion, he was a Canadian and a provincial rights man first and he would not interfere with the province even at the risk of being accused of disloyalty to his own religion. That argument prevailed with the people of the county X have the honour to represent, but the people soon discovered their mistake. Mr. Gibson who came to this House backed up by that pledge of his leader, four years afterwards in the same constituency was defeated by so weak and humble an individual as myself bv a majority which represented a change of several hundred votes compared , with the previous election. The people of Canada want public men to keep their political pledges. They do not want the Prime Minister to be in favour of provincial rights one day and against provincial rights another day when it suits his purpose. They want public questions to be dealt with on their merits whether these be religious questions or any other questions.
Mow, Mr. Speaker, I shall not do as the Postmaster General did and talk for two hours without dealing with the legal and constitutional aspect of the question except in so far as mere personal assertion is concerned. I shall quote the rest of the British North America Act which deals with the question, and leave it to the common sense of the members of this House and the common sense of the people of Canada to say whether the policy of the leader of the opposition as .announced in his amendment, or the policy laid down in the redrafted Bill, is the correct one for us to pursue. The Bill undertakes to do something that is considered to be statesmanlike by the Postmaster General, but which unfortunately is not sufficiently statesmanlike to be constitutional. In the clause relating to education the Bill undertakes practically to amend the British North America Act, for
it says :
Where the expression ' by law ' is employed in subsection 3 of the said section 93 it shall be held to mean the law as set out in said chapters 29 and 30, and when the expression ' at the union ' is employed in said subsection 3 it shall be held to mean the date at which the Act comes into force.
Now, the British North America says exactly the contrary to this, and we have therefore the sad spectacle that these gentlemen opposite who were once so loud in their pledges to protect provincial rights, now in their efforts to assail provincial rights not only jump clean over the autonomy of the provinces, but undertake to amend a law of the imperial parliament into the bargain. Well, I suppose they have just as much right to do one thing as the other ; they have just as much right to amend an Imperial Act as to deprive the provinces of Canada of their constitutional powers. To listen to these gentlemen opposite one would sometimes think we were in the imperial House of Commons creating a new
British North America Act, and at another time that we were assembled in the legislature of the new provinces debating as to whether the provinces should have separate schools or not. I notice that every gentleman on the other side of the House who spoke in this debate took good care to stop short of discussing the question as to whether the Dominion or the province should pass educational laws. Some of them ventured to deal with the question whether or not we have the power, but none of them attempted to give a reason why, even if we had that power, we could exercise it any more sensibly than could the provinces themselves. They tell us that separate schools are good here and good there and good somewhere else, but they have no business to draw the deduction that separate schools would be good in Alberta and Saskatchewan. If this parliament is going to decide whether separate schools should or should not exist in Alberta, then we are going to do exactly the opposite to what occurred in relation to the same matter in the case of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Separate schools exist to-day in Ontario and Quebec because the people of these provinces administering their own local affairs, deem it wise that they should have separate schools. We are here dictating to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta what they shall do in this regard, but tbe Dominion parliament never inflicted separate schools on Ontario or on Quebec or on British Columbia or on Nova Scotia or on Prince Edward Island. The hon. gentleman who for the time being is Postmaster General of Canada-we do not know how soon he will resign when he gets to understand this educational clause ; he does not understand it yet. The Postmaster General told us that none of the statutes admitting new provinces into the confederation were alike, i He told us that Ontario and Quebec had separate schools, but that in the case of New Brunswick. Nova Scotia. Prince Edward Island and British Columbia separate schools were not established by law. I bave here the statute under which Prince Edward Island was admitted into the Dominion, and that statute is silent on the question of separate schools. But the Postmaster General did not tell us why it is silent. If there is anything in the argument of the government it must he : that the province of Prince Edward Island was not entitled to have separate schools unless the Act gave power to establish such schools in that province. The logical result of the argument of the government is, that the Prince Edward Island Act being silent on the question of separate schools the question can not he dealt with at all in the case of that province.
They argue that the Bill now before us would he incomplete if section 16 were not there. It has never occurred to any of them

that you could leave out the whole of section 16 and the result would be that section 93 of the British North America Act would apply, and the power of the province to deal with the question of schools would be absolute. It is so in the provinces of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. In the constitutions of these provinces there is not a word about education or separate schools, and therefore, according to the argument of these hon. gentlemen, the logical conclusion would be that these provinces could not deal with education at all. That is where their argument would land them. Now, what does it all mean? It means simply this-and everybody of common sense can see it-that if the Dominion parliament, in constituting a province, does not deal with the question of education, then the question can be dealt with by the piwince. Nobody can get away from that conclusion with the intelligent electorate of any province of this Dominion. They will say : Why did you not, as a government of the Dominion, leave that matter in the hands of these new provinces as you did all other local questions, giving them provincial autonomy in every respect? Is the case for separate schools in those provincse good or not? If I were going to-morrow to live in the province of Alberta, and made up my mind that I wanted separate schools there, I would condemn the leader of this government for the mapner in which he brought this question into this House and spoiled my chance of getting them. If he is honestly in favour of separate schools, and is not simply playing the game of politics, if he is really sincere in his appeals to keep racial and religious questions out of this House, why does he bring them in? If this Bill were passed without section 16, everybody knows that the provinces would have the power to deal with education, and this question would not have been brought into this House. Does the premier understand that the new provinces are not going to give separate schools? Then, if he thinks they are wrong on that question he should not give them autonomy. But if he thinks the provinces have a right to decide the question, then he should leave clause 16 out of the Bill, because they have the power - without mentioning it in the Bill. Does he think, on the merits of the question, having in view the future welfare of those provinces, that the majority will not be in favour of separate schools? If he thinks they have no right to that opinion, then, as an honest man, he should say, I will not give them autonomy for ten years yet, because I do not think they are sufficiently educated to deal with the subject of education. But that is not his position. He knows that the people of the Northwest are entitled to autonomv. and he practically says, I am afraid that in exercising their right they will or may not Mr. LANCASTER.
establish separate schools, and, therefore, I will not leave them free to decide the question. No sensible man, applying his common sense to this question as would a jury, no matter how he votes, can easily feel in his heart of hearts that the premier really wants separate schools out there peaceably or else he would leave the provinces to deal with the question. I am not saying that I would or would not be in favour of separate schools if I lived in the province of A lbei'ta. Without living there for two or three years I could not say whether I would be in favour of them or not. For that same reason I ought not to be asked to vote upon this question; for that same reason the supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite ought not to be asked to vote upon this question; for that same reason the premier ought not to have brought this question into the House; for that same reason every man of us, whether he is in favour of separate schools or not, ought to vote against the Bill. It is a matter entirely of local concern which you are only in a position to decide after you have lived out there and understand all the conditions. You do not want to take newspaper reports, letters from friends, sketches or literature of any kind; you have actually to live in a community before you know how to deal with the educational system in that community. It may be that if I lived in Alberta two or three years, I would be a strong advocate of separate schools there, or it may be that I would think separate schools were not good things for that province; but for that very reason every hon. member of this House should vote against this Bill, except perhaps the premier, who introduced it, and who, perhaps as a matter of consistency, should stick to it.
The hon. Postmaster General, in the course of his remarks, said that if you trace the history of the constitutions of other provinces and the various changes in them, you will find that no two of them are exactly alike, and he instanced the divorce courts which lie seemed to think were a wonderful instance of that fact. But he gave the whole thing away by saying that it was because the provinces with divorce courts had established them before those provinces came into the union. Although the British North America Act assigned divorce to the Dominion, yet it provided that those provinces should continue to have them. That is the constitution, and therefore there is no straining of the constitution in that provision. Yet here is the Postmaster General, a self-styled statesman, objecting to this being done on legal grounds. If I did not know otherwise. I might suppose that the Postmaster General had never been near a law office or had never seen a statute. I am told that he is a lawyer, though he does not want to be called a lawyer, and I understand why. Because lawyers are men of

common sense, if yon leave them alone and do not put them into grit cabinets or on pedestals where no one can reach them.
The Minister of Finance wants it to be known that when he talks about this matter he discusses it from the point of view of common sense. But the Postmaster General takes a higher ground. He sets himself up on the pedestal of a statesman and tells us that he looks at this matter from a statesmanlike point of view and wants to have the question settled in a statesmanlike way and not in a legal way. He evidently does not believe that legality and statesmanship ought to go hand in hand in any properly constituted country, but he will no doubt find that if the people can only have a chance to see that their wishes are fulfilled, these two essentials will be joined together and not divorced from one another as the Postmaster General thinks they ought to be. Well, this statesmanlike Postmaster General or postmaster-generallike statesman-you can put it either way you like-says that because the British North America Act, which is our constitution -but which he does not seem to understand is our constitution-makes a difference between different provinces, therefore the Dominion parliament has the right to change that Act as it pleases. X am not quite sure whether the Postmaster General is not labouring under the delusion that he is really in London, England, to-day, and not in Ottawa, because he does not seem able to distinguish between the powers of the Dominion parliament and the imperial parliament. But he cannot produce, nor can the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Justice, nor the Solicitor General-lawyers though they be-produce any Act of the Dominion which has ever undertaken to say that the British North America Act shall mean something different to what it really does say in its own language. No, this Bill now before us is the first measure in which any attempt was ever made by the Dominion parliament to change the wording and the meaning of an Imperial Act. Not a single Act of a Dominion parliament has even been drawn which has undertaken to say that the British North America Act shall be read as containing language different from what it really does contain. Surely the First Minister must have known that the British North America Act did not give him the right to impose these restrictions on these provinces about to be created, or else he would never have undertaken by this measure to amend the Act of Confederation. No hon. gentleman will pretend to say that anybody ever before undertook to resort to the very doubtful and suspicious expedient of having this tribunal alter the Act of another tribunal, or having this parliament declaring that an Act passed by the British parliament shall be taken to contain a different wording to what it really does contain.


Thomas Walter Scott: Does my hon. friend not know that very thing was done in the case of Manitoba ?


Mr. LANG  ASTER@: Can the hon. gentleman show me any Act with regard to Manitoba which has the words that are used here ? I am referring to this substituted section, I am not referring to the section that lost the vote of the Minister of the Interior, but to the section which has brought him into line and which the other Northwest members supporting him are swallowing. This is the language of that section :
Where the expression by-law is employed in subsection 3 of section 98, it shall be held to mean the law as set out in chapters 29 and 39 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories.
There we have it set down that where the expression by-law is used in an Act of the British parliament passed in 1867, it shall be held to mean certain chapters of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories which were not passed until 25 'or 30 years later.


Thomas Walter Scott: I understand the hon. gentleman to argue that it was impossible for this parliament to vary the terms of the British North America Act, and I was undertaking to remind him that that was done in the case of Manitoba.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I dispute that statement. That was not done at all in the case of the province of Manitoba. That province had, as a province, established separate schools, and it afterwards repealed the law establishing those schools.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman is attempting to get away from the point.
Mx-. LANCASTER. I am not attempting to get away from anything. My hon. friend says the same thing was done in the province of Manitoba Act. He will find no such expression in that Act or no expression that could be taken to mean the same thing. He cannot find anything in that Act declaring that certain words in the British North America Act shall be taken to mean other words or something else different entirely from what they express. When we find the First Minister declaring that what he is about to do, he could only do under the authority given him by the British North America Act, and then resorting to the expedient of changing the language of that very Act which gives him the authority, his case is a very doubtful one indeed, it really amounts to this that he is interfering with the document which the other man signed. One man gives another a power of attorney. The question then comes up whether that power of attorney gives the right to do certain things, and in order to remove any doubt or difficulty the attorney says : I will take my pen and change the ianguage of the document, and then I will

have the right to do what I propose doing. That is the position in which the right hon. gentleman has put this government.


Thomas Walter Scott: That was what parliament did in 1870 in the case of Manitoba.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I say it was not at all what parliament did in the case of Manitoba. My hon. friend had better read the statute.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will give you the very clause if you will permit me.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have read it as often as the hon. gentleman has. I am not a candidate for a cabinet position, I am.not anxious to take the job of my former leader, I am not trying to make myself a champion of what I do not believe, I am not trying to show that I am able to swallow a section which it gave the ex-Minister of the Interior a good deal of trouble to swallow, but which, when he did make up his mind to take the dose, he did swallow with more gusto and less of a wry face than my hon. friend. Here is the enactment we are asked to pass as a Dominion parliament :
Where the expression ' by-law ' is employed in subsection 3 of the said section 93. It shall be held to mean the law as set out in said chapters 29 and 30

Chapters 29 and 30 are ordinances of the Northwest Territories, which did not come into existence until years after the British North America Act was passed. And it will hardly be contended that that Act could have meant to apply to things that did not exist until years after it itself had come into existence.

and where the expression ' at the union '
is employed in said subsection 3-
That is, subsection 3 of section 93 of the British North America Act.

it shall be held to mean the date at which
this Act comes into force.
In other words, the date of the passage of this British North America Act by the imperial parliament shall,, by the great power which this Dominion of Canada possesses under so-called Reform rule, and by a declaration such as it never undertook to make before, be carried forward until next July.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) allow me a word ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to deal with this subject in consecutive fashion. I do not wish to be discourteous to the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux), and I am sure that he knows that I would not show him any discourtesy. If he will allow me to finish the point that I am now dealing with, I shall be glad to have him put to me any question he wishes. I want to keep myself right with the hon. member for East As-siniboia (Mr. Sco'tt). He has interjected the Mr. LANCASTER.
statement that I will find the same section in regard to the Manitoba school laws.


Thomas Walter Scott: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: - Well, words to the same effect.


Thomas Walter Scott: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then what could the hon. gentleman have meant by his interruption ? What does he want to take back now ? He said I would find the same in respect to Manitoba


Thomas Walter Scott: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then he had no right to interrupt me and cause me to waste five or ten minutes of the time of the House in proving to him that he was mistaken. He had better have another conference with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) to find out where they stand on this question.


Thomas Walter Scott: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) allow me to explain ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think it is not fair for a gentleman addressing you, Mr. Speaker, to be interrupted even by an hon. member from the Northwest Territories, as I have been interrupted. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) had better have the local responsibility in this matter-for he is not yet elected for the provincial legislature-before he undertakes to have an opinion about it. Even a gentleman with cabinet aspirations ought not to stand up in this House, after the exhibition the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) made of himself, and undertake to tell an hon. member reading plain English that there was the same provision in the law relating to Manitoba schools, and, when it was proved up to the hilt that he was mistaken, explain that that is not what he meant. It is wasting the time of the House as the Postmaster General wasted it-not quite so completely, perhaps, but very near even that limit. I have been wondering, Mr. Speaker-and I am sorry that your mouth is closed and that you cannot givebme the information-having seen what I have since eight o'clock, I have been wondering whether there is another cabinet crisis, and whether that is the reason why the cabinet is wasting the time of the House. The Postmaster General took up nearly two hours, and proved only one thing, and that is that a man could talk that long and say nothing. And now an aspirant to the cabinet takes up more time in the fashion I have shown. Now, the Solicitor General wished to ask me a question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Listening to the hon. gentleman's very able argument, I understood him to say that we could not alter the terms of the British North America Act, nor give any meaning to the clauses of the Act under such a statute as that now before us.
I


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is not quite what 1 said.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year the Privy Council gave judgment in the representation cases, with which my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) is familiar. Section 5 of the British North America Act says :
Canada shall be divided into four provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.	,
As my hon. friend knows, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick took exception to the representation of these provinces as had been fixed by parliament and contended, with some appearance of reason, that the aggregate population of Canada as mentioned in section 51 was the population of the four original provinces. But the Privy Council decided that the word ' Canada ' mentioned in section 5 was a variable term, which, at the beginning of our history, meant four provinces, but later meant five, six and seven provinces, thus explaining that the British North America Act was quite an elastic instrument, which should be interpreted according to the sound principles of the law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would vote against the prayer of the petition, because I would think it was not right, and the people could turn me out when 1 sought re-election at their hands. That is the petition that so much has been said about, and I thought it wise to put that petition upon record. That is the petition that is called by the Postmaster General, one side of the question; a petition that asks separate schools to be established is called the other side of the question. Could anything be more unfair ? There are no petitions coming from Orange lodges asking us to throttle the little province and prevent it from establishing separate schools. I call the attention of the statesmanlike Postmaster General-I will assume that he is a statesman, although he is self-appointed, selfadjusted and self-labelled as a statesman.


An hon. MEMBER.: Union labelled.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Well, perhaps not union labelled, and not so labelled by the people of Canada. The hon. gentleman who is so statesmanlike, the hon. gentleman who is at present running the Post Office Department of this country, undertakes to call that petition which I have read, one side of the separate school question ; and a petition which asks this House to throttle a province is the other side of the separate school question. What would a gentleman from Quebec who advocates separate schools in the Northwest Territories, say if we attempted in this House, ten years or five years from now, supposing the country got incensed at Quebec butting in on these matters concerning the Northwest, supposing the country got aggravated, annoyed and disgusted, and say we will insist for a certain term in doing what the Finance Minister says is so deplorable, we will put some people in power who will settle this school question for ever in Quebec, just as these gentlemen want this government to settle the school question in the Northwest Territories, and we will abolish separate schools in the province of Quebec and Ontario. Now what would they say to that ? In principle what is the difference ? What is the difference between taking away a man's right and preventing him from exercising the right ? In common sense, what is the difference between the two propositions ? Am I doing a greater wrong if I go into a man's barnyard and steal his horse than if I said to him, although you have got a horse I will not allow you to use it, I will control it so that you shall never have the use of it ? To be practical, what is the difference ? He cannot use that which is his own in either case. He cannot deal with that which is his own, and which he has a right to deal with. There may be a difference in the way it may strike one man or another in the application, but on the moral principle-and we heard something even from the Postmaster General about Mr. LANCASTER.
morals to-night-on the moral principle what is the difference between your saying to the province of Quebec ; although you have yourselves established a right to your schools in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario ; you shall not have them any longer, because we think it was a mistake when you established them-what would be the difference between saying that and saying to the Northwest provinces, you shall not exercise your right to declare whether you want separate schools or not, we will tie you up so that you shall never make a declaration either way ? There is no difference in principle, no man can pretend there is.
Now I want to put on record the statements of some of the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite. In 1891 Sir Louis Davies spoke on this question of education in the Northwest Territories. That gentleman is now a judge of the Supreme Court. He was one of the gentlemen who came into power on the cry that we should not coerce Manitoba. This is what Sir Louis Davies said in 1891 :
My opinion is now, and has been for years, that when that time comes (the time to erect the Territories into provinces) you cannot withhold from the provinces so erected the right to determine for themselves the question of education in one way or the other. 1 would be the last to favour this parliament imposing upon the people there any system of education, either free or separate. I only claim that when a Bill is introduced to erect those Territories into provinces that Bill should contain a provision enabling the people of the different provinces so created to decide what system of' education they will have.
Tile Hon. David Mills, in the same year, spoke, not about separate schools In Quebec or Ontario, not about the British North America Act, but in regard to the Northwest Territories, the very part of this Dominion which this parliament is now dealing with. The Hon. David Mills was recognized as an authority on constitutional law by the Reformers of this country, and I think by a good many Conservatives. In fact, he was held up by hon. gentlemen opposite as the great constitutional model of this Dominion, and this is what he says :
When the people of the Territories, or any portion of the Territories, are sufficiently numerous to constitute a province-when, in fact, they attain their majority in regard to local matters and when they propose to set up for themselves-this parliament has no right to exercise control over them. It can give good advice, but it has no right to give commands.
When the Territories have a sufficient population to entitle them to become a province, they must decide for themselves whether they will have separate schools or not.
I have my view as to what will be the best decision for them to arrive at, but I must not impose on them my view as to how they should be governed after they have attained their majority.

Now then the ' Globe ' newspaper came out very lately. I know people lately have said, the * Globe' is going wrong. X do not know, everybody seems to be going wrong who does not agree to throttle the new provinces. Everybody except hon. gentlemen opposite is agreed that this House should leave questions of sectionalism alone and attend to the business of the House. The ' Globe ' newspaper has been talking about this question, and the ' Globe ' of March 11 said this :
The only settlement of the disturbing Northwest school question that will be just or safe or permanent is that settlement most strictly in accord with the spirit and letter of the constitution.
The hon. Postmaster General wanted the spirit of the constitution and not the letter. The ' Globe ' wants both, and I think I have shown that the hon. Postmaster General's opinion of that kind of spirit is not a very good one. I do not pretend to be a judge of any kind of spirit than that, but I think that I am as good a judge of that kind of spirit as the hon. Postmaster General is and he has said that he wants nothing but the spirit and not the letter. The 4 Globe ' says :
The only settlement of the disturbing Northwest school question that will be just or safe or permanent is that settlement most strictly in accord with the spirit and letter of the constitution. Anything that swerves from that straight course, squinting in the direction of any faction or creed or race, is charged with dynamite-
These are the people that are raising the religious question in this House-the 'Globe' newspaper. I do not know whether the hon. Minister of Customs makes the 'Globe' pay duty on this dynamite or on these dynamite articles or whether hon. gentlemen opposite are now using the dynamite as well as the pistol and medicine that my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) spoke about this afternoon.

and sooner or later may work havoc in the
provinces, if not in the Dominion. The personal opinions of individuals or the preferences of classes or communities are not sufficiently certain and substantial to form a sure foundation for the institutions of the country. In the present instance, political safety, social progress and national peace can he found nowhere but in standing by the constitution.
Now, it goes on to discuss the question at some length and I will not trouble the House with it, but it reaches this conclusion :
Provincial autonomy under the constitution carries with it for the new provinces, unless expressly prohibited by the constitution, autonomy in education.
It was necessary for the ' Globe ' newspaper to teli the premier of this country that autonomy meant autonomy, that it did not mean something else. It was necessary 110
for the ' Globe ' to try and pull a line on the Prime Minister as the organ of the party iii the city of Toronto. I presume that the ' Globe ' would say that it was the chief organ of the party in the whole Dominion. I cannot pronounce upon that point, but certainly it is one of the principal organs in the Dominion, and before this Bill could be read a second time, in the hope that some other policy would be adopted, the ' Globe ' gave the advice that provincial autonomy under the constitution means autonomy in education. Is it any wonder that my hon. friend, who leads the opposition here is obliged to put on record an amendment to this Bill to say so ? The ' Globe ' said that it was necessary to tell the Prime Minister that autonomy meant autonomy in education as well as in anything else, and for fear that some people would think that the government could say that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition did not agree with the ' Globe ' I would point out that, as it. happened on these two occasions these two gentlemen-I think the gentleman who wrote this article was an honest man, and I know there is no more honourable man in the Dominion of Canada than my hon. friend the leader of the opposition-came forward and took the same view as the whole Dominion of Canada will if it gets a chance. If the government went to the country upon this question to-day, the government know very well that the whole Dominion, whether Grits or Tories heretofore, would unite by their votes in saying that the * Globe ' was right on this occasion. Then, the ' Globe ' proceeds :
To this doctrine we can ask all classes and creeds to subscribe.
The ' Globe ' thinks, as I do, that all classes and creeds ought to subscribe to the constitution or else get off the earth as far as Canada is concerned. If they stay in Canada and get the benefit of our constitution which we all say affords the greatest freedom that exists anywhere they should subscribe to and support that constitution.
To this doctrine we can ask all classes and creeds to subscribe. In so far as they appreciate and approve the principles of responsible self government, all citizens should here be in agreement. The question of the value of separate schools is not primarily involved.
And it is not.
It is not the primary question. It may be forced to the front by the Orangemen of Ontario and the Ultramontanes of Quebec, but, in so far as the problem is one for the Dominion parliament to solve, the question of separate schools is not the real issue. To make it the real issue is to misplace the emphasis and to engender strife.
Who misplaced the emphasis and who engendered strife ? The right hon. leader of the government, when he brought in this Bill. The ' Globe ' is not a perjured wit-



ness ; it is not even a retiring member of the government. It did not go out for principle, because it never was in.
The issue before parliament is this:	In
giving provincial status to the Northwest Territory is parliament under obligation to make the maintenance of separate schools a permanent responsibility of the new provinces? In dealing with this vexed question parliament should go not one hair's breadth beyond its indisputable constitutional obligation. Leave everything provincial to the provinces. Any other course will lead to inextricable confusion, and put a new' root of bitterness into the fertile soil of our national life.
Who has put the root of bitterness into the fertile soil of our national life ?-The light hon. Prime Minister 'who cannot pass his Autonomy Bill without dragging that question into parliament that the ' Globe ' tells him should be left to the provinces. The ' Globe ' has evidently been found fault with by somebody, some man on the street that we have heard about, has been to see the ' Globe, ' but the ' Globe ' thinks it has done right to have Its own opinion. The ' Globe ' on March 11 said what I have just read, but I have also here the ' Globe ' of March 21, just ten days later. Somebody has been after the ' Globe ' in the meantime with this result that the ' Globe ' says that what we said before we believe and we are still more of that opinion than we were at the time you found fault with us. That is our argument, and the more bon. gentlemen opposite argue, the more we are satisfied they are all wrong. The more they are finding fault with the ' Globe ' the more the ' Globe ' feels convinced that it is right and it repeats what it said before only that it says it in stronger terms : This is what the ' Globe ' says on March 21 :
1.	The * Globe ' stands for the provincial rights of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Those rights are created and secured by and under the British North America Act. The ' terms and conditions ' of their provincial autonomy must be ' subject to the provisions of this Act.' They can have no rights as provinces that are not expressed or implied in the British North America Act, 1867 to 1886. They can be deprived of no rights to which they are entitled under that constitution.
2.	The ' Globe ' holds, as has been argued in these columns again and again, that the new provinces now to be created do not come under the separate school obligation of section 93, clause 1, of the British North America Act, and, therefore, they are free under the constitution exclusively to make laws in relation to education, to continue their present system, to modify it or to substitute another for it, as their legislatures shall decide. Our reasons for holding to this view were stated yesterday, and in several earlier articles, and at the very opening of the discussion.
3.	The ' Globe ' is persuaded, by its first-hand knowledge of western conditions and by the assurances of representative western men, that had the education question been left without


Edward Arthur Lancaster: direction or trammel to the legislatures, the present system would have been enacted, and ail the privileges possible under any obligatory federal clause would have been secured to the Catholic minorities without dispute or acrimonious debate.
4.	The ' Globe ' holds that the educational clauses in the first draft of the Autonomy Bills are ultra vires of the federal parliament, especially the third clause which is held to contravene the Dominion Lands Act and to interfere with the provincial control of the details of school administration.
5.	The ' Globe,' as a logical consequence of the foregoing, holds to be ultra vires of parliament and an infringement, in theory if not in practice, of the rights of the provinces under the constitution, any legislation based on the assumption that ill the meaning of the British North America Act there is no difference between the creation of a province out of territory for thirty-five years a part of Canada and under federal supervision, and the union to the Canadian confederation of an independent, self-governing, autonymous province or colony such as British Columbia was prior to 1871 or as Newfoundland is tb-day. A territory is not a province, and the constitutional obligations of a province cannot rest upon a territory until it becomes a province.
That is the 'Globe's' statement and that is my idea of what is right. I do not say it is right because the 'Globe' says so, hut I do say that when the 'Globe,'which is not going out of its way to injure the government says so, it means a great majority of the people of this country, Liberals as well as Conservatives, the independent thinking people on both sides of politics, are of the opinion that the government is doing wrong. But, says the government, we are in for five years anyway and what matters it ? Well, I say to them that the five years will go by. They may hold themselves in power for five years, but when the election comes the people of Canada will do as the people of Lincoln county did four years after the pledge of the Prime Minister was broken and on which pledge they returned a supporter of his to this House. The chief whip of the Reform party held the constituency of Lincoln by a majority of nearly 500, but the government broke its pledges as to provincial rights, as on every other question, and the people of the county of Lincoln punished the government because of its broken pledges, and a man of no greater ability than your humble servant was elected and the chief whip of the Reform party was left at home. As the people of Lincoln county did in that instance, so shall the people of the Dominion do when they get the opportunity. It may be that the Prime Minister will retire from office before an appeal is again made to the electorate; it may be that the Minister of Finance or the statesmanlike Postmaster General will make himself or get some one to make him Prime Minister, but whoever be the Liberal Prime Minister who appeals to the people of Can-

ada he will And that the people of this Dominion will not stand for interference with tile autonomy of the provinces, will not stand for broken pledges, will not stand for the shackling of these great provinces of the Northwest with onerous restrictions as to education and the administration of their public lands. Why have we no Minister of the Interior to-day? Why is the government afraid to appoint a Minister of the Interior and send him for election to the people of the west? I have not the assurance which some gentlemen on the other side have to say that they speak for the people of the Northwest Territories when they have no mandate to speak on this question; I do not pretend to speak for the people of the Northwest Territories except to say that they want to be left alone to attend to their own business, but I do believe that the people of the Northwest Territories will treat this government as it deserves to be treated for interfering with their provincial rights. The government does not dare to appoint a Minister of the Interior because they know that the people of the Northwest would reject him by an overwhelming vote. The Prime Minister is not here to-night, but in times past he has learned something from this side of the House, and I invite the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance who are now present to tell the Prime Minister that it is his duty to appoint a Minister of the Interior and to test the feelings of the people of the west on this question. That is the constitutional way to proceed, but these gentlemen do not want things done constitutionally. They had not much respect for the constitution when, the Minister of Finance being absent in England, they introduced without his knowledge this Bill which deals with great financial issues seriously affecting the Dominion. They had not much respect for the constitution when in the absence of their Minister of the Interior, who is specially charged with matters pertaining to the west, they drafted and proposed in parliament this measure which vitally concerns the people whose interest he was specially charged to guard. Let them appoint their Minister of the Interior and they can soon find out whether we are right or they are right. Sir, as a man trying to do the honourable thing and representing an honourable constituency, I have no course left to me but to vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition. In doing so, I believe I am voicing the opinions of the Reformers as well as the Conservatives, of the respectable Roman Catholics as well as the respectable Protestants of my county. If I do that I am doing my whole duty, and, Sir, if the members of this cabinet would study more what the people want and not what may suit the political exigencies of the moment they would be representing the people of Canada better than they are to-day.
110}


Mr.  L. P.@: DEMERS moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 30, 1905.