1905-05-11

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 149) respecting the South Shore Railway Company and the Quebec Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Brown.
Bill (No. 150) respecting the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company. Mr. Brown.
l5ill (No. 151) to incorporate L'Union St. Joseph du Canada.-Mr. Belcourt.


Mr.  W. J.@: ROCHE-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What is the nature of the work being done for the improvement of navigation on the North Thompson river, B.C.?
2.	What amount of timber was used in the cribbing and dams erected during 1904 and 1905, and by whom was it supplied?
3.	What buildings have been erected in connection with this woik, and at what cost?
4.	What amount has been expended up to date upon this work?
5.	How many men have been employed upon this work, in what capacity, and for how many days in all?
6 Is it a fact that a number of names appeared "upon the pay-roll of this work of men who were not employed in any capacity on the work?
7. How much has been expended for supplies, other than tools and material, for use on this work?


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 
SHERBROOKE DRILL SHED.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WORTHINGTON-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Is it the intention of the government to shortly commence the building of the drill shed in Sherbrooke?
2.	Will tenders be called for m connection therewith ? If so, when, and in what manner?
3.	Have excavations been made on the site
selected for the building, with a view to obtaining information regarding a satisfactory foundation ?	,	,	,	.
4.	Has the information obtained proved of an unsatisfactory nature, and no suitable bottom found for the foundations?
5.	Has the government purchased an additional lot of land adjoining the original site? Or has it under consideration such purchase? Or is it in communication with any party or parties in Sherbrooke with a view to such purchase?
Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.	, + . .
2.	Yes, as soon as plans are completed ? by public advertisement.
3.	Yes.
4.	No. A suitable foundation can be had at a depth of from 10 to 12 feet.
5.	No.


MAGOG POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WORTHINGTON-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the government under consideration the building of a Post Office in the Town of Magog?
2.	Have any appropriations been made ? It so, what are the amounts up to date ?
3.	Has a site been purchased or selected? If so, on what lot, what was the valuation and price paid?
4.	Has the Post Office Department had any communication with aDy party or parties in Magog, to the effect that if the town council would buy a property belonging to, or standing in the name of, one Dr. West, that the government would pay one-half the cost and build the post office thereon?
5.	Is it the intention of the department to call for tenders in connection -with the construction of this building? If so, when, and in what manner?
5785 MAY 11. 1905 5786
Hon. ATT AS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes. 2.	Yes ; $5,000 in 1903-4, $10,000 in 1904-5 and revote of $10,000 in 1905-6. 3.	No. 4.	Post Office Department report that they have no such request. 5.	Yes, as soon as plans are completed, in the usual manner. PAVEMENT IN PARLIAMENT GROUNDS. Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, before the House passes to the Orders of the Day, I desire, with the object of encouraging advertising for tenders and giving all firms in the country an opportunity of having fair competition for any work on which public money is expended, to draw the attention of the House to the pavement which has been laid in front of the parliament buildings some time since the close of last session. The minister, in response to request, has been good enough to furnish me with the information that the area of the pavement laid consists of 4,250 square yards, and that it cost per yard $2.25. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Order. Does mv lion, friend desire merely to ask a question or to bring up a subject for discussion ? Mr. SAM. HUGHE'S. I intend closing with a motion. With regard to the nature of the manufacture, the memorandum says : After the street has been graded and rolled, the entire surface shall be coated with a heavy coating of Warren's No. 21 Puritan brand hard bituminous cement. On this shall be laid the wearing surface. The wearing surface is composed of crushed stone mixed with bitumen. The stone is screened into six sizes and it is heated to a temperature of about 250 degrees, and each of the sizes are accurately weighed in the proportion Previously determined to give the best results, that is the most dense mixture of mineral aggregate. Then, bitulithic cement is added to thoroughly coat all particle of stone, and to fill all voids, and the whole heated to a temperature of between 200 and 250 degrees. That is the description of the material. The contractor's name is The Warren Bituminous Company, 164 Bay street, Toronto. I have taken the precaution of ascertaining who the chief members of that company are, and I find a gentleman of the name of Mr. T. C. Robinette, a very estimable gentleman, a very able gentleman, a gentleman who bore the standard for his party in Centre Toronto on one occasion, but who failed to take the liurdile on a recent occasion. Another is Mr. W. G. McKendriclc, also well known in Liberal circles in Toronto. Others are Charles Curtis, Harvey J. Page, Wm. Connor. H. .7. King, of Toronto; John Falla-hae, of London, who, I understand, is wen versed in the pedal extremities of a certain well-known animal, and a former hotel	Keeper; and the Warren Brothers' Com-iany of Boston. These are the members of r.he firm. Now, my information is that no tenders were called for this work, and that the contract was let without tender. Perhaps it might simplify matters if I Save the House some specific data which has been furnished to me by a gentleman in whom I have every confidence. If there is anything in it which is incorrect, the minister will have an opportunity of rectifying it.- This gentleman says : Tlie pavement in front of the House of Parliament is Warren Bros', patented monopoly tar macadam, bituminous macadam or bitulithic pavement-take your choice as to the This is the pavement, or rather dust heap, laid in front of the House of Parliament last summer by the Warren Co., in which Mr. Robinette of Toronto is largely interested. We all have noticed how this dust has been blown about, to the great inconvenience of passers by. The contract was awarded without tenders being called, the price was between $2.50 and $3.00 per square yard. I may say, in justice to the minister, that his figure is $2.25 a yard. A superior tar macadam pavement and similar to the one laid on Daly Avenue or on Slater St. could have been laid for $1.30, while a Trinidad asphalt pavement with 4 inches solid concrete and 2 inches asphalt could have been laid for about $2.40, and would have been agreeable to walk on instead of the reverse being the case. Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke of making this city the * Washington of the north.' Now, this is what they had to do in the * Washington of the south,' and which shows the regard they have for bitulithic pavements. Of the 960,000 square vards laid, the record showed but 269,000 remaining on July 1, 1900, and that 631,000 square yards had been re-surfaced with asphalt, and in 1901 $26,000 were spent for re-surfacmg about 12,000 yards. A few years ago the Warrens were laying asphalt pavements, and this is what they had to say at the time of their new patented monopoly : When coal-tar is exposed to the varying conditions of the weather, as it is in pavements, the volatile oils slowly evaporate, leaving a coke which is friable and which rapidly crumbling, less oil is distilled from the tar in its preparation, the pavement when laid is too soft in summer and lacks tne essential quality of firmness. A long-lived coaltar pavement has three phases of condition: (a) When first laid it is soft in hot weather; it then (b) gradually loses the softening oil by exposure to the weather, and for a short period is quite acceptable ; but it soon (c) loses all the oils and becomes friable, as already explained. Coal-tar is sensitive to changes of temperature, and as a pavement, gets hot enough to become soft under our summer sun. It is impracticabi ?o combfne in a tar pavement the qualities of firmness in summer and plasticity .ia '. Later on, the Warren Company, tiring of lair returns on their money, got out a patented specification so as to exclude competition in order that they might get an extra price for their pavement, and on which no one could tender but themselves, and showing about 100 per

cent profit. Instead of inventing a pavement, they merely invented a phraseology, using such long phases as j
Warren's No. 1 Bituminous Semi-Liquid Com position, Puritan Brand.
Warren's Quick Drying Bituminous Plush Coat Composition.
Warren's No. 24 Puritan Brand Hard Macadam Bituminous Cement, and the like, are merely rhetorical disguises for coal-tar, thick or thin as required.
In a suit against the Warren Company by a ratepayer, Fred. J. Warren's testimony under oath in the case was as follows :
The Court-The question was' whether you manufactured the coal-tar products, or manufactured your brands from the coal-tar products. That is the way I understood the question, and I do not understand your answer Mr. Warren [DOT] I didn't understand the question. We manufacture products from coal-tar We do not make coal-tar. We buy the coal-tar on the market.
Q.-And manufacture your brands from coaltar ?
A.-Yes, Sir.
Q.-Do you get coal-tar from them (Barrett Brothers) ?
A.-<Oh, yes, they furnish us more coal-tar than any other people in the United States.
Q- Are the Puritan brands all made of coal tar ?
A.-Yes, Sir ; it is a registered trade-mark Q.-What proportion of coal-tar must there be m one of your Puritan brands for it to be Puritan ?
A.-What number ?
Q.-Well, take the three numbers. Say we take first No. 1.	'
A.-.It is all coal-tar material.
Q.-Nothing else ever is in it ?
A.-.No, Sir.
Q

How is the No. 19 ?
A.-All coal-tar material ?
Q - No asphaltum in it ?
A.-No, Sir.
Q

And no other material in it 7 A.-No, Sir.
Q

How is it, with No. 24 ?
A.-All coal-tar material.
Q.-No other material in it ?
A.-No, Sir.
These are the statements concerning' the preparation of this Warren patent process coal-tar business which has been laid in front of these buildings. I have a further statement concerning this Wellington street pavement from the bridge to Bank street, which is either under contract or about to be placed under contract, because the advertisement calling for tenders says they must be in by the 29th April last. The contracts therefore may have been let, and the specifications called for either a Warren pavement or an asphalt pavement of Trinidad asphalt. I hope that the inquiries I made in the Public Works Department about the time these contracts were being closed caused the department to hesitate
tacHnUk? th?lr career of giving the con-tiact to this foreign company, whose a^enev
" "	led by my genial and capable
friend Mi. T. C. Robinette. Here is a statement concerning it furnished me in con-Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
nection with the Wellington street pavement :
Last autumn the Department of Public Works called for tenders for a bitulithic macadam pavement from Bank street to the post office-
The upper story of the post office, I may say, is likely to cost nearly as much as the whole Langevin block. The Lindsay building across the bridge is not in it. That has been constructed for less than the cost of the one story we are placing on the post office; and that one story is likely to cost almost as much as the whole Langevin block about which our friends made such a disturbance some years ago.
-but somehow they omitted to specify the Warren Company's patented monopoly for coaltar, thus enabling their competitors to tender. The contract was never let, for when the tenders were opened, the Warren Company's tender was found to be about 75 per cent higher than the lowest, so it was quite out of the question to give the contract to Mr. Robinette of Toronto who is largely interested in the Canadian branch of the American firm of the Warren Brothers of Boston. Now tenders were called for as per attached advertisement, and on April 29th (Saturday last) tenders were again received by the Department of Public Works, but this time they called for prices for Robinette's Patent Warren pavement (similar to that laid last autumn opposite the Houses of parliament), also for prices on Trinidad asphalt pavement. On the former only the Warren Company could bid, but on the asphalt pavement it was quite the reverse, being open to wide competition. The question is, will the government perpetrate on the city of Ottawa the injustice of laying a dusty, gritty, and unsatisfactory pavement on Wellington street, and for which the country will have to pay almost as much as they would for a first-class asphalt pavement ?
I have inquired at the Public Works Department but can find no record that this work in front of the building was let after public tenders had been called for. There may have been, of course, a formal tender just as there was in the case of the wire fence. Possibly the firm was communicated with and told to put in a tender for this pavement. However, I do not know what the previous negotiations were, but at ail events the pavement was laid ; and I have it on good authority that it could have been put down for $1.30 per square yard. It is an ordinary road with a little coating of tar, with broken stone thrown in, and coal tar and asphalt put on top. A bitulithic pavement, as far as the cost of preparation is concerned, does not cost nearly so much as an ordinary asphalt pavement : Concrete pavement of six inches depth of solid material besides the sand and gravel beneath, is a much more expensive perparation and, as those of us who have to do with asphalt pavement know, it can be laid for $2.25 to $2.50 per square yard. We know also that a granolithic pavement can be laid at much less per square yard. Here are the specifi-

cations furnished by the department. I am speaking now of the specifications for the Wellington street pavement, the tenders for which had to be in on the 29th, of last month. One of the specifications calls for Trinidad asphalt pavement, and that is open to any number of competitors, so I have nothing to say about that. Bat the next specification is for bitulithic, and you would naturally say that any one could tender for that. But, on reading the specification, you find, on page 3, third paragraph from the top, the following :
The entire surface shall then be coated with a heavy coating of Warren's No. 24 Puritan Brand Hard Bituminous Cement, for the purpose of finally binding the foundations together and making it readily unite with the bituminous concrete surface.
A beautiful sentence.


Mr. BENNETT.: Whose is it ?[DOT]


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I do not know whose drafting it is. I presume this was sent to the Department of Justice. In the fifth paragraph is a description of the heating process, and the last sentence is as follows :
Prom the weight-box each batch of mineral aggregate composed of differing sizes accurately weighed as above shall pass into a ' twin pug ' or other approved form of mixer. In this mixer shall be added a sufficient quantity of Warren's Puritan Brand.
And the seventh paragraph is as follows :
After rolling the wearing surface, there shall he spread over it a thin coating of-


An hon. MEMBER.: Whitewash.


Samuel Hughes: No, not whitewash but

-Warren's Quick-drying Bituminous Plush Coat Composition, the purpose of this coating being to completely fill any unevenness or honey-comb which may appear in the surface of the mixture.
These are the specifications. I have given the names of the company. And, in this case, as in the case of Port Arthur and Fort William dredging tenders, I would ask why should the country be put to the cost of advertising these fake calls for tenders ? Why go to the expense of printing that specification ? Why not openly and honestly say,
* Robinette, go on and do that job ? ' It looks like an attempt to reach the end by roundabout means. I do not charge that against the acting minister, because he is a guileless gentleman, as we all know. It may be that he has been got over by some of his deputies. But it seems clear that this is a mere pretense of calling for tenders for the laying of a bitulithic pavement when, as a matter of fact, the specifications are such that no concern except the one of which Mr. Robinette is tbe head can do the work, and the work is given at an exorbitant price. The contract was for $2.50 per yard, although as I
have shown, a concrete pavement could have been laid at $2,40 per yard, and even less in the case of a large quantity. Certainly, under the specifications I have read, there is no possibility of this bitulithic pavement contract going to any concern except the one of which Mr. Robinette is the head.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has made certain charges based wholly upon statements made by those who have a desire to lay a pavement of a different kind from that which has been chosen. I am sorry he is not more accurate in his facts-for I think that before I have finished it will be seen that he is entirely astray in regard to almost every statement of fact he has made outside of those he has read from the specifications before him. It is true that a small area of pavement immediately in front of the parliament buildings was laid down, under arrangement made with the late Minister of Public Works, by the AA'ar-ren Company. I am informed by the department that the reason was that it was the intention of the government, from time to time to extend this pavement, and good reports of -this kind of pavement had been received from different cities where it has been used and it was desirable to try the pavement and see whether it would be suitable for trhe much larger area which it will be necessary to pave in the future.


Mr. SPROULE.: How many square yards were laid ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The total area laid is 4,250 square yards, I think the original contract was for a smaller area than that, but it was afterwards decided to increase the area to be paved.


Mr. LALOR.: At how much per yard't


Charles Smith Hyman: At $2.25 per yard.
Mr. FOSTER, AVas that given without contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, it was given by the late Minister of Public Works without contract-the contract being extended, as I have explained, ao to cover a larger area than was originally intended. The hon. member (Air. Sam. Hughes) in the first place read a statement by some opponent of this company that this pavement cost from $2.75 to $3 per yard. He corrected his statement afterwards.


Samuel Hughes: I said from $2.50 per yard.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think that if the hon. gentleman will read the original communication he read, he will see that the figures given are $2.75 to $3.


Samuel Hughes: From $2.50 to $3 was what I read.


Charles Smith Hyman: Even so, we see that, in the first place, the opponents of the company were entirely astray from the facts as to the cost of the pavement. As to the extension of the pavement to Wellington street and the tenders which were advertised for the pavement on that street I may say that I gave instructions that the chief architect of the department was to consult with the city with regard to the specifications. The city of Ottawa have a number of other streeets communicating with Wellington street. The chief architect of the department consulted with the city engineer of Ottawa and accepted the exact specification made by that officer on which to base a call for tender. The hon. member (Mr. Sam. Hhghes) has made some remarks in regard to the value of the pavement. I may say, that with one exception every resident on Wellington street has petitioned the government to lay this kind of pavement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What kind ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The same as that in front of the parliament buildings. All have had an opportunity to examine the pavement in front of these buildings and, with this knowledge they have petitioned for its extension to Wellington street. The price, $2.25 per square yard, is somewhat less than the price paid by the city of Ottawa for exactly the same pavement. As X have said, every resident on Wellington street-with the exception of one, who, I believe, was absent-petitioned for this pavement, and it is the only pavement that has been petitioned for.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What has the petition of the residents on the street to do with the case ?


Charles Smith Hyman: As the residents on the street do not pay for the pavement in one sense, it has nothing to do with it. The government is paying for the pavement. But the hon. member for Victoria and Hali-burton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) stated that the pavement was not a good one. But the fact that all the residents on the street, not being obliged to pay, and being free to petition for any pavement they like, petitioned for this pavement with practical unanimity and petitioned for no other, is a pretty good indication that that pavement must have merit. It is quite true that it is to all intents and purposes a free gift by the government at least the government have undertaken to care for that street, but it was quite in accordance with their privilege to have petitioned for any other kind of pavement instead of this kind. The pavement has been put down in London and in Toronto and it is being put down in Ottawa. I can say that the exact pavement which has been put down in front of the parliament buildings is now being put down or will shortly be put down by the city of Ottawa under" exactly the same specifications which were copied in their entirety by my in-Mr. SAM HUGHES.
structions by the chief architect of Public Works. Certain strictures have been made as to the non-acceptance of the tenders that were advertised for last year and the reasons given are entirely apart from the facts of the case. Tenders were called for last year and would possibly have been accepted, but the city of Ottawa desired to lay a water pipe and the department naturally did not want to lay the pavement and have it torn up for the purpose of laying this water pipe. We endeavoured to get the city to immediately lay the water pipe ;
I had a conference, I think with the chairman of the water commissioners, and was informed by him that it was an impossibility for the city to complete the water pipe in time for the pavement to be laid before the frost came. For that reason and for that reason alone no tenders were accepted for the pavement last year, but the amount was asked for in the next estimate and the specifications of the city of Ottawa were advertised for. They were adopted in their entirety by the department and I think that in every possible way the public have been protected by the action we have taken in connection with this pavement.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the area in front of the buildings similar work to that which is on Sparks street, and other streets in this city ? Has this been trowelled over by hand or is it intended to do so ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not entirely familiar of course with the technical work of paving. I understand that the pavement here has been completed in accordance with the contract and in accordance with the character of the work which the city of Ottawa have tendered for. It was under the same specifications and in the same way.


Mr. INGRAM.: Who circulated the petition on Wellington street ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no knowledge of that; the petition simply came to me, it was handed to me by one of my officers. Every one knows how these petitions are circulated. I have no doubt it was circulated by some one interested in the pavement.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: My experience in Haldi-mand is that these petitions are usually circulated by some one interested in the contract.


William Humphrey Bennett: According to the information before the House it would appear that a contract of about $10,000 was undertaken by the department of Public Works without tenders being called for. I think there is a dispute as to that after all the facts given by the minister. It may not have been an enormous amount, but the people of this country will expect that when a trifling mail contract involving $150 to $175 a year has to be advertised from Dan to Beersheha, when it
5793 MAY 11, 1905 5794	
comes down to a question of spending $10,000 of public money, then tenders are not called for in a proper manner. The minister admits frankly that last year the department, wishing to have this work performed in front of the buildings, knowing what the estimated cost would be-because some official must have had some idea of that-instead of going out publicly in the market and askinsr for tenders handed over (the work to a company in which a prominent Liberal politician of Toronto figures as a stockholder and director, Mr. T. 0. Robinette, who was about the same time the Liberal candidate in Centre Toronto. They hand over this contract to this company at $10,000. I do not think any one will challenge the statement that if this work in the area in front of this building is to be called a complete work, it is a very poor class of work and if you go to Sparks street or to Toronto or to any other city where pavements are laid you will find no pavement like this which has such an irregular surface that you are almost blinded by the dust from it. We have seen men employed in this class of work and we know what is done ; it is either hand trowelled or trowelled by machinery, and yet this imperfect work is paid for at the rate of $2.25 per yard. I have it on good information that asphalt pavements are laid in towns and cities in his province and in Quebec at from $2.25 to $2.50 per square yard, and yet here we are paying for a miserable work no less than $2.25. Here is the complaint and it is a well-founded complaint, that the department had no right or business to give this contract at $2.25 or any other price without asking for tenders. The department cannot shelter itself with the statement that they had no knowledge of what it would cost. Surely the department is well equipped with officials, and surely these officials could estimate what the area and cost of the work would be. aud yet in the face of that fact the department hands over this contract, between $9,000 and $10,000, to a company which is certainly not unfriendly to the government, having at its head one of the Liberal candidates, Mr. Robinette. I supose that tomorrow the Toronto * Globe ' will come to the rescue of Mr. Robinette and it will be the old story, that this company was being formed and to make up the company his name was used. That -was the excuse in the case of the Owen Sound Dredging Company. There you find that the plant owned by the member for Rainy River and his son-in-law and partner, Mr. Bowman, is put in the hands of a joint-stock company and yet any one looking at the returns furnished to the department at Toronto will find that Mr. Rowell is in it; aud his partner and his bookkeeper and an accountant in an adjoining office, who it is know'n has no stock in the concern, are the gentlemen who were placed in as directors. Why were	they placed in as directors in the return . Simply as a blind to make people believe they are the actual owners, when it is a party of grafter politicians that are in it and no persons else, and more, you will find that there is a fraud in it that it is not a bona fide company in the fact that this company has not made returns for two or three years to the department. Any legitimate concern having bona fide shareholders and stockholders has its annual returns made and yet this company, headed by Mr. Rowell and doing dredging for this government at their own prices, does not give its returns to the department at all. There is a power behind the throne in this case and the power in this ease was Mr. Robinette the candidate of the Liberal party in Centre Toronto, and the public will have to judge. What does happen and what will happen When such contingencies arise 7 When a contract is being given about the time of an election, a political leverage can be exercised and used by a party follower and a contract for $10,000 from the government can be had at their own price when the government are afraid to go into any countrv district and give an ordinary mail contract for fear of aggravating some of their friends without putting it up to public tender. We will have to wait to see as to the nature of the work that is performed on Wellington street, but in the meantime any person who has ever seen these pavement* laid in cities or towns in the province of Ontario must arrive at the conclusion that the work in front of the building is of the most inferior nature. I do not believe it would be possible to find a piece of work that has been performed worse than that, and the department, fearing that it might not pass into the hands of a party man, saw- fit to do wrhat they did on the present occasion. Mr. SPROULE. There are two or three things about this transaction that attract one's attention. The excuse to-day is not the chapter of accidents we had yesterday, and it was wonderful how they worked in all these accidents to the advantage of one side, of course, as an evidence of the business acumen and ability they have displayed. In this case the first thing that attracts my attention is the excuse given by the lion.' acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) why they were prepared to lay dow-n a certain kind of pavement on Wellington street. Every resident on Wellington street asked for it. All the residents on the street joined in the representation that that was the kind of pavement that w'as required. Would it not be apparent to any one having to do with it that some one must have gone around and invited their signatures to a petition for that purpose ? What could the people resident on the street know about the quality of this pavement 7 Are they experts in this kind of pavement 7

Would the people know sufficient about the difference between this and any other kind of pavement to induce them to ask for this particular kind of pavement ? Is it the attractive appearance of this kind of pavement because this is about the last pavement in the world that one would choose because of its appearance? They had not any experience as to its durability because it was only laid last fall and therefore. they could not know anything about it. Some interested party went around and secured the signature of every resident of the street, if the statement of the hon. minister that all the residents wanted this pavement is a fact and I assume it is. That interested party was undoubtedly connected with the only firm that could possibly do the work. The next excuse behind which the hon. minister seeks to shelter himself is a very good one, it is an admirable one; this was done by any predecessor. It is a first-class thing to put anything on a dead man.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) must know that it would be beneath me to make any reference of that kind to a departed friend. I think a matter of that kind might be left alone. I simply mentioned it as an incident without any desire to shirk any responsibility.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If i am misrepresenting the hon. gentleman he will correct me. I took down his words and I know that he made use of those words.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not objecting to the words.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then why does the hon. gentleman object?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am objecting to the reference he has made and to the manner in which he used the words.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said and I repeat it


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I repeat, notwithstanding the observations of hon. gentlemen opposite, who have not the courtesy to listen to me, that the hon. gentleman sheltered himself behind his predecessor. Where is he to-dav? A dead man. V as this done by his predecessor.' W as his predecessor down here last fall when this contract was let ? Was he here last session when we had the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) doing duty as Minister of Public Works through the whole session nearly ? How could it be let by his predecessor ? If i remember correctly his predecessor was away for his health.
Mr. HYMAN, i have made the statement before that I had nothing to do with the Department of Public Works at that time, and I think my statement should be accepted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he had nothing to do with, the Department of Public Works?


Sir WILLIAM MULUCK.: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot hear what the hon. gentleman says at all. Am I correct in understanding that the hon. acting minister says that this was done before he had
anything to do with the Public Works Department ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, the hon. gentleman is correct in saying that. I simply made the remark without any desire to escape from anything in regard to the matter at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What remark?


Charles Smith Hyman: The remark that the contract was let and the arrangements were made, whatever they were, before I was Acting Minister of Public Works.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question was asked the hon. minister :	When was this let ?-
by my hon. friend from Victoria and Hali-burton (Mr. Hughes) and in answer he said ; Last fall. This work was done last fall, the hon. minster was Acting Minister of Public Works during last session because we complained very much that we had only the acting minister to deal with who would not be the responsible party who was spending this money and we desired that we should have a responsible minister who was spending the money. The hon. acting minister, I say again, sheltered himself behind that because he was acting minister during last session when we had him answering the questions that were asked in regard to the proposed expenditure for the coming year in connection with public works. 1X1)0 was acting minister last fall ? Would the hon. minister be good enough to tell me that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand that the late minister was in charge of the department at the time the arrangements were made for the laying of this pavement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When he was away ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The minister himself was in charge of the department at the time the arrangements were made for laying this pavement and they were made by him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. minister be good enough to bring down the report of council, because, there is either another chapter of accidents in connection with this work, or there is something wrong. Every hon. member knows that the late minister was not here at the time the contract ws let I am taking the hon. acting minister's own words as to the time the contract was let. If I am wrong I was led astray by the statement of the hon. acting minister himself, because he says it was let last fall. I say it is a matter of accurate knowledge

that the minister was not here last fall attending to the duties of his office. It is a matter that almost every member of the House was acquainted with. The next point is that tenders were not invited for this work which was an open violation of the Order in Council which provides that all public works involving an expenditure of more than $5,000 shall be let by tender. This could not be let by tender. Why was it not let by tender ? Why was there an open and flagrant violation of the law ? I would like to ask that question of the right hon. Prime Minister who is responsible for carrying out the law as we understand it. It was for a good purpose that such a law was made. The next question I wish to direct attention to is, that, from all the information we can gather from those who profess to be familiar with this class of work, it was let for a much larger sum than it could be done for, that it cost at least 95 cents per square yard over and above what it should have cost. Then, if we remember that the contract was given to a company which holds the patent for this work, that no others could tender for it and that there was no competition, it must be evident that it was given to them at their own figure. The hon. acting minister says that they paid no more than the city paid for the same work. I assume that the city got the work done by the same company and that there was no competition. There was no person to compete with the company, they holding the patent of this invention, or whatever you call it. Therefore, there could be no competition and I have no doubt they got the work at a figure which gave them a very good return in the way of profits and otherwise. Then, it was given to a very old friend of the government, to a firm that has been very useful to the government, one of the important members of which is a handy man ready to run for them when they cannot get a candidate anywhere else. He is ready to stump the country in favour of the Liberals anywhere ; he was in my riding stumping against me; he was in several other ridings, he was around the city of Toronto ; he was always the handy man available when nobody else could be got to take the stump or to run as a candidate when they were hard up for a candidate. Mr. Robinette never deserted the government until a few months ago when he refused to run for Centre Toronto, and then the government had become so unpopular that he dared not take chances. AVe do not know whether or not he is likely to get this other contract, but at least we do hope that the publicity which has been given to this transaction may induce the government to let the next contract according to the provisions of the law. Let them give the contract by public tender and by public competition, let them keep themselves within the law, and see that the country gets a fair return for every dollar that is spent.


Robert Laird Borden: We ought to have some explanation from the Prime Alinister as to why the terms of this statute are violated with such extreme frequency. There is a very plain provision of the law :
The minister shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of all works except in cases of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest, or in cases in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department.
There was no pressing emergency in this case, and it did not even come within the terms of the Order in Council-as to whether the government were within that section in passing the Order in Council, I shall not discuss for the momentit does not come within the terms of that Order in Council which enables the government to give contracts without public competition where the amount involved is under $5,000, because according to the statement of the Alinister of Public Works this contract was for 4,250 square yards at $2.25 per square yard amounting to $9,562.
Mr. HYMAN1. I think I stated that the original contract was for a lesser amount.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it for less than $5,000 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not sure as to that. Aly own impression is that it, was in the neighbourhood of $5,000 ; it was extended some months after I came to the department to cover the whole area in front of the buildings.


Mr.   R.. L. BORDEN@: I do not much care whether it was originally $5,000 or not, because it was practically the one piece of work and it is a flagrant disregard of the statute to start with a work which costs about $5,000, intending to extend it to $10,-Uou. There is no difference in principle between doing that and starting with the idea of expending $10,000 in the first instance, because the statute would be absolutely evaded if auy such course of procedure as that which has been indicated by the Alinister of Public Works bad been followed. The manner in which this work was let is in absolute disregard of the plain terms of the statute which every citizen in this country is bound to obey, and which the government of Canada in connection with the administration of public works is specially bound to obey. In view of what has passed, the Acting Minister of Public AA7orks should lay upon the table as soon as possible a statement showing the exact date at which the contract was let-I understood him to say in reply to my hon. friend from East Grey that the contract was let last fall-
Air. HYA1AN. I may have made a mistake there; I meant that the work was done last fall.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement without the slightest qualification except to say that we ought to have precise information on that point. If there was an Order in Council, as I suppose there must have been, we ought to have that Order in Council. I would like also to ask the Minister of Public Works-if he is able to give the information now, well and good, if not let him give it at a later date-what would be the estimated cost of laying that 4,250 yards with granolithic pavement, and what would be the estimated cost of laying it with asphalt pavement. It would be interesting to know this for the purpose of comparison.


Charles Smith Hyman: Speaking from memory, I think the lowest tender for the ordinary asphalt pavement was in the neighbourhood of $2.75 per yard, or 50 cents higher.


Robert Laird Borden: And granolithic ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know about the granolithic.
Mr. R, I.. BORDEN. I suppose the hon. gentleman has that information in his department and it can be furnished to the House. There are altogether too many of these instances coming up. We have had three of them within the last ten days, and I trust that this subject will be taken up by the government, and that they will conclude to carry on the construction of public works in this country in accordance with the public interest and in accordance with the terms of the plain statute which ought to be respected.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The question which has been brought up by my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) really involves two subjects ; the past contract and the contract to be let. With regard to the contract which was given last year for the pavement in front of these buildings, it appears that this contract was let by my lamented colleague, Mr. Sutherland. I would be slow to believe that Mr. Sutherland who was a very careful man did anything which was not in accordance with the law. Not having the particulars I cannot say for my part that anything wrong has been done, although it may appear that something which has been done was not quite according to law. 'me law provides to-day that all work which involves an expenditure of more than $5,000 should be given by public tender and contract. My hon. friend says it is time we should take up this matter, but he must know that we have already taken it up. We wanted to be doubly sure, and so the law enacted this session provides that not oniy fenders should be invited but that individual ministers should not have the power to give contracts except within the small margin of $5,000. For all contracts above $5,000 tenders will have to be invited. That is the law to-day, but we have also provided Mr. HYMAN.
in the new law that, the ministers individually', even after they have asked for tenders, should not have the power to give contracts, but that the matter should be brought before the Governor in Council and that the Governor in Council alone should give the contract. This very session we have amended the statute in that regard, and after this statute has been ratified, which will be some time next week probably, no Individual minister shall have power to give contracts, except for the small sum of $5,000, and all other contracts shall have to be given upon the authority of the Governor in Council. That disposes of this point, and I think when the facts are brought down it will be seen that nothing wrong was done in this matter, although a contract was apparently given for an initial work which eventually amounted to about $10,000. I would be slow to believe that Mr. Sutherland in his lifetime gave a contract for more than $5,000, but probably after the contract was given, it was found that a small additional piece of work had to be done. That point we can discuss later when we have the facts.


Mr. FOSTER.: It was nearly double.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps so, but if it was within the margin of $5,000 at first I do not think much wrong was done. It is not fair to the government, it is not fair to the House to attempt to pass judgment on this matter in advance of our being in possession of all the facts. I deprecate any tendency to find fault immediately, and to suspect at once that everything is wrong


Robert Laird Borden: Might I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that I understood notice of this was given more than two days ago.


Samuel Hughes: Two weeks ago.


Robert Laird Borden: Surely we might have had all the facts brought down to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: I never heard of this until this moment.


Samuel Hughes: Will the Prime Minister excuse me ? I placed in his hands more than one week ago a letter containing all the data I wanted which I requested him to give to the Acting Minister of Public Works, and the Prime Minister sent that letter to the Acting Minister of Public Works in London and the Acting Minister told me. I acted perfectly fairly.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not say that my hon. friend was not fair. I tell him that I did not know of this matter until a moment ago. It is quite true that my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) the other day referred to some information he wanted from the Minister of Public Works in relation to the pavement, but I did not even read the letter

but sent it at once to the Minister of Public Works whose business it was to answer it.
I did not even read the letter of my hou. friend. I sent it at once to the Minister of Public Works, whose business it was to look into the matter. When the papers are brought dowrn, the matter will bear investigation and can be looked into again. I agree with hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House-and we have shown our earn-nestness in this respect-that all contracts above $6,000 should be let by tender, and not on the authority of the minister alone, but on the authority of the whole government; and the law has been amended this very session in order to provide for this in all cases. In regard to this new contract this condition will be observed. Not being an expert in this matter, I am not able to pass judgment upon the specifications which have been laid before the House by my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). He said that the specifications were intended to be in favour of a certain company. That may be true or not true. At all events, the contract has not yet been let. The matter must come before the Governor in Council before the contract is let, and whatever we do, we shall be responsible for our action. I deprecate the idea that because a certain gentleman happens to be a friend of the government, he has not a right to tender like anybody else.


Some hon. MEMBERS: A perfect right.


Wilfrid Laurier: I know that Mr. Robinette is a prominent^ lawyer of Toronto, and I know he is a political friend of the government. I did not know before that he was also in business as a member of this firm ; but all this does not disqualify this firm from tendering, if its tender be fair and if it be accepted on fair business principles.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether more to congratulate my right hon. friend on the resolution he has finally taken, or to deplore the fact that he did not take that resolution some eight years ago, in 1896 or 1897, when we were informed by a flourish of trumpets that a new policy was to be introduced, that business was to be done on business principles, that the minister of each department was to have a wide range of freedom and be responsible for the work of his department ; and yet from 1896 up to the present time, I think a fair examination of the records will show that this country has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by the fatal mistake of dissolving the bond of cabinet responsibility, and allowing each man to run his own department as seemed good in bis own eyes. Will the Prime Minister tell us to-day what amount of money was spent by his one-time Minister of Railways in the province of Prince Edward I Island on his own responsibility solely,
without any authorization having been given by the council and without any contract having been entered into in that way ? Will the right hon. gentleman tell us how many hundreds of thousands of dollars were illegally and wrongfully and wastefully spent in other parts of the Dominion by ministers without warrant of law or authorization of council? I do not think I shall be stating beyond what is true if I say that this occurred not alone in one little instance of a $5,000 or $8,000 contract, but in hundreds of instances. In fact, it has been raised to the standard of the usual and common in some of the departments to have work done without asking for tenders and without having the responsibility of all the ministers attached to it by their authorization. My right hon. friend is perfectly right in saying that Mr. Robinette or any other party worker has a perfect right to attach himself to a company and to tender for public works. So he has, but if there is any strong party friend joined to a concern, corporation or otherwise, who outside of public tender privately solicits work from a department or from the government, the very fact that such a person is attached to it, and the implication that favours might be done for him, should make the government all the stronger in insisting on legality being observed and public tenders being called for. It is impossible to take too much care in the matter of the expenditures of public money, and if there is one thing- that this government has been lax in since 1897, it has been in not taking proper care in the expenditure of public money. What came up to-day and what came up yesterday and the day before, and what will probably cime up almost every day so long as we remain in session, will be instances of this same utter carelessness as to what the law lays down, or what the proper practice of parliament has been and ought to be, taking economy and honesty of the expenditures into account. I am glad that the Prime Minister, after eight years, has had the lesson so thoroughly pressed upon him that he has made the resolve to limit these free colts in the separate departments, to put a bridle upon them, and to teach them that the collective wisdom of the whole cabinet is a wise check upon the individual wisdom of each member in charge of a department. I do not see how ministerial responsibility and the proper expenditure of public money can be carried on without that. So long as the First Minister persists in his new plan, new to the present government, he will have the whole support of this side of the House. It is the only proper way in which parliamentary expenditures should be carried out.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I would like to inquire from the hon. Minister of Public Works if he is conversant with the prices paid in towns and cities for permanent

granolithic sidewalk, which is a very much more expensive pavement to construct than the work done in front of this building. I am informed that contracts for these walks are taken at from nine to eleven cents per square foot. I think that is the price paid in Brockville, Prescott and Guelph. That would be from 81 to 89 cents per square yard, as against $2.25 per square yard for the work of taking up the walks in front of this building and putting on a little top dressing of some kind of a mixture. I do not know what it is composed of, but it is something that apparently has to be watered every morning to keep the dust down, which was not required with the old pavement.


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot say that I am aware of the current prices for sidewalks ; but my hon. friend understands that a sidewalk and a permanent pavement are entirely different matters as to depth and weight of material, so that the price of one has nothing to do with the price of the other.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I may say that my object has been accomplished if we have nothing more than the assurance of the Prime Minister that these contracts are going to be let by public tender and to the most favourable bidder for the country,
That alone more than justifies me in bringing the matter up. The Acting Minister of Public Works endeavoured to make a point against the gentlemen who furnished me with the data on this matter, gentlemen of the very highest repute in the Dominion of Canada, by stating that they had put the price paid for this work at from $2.50 to S3 per square yard. I may say that I tried in the Auditor General's Department, and in the Department of Public Works to ascertain what had been paid for the work, either the gross amount for the whole or the net amount paid per square yard, and I failed to get the slightest information. No papers were available in the Auditor General's Department, they were somewhere else. In the Public Works Department they had been sent for by the chief engineer or the deputy minister, and I could not get them. How then are these gentlemen to be blamed for not knowing the actual cost ? They went by the figures given them by gentlemen connected with the concern, and we have yet to measure in order to see how many square yards there are in the whole business. I was more than surprised to hear the Acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) refer to the late Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) as he did.
I yield to no man in this House-not even to the Prime Minister-in the esteem in which I hold the late Minister of Public Works : and I venture the assertion that this contract was not let during his personal administration, and that when the facts are brought out, it will be found that he never was a party to the letting of it. It may have been Mr. TAYLOR.
let as the Cornwall canal lighting contract was. The last time I saw the late Minister of Public Works-and I was as intimate with him as almost any member of this House except the Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of Public Works-he assured. me that the Cornwall canal lighting contract was laid in front of him ; and on the assurance that it had come from the Justice Department and was perfectly regular he signed it without looking into it. Tossibly this contract may have borne his signature, but I venture to say that his name was never put to it unless everything was fair and square and regular. I was glad however to see the acting minister change his assertion to one that he himself was not responsible. But if so who was responsible ? Possibly it was one of the officers of the department who are so busy letting contracts. I was roaming across the Northwest a few days ago and came across a notice on a board, regularly printed, forbidding homesteads in certain areas until sixty or a certain number of days after the plans and all this other business had been registered in the Surveyor General's office at Ottawa. The atmosphere was clear up there and I smelt, to use the expression somebody here used yesterday, a huge sized rat. I asked the late Deputy Minister of the Interior on my return, and he stated that no such order had ever been issued. I then spoke to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), then Minister of the Interior, and he denied having heard of it. He sent for one of his officers, who has the honour to occupy a seat in this House, and was informed that that gentleman, on his own responsibility, had issued that order. Possibly similar work has since been going on in the Public Works Department, and I would draw the attention of the First Minister to this. The argument is advanced that the city of Ottawa is using this contract. Well, I venture to say that if the electors of this city understand the matter, they will get rid of their city engineer and their council. Any engineer of any corporation. who wili advise paying $2.25 for that pavement in front of the building when they can get the regular asphalt pavement for $2.50 per cubic yard, is not fit for his business and should not be kept in his position.
I wonder if the influence of. parliament hill were called in in order to Impress upon the chief engineer of the city of Ottawa and the council possibly of that city that they should accept this new pavement. This question is worth looking into just as well as that wonderful petition of all the residents along the road. Who are these petitioners ? Bank clerks, gentlemen of the Rideau club, saloon keepers and the United States Consul's office. All these gentlemen, we are told, came and viewed the pavement and spontaneously signed a petition, it looked so handsome. When did they see it ? It is only a few weeks since the snow was clear from it.


Mr. COCHRANE.: They probably saw it when the snow was on it.


Samuel Hughes: Possibly they did. I did not think of that, but I am a little "dense to-day. The minister, I am sure, drew on his imagination, for it was altogether too transparent a statement to say that the people spontaneously petitioned for it. I dare say that some one in the interests of this bitulithic pavement concern said :	We
want to get this government, which is going to make this city the Washington of the north, put this pavement on Wellington street, are you in favour of it ? It will not cost you a cent. Those who will have to pay for it are the hayseeds from Victoria and the other rural districts. Who would not sign a petition of that kind ? Who would not be willing to get something foxnothing ? The Minister of Justice got something for nothing the other day, and these gentlemen were quite willing to be in the same position. The petition argument of the acting minister was so very weak, that it will not hold. I shall not enter into a comparison of the different pavements. A11 I have to say is this, that the pavement in question consists of an ordinary piece of grading with a little coal-tar spread over it, a little stone put on top and a little of this- I forget these high faluting names-at all events this Warren composition laid over it. The x-esult is that the dust is flying up from it every day, and the government have two or three good henchmen sprinkling water over it to enable us to get into the building. Yet they tell us that it costs as much as solid 6 inch asphalt pavement. The thing is preposterous. I shall not make a comparison of it with the asphalt for wheel purposes : but we are told that it is used for such purposes where there is not a great deal of traffic ; and that, though it may be a little soft, it makes an excellent pavement. We are told further that the great advantage of this pavement is that in hot weather the horses do not slip on it, because when the tar melts, if the horses stand a little while, their hoofs sink into it and there they are. That is the advantage, we are told, of this pavement over asphalt pavement. Against our good friend Mr. Robinette I have not a word to say. He is a most worthy and eutei

pi'ising gentleman, but I was a little surprised he had not nerve enough to face the music. I am surprised at his lack of tact and judgment, but I am told by my hon. friend beside me that it cannot be the Robinette I mean. The Robinette I refer to is a lawyer in Toronto, and my legal fx-iend says that no lawyer can enter into any such contracts because that is contrary to the statute law of Ontario. Therefore it must be some other man than T. O. Robinette with whom we are all familial-, but I have no personal information regarding that fact at all. This may be similar to the fence ai-ound Major Hill park, which the late Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) told us, in reply to a
question put by the leader of the opposition, was done in parts. We had the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) actually telling us on one occasion that he had evaded the statute by allowing the fence to be put in sections costing $3,000 each and die total cost of which rolled up to $14,000. It may be that the present contract is a similar way of evading the statute. I trust that the First Minister, now that he finds that the country is asked to pay and that his ministers have not been all wool a yard wide in the contract business, will see that it is necessary, in the interest of public decency and morality, that this business of letting out contracts by instalments is iiut a stop to for the future.
The only other point is with regard to the notice. I do not suppose the Prime Minister intended to reflect upon me. If I had let him proceed, I am sure, he would have done me justice. I endeavoured to see the acting Minister of Public Works in his office about two weeks ago in rgard to this matter. I may say that I have never brought up any subject in the House of Commons, so far as I remember, without first giving the minister or the member on the other side who was concerned due and ample notice-not only notice in a general way that I intended to bring the matter up, but notice of the points I intended to deal with in discussing the matter. I wish to treat these gentlemen with all fairness. I spoke to the Prime Minister and wrote out in detail the points I intended to make and sent them across the floor. And the acting Minister of Public Works must have received from me in London, about a week ago a letter


Charles Smith Hyman: No, not a week ago. Tliei-e is no reason for concealment in the matter^ the letter was dated the 8th of this month.


Samuel Hughes: Well, some days ago. In addition I wx-ote to the acting Minister a letter which he got last night-


Charles Smith Hyman: No, I have not seen it, as a matter of fact.


Samuel Hughes: Well, I sent it yesterday. That letter stated in detail "the points I was going to bring up. So, I have done my duty. The Prime Minister has promised us that this thing shall not occur again. I am glad of that. But I am reminded to ask the Prime Minister whether, on some future occasion he will be good enough to tell us why he has found it neees-sary to put this curbing hand upon not only the acting Minister of Public Wox-ks, but all his ministers, in regard to contracts. Let the right hon. gentleman take us into his confidence in this matter. Has he found it necessax-y to do something because of scandals so great and so frequent -all over the country ? Is that the reason ?
Motion (Mr. Sam. Hughes) to adjourn, negatived.


POSTAL SERVICE IN TORONTO-PNEUMATIC TUBES.
George Eulas Foster: Before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to ask the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) a question with regard to the pneumatic tubes to be used in the city of Toronto. I see by the newspapers that the contract for the tubing has been awarded to Messrs. Alex. MacLaren Co., of Glasgow. But besides the tubing there is the work of digging the trench and laying the pipe. Would the Postmaster General-no doubt he has the information at hand-say whether tenders were called for in both these instances Or not ?


William Mulock: That matter is not in my department, but in the Department of Public Works.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose the hon. gentleman knows the facts.


William Mulock: As to the pneumatic tubing system, I am sure there were tenders, because I recollect the report of council, with the different tenders. I cannot speak about the other. But my colleague (Mr. Hyman) will be in his place again. Or, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) will repeat the question to-morrow he will get the information.


POSTMASTER AT WAVERLEY.
William Humphrey Bennett: A few days ago I asked a question with reference to the post office at Waverley and the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) answered it. The following are the questions and reply.
1.	Who is the postmaster at Waverley, Ontario ?
2.	Does he personally conduct the office?
3.	Does he reside at the post office premises ? If not, how far therefrom ?


Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: 1. Mr. John Anderson.
2 and 3. The department has no information as to whether the postmaster personally conducts the office or resides at the post office premises or elsewhere.
May I ask the Postmaster General if he cannot inform me whether the postmaster at Waverley does conduct that office personally or not ?


William Mulock: That matter has not been before me since the day when the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bennett's) question was asked. I will make further inquiry on the subject. I do not know the importance of this office, but I may say that throughout the country there are a large number of small post offices, the postmasters of which are not required to devote their time personally and exclusively to them, though they are supposed to give general super-Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
vision. If the hon. gentleman can tell me the importance of the office I may be able to tell him whether this is or is not one which would require the postmaster to de- , vote his whole time to it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Waverley is a place of fairly considerable importance. The postal revenue is about $120 a year. As a matter of fact I can tell the Postmaster General that the postmaster lives about three miles away from the post office and has nothing to do with it.


William Mulock: I have no doubt there are hundreds of such cases in Canada-have been and always will be.


INQUIRY FOR RETURNS
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I desire to inquire again about the return I moved for showing the number of appointments made in the civil service during years past and which,
I was told, would be brought down at the earliest convenient moment. I have not heard of it since. The motion for the return was passed some time ago and I think the subject should receive attention.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) called my attention to this a few days ago. I understand that all the departments have to be gone into and the return covers also the work of several years. The hon. gentleman must admit that it will require some time to compile a return. I will keep the matter in hand. I will make another note of it.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to remind the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that we were promised to have brought down the paper relating to the tender for the international boundary line wire fence which was referred to yesterday. I trust it has not been forgotten.


Wilfrid Laurier: I thought it would have been here to-day. It has not been forgotten.


LIVE STOCK RECORD ASSOCIATIONS.
Wilfrid Laurier: Ill view of the fact that his Excellency may come down next week to give his assent to some Bills, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), if convenient to hon. gentleman will take up to-morrow the Bill relating to Live Stock Record associations. I give notice of this because some hon. gentlemen on the other side are interested with the question.


PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 09) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Ob section 6,
Until the parliament of Canada otherwise provides the qualifications of voters for the election of members of the House of Commons and the proceedings at and in connection with elections of such members shall, mutatis mutandis, be those prescribed by law at the time this Act comes into force with respect to such elections in the Northwest Territories.
Charles Fitzpatrick: When this clause was up for consideration yesterday, it was decided to hold it over in order that we might have an opportunity to consider the propriety of making certain amendments to the Northwest Territories Act with respect to elections. It was suggested to me that perhaps it would be advisable, in order to remedy certain inconveniences which existed with regard to elections, amendments on the line suggested last year by Mr. Casgrain, then representing Montmorency, should be made immediately. I looked into the Bill which was introduced last year by Mr. Casgrain, which is No. 117 of the Bills of 1904 and is entitled ' An Act to amend the Northwest Territories Representation Act,' and I am prepared now to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) and introduce that Bill immediately in amendment to the Northwest Territories Representation Act. I understand that my hon. friend from Calgary desires to propose other amendments.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Although I have not had an opportunity to consider the full effect of it. I would suggest an amendment to section 30 of the Northwest Territories Representation Act. That section is as follows :	Section 3u, Northwest Territories
Representation Act.
Each enumerator shall complete, date at his place of residence and sign the copies of the voters' list or lists as aforesaid, eight days before the polling day; two of the said copies for each polling division he shall forthwith post up in two of the most public places within such polling division, and the other he shall retain for revision.
The amendment I propose to have made in that section is that there be inserted after the wrord ' division,' in the last line thereof, the words ;
One of which shall be the post office nearest to the place selected for the polling station therein or if there be no such post office in a conspicuous position outside and adjoining the main entrance' to such polling station.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) is more familiar with the conditions existing in the Territories than I am, and he knows whether or not there is any practical difficulty in giving effect to that amendment. I myself think the amendment a perfectly proper one, and would be willing to accept it, provided there is no practical difficulty in carrying it out.
'Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Of course, speaking entirely from recollection as I do, I cannot call to mind all the provisions of the Bill which Mr. Casgrain proposed. I shall not, however, detain the House with that at the moment. All I have to say is that upon the assurance of the Minister of Justice that such a Bill will be introduced, and also upon the understanding that we may discuss any amendments to that Bill which as we think should commend themselves to the government in addition to those suggested by Mr. Casgrain, I would be quite willing to let it go through on that basis.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course, my hon. friends understand that I am not willing to commit myself to amendments that I have not seen. I am willing to accept the amendments contained in Mr. Casgrain's Bill, of which I have knowledge, and the reasonable amendment offered by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy), but I would not like to commit myself to any others without consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: I quite understand that. The hon. gentleman is committing himself to Mr. Casgrain's Bill and to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Calgary. I simply wanted to guard myself against being understood that we should not offer further suggestions. Whether or not those suggestions will commend themselves to the Minister of Justice is, of course, entirely a matter for him and for the government. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) reminds me of one other matter, the form of oath in the present Bill relating to representation of the Northwest Territories. I mention that in order that the Minister of Justice may consider it before he brings in the Bill, and if, in his judgment, it should appear right to make some amendment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Would my friend explain exactly the difficulty ' That might help us.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: The oath does not require the voter to live in the polling subdivision in which he tenders his ballot.


Samuel Hughes: I read last night from a note in an old edition of the Northwest Territories Act, and in that it says that you have to declare you are a bona fide resident and householder within the electoral district. My hon. friend from Calgary says that is eliminated from the recent edition ; if it is, it should certainly be restored.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think the oath must follow the terms of qualification of a voter. I have before me the terms of qualification as fixed by the Revised Statutes and also the amendment of 1895. Uuder the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 7, section 4, it is provided, with reference to qualification :
revised edition

Every person qualified to vote at the election of a member under this Act shall be a bona fide male resident and householder, of adult age, who is not an alien or an Indian, within the electoral district, and who has resided in such electoral district for at least twelve months immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election.
The qualifications under the law of 1895, chapter 2, section 1, are :
Every male person shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member under this Act who, not being an Indian, is a British subject and of the full age of twenty-one years, and has resided in the Northwest Territories for at least twelve months, and in the electoral district for at least three months, immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election.
The only change I see there is that the required- residence of twelve months is applicable to the Territories and the residence in the district is limited to three months, and there is no household qualification.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The polling subdivision is the point I raised. He only has to reside three months in the electoral district ; that is, if his name is not on -the list he can demand that the oath be put to him without inquiring whether he lives in the polling subdivision.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course, this is the law of 1895, and I am quite prepared to consider it and see how far the difficulties suggested by my lion. friend can be remedied.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty is -that unless we have some restriction of that kind there are great opportunities for fraud. It does not seem unreasonable -that a man desiring to vote at a particular poll should have lived at least three months in the polling division. You would not exclude many people if you should adopt a qualification of that kind: and, on -the other hand, if you do uot, the result is that people may come in who do not really reside in the electoral district at all. I had information of a great many cases of that kind when we were discussing this matter a few years ago, but it escaped my attention until 1 was reminded of it by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). I think on the whole some amendment of that kind ought to commend itself to the government.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 15,
Until otherwise provided by competent authority, and subject to the provisions of this Act, all laws and ordinances not inconsistent with this Act in force in the territory comprised in the said province on the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and five, and all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all commissions, powers and authorities and all officers, judicial, administrative and ministerial existing or holding office at that time shall continue therein as if such Mr. FITZPATRICK.
territory had not been established as a province.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This section is intended to give effect to the same provision as is contained in section 129 of the British North America Act, but after having prepared the section and considered it in connection with those who represent the Northwest Territories, it has been deemed advisable to make an amendment, which I shall read :
15. Except as otherwise provided by this Act all laws (including the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act and the amendments thereto, notwithstanding the repeal thereof by this Act), and all orders and regulations made thereunder, and all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all commissions, powers, authorities and functions and all officers and functionaries judicial, administrative and ministerial, existing immediately before the coming into force of this Act in the territory hereby established as the province of Alberta, shall continue in the said province as if this Act and the Saskatchewan Act had not been passed ; subject, nevertheless, except with respect to such as are enacted by or existing under Acts of the parliament of Great Britain, or of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to be repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada, or by the legislature of the said province, according to tha authority of the parliament, or of the said legislature under this Act.
Then there is a proviso to this effect:
Provided that all powers, authorities and functions which under any law, order or regulation were before the coming into force of this Act vested in or exercisable by any public officer or functionary of the Northwest Territories shall be vested in and exercisable In and for the said province by like public officers and functionaries of the said province when appointed by competent authority.
That is to provide for provincial officers under territorial ordinances.
2.	The legislature of the province may, for all purposes affecting or extending to the said province, abolish the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, and the offices both judicial and ministerial thereof, and the jurisdiction, powers and authority belonging or incident to the said court.
3.	All societies, incorporated by or under the authority of the legislature of the Northwest Territories existing at the time of the coming into force of this Act which include within their objects the regulation of the practice of or the right to practice any profession or trade in the Northwest Territories, such as the le^al or the medical profession, dentistry, pharmaceutical chemistry and the like shall continue, subject, however, to he dissolved and abolished by order of the Governor in Council and each of such societies shall have power to arrange for and effect the payment of its debts and liabilities and the division, disposition or transfer of its property.
4.	Every joint-stock company incorporated by or under the authority of any ordinance of the Northwest Territories shall be subject to the legislative authority of the province in which its head office is situated at the date upon

which this Act takes effect to the same extent in all respects as if incorporated by or under the authority of the legislature thereof.
This provision is made much more ample than the provision contained in the British North America Act so as to provide for existing conditions. We have endeavoured to meet all conditions that exist in the Northwest at the present time. I will not ask the committee now to consider these amendments, because 1 hope to have the advantage of suggestions from my hon. friends from the Northwest Territories in view of the importance of providing for everything that is necessary and of seeing that nothing is omitted.


Robert Laird Borden: There are just two questions that I would like to ask about this. Subsection 2 provides that :
The legislature of the province may, for all purposes affecting or extending to the said province, abolish the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.
What will be the status of the court in the meantime before the legislature deals with it ?


Mr FITZPATRICK.: Provision will be found in one of the sections for continuing the court in its present condition. The court will continue to exercise its functions as to both provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: In one of the other sections ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In one of the other clauses of this section of the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: This is the first subsection ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What I mean is that the court, as at present constituted, of course, has jurisdiction over the entire Northwest Territories. It has jurisdiction, I suppose, over the northern portion as well as that which we are adding now ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, the Northwest Territories including the ' Mackenzie district as well as the parts that we are not taking in at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the result be that the court, until dealt with by the legislatures of the respective provinces, will exist as an interprovincial court, so to speak, a court having precisely the same jurisdiction in each province and there being one court for the two provinces ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The court will remain in its present condition and will continue to administer justice for the two provinces after they are separated in the same way as it administers justice now for the whole Northwest Territories until such time as the legislature of either of the provinces otherwise enacts. If my hon. friend looks 184$
at this paragraph he will see that it provides that :
All courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction . . . shall continue in the said province as if this Act and the Saskatchewan Act had not passed.
There is one difficulty for which I have not yet found a solution, but for which I hope to be able to find a solution in the next day or two and that is in respect to the jurisdiction of the court in respect to contested elections. I have a scheme in my mind, but I will consult with one of my friends from the Northwest as.to whether or not it will work out satisfactorily.


Mr. STOCKTON.: Does the hon. Minister of Justice say that the jurisdiction of the court will be continued in both of the provinces, or within the territorial limit ? As I understand the hon. minister, he says that after the passing of this Act these courts will be continued for what are now the Northwest Territories. Would it not be better to confine them to the territorial limits of the court that is in existence ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend perhaps has not caught the words of the amendment.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Perhaps I did not.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend will permit me I will read it again.
Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws

And so on :
-and all orders and regulations made thereunder, and all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all commissions, powers, authorities and functions, and all officers and functionaries judicial, administrative and ministerial existing immediately before the coming into force of this Act in the territory hereby established as the province of Alberta, shall continue in the said province as if this Act and the Saskatchewan Act had not been passed.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Yes, I did not catch that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We have had considerable trouble drafting this clause and I think we have succeeded in expressing our idea, but if any improvement can be suggested, I am prepared to accept any suggestion that may be made.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I think that covers it.


Mr. HAGGART.: I do not clearly understand the hon. minister's explanation. The jurisdiction of the court at the present time is over the whole of the Territories ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: The two provinces that are carved out of the Territories are less than the Territories. You do not intend that the jurisdiction that the court shall have over the two provinces shall be extended to the territory outside of the provinces ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, the territory outside must be provided for. We have on Act especially to provide for the territory outside of the limit of the two provinces. 1 am now dealing with that portion of the Territories included in the provinces. 'Perhaps I could put it in another way to make my meaning clearer. The court remains as it is. The high court has its duties. They will remain and the court continues to be the high court for Alberta and Saskatchewan. But when the legislatures of the provinces constitute a different court, then, of course,, we will have to make the usual provision.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 15 stands.
On section 12,
Until the said legislature otherwise provides, the legislative assembly shall be composed of twenty-five members, to be elected to represent the electoral divisions defined in schedule B to this Act, having due regard to the distribution of population and existing local divisions.
'Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I sent some few days ago-I think last Friday-to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) a copy of the 25 divisions which are proposed, and I sent him at the same time a schedule containing the description of these constituencies. I now move this as the schedule to this section. In presenting this schedule I am quite aware that we are approaching a very delicate subject and one in regard to .which it wrould be difficult to come to any unanimous conclusion if it is possible at all to come to anything unanimous upon this Bill. But, if we do not come to anything unanimous, I am not without hope at all events that we ought to be able to come to something like unanimity. We have taken the existing constituencies , in the Northwest Territories for the local legislature for a basis. In the territory to be included in the two provinces there are 35 constituencies at present, and we have had to add 15 more to give 25 in each province. I have heard some criticism that the distribution proposed is not fair, and I wouid be glad to invite the opinion of our friends on the other side, especially those from the Northwest Territories. I would like to have their criticism on the proposition made by the government which it seems to ine ought to be reasonably satisfactory.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 was not aware that the schedules had been printed until I saw a copy in the hands of the First Minister just now, and I think this section had better stand until we have had an opportunity of considering these schedules as printed. This subject has been under consideration for a very long time by the members of the cabinet and their friends ; it has been under consideration for but a very short time by hon. gentlemen on this side Mr. HAOGART.
wTho, moreover, have not at their disposal the same convenience for obtaining information as have gentlemen opposite. I shall intimate to the Prime Minister when we have considered these schedules ; it is of course necessary that we should have a reasonable time for that purpose.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was in hopes
that the ground might have been cleared by some general discussion to-day, but of course if my hon. friend is not prepared for that I will not press it. We could not of course conclude this question to-day, but I expected we might have had the objections, if there are any, from the gentlemen representing the Northwest Territories as to the general scope of the distribution.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. members from the Northwest Territories on this side together with some members representing eastern constituencies who have been endeavouring to assist them in this laborious work, have been actively engaged in attempting to thoroughly appreciate the meaning of these schedules. They have gone far enough to ascertain that some portions of the schedule are of a very unusual character, but their examination is not completed. I do not think any time would be gained by discussing this question today in a somewhat desultory manner for it would be better to have the criticism from this side of the House presented in a clear and terse manner. In the case of territories such as these into which immigration has been flowing at a very rapid rate, the census of 1901 can give us but very meagre information as to the actual population to-day. I would have thought that in this case above all others, it would have been proper to refer this question to some independent tribunal which could Investigate and if necessary take evidence upon the subject, and in that way prepare a schedule, which whether it was satisfactory to one party or the other would at least have the merit of having been made by an independent tribunal and upon proper investigation and evidence. I had hoped the Prime Minister would pursue that course, and as he has not seen fit to do so we shall have to make our own investigation as best we may under very difficult conditions. I repeat that a decision cannot be arrived at by us in the same thorough and satisfactory manner, as if the suggestion which I have just made had commended itself to the Prime Minister.


Wilfrid Laurier: Even if we were to accept the views of my hon. friend it would serve a good purpose that schedules should be prepared. I am satisfied that some of these schedules are unimpeachable and that not much criticism can be directed against the majority of them by hon. gentlemen opposite. Others of

them may be debatable, It is difficult in a matter of this kind, as we know from past experience, to come to a conclusion satisfactory to everybody, but my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) is aware that sometimes the line of contention is very minute. Even if the suggestion my hon. friend has made should be accepted, no time would be lost and everything would be gained by a discussion of this matter and a fair exchange of views between both sides.
Section 12 and the schedule allowed to stand.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 16 would be the next in order but it would be more convenient if we would consider it with section 2, when the other provisions of the Bill are disposed of.	[DOT]


Mr. FIELDING.: We have dealt with sections 17, 18 and 19 in the form of a resolution which has passed the committee of the House, and I would move that these resolutions be substituted for these three sections. We have discussed these thoroughly and I do not know if there is any desire to raise any other question concerning them.


George Eulas Foster: I have asked the Minister of the Interior for certain information which I have not yet received in connection with these resolutions.


William Stevens Fielding: What was the information?


George Eulas Foster: I wanted to get the land areas; the different qualities of the land and all the land still remaining unallen-ated.


Mr. OLIVER.: I have the information asked for by the hon. gentleman. It is as perfectly prepared as possible on such short notice, but as I said the other day it is an absolute Impossibility to give any correct statement, because part of the agricultural land and' grazing land is also mineral land, and there is generally a lack of definite division between them. I hand this information over to the hon. gentleman which he will have to accept as on the authority of the officers of the department and a reasonable attempt to give the information he asked for.


George Eulas Foster: I would like the section to stand until I can digest this information. I want to call the minister's attention to the fact that in the return which has been brought down, there is a recapitulation of all the lands in the district of Alberta, Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, which I understand are the existing divisions. Then there are the lands which have been alienated in these. For Alberta and Assiniboia that would be all right ; but when you come to Saskatchewan, there is a portion of the provisional district which I understand is not included in the province of Saskatchewan, and a calculation would have to be made as to the quantity of alienated lands which would have to be deducted on account of that portion.


Frank Oliver: I think there have been no lands alienated in that strip ; but I will make inquiry with regard to that.


William Stevens Fielding: I will move that [DOT]sections 17, 18 and 19 be replaced by the resolutions which have been adopted in committee, and which will be found on page 542 of the Votes and Proceedings, and that they stand for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: With regard to section 16, although it is convenient, as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice suggests, to delay its final consideration until we are prepared to take it up along with section 2, I thought it might be convenient for him to-day to give his explanation of the difference, according to the view of the government, between the original and the amended section 16, which was spoken of on the second reading of the Bill and also in the discussion on section 2.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not my papers with me and am not able to deal with that subject now. I anticipated a long discussion on the previous clauses of the Bill, and did not prepare myself to deal with that particular clause to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, we really have never had up to the present time any statement on behalf of the government, beyond a very general statement made by the Prime Minister on the second reading of the Bill, which did not go into particulars and seemed to me to be remarkably indefinite, as to what the difference between the two sections is. We had a very full and elaborate statement from the exMinister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) with regard to the difference,, and I am not at all clear as to whether the view he took is the one which still commends itself to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, and for that reason I would have been glad to have his views on that subject to-day. However, 1 am entirely willing to consult his convenience. except that I would suggest to my hon. friend that after he has made his statement, we might possibly after some discussion ask the clause to stand for a little consideration of any views wnieh might be put forward in case they, should prove to be very divergent from those of the exMinister of the Interior.


George Eulas Foster: Would it not be well also to suggest to the Minister of Justice that he should use his personal influence to have the ex-Minister of the Interior here when that discussion takes place. It would be very interesting.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I shall be glad to convey the suggestion of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) to the hon. member for Brandon.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is a very important matter, and a very simple one, if we are to believe the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), who told us that the explanation* was so easy and plain that the wayfaring man though a fool might understand it. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place to-day, so that we could get that very simple explanation. And yet we have the speech of the exMinister of the Interior circulated broadcast among the clergymen of this country who do not believe in this tlass of legislation, telling them that there is nothing in this Bill except provision for half an hour's religious teaching in the schools. I say there is something more than that in this Bill, or the Minister of Justice and the government would have given the explanation long before this. It is quite evident that the members from the west have received an explanation of this legislation, while this side of the House and the country generally are being treated in the most contemptible" manner in respect to section 16 and the amended section, as well as section 2. I think it is trifling with the House to have this matter delayed from day to day. A number of the members supporting the government are circulating the opinion that there is nothing in this Bill of any importance with respect to a change in educational and religious matters. They are trying to allay public feeling, and in order to do this, supporters of the government are going back to their constituents and telling them that there is nothing in the Bill. I say there is something in this Bill and a great deal more than the Minister of Finance has stated. But because of the divisions among the factions that comprise this government and its supporters, the plan of the government has not been decided upon and that is why we have this delay.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Would the hon. gentleman give us his views of section 16 ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I have been long enough in this House to know that I am not quite competent to give a legal opinion with respect to what the British North America Act gives the Northwest Territories. But the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) undertook the other evening to give his explanation. Was not that rather a piece of presumption on his part ? I could understand a layman saying something about the practical part of the question ; but so far as the interpretation of the constitution is concerned, I think he would be more prudent to leave it to the Minister of Justice and the leader of the opposition and any lawyers of that class.	'
Mr. FOSTER


Archibald Campbell: Then you have no opinion of your own at all ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I would not venture to declare to my constituents that the Bill means only half an hour of religious teaching in the schools.


Archibald Campbell: What does it mean ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I am content to wait until I hear the government's statement and final opinion ; and when the people do know What it actually means, my hon. friends opposite will not go around and whisper into their ears that it only means half an hour of religious teaching in the schools. But if the question is so simple that the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) can get up off-hand and state what the constitutional meaning is, how is it that the Minister of Justice, who has been studying this for weeks and months, refuses to give an explanation of what the clause really does mean ?


Mr. BLAIN.: I endorse entirely the statement made by my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram). I am one of those who believe that the minister should give this House and country a clear explanation of the difference between the two clauses. It is not right to ask the committee to pass clause after clause and reserve the allimportant question until the closing day. There may be then an effort on the part of the government to rush it through. We were promised an explanation to-day ; and that explanation is required all the more because we have different and conflicting statements from gentlemen supporting the government, and cabinet ministers as well. The Minister of Finance has given us a very pleasant statement as to what this Bill means.


William Stevens Fielding: Which my hon. friend did not accept.


Richard Blain: Ho had told us that there was simply nothing in the amended clause, or rather nothing in the original clause, and that the amended clause would give the people of the Territories a national school system to which no one can object-a system that is -the very best in Canada, not even excepting that which is in force in his own province, the province of Nova Scotia. As these two hon. gentlemen, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice, both well informed on the Bill, differ in their views, and as the government have devoted many weeks lo the preparation of the original clause and the drafting of the amended clause, and as the people of this country have been agitated from one end of it to the other regarding the meaning of the amended clause, and furthermore as we have had a resignation from the cabinet on this question, it is but fair to the House and country that we should have an authorit-

ative and plain ministerial statement on the subject before we discuss the other clauses.


George Eulas Foster: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: I was under the impression that we were dealing with a very serious Bill.


George Eulas Foster: I had thought so too until last night.


Charles Fitzpatrick: So serious and important that, I understood, the whole of Canada was bestowing consideration upon it. But listening to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) one would think that the whole thing was a joke, a. thing to be dealt with in the most flippant manner. [DOT]So far as I am concerned, I want to have this legislation disposed of for it seems to me to be serious legislation. And I know no way to dispose of it so well as by conforming to the rules of the House. The rules require that on the second reading, the principle of the Bill and the provisions contained in the Bill should be explained. That is the rule I intend to conform with, so far as I can. So far as this section 16 of the Bill is concerned, it will be necessary to speak of it when it is moved and of the amendment when it is moved. But, as sec- ' tion 16 has not been moved and I am not moving it, I can see no reason why the discussion should proceed upon this matter which is not before the House at all.


George Eulas Foster: We will give you time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When we were discussing the principle of the Bill and came to clause 16-or perhaps, I should say clause 2 which materially affects clause 16- the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) did not give us auy explanation


Charles Fitzpatrick: I differ with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule), though he has been in the House for twenty years as to the interpretation of the rules of the House. I think he is wrong when he says I was obliged to speak of an amendment to the Bill which had not been moved and

could not be moved except in committee. The hon. gentleman ouglit to know that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know the rules very well. And I know that in an important Bill like this, when an amendment is to be proposed by the government, as announced bv ministers of the Crown, which materially alters the Bill, it is the duty of the government to make an explanation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It changes the section not the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It changes the section of the Bill


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is more accurate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The great question in this Bill was the educational clause-


Charles Fitzpatrick: In my hon. friends (Mr. Sproule's) mind-not in that of anybody else.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was on these sections that the greatest time was spent in the discussion of the second reading. If the government propose to change these educational clauses, they change the -whole effect of the measure. Yet they desire to keep it from the House and the country, allowing hon. members and the people at large to be misled. If they say that it was never intended that the provision of the original Bill should be erfacted. then what was intended ? We should know the 'facts that we may be able to bring our judgment to bear upon the Bill as it is proposed to be, and to decide whether in our opinion it will be acceptable to the country and to the new provinces or not. Whether the Minister of 'Justice agrees with me or not, I say that common sense demands that the explanation of the main feature of the Bill should have been given in the discussion on the second reading. Take, for instance, the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell). His constituents wrote asking what the Bill meant. It was as plain as day to that hon. member and he told them what it meant. Yet, the provisions of the Bill as it was then before us would not at all carry out What the hon. gentleman said was the intention of the Bill.


Archibald Campbell: Wouldn't it ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No. I say that distinctly. What did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) say it meant ? Did he say it meant separate schools ? No, he said it meant public and national schools, the only difference being that, where desired, half an hour would be allowed at the end of the day for religious instruction. And he went on to explain that, although the original Act of 1875 might have meant separate schools, might have meant church schools, might have meant confessional schools that was not what the Bill meant* at all. And Mr. FITZPATRICK.
the members from the Northwest knew that that was not -what it meant. And the exMinister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) declared that the amended clauses would not allow church schools. Yet, the Minister of Justice told us, no longer ago that last night :
In my judgment, section 93

Which this would bring in.
-would bring In all the rights and privileges which exist in favour of denominational schools in the Territories at the present time or at the 1st of July coming. Those rights and privileges would include all those rights which are covered by section 11 of the Act of 1875.
The Minister of Justice thus declares that it would include all the rights, yet the ex-Minlster of the Interior says it practically would not include any of the rights, but would take away the right to separate schools and make practically one system of public and national schools, taking them from under the control of the church organizations that wish to carry on separate schools. That is what it is going to accomplish according to the hon. minister from Centre York (Mr. Campbell).


Samuel Hughes: Is he a minister ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Prospective minister. If that is what it will accomplish, the Minister of Justice should tell us so. We discussed for a whole month the second reading of the Bill, and yet we are left in the dark as to what the Bill is to be. I say that is treating parliament with very scant courtesy, it is treating parliament with-I was almost going to say, contempt. We are not given the explanation this House was entitled to ask before disposing of the second reading. It is treating parliament with contempt, I say. to leave it in the dark for such a length of time upon so important a matter. And now we are told the Minister of Justice is not ready to give an explanation because he has not his papers with him. For my part I am disposed to give him every opportunity to make his explanation. But, if the minister cannot explain, I feel like calling upon the hon. member of Centre York (Mr. Campbell) because he has explained all to his constituents, he has explained it even to the ministers of the Gospel in this constituency. He ought to explain it to the House.


Archibald Campbell: I did.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman has not explained it yet.


Archibald Campbell: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) give us his explanation?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have given my views with regard to the course that should be taken. But I am denied the benefit of the knowledge and wisdom of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice as to what the Bill is to be. It is desirable that we should have that information, for it

may save a great deal of valuable time. The hon. member for iSaskatchewan (Mr. Lamont) spoke as if be knew all about it and was perfectly satisfied with it. He says, that it means public schools. And he says that every man in his county is satisfied. He says this notwithstanding the thousands of petitioners that have been sent in declaring that they are not satisfied.


Mr. LAMONT.: Where are the uiousands of petitions from my district ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They have been presented to the House.


John Henderson Lamont: By whom ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By different members. Has the hon. member been, like Rip Van AVinkle, asleep ?


John Henderson Lamont: Would the bon. member name some place in Saskatchewan petitions from which have been presented to this House ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can give him quite a number of places.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Name one.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: He gave the petition story away this afternoon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have only to say that I have not the paper by me here, but the hon. member knows that there are thousands of signatures to these petitions.


John Henderson Lamont: I have heard all of that.
1 say that so far as I know there has not been one of these submitted to the House from my district.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know the outlines of the hon. member's district but I understood him to say that everybody in his county is satisfied. Is he aware of the resolutions passed in his own district saying the people are not satisfied ?
Mr, LAMONT. In what place ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: W'liere does he live ?


John Henderson Lamont: In Prince Albert.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is he not aware that the association there, the Orange Lodge in Prince Albert, deliberately passed a resolution ?


John Henderson Lamont: When I spoke on the second reading of the Bill I said that the people of Prince Albert were so well satisfied that even the Prince Albert Orange Lodge had not sent me a petition. Subsequently, since the delivery of that speech, they sent me a resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He has admitted now that everybody is not satisfied. I do not know the outlines of the hon. gentleman's constituency, but if I did could convince him that there are many more who speak in that way, because I have several letters which show that the hon. member cannot
possibly help knowing that there is a deep feeling of dissatisfaction with regard to the educational clauses of the Bill in that country and the hon. member must know it, and I cannot believe for a moment that he will stand up and support these clauses in the House.


John Henderson Lamont: With the exception of the Prince Albert Orange Lodge my recollection is that there is only one place in my district that has passed a resolution against the Bill. In Saskatoon a meeting was held and a resolution passed asking that no interference be made with provincial rights in relation to education, but the last clause of the resolution was one expressing earnest approval of the course of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is when he went out of the cabinet as a protest against the Bill and that is why the association in Regina passed a strong resolution commending him for what he had done, but many of them have written him since saying that they regret to find that the cat came back, and now they cannot pass those eulogiums on him which they did before. When the hon. member says that the people are satisfied he is saying what I have information that convinces me he either does not know the sentiment of the people or he is misrepresenting it, one or the other. It is the very reverse of what he says. There is not a constituency in that country that has not expressed an opinion strongly against this by resolutions, petitions or otherwise, and in the face of that the contention is made that every one is satisfied. Why ? Because of the amendment contemplated in this Bill, the amendment to clause 16.


John Henderson Lamont: I would like to ask if all the districts are as dissatisfied as the district of Edmonton ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the district of Edmonton ? I can tell the hon. member that right in Edmonton-and I am within the hearing of the present Minister of the Interior-there was considerable disturbance over it and great apprehensions of danger that a candidate would be put up because-and this comes from some of their own friends -there was a deep-seated dissatisfaction with regard to the educational clauses of this Bill. The minister knows that and he is sitting before me, and I will ask him to deny it if it is not so. If it is a fact, I have letters from his district which declare that although there were -other considerations at stake which induced the people to go for him strongly in regard to these clauses the people were not satisfied. In view of that is it not reasonable to ask what is going to be the effect of the amendment and let us have some time to consider that before we deal with the amendment. The strike that took place among the North-

west members when every one of them followed the Minister of the Interior was overcome and they were satisfied by whatever private information w-as given them regarding the proposed amendment and they came back with the ex-Minister of the Interior. Surely the House ought to know that if it is so effectual that it satisfied all the people of the district the amendment ought to be given to the other members of parliament to satisfy them as well.


Mr. LANCASTER.: The Minister of Justice has seen fit to invoke the rules of this House as a reason for not giving this long deferred and much expected explanation. I wonder he did not ask the Prime Minister and discuss it with him before the Bill was given a second reading. We know that every gentleman on that side supported the second reading because he was satisfied owing to the introduction of the substituted clauses. The Prime Minister did not attempt to read this Bill the second time until he placed the amendment before the House so that they would know what the amended clause 16 would be. Now what are the merits of the matter ? The second reading was carried because of different constructions to suit each particular case which were put upon clause 16, not as originally drawn and as before the committee to-day, but because it had been said that the clause was going to be amended and a notice of the amendment was given. Every hon. gentleman who defended, generally in a lame way, from the government side of the House, his getting into line upon this Bill, his interference with provincial rights in this parliament, tried to make out that with the amended clause it was not nearly so bad as it would have been if the original clause had gone through. Now what are the rules of the House ? Are the rules of the House to be construed and acted upon by the Minister of Justice to perpetrate a trick on the members of this House ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: What do you mean by a trick ! You had better be careful what you say.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In inducing them to vote for the second reading of the Bill on the understanding that a certain section was to be replaced by another section of which notice was given of the intention so to substitute the amended clause, and when hon. gentlemen justified as they did one after another their voting in support of the second reading of the Bill, on this very important-for inspite of the fault-finding of the Minister of Justice with the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) for saying so,
I will repeat that in my humble Judgment it is a very important-amendment, not only because it involves an educational and religious question, but because it interferes with the provincial rights of the new provinces, involving a very im-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: portant question, notice of an amendment having been submitted to the House the second reading of the Bill was carried by saying that this amendment would be explained when the House was in committee.	.
Then the hon. gentlemen upon the government side of the House got up and justified their votes for the second reading of the Bill because they thought the amendment, as it was going to be brought before the committee, would be harmless. I remember the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) talking on that line. Did he not say that lie considered the amendment that was going to be brought into the committee of such a character that he was justified in getting back and voting with his former colleagues of the government in support of this measure ? Did he not say as plainly as a man can say who does not use the exact words that he would not have got back into line and supported the government on this measure if they had not given notice of what they were going to substitute in place of section 16 which caused him to resign '/ We all remember that the present hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) also made a speech upon this Bill. After modifying as far as he could all his former views on this matter he brought it down to this that he was satisfied that this amended clause would not do very much harm, and he distinctly gave us to understand as plainly as any man can who does not use plain words that he would not otherwise have supported the * government in regard to section 16. These lion, gentlemen all justified their votes in support of the principle of the Bill each being allowed to put his own peculiar interpretation upon it and to state what in his view it meant. These votes were cast in favour [DOT]of the Bill each hon. gentleman justifying himself according to his own peculiar idea of what that section would amount to. Now, the second reading of the Bill was carried and we are in committee upon it. I should have thought that the right hon. Prime Minister himself, the very first thing after we got into committee and before we began to discuss section 1 at all would have said, not because this is an educational clause, not because it involves a religious question or a question of provincial rights, but because he had told tlie House that after the vote upon the second reading of the Bill and on section 16 which was controversial and which had caused the resignation of one of the members of his cabinet and for which was going to be substituted a new and amended clause that he would explain what it meant-I say, that I should have thought that he would have carried out that promise and explained what it meant. I do not think he should have asked us to wait until we got to section 16 taking the sections in their numerical order. I should have thought, that, in view of the statement the Prime Minister made on the second reading of the Bill, and having

obtained the second reading by virtue of the statement that clause 16 which was controversial and which had caused the resignation of the hou. Minister of the Interior, was going to be amended in accordance with the notice he had given, would have risen at once to tell this House and the country what was the difference between this amendment and the original section which had caused him to get his supporters into line and to induce them to vote this Bill through. But, as my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said a while ago, we have to be patient. We are learning patience at the hands of the government, particularly these of us who are just as anxious as the hon. Minister of Justice is to get this legislation into practical shape if it must pass. We are kept in the House day after day and evening after evening waiting for the long deferred explanation, and I think it is time that it came. I have a word to say, if the hon. gentleman will not get angry with me for saying it, in regard to the position of the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont). I would like him to tell me, if, when he voted for the second reading of the Bill, he voted for the original clause or for the clause that has been substituted for section 16 ? I do not think that the hon. gentleman knows. I do not think that any hon. member in the House knows what he was voting for according to the statement of the hon. Minister of Justice. We are not supposed to know what we are voting for and yet we have carried the second reading of this Bill. We have now come to the discussion of the controversial clause of this Bill which caused the resign-nation of the late hon. Minister of the Interior and very nearly caused the resignation of other members of the cabinet, and we have not yet been afforded that information which was promised us at the time the motion for the second reading of the Bill was made. Yet, week after week during the discussion in this House hon. members, particularly on the government side, justified themselves for voting for the second reading by the fact that this section had been amended. What is the hon. Minister of Justice going to do with those hon. gentlemen sitting behind him ? We do not expect him to inform us on this side to any great extent but he ought surely to inform those hon. gentlemen who took their political lives in their hands for him in their constituencies and voted this through. Surely they ought to know. Perhaps they are too mild mannered in regard to the Minister of Justice. Perhaps they are quite anxious not to offend him. or they are not as willing to take the risk of offending him, as those of us on this side of the House. But, I ask him on behalf of hon. gentlemen opposite who are brother members of the House, to give them this information. They are entitled to it after having been induced to vote for the second
reading of the Bill on the understanding that section 16 did not carry out what it was supposed to mean. I think in all fairness these hon. gentlemen should not be required to write letters and make more speeches to square themselves with their constituents for voting for what was understood to be an amended clause, as it was called by the Prime Minister, and which was carried by the vote so given notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Minister of Justice says that by the technical rules of the House we are not entitled to this information yet. I think it is time some of us got a little indignant here. It is all very well to be courteous. It is all very well to tiy and get along in a harmonious way, but patience ceases to be a virtue sometimes. This House has been sitting and dealing with this Bill for several weeks. Representation after representation has been made by some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, sometimes by a prospective cabinet minister and sometimes by a would-be cabinet minister without any prospect in view, by hon. gentlemen opposite getting up and claiming to know what the section means, telling us what their views are and asking us to accept their conclusions-as to what the difference is between the clause as originally drawn and as amended.
I want to say to the right hon. Prime Minister. to the hon. Minister of Justice and to the hon. Minister of Finance that it is due to them collectively to tell the House if they can what the difference is between these two clauses. The hon. Minister of Justice, who expressed a strong opinion on the subject at one time and who had to modify if since, not because he is a lawyer, but because he is a man of common sense, ought to tell us what he says now as a man of common sense and not as a lawyer.


William Stevens Fielding: The distinction which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) sharply draws between a lawyer and a man of common sense might have been well illustrated by the. hon. gentleman's own remarks. But, the depressing information which is given to the House that the hon. gentlemen opposite cannot read is received with great pain and regret over here. Ovdinarily speaking it is considered enough for a Bill to be presented to the House in good English or ill excellent French, and if an amendment be submitted in the same terms and in the same excellent languages it is generally considered that we are expected to read and understand it for ourselves. Though my hon. friend has had this amendment before him for days and weeks he now asks what it means, but he had no hesitation in voting what it meant.
Mr. LANCASTER, I did not say I did not know what it meant; I said the Minister of Finance and his supporters evidently" do not know what it means.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) need not concern himself about"

me and about the supporters of the government ; he had better manifest a little anxiety about certain gentlemen in his own party ; he had better look after them a little more than he does after the gentlemen on this side of the House. As I said, my hon. friends opposite have had the amendment in their hands for days and weeks and yet they come and say : Please tell us rvhat it means ; true we voted on the question ; true we tried to raise a political riot throughout the whole of the Dominion of Canada on this question ; true we have tried to stir up excitement; true we have tried to arouse prejudices ; true we have tried to arouse religious strife ; true we have told the country what it meant, but now we come here pit-iously and say : Please Mr. Fitzpatrick will you be good enough to tell us just what it means ? My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), since he left the Department of Finance has lost that regard for exactness which should characterize one trained in that department, and when he undertook to give us a little history this afternoon he gave it very imperfectly. He says : Something happened since this Bill was first presented to this House. Oh yes, several things have happened, but the most important things that have happened the hon. gentleman did not include in his story. X would say that the most important event that has Happened since this discussion began was the triumphant election of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver).


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: These gentlemen opposite tell us that it does not mean any thing now, but the day is not far distant when these same gentlemen led by the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) walked around with chips on thier shoulders and challenged the government to open a constituency anywhere in Canada, and particularly in the Northwest Territories. An election in some other province was alluded to but what of that ? They said : Open a constituency in the Nortlwest. Well, a constituency was opened in the Northwest and then what happened ? Oh, but says an hon. gentleman opposite, there was fear and trembling about that. Yes, there was fear and trembling in the ranks of the opposition. My hon. friend says, there was fear as to the candidate that would be selected ; yes, there was fear among the Conservatives that -they might put up a candidate who would lose his deposit. There is no fear amongst hon. gentlemen on this side whether it be in the Northwest or elsewhere, and whenever the time comes this government is prepared to test public opinion. And as often as we do we will find these gentlemen opposite saying afterwards, when we come forward with a splendid vindication from every province and from the Dominion at large : Oh, it does not mean -Mr. FIELDING.
anything at all. But something else has happened. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) speaks of the speeches made by the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance and various other persons, and while these very modest speeches may not mean a great deal, they seem in conjunction with other speeches to have carried greater weight and greater value on the other side of the House than did the speeches of the member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and his associates ; because we find that this Bill which hon. gentlemen opposite have been parading over the country as a bad Bill and as being disastrous and ruinous and fatal to the Liberal government and the best interests of the country-we find that this Bill is found to be so meritorious, and this part of it particularly so meritorious thatill-. LANCASTER. What does it mean ?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) voted against it ; he ought to have known what it meant.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Let me ask the hon. gentleman : If he did not understand a measure would he vote for it or vote against it ?


William Stevens Fielding: As my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) voted against it he need not distress his soul about that, and if it were fifteen times as good he knows he would vote against it all the same. But so good was this measure and so valuable were these speeches, modest though they were, of the Minister of Customs and the various other ministers, that not only did they persuade and satisfy practically every man on this side of the House, but they carried away a large contingent of the opposition members to the support of this measure.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: And when the hon. gentlemen opposite looked around on the memorable night of the division, their feelings must have been sad and mournful. They were not able to keep their own friends ; man after man dropped out of their ranks, and when the record was taken a dozen of the flower of the Conservative party had declared their faith in this government by deserting the Conservative party and supporting the policy of the Liberal party on this measure.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Mr. Chairman, when you left the chair at six o'clock the Minster of Finance just concluded a somewhat extraordinary speech.


Charles Marcil: I wish to remind the hon. gentleman that with the consent of the House I allowed the discussion

to go on ; but there is nothing before the committee now. I just want to put myself right.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 And there was nothing before the committee when the Minister of Finance made that rather peculiar speech.


Charles Marcil: If the House wishes to allow the discussion to go on, it can do so.


Samuel Hughes: If necessary, 1 will move that the committee rise and report progress.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: And, Sir, in making that speech, as he intended no doubt, he aroused the enthusiasm of the gentlemen behind him. After the manner of an orthodox sermon, he divided his speech into three parts : first, that all could read, and therefore the inference was that all should understand thoroughly the meaning and the purport of this Bill, when only a few moments before that the Minister of Justice had said that he did not wish to give an explanation to this House because he had not his papers with him, and that he wanted an opportunity to get his papers and to collect his thoughts so that he might give us the meaning of the Bill. Now, that remark of the Minister of Finance, it appeared to me, came with a charming grace from that gentleman, when he stated no longer ago than yesterday that upon this question he had given his political conscience into the keeping of the Minister of Justice. His second head was that the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) had lost his exactness. Let me tell the Minister of Finance that in this legislation he has met with a more serious loss than the hon. member for North Toronto ; he has lost his political consistency. Then my hon. friend the Minister of Finance said : look at the election of the member for Edmonton, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). Will the Minister of the Interior rise in his place and say that he was elected as a cabinet minister because of the legislation that is proposed by the government with respect to the new provinces? No, Sir ; I have yet to learn that the Minister of the Interior has made any such statement as that. But the most extraordinary part of the discussion was a point made by the Minister of Justice that the proposed amendment tabled by the First Minister was not, under the rules of the House, before the committee, and would not be before the committee until it had been moved by the First Minister. What did we vote on? Was it upon clause 16 as originally introduced, or upon clause 16 as proposed to be amended by the First Minister ? What made it possible for the Minister of Finance to stand with his leader ? Was it clause 16 as originally introduced, or clause 16 as proposed to be amended by the First Minister ? Evidently there is a misapprehension with respect to this. Will the Minister of Finance to-night say that he voted on clause 16 as originally introduced ? Will any man behind the Minister of Justice stand in his place and say that he voted for clause 16 as originally introduced ? Why, what was the position of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) ? He left the government because of clause 16 as originally introduced. He came back because of the pledge and the promise of the First Minister that the amendment should go into the Bill when it came before the Committee of the Whole : and yet we were told by the Minister of Justice yesterday so as to harmonize himself with the Minister of Finance, that he was speaking on clause 16 as originally introduced, and that the Minister of Finance was speaking on clause 16 as proposed to be amended by the First Minister. If the Minister of Justice was speaking on clause 16 as originally introduced, then I say there was a misapprehension, to use no stronger language, towards the members sitting behind the First Minister and the other members of the government. What do the Liberal members from Ontario think on a- question of that kind ? Did they vote on the original Bill ? Did the members from the west vote on the original Bill as introduced by the First Minister, or upon the amendment ? And what brought back to the fold the hon. member for Brandon ? I do not wish to use harsh language, but to my way of thinking it is imposing on the credulity of the members of this House to say that the Minister of Justice was discussing clause 16 as originally introduced, which we never intended to discuss or vote upon. I rather concur in the view of my hon. friend from North Toronto that we should not be hard on the Minister of Justice, that we should give him time to collect his thoughts and his papers, and to give to this House a full and accurate statement as to the meaning of clause 16 as proposed to be amended by the First Minister- the difference between the Bill as first introduced and the Bill as it is now proposed to amend it. If the Minister of Justice gives his attention to that as a lawyer, and gives his best judgment and opinion to the members of this House, it will at all events do something towards shaking the confidence of the Liberal members from the province of Ontario and the west. If they follow the constitutional opinion of the Minister of Justice-and he is capable of giving it-I think they will feel that there is something more in this legislation than is suggested by the Minister of Finance and the member for Brandon. Consider for a moment the position of the member for Brandon. He said after he came back to the fold, after he had been satisfied by the assurances of the First Minister and the members of the government, including, of course, the Minister of Justice, that he was satisfied that there was com-

paratively nothing in this legislation and therefore he could vote for it. It also satisfied my hon. friend the Minister of Finance; because there was more than a mere rumour around the corridors of this House that the Minister of Finance was not altogether satisfied with the Bill when he returned, and those rumours did not cease until after the First Minister had brought down the proposed amendments, upon which I suppose it is intended to call upon us to vote when we come to clause 16. But we are practically at clause 16, because clause 2 of the Bill stands over for the express purpose of being considered with clause 16. That was the request of the Minister of Justice yesterday and also to-day, I believe. Therefore is it possible that the Minister of Justice has been discussing clause 16 as originally introduced, in face of the fact that the First Minister has promised that that shall not go to the consideration of the committee at all, but it shall be clause 16 as proposed to be amended ?
Or, put in another way Is it proposed to put off clause 2 and clause 16 until every other section of the Bill has been passed by this committee and then to force clause 16, as originally introduced, upon the House and into the Bill ? Is that the proposition of the First Minister or the Minister of Finance ? It is a singular thing that we have a statement of the Minister of Justice that he is giving his attention to clause 16 as originally introduced, while the Finance Minister, the First Minister and the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) have been giving their attention wholly to clause 16 as proposed to be amended by the First Minister. Now, so far as the law points are concerned, it is not necessary for us to discuss them here, because we can do that when the discussion on clauses 2 and 16 is proceeded with. I am not going into that point further than to say that the Minister of Justice has already stated on the floor of this House that that Bill, by his reading ihto it section 93 of the British North America Act would carry the section of the Act of 1875 relating to separate schools ; and therefore it was not 'absolutely necessary to give a dual system of education to the west to enact these proposed amendments of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Brandon said that the Act of 1875 gave a dual system. Does the Minister of Justice deny that, or the Minister of Finance, or the First Minister-does any of them deny it? The Minister of Justice is on record to the extent of saying that it was not necessary, in giving a dual system of schools, or a system of separate schools, to nut into the Bill these proposed amendments to section 16, but, for the sake of certainty, for the sake of having no difficulty, they are put in, although the other Is sufficient. 1 did not intend to speak at any length except with respect to the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). He Mr. STOCKTON.
attacked my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and asked what that gentleman bad voted on. Why, Mr. Chairman, he voted against the principle of taking authority away from the provinces, a principle which tlie Minister of Finance at one time favoured. But what was the Minister of Finance voting on when he voted on the second reading ? He was voting to follow his leader. .


William Stevens Fielding: In that respect I differed from a large number of gentlemen on the other side of the House.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Well, my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) supports his leader and. gives his political conscience into the keeping of the Minister of Justice. That is how he (Mr. Fielding) votes. I do not understand that he was voting on clause 16 as proposed to be amended by the First Minister, but that he was voting for his leader and to support the Minister of Justice. I have nothing more to say upon this point. When the legal question comes up, 1 expect to have something to say. - I think the Minister of Justice has taken the correct course in taking time to state to the House what this clause means. I am glad he has done it, for I do not want the members sitting behind the minister to be able to tell their constitutents, six months hence :	We did
not know it meant this ; we did not know the gun was loaded ; we thought it was an innocent toy, a mere pop-gun, something that would not injure anybody. We want them to know before they vote and before this becomes law that this may be an instrument that will put into the constitution controlling those western provinces something that these hon. gentlemen do not expect and something they would not have there if they thought it was going in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say just a word on the right of the House to know what the Bill means. According to Bourinot the principle of a Bill is usually debated on the second reading. The Commons have no rule oil thjs subject, but the practice of the House is always to discuss the principle of a Bill at this stage ; and a member on setting forth reasons why the Bill could not be discussed satisfactorily, may move_an amendment. Now, what are the principles of this Bill ? There is the financial principle-the question of what will it be fair to furnish as an income for the support of the new provinces. Then there is the land principle, on which we decide whether we will or will not give the new provinces the lands which some think properly belong to them. Then there is the educational principle, on which we decide whether the people of that country shall or shall not have the right to provide for and control their system of education. Every one of these principles should be considered by the House before it passes judgment upon the
*5837

principle of this Bill. But. when we ask the government, who are charged with the preparation of this Bill, what the Bill is actually proposed to be, we are told the nature of certain parts of the Bill. With regard to another portion' of the Bill, that amendments are to be made, these amendments may entirely change the educational principles of the Bill. The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) tells us that the proposed amendment will entirely change the principle of the Bill, and so, while he dissented upon the principle of clause 16 as originally proposed, he supported it because he is told that an amendment is to be proposed wuich entirely changes it. Then we find the hon. member for Eastern Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Peter Talbot), and others who have spoken upon this Bill, declared that it does not contain the principle of separate schools and therefore is satisfactory to their people and they will support it. They admit that if this Bill contained the principle of separate schools as the Manitoba School Act contained it, they would not support it. Now, it either contains that principle or it does not. In my judgment the only question before the House was t)ie question of clause 2 and clause 16, which did give separate schools as fully and comprehensively as the separate schools in Quebec or Ontario. On the strength of these clauses as first proposed, the people of the province of Quebec sent in 65 petitions in support of the Bill. Would they have sent those petitions if the Bill had not contained the principle of separate schools ? Did the hon. gentlemen who voted for the Bill, vote for the principle of separate schools as they exist in the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario, or did they not 1 The member for Colchester (Mr. Laurence) declares that they do not contain that principle, and so his people are satisfied, and he fails to find a single individual who was dissatisfied. And he declares that the voice of opposition to the Bill which is heard from the west is due to misapprehension of the real provisions of the Bill. But when the Bill was explained, how was it explained ?
It was explained in two ways, first by sending copies of the Bill to the people in that western country, who examined it as best they could on their own judgment, and they reached the conclusion that the Bill contained the elements of separate schools as they are found in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario ; and because they found that principle in it, they pronounced against it by sending in memorials, resolutions and petitions opposing it. If .they have been misled, who misled them ? Was it not the government ? If they have been misled, and that is not really the principle of the Bill, why do the government refuse to enlighten
them, to enlighten this House, in order that the country may be enlightened, by explaining what the provisions of the Bill will be when the new clauses are introduced which they intend to propose. Is that doing justice to the House and to the country ? The people of that western country desire and are entitled to be enlightened, but the Minister of Justice refuses to enlighten them and this House, and I say that the members of this House who voted for the second reading of that Bill voted on clause 16 and clause 2, which the minister declares were intended to give to the people of that western country separate schools in the very highest interpretation of that word, separate schools that might fairly be regarded as confessional schools, as church schools, such as they have in Quebec. He says that was his intention. He said that he desired to leave no misapprehension in the people's mind and not leave any loophole to crawl out of as they did in Manitoba, on account of the defect in the law there. He desired to do that, and that is the character of the Bill for which hon. members voted. Let me ask the member for South Grey (Mr. Miller), who says he is as much opposed . to separate schools as any member in this House, what he voted on when he voted for this Bill ? Let me ask, on behalf of the people, did he vote on the clauses now before the House or on the principle of the Bill before the House, for the Minister of Justice declares that the principle of that Bill is separate schools to the fullest extent ? Let me ask the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. T. Martin) what lie voted on, when he declared that he is opposed to the principle of separate schools ? He defended his vote, and declared he was in favour of the principle of this Bill and voted for the principle of this Bill, and let me ask the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) what he voted for when he voted on this Bill after his return from the west ? Was it on the Bill before the House " or not ? The proposed amendments were not before the House, and therefore he could not vote for what was not before the House. He declared they had in the west, not separate schools, but national public schools, and he was voting for national separate schools in the Bill, church schools, confessional schools, which the Minister of Justice declares he intends the Bill to provide. I ask are all these people in the west to be misled ? What about the member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) ? What did he vote on ? Did he vote in favour of the Bill as it is, or on some other question ? I would like to ask him what he voted on ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Ask him something
easy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Ask him something
easy ! Here is a letter regarding a petition that was sent to him from Markham, and the gentleman who sends it to me

with the request to hand it on to Mr. Campbell, says :
Fully one-half of the signers of this petition are Liberals. It has been thought here that it would be wise to send the petition to our member, Mr. Archibald Campbell, M.P., and they hope it may awaken his ideas and affect his action.
What did they send that petition for ? For the purpose of declaring that they were opposed to separate schools as contained in the principle of that Bill. They had the school clauses before them through the press, they read the school clauses, they brought their judgment to bear upon them, and they sent this petition for the purpose of awakening their member, whom they thought was asleep with regard to this matter, and one half the signers are his own supporters. Are they misled ? If they are misled, is it not high time they should be enlightened 7 For what was the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) voting ? Was he voting on the amendments that are to be proposed or was he voting on the Bill as it is before the House ? Certainly he was voting on the Bill as it is before the House, and the principle contained in that Bill with regard to education was the principle of separate schools up to the hilt. The Minister of Justice declares he intended it to be such, and it was such according to his interpretation of the law, and the member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) voted for that principle. He then writes back to his supporters and declares there is no principle of separate schools in the Bill and that they are misled. Is it not time that they were enlightened and that this House was enlightened ? I say that by every principle and parliamentary rule that ought to guide any deliberative assembly in the world, it is as clear as anything can he that it is the bound-en duty of the government to present to the House and to explain any proposed amend-[DOT]' rnent to a Bill that changes any one principle of that Bill before the House is allowed to commit itself to a different principle which is contained in the Bill. That is the duty of parliament and of the government, and if they do less than that they are doing less than their duty. The government are doing less than their duty to-day ; they are willing to allow their own followers to go it blind ; they are willing to mislead their own followers and the country, and then they blame the press of the country, because they say they have written inflammatory articles, they have sent in strong petitions, they have talked about what they did not know. Why did they write these articles ? Why did they send in these petitions and the strong representations against the principle of the Bill? Because they could only judge about what is before the country and the House, and it was on what is before the House that every hon. member voted, and in doing so he voted for separate Mr. SPROULE.
schools right up to the hilt, according to the Minister of Justice. What will the following of the government say, who have declared one after another that they are opposed to the principle of separate schools, when they return to their people and are asked : Why did you vote on a Bill giving-separate schools ? If these hon. gentlemen attempt to convince the electorate that they voted on something else that was not before the House, I am afraid that the electors will regard them as either very short sighted or as desiring only to mislead their own people and to do what is very much less than their duty in this House wheii they voted on the principle of that Bill, because they voted deliberately for the principle of separate schools. And the member for South Perth (Mr. McIntyre), who declared he was against it, voted for separate schools. How will he explain himself to the clerical gentlemen who sent in their representations to him ? What will he tell them was before the House ? I am afraid they will take up the Bill and read it, and say : That is what is before the House. There was an amendment moved declaring against the principle. The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. McIntyre) voted against that amendment. That was an amendment which declared against the principle of separate schools. Therefore, he voted for separate schools, as did every other hon. member following the government, as provided for in sections 2 and 16 of this Bill, and I am quite sure they can never convince the country that they did not vote for separate schools when they voted for the principle of the Bill as embodied in these two clauses.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I understood from my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that he preferred not to deal with clause 16 just now. I had invited him to do so for the purpose of having a certain explanation. I assented at once with the understanding to which, I understood my hon. friend gave his approval, that after he made the explanation which I asked for we might, if necessary, have a little delay for the purpose of considering it. We were about proceeding to the consideration of section 20 when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who seems to be conspiring with my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to obstruct this legislation, saw tit to make one of those pop-gun speeches, if I may so describe them, which he occasionally discharges immediately before six o'clock. Be referred to some notable events. He referred to the event of the election of the hon. member for Edmonton which was not contested.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Some hon. gentleman says ' hear, hear.' I have not heard that
If A V	i nnr
lion, gentleman say ' hear, hear >
to the circumstance that this government, a powerful government, as it describes itself, entrenched in power, had not the courage to put up a candidate in Centre Toronto, but al lowed that election to go by default. I would have thought that one of the notable events to which the Hon. Minister of Finance might very well have called attention. There is only one portion of the remarks of the hon. Minister of Justice with which I am not inclined to agree, and that is the suggestion that it would not have been proper for him to have made this explanation on the second reading of the Bill. I think the hon. Minister of Justice could not have had m mind what took place in the debate when he made that statement, because, beginning with the right hon. Prime Minister and including, I think, every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who spoke on the second reading, there was a prolonged discussion on clause 16 as amended compared with clause 16 as originally introduced. I thought I must be under a misapprehension for a moment and I looked up the speech delivered by my right hon. friend the First Minister in this House on the 22nd March, and I found, just exactly as I thought, at page 2924, that he began in this way :
Now, Sir, a word as to the changes which we have made in that clause.
And he goes on to discuss that. The greater part of the speech of the hon. exMinister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) was devoted to clause 16 as amended compared with clause 16 as originally drafted. The whole burthen of his speech was to show wliat in his estimation was the difference in effect between the original and amended clauses. Therefore, I cannot agree, with the view of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice in that regard ; but he did not see fit to make that explanation, and I for one am quite prepared to assent to his suggestion that clause 16 shall stand over for the present upon the condition to which I have already referred. The hon. gentleman has always been most courteous in assenting to any proposition of that kind from this side of the House, and I think it is due to him under the circumstances which he has mentioned to assent to what he has himself suggested in that regard. I would like, however, to say that it may not be convenient for me to be present to-morrow and therefore, if it will suit my hon. friend's convenience, I should be glad to have the consideration of that clause postponed until a later date.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I will speak on Monday afternoon. I had expected in the interval to be able to get through the other clauses of the Bill, but whether we get through the other clauses of the Bill or not, if it suits my hon. friend's convenience, I will speak on Monday afternoon.


Mr. LAKE.: I just wish to take this opportunity of saying that I am verv glad that the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir. Fitzpatrick) has given his definite promise, but I desire also to call his attention to some very positive statements that he made in his speech on the second reading of this Billr statements so inaccurate and so misleading that the true facts ought to be laid before-the House. They were statements made tor the jmrpose of proving that the Northwest Territories were satisfied with the restrictions upon their power to pass such legislation in regard to education as they saw fit. If these statements had been correct they would have added some weight to the hon. gentleman's argument. We find that the hon. gentleman's statement was as follows, I quote from ' Hansard ' page 5348 :
It has been suggested that the Territories wish to rid themselves of this incubus of separate schools, and we have been referred to a resolution that was passed by the Territorial Assembly in October, 1889, asking that a humble address be presented, praying that an Act be passed to repeal subsection 1 of section 14. True, such a resolution was passed in 1889, but let me draw attention to a resolution which was passed in 1890, the following year. In that year the following resolution was passed :
' Moved by Mr. Richardson, seconded by Mr. Brett, that whereas on the 29th October, 1889, this House passed the following resolution, viz: Resolved, that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, the Senate and the House of Commons praying that an Act be passed amending the Northwest Territory Act by repealing subsection 1 of section 14 after the word ' education ' in the second line.
And whereas such address was duly presented by way of memorial passed on the 6th November, 1889,
And whereas no action has been taken on the subject by the parliament of Canada ;
Therefore, be it resolved that this House reaffirm the vote as taken on the said 29th October, 1889, and respectfully request that the said memorial as above mentioned shall receive careful consideration by the parliament of Canada at its next session and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Secretary of State."
With time and consideration came wisdom. That resolution was put to the House and how did it result ? Six voted in favour of it, and 15 against it. And there this agitation with respect to the repeal of the provisions of the Act having reference to separate schools ended, and we have heard nothing of it since. And of course, the present Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Haultain, voted against the resolution and in favour of maintaining the present condition.
Of course, these words ' in favour ' cannot be interpreted literally, and I do not suppose the hon. Minister of Justice intended them to he so interpreted, hut in reference to the preceding sentences


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Lake) is pointing out inaccuracies. Was that resolution introduced ?


Richard Stuart Lake: The resolution was introduced and it is perfectly accurate.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Then where is the Inaccuracy V


Mr LAKE.: This is the gentleman, who, the Minister of Finance says, of course voted against the resolution and in favour of separate schools.
-it was resolved that a humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, praying him to communicate to the Governor General in 'Council the following memorial from the legislative assembly :
That this assembly did, at its last session, present a humble memorial to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, and to His Excellency's Minister of the Interior, making certain representations with regard to many matters of interest to the Territories, including, among others :	(1) representations with regard to the present form of local government in the Territories ; (2) the finances of the Territories ; (3) sections 14 and 110 of the existing Northwest Territories Act. That no action with reference to many of these matters had been taken by His Excellency's government. That the assembly humbly reiterates its repre-sentatibns then made; and that the legislative assembly humbly prays that action be taken thereon.
If the Minister of Justice, who must have been studying the journals of the legislative assembly, had taken the trouble to read just a few pages further on, he would have seen that there was uo warrant for his making the statement that Mr. Haultain had Mr. FITZPATRICK.
voted against the resolution and in favour of maintaining the present conditions.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Did he vote against the resolution ?


Richard Stuart Lake: He certainly voted against that first resolution. If the Minister of Justice thinks that that is the proper way to put facts before the House, then I am satisfied to leave it to his own conscience. For my part, I think, it would be more in keeping with the dignity of his position if he gave the whole of the facts and not merely a few of them. But there is another statement which the hon. minister made. He made two references to the feelings of the Northwest Territories in the matter of separate schools. The second statement is as follows ;
But that is not all ; we have something even more recent. We have heard quite recently about the extension of the Manitoba boundaries and the desirability of extending those boundaries has been dwelt upon. And in that connection we have heard references more forcible than polite to a gentleman who is supposed to have been in some way connected with the matter, notwithstanding his formal denial. But what has that to do with the school question in the Northwest Territories ? I shall be asked. Let me draw attention to the fact that as recently as 1901 a joint debate took place at Indian Head, in eastern Assiniboia, between Mr. Roblin and Mr. Haultain upon this very question of the Manitoba boundary. Mr. Roblin put forth the reason why the. people of that little place should declare themselves to be in favour of the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, at the' expense of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Haultain, on the other hand, arguing against the proposition and seeking to convince the people that it was to their interest to remain in the Northwest Territories, and that the boundaries of Manitoba should not extend westward. And what. Sir, were the reasons given by Mr. Haultain to induce them to resist the blandishments of Mr. Roblin and oppose the extension of the Manitoba boundary? The joint I debate is reported in the Regina ' Leader ' of I January 20th, 1902, and Mr. Haultain's argument | is summed up in these words : Good roads, railways, schools, water. Referring to the school | question he says : with the school system you are fairly well contented, so I need not dwell upon the subject.
That was the quotation made by the hon. the Minister of Justice. Again he stated only half the truth. Had he gone on even to finish Mr. Haultain's sentences, he would have found that an entirely different construction would have been placed upon what he said. Unfortunately I have not been able to get the Regina ' Leader ' in which the report of the original debate is given. The Minister of Justice says it was on the 20th of January, 1902. I looked up the Regina ' Leader' of that date and found that the report of the debate was not in it. The number of December, 1901. in which I believe the report was given, is missing from the library ; and although I have asked for it two or three times, I

have been unable to get it. I was present at that debate and was amazed to hear the construction which the Minister of Justice put upon the arguments, which were then used by Mr. Haultain. I have not been able to verify the quotation made by him from the Regina 1 Leader ' but a short time later I was able to get an official report of that debate ; and as I.believe the report was given quite as fully in the Regina ' Leader,' I think that this official report will show clearly what Mr. Haultain said at the time, and I imagine it will be very similar indeed to what appeared in the Regina ' Leader.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: Does the hon. gentleman say I misquoted the Regina * Leader ? '


Richard Stuart Lake: No, I do not, but presently, when I shall have read the actual statement, he will see wherein he gave a different construction to the arguments of Mr. Haultain than they actually bore.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I quoted the Regina ' Leader.'


Richard Stuart Lake: But the Regina ' Leader ' unfortunately cannot be produced.
Mir. FITZPATRICK). It will be produced all right.


Richard Stuart Lake: I am glad to hear it. I intend at any rate to read from this report printed in pamphlet form, which I think will have the result of laying the arguments used by Mr. Haultain with regard to the school system before this House as they really were used. Mr. Haultain had been arguing with regard to the public money to be used for public works, and he went on to say :
I can say the same with regard to the school 3ystem of the Territories. Mr. Roblin has already admitted that to some extent, and of course it is a matter which does not admit of any controversy, we have fortunately been able to give large grants to schools, and I hope we will be able to continue to give as large grants as possible. True, we are face to face with a reduction next year, but even next year the average rural school district in the Territories will be able to earn, roughly speaking, about twice as much as it could under the provincial system of Manitoba.
Mr. Roblin says regarding school grants, that they have not the power of drawing on the Dominion government for the purpose of paying large grants. Well, my experience of drawing on the Dominion government for money to pay school grants is not so flattering as we may have led you to imagine. We get a certain amount of money, the same as Manitoba itself, a large percentage of which-about 40 per cent -we devoted to giving our children an education, but we do not get that money as a favour, we are just as much entitled to a subsidy from Ottawa as Manitoba. The only difference is that Manitoba gets something in proportion to her rights as a province, while we do not get anything in proportion to our rights. Of course as time goes on, as settlements fill up. as more 185*
land is brought under taxation, as people are better able to help themselves, I have no hesitation in saying that our school grants will gradually be lowered. But that is not the point. At present they are larger than in Manitoba, and it will be a good many years before we get down to the same figures as in Manitoba. And these, after all, are the years which most concern us.
He does not mention the public schools again until a few sentences later on and then he says:
In eastern Assiniboia, what, after all, are today the main problems for you, as farmers, to consider-the things which you would expect to be changed by any change of system, and of course changed for the better ? Speaking generally, they can be grouped under these heads :
Good roads-and there is the minor question of transportation. You may have a railway, but you must have good roads to haul your products to the railway, and the streams must be bridged.
Railways.
School?.
And in certain portions of Assiniboia you want a good water supply.
Again he says :
With regard to roads, unless you formed into municipalities in Manitoba, you would get precious few roads built for you. Under our system you have a very much larger expenditure for that purpose besides not having to assume the burdensome machinery of the municipal system of Manitoba, as well as being liable to the provincial levy.
Now this is the sentence :
There is no question that you are fairly well contented with our school system.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Richard Stuart Lake: There is no question that you are fairly well contented with our school system, and if you are to change you will not change because you think you will get your school grants reduced.
I heard some hon. gentlemen say ' hear, hear.' I have read I think, almost every word that was said by Mr. Haultain in that speech in regard to schools, and the burden of the whole argument was with reference to the system of grants in aid of education. If the report in the ' Leader ' is the same as in this paper, the fact that only half that sentence was quoted puts an entirely different construction upon the whole of Mr. Haultain's argument. I do not propose to offer any comments other than to say that if the Minister of Justice was as inaccurate in all his statements as in these two I have brought to notice, that gentleman's speech will have very little weight in this House or in the country. The member for St. John (Mr. Stockton) pretty well demolished the legal argument of the Minister of Justice, and I think I have shown what reliance can be placed upon at least two of the statements which he made as statements of fact.

584$


Charles Fitzpatrick: Notwithstanding the emphasis that the gentleman (Mr. Lake) who has just sat down, has used in ills statements, I hardly think that much importance is to he attached to them. The statement 1 made in the House was that at a meeting held in Indian Head, Premier Haultain was reported by the Regina ' Leader ' to have said :
With the school system you are fairly well contented, so I need not dwell on the subject.
I have the Regina ' Leader ' here containing the report in question, and that report is accessible to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) had he taken the trouble to verify It. 'He did not take the trouble to do so, but was content to refer to a document that no one else had access to. Now. with regard to the resolution passed by the Territorial Assembly. I quoted the resolution, I said that Mr. Haultain voted against it and 1 gave the evidence in support of it. Where is the inaccuracy ? As to the hon. gentleman's imputation with regard to me I must he terribly humiliated at the thought that he should think so little of me ; I accept that expression of opinion on bis part with all due humility and I think that possibly I may survive it.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would like to hear the full report of the debate which the Minister of Justice quoted, because I wish to put myself right. I endeavoured to find, and I have asked three times now for the Regina 'Leader ' of December, 1901, which I believe contained a full report of this debate. However, what I wished to call the attention of the House to was-and I think it will be borne out by the Regina ' Leader ' if it reported the debate in full-that Mr. Haultain was referring to the system of grants, and that it was misleading the House to simply quote that sentence without showing the connection in which it was used. With reference to the statements which I called attention to with regard to the resolutions in the legislative assembly, I say that to quote one resolution and to omit to quote another which followed very shortly afterwards is also distinctly misleading.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Let us first deal with the ' Leader.' The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) says he could not find the ' Leader ' ; I called a page boy and sent him to the library and within five minutes I bad it here on my desk. Number one. Now, let us deal with this question of tile report. I have the 1 Leader ' here published at Regina, Thursday morning, January 2nd, 1902. The heading is :
The proposition outlined by Premier Haultain at the Indian Head meeting for provincial establishment. Continuation of Mr. Haultain's reply to the ease for annexation as set out by Premier Roblih, of Manitoba. Except as re-* gards railways, the Territorial position even now is preferable. Public lands and compensation.


Richard Stuart Lake: Then it goes on to give Mr. Haultain's-speech and the heading is :
Good roads, railways, schools, and water.
The report goes on to say :
In Manitoba unless you like to form a municipality you will get very few roads given to you, while with our system you will get them without the burdensome and expensive system of municipalities and the liability of the provincial levy.
Next :
With the school system you are fairly well contented, so I need not dwell on the subject.
Next :
As to the water supply, you all know what our Public Works Department is doing, so now I come to railways.
In what respect does the context vary the words I have quoted ?
'Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: We are face to face with rather a unique situation on the present occasion. We have been debating tliis question now for six or eight weeks, and we have yet failed to draw from the author of these clauses, what their meaning is. This is one of the advantages of being a lawyer and a Minister of Justice ; you can put in phraseology that the ordinary lay mind cannot comprehend, and you can be face to face with that for several weeks and then have the Minister of Justice whose duty it is to interpret to this House and to this country tlie meaning of legislation, refusing to give information until the rest of the Bill is through. In-other words, he has pocketed the votes of all the gentlemen behind him as well as a number on this side of the House, ou a resolution that is not comprehended and he positively refuses up to date to tell us the meaning of it. I contend that this is not right. If the author of that legislation does not know the meaning of it who does ? If the author of the legislation does know the meaning of it, it is his duty to explain it so that we may be not further misled. I bad tlie pleasure of hearing the Minister of Finance for a few moments this afternoon and he -told us that several events have happened recently, the principle of which was the return of the Minister of the Interior unopposed. The Minister of Finance might also have pointed to Centre Toronto. That is a good deal nearer Ottawa than Edmonton, and we had more time to get to Centre Toronto than to Edmonton. The government did not put up a candidate in Centre Toronto although there was not 500 Conservative majority in that riding as a rule, whereas the Minister of the Interior bad a solid 2,000 majority or more at his back. Further, they had the opportunity of being up there and of putting up a campaign that could not have been overcome in the time at tlie disposal of us on this side. If

the Minister of Finance is resting liis case niton this magnificent victory in the west, lie is putting his faith in a false policy. I would advise him to look to the two constituencies now vacant ; let him take a glance at 'London and North Oxford. I will be pleased to hear that the Minister of Finance has visited either of these constituencies and delivered the same speech he had the hardihood to make in this House. The Minister of Finance in 4S9G, made a speech on this question that has been read to him in this House ; a speech in complete contradiction of the position he has assumed to-day.
He has swallowed that down. He has said : the King's government must go on, and we must have a solid phalanx at our backs regardless of the legislation we put through. Is that auy argument ? Will the Minister of Finance find that argument go down when he comes to face the electorate of Ontario on this question I think not.
I think he will find that he has gone back on his principles a little too much this time, and that he will get a very cool reception in western Ontario to-day. I have the honour of belonging to a district in which there are two by-elections in sight, and I trust the Minister of Finance will come there and deliver the speech which lie delivered in 189(1 and the speech which he delivered just now, and let the people compare them and judge how he has stood by the rights of the majority of the people of this country. We hear a great deal about the rights of the minority. Have the majority no rights V Have those rights been maintained or have they been bartered ? I maintain that the Minister of Finance and the others who have made speeches of that character have deliberately gone back on the rights of the majority in this country. It is due to them and to this House that the Minister of Justice should give us a fair interpretation of the language contained in these two clauses. We are entitled to it. He said to the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) : What did you vote for, or why did you vote for it if you did not understand it ? The only safe thing for a man to do is to vote against a thing he. does not understand-not to give his vote and find out afterwards what he voted for. That is the position of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. They have given their votes on a question on which I venture to say not one in ten, though it has been debated for six weeks, will dare to raise up and explain the difference between the amended clause and the original clause. If any of them will [DOT]do that, I shall be glad to give way to them ; for it is light that I want on this question. If they cannot do that, what did they vote on or why did they vote ? They voted to place on these new provinces a shackle and a yoke which they do not at this moment comprehend the meaning of. Is that the kind of legislation with which the new provinces
are to be started out on the race of life ? Is that the attitude of this government ? It is time that this country understood exactly the position of these hon. gentlemen. They say the King's government must go on. Let us enjoy the great prosperity of the country, says the Minister of Finance ; we cannot enjoy it while we are debating this. And jet, while the Minister of Finance was making that statement, he had in his ears the wails of the cement men, the binder twine men and the woollen men, all of whom had been down here within two or three weeks telling him that these industries were in danger. Instead of giving his mind to the interpretation of these clauses, he says we should allow the King's government to go on, even if It were costing us a few more dollars and we sacrificed principles that we hold most dear. I contend that is unworthy. I submit that it is the duty of the Minister of Justice, as the chief exponent of law in this country to enlighten this House on these two clauses, and to do it forthwith. He cannot do it too soon. He has counted the votes of members of this House on resolutions which they do not comprehend, and which he fails to explain. I say, and I believe it to be true, that when this government appeals to western Ontario, they will get an eye-opener; I believe they will find that though we are not great in numbers on this side of the House, we have a good many of the people of this country at our back. The Minister of Finance lays great unction to his soul that tbe united following of the government is at his back. That is just where the weakness of his case lies. I have a better opinion of this side of the House than of the other; but I do not believe that all the conscience belongs to this side. If the members on the other side had voted with the same conscientious desire to do their duty as the members ou this side of the House have done, not thirteen, but three times thirteen of them, would have voted against the government on this question. Though they join hand in hand-you know the rest, Mr. Chairman; and I tell you that hon. gentlemen opposite will not go unpunished. Their unity on this question will not save them. It has simply aggravated the situation. It informs the people of this country that there are a large number of men in the House of Commons who are prepared to swallow their convictions for the sake of party. The Minister of Finance need not point his fine finger of scorn at the thirteen gentlemen who at the call of their consciences and with the consent of their leader crossed the House, wrenched their party feeling, and voted with the government on this occasion. Where were the consciences of a large majority of the men on the other side ? Did their consciences not appeal to them and tell them that they were sacrificing what they knew to be in the best interests of this country and of the new provinces which we are to-day creating ?


Mr. E. L. BORDEN.: I think the Minister of Justice has not been fully seized of the facts with regard to the Regina 'Leader,' after all. I just now *ent into the reading joom twice for the first part of the report of the debate to which he has referred, and I twice got the answer that the volume cannot be found. I have compared that portion of the debate contained in the 'Leader' of the 2nd of January, 1902, which the Minister of Justice has produced, and I find that it begins at a portion of the speech which follows that quoted by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle. Therefore my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle in stating that there was a context which would explain the references of Mr. Haultain to this system, was absolutely right. The Minister of Justice, it seems to me, should not have made the contradiction which he did unless he had examined the previous portion of the speech, which is not contained in this issue at all. It begins in this way : 1 Continued from last issue,' and then proceeds almost at the very words which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice quoted.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Was my quotation accurate or not ? That is the question.


Robert Laird Borden: The quotation of the Minister of Justice was accurate this far. that he read exactly what appears in this issue of the paper, but it was not accurate in this respect, that he did not refer to the context which was referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Lake), and which does not appear in this paper at all, but which did appear in a previous issue.
MU'. FITZPATRICK, I will take the trouble to verify that also. I am dealing with a report in the Regina * Leader ' which was never corrected.


Mr.   I@: BORDEN, pamphlet which seems with authority.
Mr. FITZPATRICK, and corrected.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, revised.
Mr. FITZPATRICK, the original.
Mi-. R. L. BORDEN, speeches in this House :
I am dealing with a to have been issued
Probably revised
It may have been
I am quoting from
We all revise our Jr instance.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The fact is that I purported to quote something from the Regina 'Leader,' and the question is, did I quote that correctly or incorrectly ?


Robert Laird Borden: Perfectly correctly, so far as reading the actual words contained in the second part of the speech is concerned. But the first part of the speech we cannot find because we cannot find the issue of the paper in which it is given.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It can be found.


William Foster Cockshutt: 


Robert Laird Borden: Then my hon. friend is more fortunate than I. because my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) has tried to find it many times, and I myself have endeavoured to secure it, but we cannot get it. I am assuming that the first part of the speech, as reported in the Regina [DOT] Leader '-I am making that assumption because I cannot find the paper-is along the same lines as the report contained in this pamphlet.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Is my hon. friend in the position to say whether or not the words I quoted from the Regina * Leader ' are to be found in that pamphlet ?


Robert Laird Borden: I believe they are very much the same, and I will pass over the pamphlet, if my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle has no objection. On page 18, the Minister of Justice will find that it gives, if not the same words, fairly well the substance, although I have not examined it with great care. Perhaps the gentleman who is assisting my hon. friend will be able to tell him by what authority this pamphiet was issued and as to whether or not it is likely to be accurate.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It was issued by the Northwest government.


Andrew B. Ingram: When I was interrupted a moment ago, I said that I had but few words to add ; but since the speech made by the Minister of Finance, I have concluded to offer some further remarks, especially in reply to those made by him concerning the election recently held in Edmonton. For some weeks past this House has resounded time and again with challenges to the government to open constituencies in order to test public feeling in the country. Hon. members on this side have been free in making these challenges, and the government could not muster up sufficient courage to accept them. But at last, after due consideration, I presume, they thought it probably wise to appoint a Minister of the Interior. Rumour had it that the constituency of West Assiniboia was to have been opened for the purpose of testing public opinion ; but for some reason or other unknown to members of the opposition, the government saw fit to change their opinions at the eleventh hour and decided to open up the constituency of Edmonton instead. What I want to draw the attention of the people of this country to is this fact, that the Conservative party were asked to enter into a contest in a district which, as nearly as I can figure it out, comprises an area of 426 miles by 210 miles. Here is a constituency of this area, away from railway communication to a large extent ; and the government, in order to defeat the Conservative party of this country, swore in the Minister of the Interior, the member for Edmonton, on Saturday April 15 and declared nomination day the 25th, so that ten days after

the swearing in of the new minister the Conservative party was called upon to contest his election in that district. Next what do we find ? The statement was made in this House by the Minister of Justice last night, in reply to a question from this side with respect to voters lists in the Territories, that the Territories did not issue any printed voters' lists. Will he make that statement again ? I pause for a reply. He will not answer because he cannot deny that the statement he made last night was not a correct one.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Will the hou. gentleman quote from ' Hansard ' what I did say ?


Andrew B. Ingram: He said that the laws of the Territories did not provide for printed lists.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Will he be good enough to quote from ' Hansard ' and point out to me where I am wrong ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I want to say to the hon. minister that there has been a voters' list printed for the Northwest Territories, to be used in the contest recently held in the district of Edmonton, and I charge the government with having withheld those voters' lists from the Conservative party. By whose order were these lists printed and by whose order were they withheld from the Conservatives ? I ask the Minister of the Interior now :	were there any voters' lists sent to
the Conservative party either in this House or the country ? No, Sir, they cannot point to a single individual of the Conservative party who was given these lists. Is it not remarkable that here we have a government with 82 enumerators, paid at the rate of $8 a day, whose duty it is to make voters' lists for the Territories, and yet they had not sufficient time to prepare them, and consequently the government Printing Bureau was called in to print those lists. The enumerators were taking part in this contest in the district of Edmonton and were too busy to do their duty in preparing these lists. I call upon the hon. gentleman who contested that seat recently to say whether or not any Conservative candidate, or other persons representing the Conservative party in Edmonton, were furnished with ,any voters' lists.


Mr. SCOTT.: There was no candidate.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman must remember that, according to the usual courtesy extended to defeated candidates in every other part of the Dominion, they are provided with voters' lists. Why should an exception have been made with respect to the defeated candidate in that district 1


Thomas Walter Scott: Does the hon. member allege that there were printed voters' lists 1


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, and I can produce them if necessary. I hold them in my
hand. Yet the Minister of Justice says that the law in the Territories did not require or demand these lists. I would like to know whether the Minister of Justice, or the Secretary of State or the Finance Minister, will tell us by whose orders these lists were printed at the Government Printing Bureau ; and I want to point out to these gentlemen that before this session closes we will insist on having ail answer to that question. Again we had 82 deputy returning officers in this contest who were all ready to take part in that election. The government did not wait to see whether there was a candidate in the field or not, because the law requires that they should be appointed to do their duty irrespective of that fact. There were also 82 constables and 82 polling clerks, all taking an active interest in that election, yet the Conservative party are told that they had not the courage to go up in ten days into this district, comprising 426 miles by 210 miles, to contest this cut and dried election, in which the lists were withheld from them. In fact the hands of the Conservative party were tied behind their back, whereas in every direction Liberals were working in order to avail themselves of this undue advantage over the Conservative party, and thus endeavour to show that public opinion in the Territories was being put to the test in connection with the school question, and the Conservative party had not the moral courage to take any part in the contest.
Now, I must refer to the complexion of this constituency. It is only a due acknowledgment of my hon. friend from Western As-siniboia (Mr. Scott) to say that had he been appointed Minister of the Interior and his constituency thus open, a reasonable defence could not have been offered by the Conservative party had they failed to go into that constituency and test public opinion on this question. 'But, as I have said, the hon. member for Western Assiniboia, was cast aside at the eleventh hour and the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was chosen. He was chosen because of ihe complexion of his constituency, its size, the insufficiency of railway communication and other conditions favourable to the hon. gentleman and to the existing government in the contest. I said I would speak of the complexion of this constituency. And I do this because the fact that this constituency elected the new Minister of the Interior is brought forward as a proof that the people of the Northwest are satisfied with this legislation. The following are the facts concerning the constituency of Edmonton by the census of 1901 :
The sum totals of the nationalities specified in this as here given equals 20,487. The total of population equals 20,751. The difference, 264, is scattered among nationalities not specified in this. The sum totals of the religions specified in this equals 19,912. The total population equals 30,751. The difference, 839, is scattered among religions not specified in this.

The percentages are to the nearest full per cent.


POPULATION BY NATIONALITIES.
[Stage Direction]
Tile English, Irish and Scotch combined equal 25 per cent of the whole.
Russians, Austro-Hungarians, and half-breeds combined equal 51 per cent of the whole.
The Russian population is four-fifths of the English, Irish and Scotch combined.
The Russian and Austro-Hungarians very nearly equal the English, Irish and Scotch combined.

[Stage Direction]
The Roman Catholics exceed all Protestants combined.
The Roman Catholics and Greek Church exceed by 55 per cent all Protestants combined.
Since the Census the influx of settlers other than those of English, Irish and Scotch descent has been probably, five times ;is great as those of such English, Irish and Scotch descent.
If these people were to give their votes they would vote as we would expect people of similar religious complexion to vote in other constituencies of Canada. But I question very much- and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) himself is my authority-whether some of these men weighed very carefully In their own minds the legislation that is "passed in this House and because of which the election arose. Now, I have given myself a very important and a serious task, a greater difficulty than I have ever had of reading a public record in this House. I have obtained a printed voters' list for polling district No. 70 Shandro, in the electoral district of Edmonton. There are 109 names on the voters' list in that district. And the hon. member for Edmonton before he was made Minister of the Interior, secured 82 votes out of the 109. His opponent secured 5 votes. So out of 87 cast the Minister of the Interior obtained 82 against 5. Rut that is only a sample of some of the divisions I find iu these voters' lists. Now, I am obliged to make the confession before I read this document. I confess that I am unable to read these names, and, unless the House will permit me to put them on ' Hansard ' without reading I shall be obliged to spell them. For, as I have said, it is utterly impossible for me to read them. And I will go further and say that I challenge any hon. gentleman including the Minister of the Interior himself to read these names correctly.
Kost Homonink, Iwan Andrijchuk, Metro So-lowan. Jacko Repchuk, Mak-eta Solowan, Wasel Hawreliok, Andrew Hawreliok.
It seems to me there are a great many 4 O K's ' for the minister here.
Mr. GUNN.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) if these are the Minister of the Interior's officials.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Andrew B. Ingram: These are the intelligent constituents of the Minister of the Interior in polling division No. 70 who gave 82 votes against 5 in the last general election.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is this the constituency that decided the school question ?
Mr. INGRAM, (reading) :
George Pasichnek, Wasel Harateshen, Ne-kefir Gawredink, Jokino Ongurian, Stefan On-gurian, Wasel Ongurian, Wasel Pasichnek, Ted Iwanehuk, Suken Frishtej, Kosten Demko, Stefan Rosijchuk, Wasel Rosijehuk.
If the rules allowed me, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to have these names appear in * Hansard ' without my reading them, but I understand the rule does not allow it without general consent. 1 desire to place all these names on 1 Hansard.' I think it is of the highest importance that the people of this country should know who comprise the electors in the district of Edmonton.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who settled the school question ?


Andrew B. Ingram: For whom we hear so much credit claimed.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) just now remarked that these were the electors who were going to settle the school question.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Who had settled it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A few days ago, while speaking on this very Bill, I called attention to the fact that the member for East Grey told us that probably 75 per cent of these were opposed to any form of separate schools, and lie invited the opening of a constituency in the west, and I think- it was the same afternoon in which the leader of the opposition recommended


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. gentleman is interrupting me, and has anything to say


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to say the hon. member for East Grey


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite in order. The hon. member for East Grey was only referring to what members supporting the government say, that the election in that constituency settled the school question, and therefore it must have been settled by these people.


Andrew B. Ingram: I shall proceed with the list:
Danelo Rosijchulc, Iwan Tinrijchulc, Tofan Iwoniak, Mojsy Iwanchuk, Amtin Russ, Metro Megly, Stefan Shauitro, Nikon Shandro, Sidor Shandro, Andrew Flara, Iwan Iwoniok, Petero Kostriuk, Metro Farus, Jokiw' Matijchug, Tho-dor Losorink, Iwan Lastowka, Stefan Kucher, George Ostashek, Iwan Saschuk, Polit Kutash, Wasel Harman, Simion Hawdeliak, Iwan Boc-hur, Wasel Hueuliak, Simion Huchuliak, Somdo : Gardey, Iwan Klein, Dimtro Bebej, Nihay Balan,

Thonosij Andrink, Wasel Ambroz, Thoder Paw- ! link, Wasel Damelink, Thomoah Skintez, George Mortemink, Stelan Gozuwitij, Iwan Kapiekej, Pawlo Rajchuk, George Raska, Olexo Melnechuk, Xekolay Majsej, Thodor Thanasijchik, Metro Solowan, Kost Kolodij, Iwan Danereliok, Wasel Chornohos, George Nelcolgehik, Mattaj Shert-tenko, Thoder Biller, Michoybo Abuk, Metro Semaka, Halkordj Kryschariko, Matty Zacha-rink, Iwan Chomohuz, Wasel Mazlej, Metro Pijtur, Iwan Potvanink, Petro Kuchurior, Kost Kolodij, Wasel Koliabka, Wasel Gorda, Weko-laj Bodniekej, Gregory Knucker, Sawehink "Wasel, Oufry Iwanchuk, Simon Ookowski, Nic-kola Tashchuck, Stephen Soutchuck, Iwan Sshewko, Gregory Haeholiak, George Budenack, Simon Fadagoc, Nickola Bedeinack, Matro Fed-neckj, Alexis Slafuclt, Lowan Wewhat, John Gairis, Amable Paredis, Metro Powlouek, Daniel Desjarlais, Thorden Gaehmiek, Wm. Buchanan, Iwan Lacousta, Iwan Sourdonek, Nie-kola Andreich, Nephreg Gorday, Andrew Shan-dro.
There are 109 in all.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Read them all.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have no objection, with the consent of the House, in handing in division No. 4S, which gave the Minister of tile Interior 134 and bis opponent nothing.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: Now, these good electors whom I have named-and I understand that I have the consent of the House to allow division No. 48 to go on ' Hansard' in order to save time.


Mr. PATERSON.: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Minister of Customs refuses to allow me to do this in order to save the time of the House, and therefore I shall be obliged to read the list for division No. 48, which contains 103 names. That is less than last time. I think I have shown sufficient.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Go on.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, there is a limit. I know that these are all good respectable electors, but coming from the section of the country that I do, and not being accustomed to this class of names I must confess the difficulty I have in pronouncing them. Therefore, I am obliged to spell them. But, I do know that the electors in my district, and 1 have no doubt the electors in other parts of Canada, will find a great deal of difficulty in pronouncing these names when they read them. 1 know they will naturally inquire who these men are. where they came from, what nationality they belong to, and of course they will naturally be looking up the speeches delivered in this House amt they will read someting like this when they are reading these speeches. There is an hon. gentleman representing Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) who made some remarks a few years ago, but he did not anticipate then being called upon to accept the position of Minister of the Interior and he was a little.
reckless in the statements which he made in those days. No doubt he will be more careful in the future. I will place these statements on record, because he is responsible for them and not I, so that my hon. friend and his friends, when they go hack to Edmonton, will not say that the Conservative members of the House of Commons placed these names in ' Hansard ' in order that the people of this country might be called in to judge whether they were qualified sufficiently as citizens to pronounce on this great question that is disturbing this country at the present moment. The hon. gentleman said :
I am not in a position to speak of the Douk-hobors from an intimate personal knowledge, as none of them are resident in the constituency I represent

So, the Doukhobors are exonerated, if they have pronounced a bad judgment on this question.
-but on the Galician question I claim to be an authority, because I believe that fully half of the whole Galician population of Manitoba and the Northwest is located in the district I represent. I understand that there are some 12,000 or 14,000 in one colony. Already one local electoral district is in all probability in the hands of the Galician vote, if these people are qualified to vote.
If these people are qualified to vote.
I am here to say to-night that I believe the present conditions of the country would be better, our prosperity would be greater, we would have a still larger number of good settlers, if we did not have that class of immigration at all.
Again he says :
Another idea that is conveyed is that all foreign peoples are the same, that because the German people are foreigners and because they are desirable settlers, therefore the Galicians being foreigners and the Doukhobors being foreigners, are also desirable settlers. Do my hon. friends know that they could not insult a German and Scandinavian as much in any other way as to compare him with a Doukhobor or a Galician? The pride of race is as strong in these people as it is in us, and they object, and object very strongly, to being placed in the same category as a Slavic people, a people who less than two generations ago were serfs of the soil, and who unfortunately have not had the opportunities, even if they had the capability, to rise very high above that position to-day. Make no mistake, there is no comparison between the German who comes from Galicia and a Galician who comes from Galicia, and no man will resent such a comparison more than the German himself. But the Galician or the Doukhobor who have been reared under circumstances, wffiich did not permit them to know what free government is, -who know' nothing of government except that government is a tyranny, these people, let them be ever so good, cannot be citizens as we would wish them to be citizens, or as our Scandinavian and German fellow citizens are.
I could go ou and quote more but I do not wish to take up the time of the House

because these statements have been quoted before. They were quoted the other evening in the House and no lion, member will dispute the authority of the statement I am making. Had the hon. .Minister of Finance the idea in his mind when he spoke this afternoon that these people were not, as his own colleague had stated, fit or proper or capable persons to even vote in his country, because, if the statement of the hon. Minister of the Interior means anything at all, it means that they were not qualified to vote because they had been serfs and because they have been educated to look upon all government as tyranny ? Therefore, does the hon. Minister of Finance pretend to say that this is giving us a proper test of the feeling of this country in regard to legislation of the importance of that which is now before the House ? If that is the view or the idea of the government as to a proper test of public opinion upon any important issue or question. Then I say, God help the people. We have and we will have in all probability two constituencies in whieh public opinion may be tested. We have North Oxford and no doubt we will have the city of London. Both of these constituencies are intelligent constituencies. Both of these constituencies are looked upon to-day as Liberal constituencies. In view of the prestige that a minister of the Crown must naturally have in a by-election and during the first session of a new parliament is it not fair to assume that if the constituency of the city of London is opened, and if the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) is called upon to submit himself in a by-election there in order that he may become the Minister of Public Works, then, if you want to test public opinion on this issue, there is an opportunity for this government to test public opinion. If the government do test it in the city of London on this issue and this issue alone then, I think, the opposition in this parliament and the Conservative party who differ from the government on this important legislation will not be in a position to say that public opinion has not been tested in London, an intelligent and suitable constituency in which to test public opinion. The government have taken an undue and unfair advantage of the Conservative party and the people of this country, outside of one thing alone, there 'was nothing to tell the people that legislation of the character which is contained within the four corners of these Bills which have been introduced would be brought down. I say outside of oue allusion and that was when the right hon. Prime Minister, previous to the 3rd November, stated that in all probability legislation would be asked for the purpose of creating a new province or provinces In the Northwest Terrritories. But, where the unfair part of the whole matter came in was that they did not give to the people any idea as to the serious character Mr. INGRAM.
of the legislation that they have embodied, in this Bill. If they had desired to be honest with the people I say they would' have stated to them what they intended, or they would have given some indication of what they intended in connection with this question. They are not so-brave when it conies down to the question of prohibition. For years the greater proportion of the temperance people were to be found in the ranks of the Liberal party and when this government, whose friends have been advocating temperance for years and years, were asked to pass prohibitory legislation, what did they do ?
Did they show the same courage they have shown in this case ? Not at all. They asked for a plebiscite and after putting the people of the country to hundreds of thousands of dollars of expense, and after the majority of the people of Canada pronounced in favour of prohibition, this government had not the courage to propose legislation in conformity with the will of the majority of the people. These are instances in which the government took an unfair advantage of the people of Canada. I might go on until past midnight showing the shortcomings of this government, but not a single one of their misdeeds exhibits a greater disrespect for the public feeling of Canada than their tactics with respect to this Bill. I have no doubt that section 10 in its original form would have passed this House, had it not been for the uproar in the country whieh caused the government to stagger and to propose an amendment. The Minister of Justice told us to-day that we all ought be capable of understanding what legislation proposed to this House means. We had the Minister of Agriculture, and we had the member from York (Mr. Campbell) and a few others who are not lawyers, bravte enough |to itell their constituents what this legislation meant, immediately that it was introduced. And yet, Sir, the most competent of them all to tell what the meaning of a legal clause is, the Minister of Justice himself declines to give an explanation of a clause which those gentlemen so glibly explained all about, and said it was so easy to understand. I do not pretend to say what clause 16 or clause 2 of this Bill means. I recognize that it requires a legal mind and a legal training to understand fully what these two sections propose to enact. This House is composed of business men, of lawyers, of men engaged in agriculture and of men representing various businesses and professions, and by an interchange of ideas we are able to legislate intelligently on different questions. The Minister of Justice and the legal members tell us what the meaning of the law is, and other gentlemen apply their business training to business propositions. Our constituents do not expect a layman to give a legal opinion,

and when I find that the legal minds in the government do not know what these sections mean is it any wonder that I as a layman entertain grave doubts what these sections mean. Am I not justified in demanding an explanation from the Minister of Justice after sitting here for weeks and weeks hearing this Bill discussed ? We are not to suppose that the Department of Justice is so careless and so indifferent, that after it has framed this legislation it does not know what the meaning of ft is. I say that the member who writes to his constituents telling them in glib fashion what this legislation means, (when the Minister of Justice is not able or ready to tell), is not capable of representing an intelligent constituency. So far as I- am personally concerned I want to say that whatever powers we have in creating new provinces are set out in the British North America Act, and as a member of this House representing a most intelligent constituency I am ready to say that I shall support any legislation creating these new provinces which gives them whatever rights they are entitled to under the British North America Act. I will support such a proposition as that, but I will not support a proposition the meaning of which the government and the Minister of Justice will not explain, and which they will not say does not go beyond the powers which the British North America Act gives us. X am prepared to defend this stand of mine in this House or before my constituents or anywhere else. When the division on the second reading of this Bill was being taken, it brought back to my mind that in 1896 I sat here with many of my friends supporting a government and supporting remedial legislation in favour of the minority in Manitoba, whose rights I believed had been taken away from them. And after the election was over and the smoke of the battle had cleared. I found myself not on the government side of the House but on the opposition side, and where were my comrades of the previous session. They had gone down in battle defending the rights of the minority in Manitoba, and this Liberal government came into power. And to-day X can look over at the government benches, and I wonder to myself whether the same misfortune will not overtake a number of these gentlemen opposite, who in the division of tue second reading stood up to vote that disabilities should be imposed on the people of the new provinces which the British North America Act does not warrant. I wonder, if some of these gentlemen opposite representing constituencies with which I am acquainted, will come back to this House again. I think not. I believe that some of these gentlemen who were so brave members who,-some of them with promises of positions in their pockets, some of them perhaps only anxious to keep their party in power,-stood up to vote for this provision with regard to education which they did not understand, and which the Minister of Justice wTill not explain even at this late date.
I say, in conclusion, that whatever the result may be, I for one will be perfectly satisfied with my own conduct on this question. I have not said anything offensive to the minority, and I want to say that I represent a strong Protestant constituency now, as I did before, and I could have made much political capital if I chose to do it. I could have been elected practically by acclamation in 1896 if I had pursued a different course from what I did ; but I believed it was my duty to pursue that course, and if the same question came up again I would take the same course that I took then. But this question stands in a different light. We are creating a territory into new provinces, and I for one will support the British North America Act in whatever rights those provinces should have. I will wait for the opinion of the Department of Justice before I do as some bon. gentlemen opposite have done

write to my constituents and tell them thus and so is the opinion of the Department of Justice with respect to the rights of the minorities in the new provinces created during the session of 1905.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I know how exceedingly anxious my hon. friend is to expedite the consideration of the different clauses of this Bill, and he will therefore pardon me if I intrude on the attention of the committee even for a few moments. But I know also that my hon. friend is exceedingly careful of his reputation as an accurate debater and as one who makes statements which he can always substantiate. I wish to give him the opportunity of maintaining that reputation by asking him whether or not he attributed to me the statement that there were no lists in the Northwest Territories for a federal election ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I would be sorry to put the Minister of Justice in a false light.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Is that what my hon. friend said this evening That is the question.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last evening I asked if the Minister of Justice said that the Franchise Act did not provide for any lists in the Northwest Territories, and I understood him to say that it did not, and on the strength of that I made my statement. If the hon. gentleman will say that the statement I made is wrong, I am ready to withdraw it and apologize to my hon. friend if I made a mistake.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is not a question between the hon. gentleman's word and mine. I want to know what he said tonight, and what be said he was prepared to prove. I understood him to say that I had stated last night that there were no lists for
5S63

the federal elections in the Northwest Territories, and I understood him to say that he was prepared to prove that.


Andrew B. Ingram: No printed lists.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: I say that now. I say the hon. gentleman said there were no printed lists.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Whete is the proof of that ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I thought I had the proof.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I wish to make an explanation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I object. I have the floor.


Charles Marcil: The Minister of Justice has the floor.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I might help the hon. gentleman by referring to column ">987 of * Hansard.'


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Will the hon. minister permit me ? I do not think the Minister of Justice knew whether that list was printed at all or not. I do not think anybody knew, except, possibly, the bon. gentleman who ordered the list to be printed. It was discovered in this way. On the 6th of February I asked for a return of all voters' lists of the Northwest Territories, and the return came down on the 17th of April. On looking over those lists, I found that only one was printed, and I went to the King's Printer and asked him if I might have one of the printed Edmonton lists. That gentleman treated me in a very courteous way, but said he could not give me the list without getting the permission of some officer of the government. But the list was evidently printed in the Government Bureau, and I do not think the Minister of Justice knew that it was printed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What has that to do with tile matter ? The hon. member for East Elgin is able to take care of himself.


Andrew B. Ingram: Let me say why I understood that the Minister of Justice knew that there were lists.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No ; I am trying to verify what the hon. gentleman said. I do not know what he said, but I thiuk it was that I had stated last night that there were no printed lists in the Northwest Territories for a federal election. I challenge that statement, and I think the hon. gentleman said that he was prepared to prove it, and I think he immediately set out to produce the lists in order to prove that I had wilfully sought to mislead the House. I want my hon. friend to make good that statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I -attempted to prove was that there were printed lists.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: And to do that the hon. gentleman misrepresented what I said.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is not necessary to misrepresent the hon. gentleman. If I said the hon. gentleman knew of something, and it is not true, I am willing to withdraw it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No ; I may be wrong. Because I am always willing to accept -my hon. friend's positive statement as against my recollection. If I made that statement, the hon. gentleman will find the record of it in ' Hansard.'
Mr. INGRAM, I do not care for 1 Hansard.' Usually I quote it, but when an hon. gentleman undertakes to say that ' Hansard ' is correct, we had the evidence only the other day that a question asked in this House was not to be found in ' Hansard.' No one pretends to say that ' Hansard ' is correct. It is not. Every one knows that when the House is in committee there Is a great deal said that does not appear in ' Hansard.' and I do not wonder at it, because frequently there is so much noise that it is impossible for the 'Hansard' men to take down accurately all that is said. When I asked last night if there were lists for the Northwest Territories, I understood the Minister of Justice to say that there were not. We were speaking about the Franchise law, and I was asking certain questions in regard to tlie Northwest Territories in connection with the amendments that had -been made to that law. We are creating these Territories into provinces, and to my mind, the question of the lists was an important question. That is the reason. I had no object in attacking the Minister of Justice. I simply understood him to say that there were no lists in the Territories. I did not suppose that he knew anything about the printed lists. Evidently my hon. friend from Western Assini-boia (Mr. Scott) did not know anything about that, and I venture to say that many other members oh that side did not know that there were printed lists. But what I do insist on knowing is who ordered the lists to be printed at the Government Bureau ; why was the Conservative party, who have rights in this country, as well as the other side, debarred from having these printed voters' lists, and where did these lists come from ? It ought to be the duty of the Minister of Justice to see that equal justice is dealt out to both parties. There are some things to which I propose to draw his attention in connection with his department that I do not believe lie knows about himself. and before the session is over I shall do this.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I shall be glad indeed to have my attention drawn to anything that is- being done in the department which is open to objection, but I trust that when he makes any statement regarding it, he will furnish me with the proofs.


Andrew B. Ingram: I always do.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What I presume lie intended to refer to is column 5987 of ' Hansard ' in which the following appears :


Andrew B. Ingram: If I recollect aright they have no lists, and for my part I would not agree to have the local law adopted.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We had better let this clause remain in suspense, and I will see how far I can go to adopt the Bill introduced last session.
Is that the reference ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Not at all.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Where is it ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I will give it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was listening to the hon. minister, and the impression he left on my mind was that there were no lists. I thought that rather a strange statement, because I knew there had been lists printed for this constituency.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have never yet made a statement knowingly in this House knowing it to be a false statement.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not say that, Had I thought that, I would have said it, but I did not.


Andrew B. Ingram: I might add that I have never made a statement in this House which, if I found afterwards it was a misstatement of fact and any lion, gentleman drew my attention to it, I did not withdraw and apologize for it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I accept my hon. friend's apology.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not making an apology in this instance.


Frank Oliver: We have heard our friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) to-night making good his threat of last night about putting up obstruction on this Bill until possibly the snow flew'. That is his privilege, and with that privilege I shall not quarrel. I would suggest however to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) that he should give his attention to the manner in which one of his followers, not from the front benches, is exercising his privilege of obstruction, and to the courteous manner in which he does so and the language he uses. I would suggest also to the leader of the opposition that if he has any lectures to give to back benchers, he might very well devote them to his friends who sit so close behind him.


Andrew B. Ingram: They are very far back benches.


Frank Oliver: Not so far back as they should be. I do not wish to assist in the obstruction of business by following the kon. member through all the devious course of his argument. I do not suppose that he
himself knows	how far	he wandered :	but we aill know' his conclusion,
w'as that lie wras going to vote against the government measure. But we knew' that before he started, so that his explanation was not necessary on that point. The only point I wish to deal with-and I do not wish really to deal with it because the hon. gentleman alluded to it, but because it has also been taken up in the press-is the nationality and religion of the people of the electoral district of Edmonton. I notice that the Conservative press have devoted their attention to that question as an excuse for the cowardice of the opposition in not having carried out the challenge they made to this government week after week. When they had an opportunity to make good their challenges and threats, instead of attempting to do so they took satisfaction out of abusing and misrepresenting the people whose verdict they had challenged.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are not abusing the people.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The hon. gentleman should explain w'hat words were used on this side to warrant his assertion.


Frank Oliver: I notice that our friends are squealing very quickly. They should not leave themselves so "open, and they would not have cause to complain. They claim to be the champions of the rights and liberties of the Northwest and of provincial autonomy in that country ; but when a section of the Northwest declares its mind contrary to their views, at once they proceed to attempt to discredit that expression of opinion and to argue that it is not w'orthy of consideration. I think, therefore, that in view of the attitude w'hich has been assumed so energeti-caily by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) and the Conservative press throughout the country, the people of the Northwest will take warning that if they want provincial rights they must not look to the party opposite for the advocacy or sanction of those rights. Whether the people of the constituency of Edmonton are Galicians or whatever else they are, they are residents of the Northwest, citizens of Canada, and British subjects, and they are the people upon whom this alleged iniquitous legislation is to be enforced. And if they are not entitled to be heard on that question, I would ask where are our rights of provincial autonomy V Are we to take our legislation from this fair province of Ontario in provincial matters ? These very gentlemen who are arguing that we should be left free, are the gentlemen who are obstructing the business of this House systematically and persistently with the view of discrediting the deliberately expressed I opinion of an important section of the people of the Northwest.

As to the nationality of the people of the district of Edmonton, this House will certainly have to take my word to a certain extent. I have seen the allegations that have been made with regard to the nationalities of the people of that district and have taken the trouble to go into that question. Any one who is acquainted with the circumstances out there will know that the people are not absolutely divided by division walls into different nationalities or classes or religions. They are to a certain extent mixed, but there are settlements that we speak of as English, German, French, Galician and half-breed. I have grouped the polls in these different settlements and.the votes cast at these polls in the election of November the 3rd. The result shows that out of a total vote in the district of 5.061, there were 2,835 cast at the English speak ing polls, and 2,225 at all the other polls, leaving a clear majority to the English speaking polls of 609.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: What does the hon. gentleman mean by English speaking polls ?


Frank Oliver: Those polls where the people are, by a large majority, English speaking. When we talk of the Galician or German or French polls, there are also English speaking people there as well, but I speak of the polls as they are generally divided in the minds of the people according to the voting population.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I ask how the minister arrived at that ?
Mr. OLIVER By personal knowledge.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Personal knowledge of all the polls ?


Frank Oliver: Certainly, why not ?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Would the minister give us the result of these different polls ?


Frank Oliver: I shall be very much ^pleased to do so ; that is what I am coming to. As I figure the returns, the English polls gave 2,835 against 2,226, a clear majoritv for myself at the English-speaking polls of 609. Now with regard to the other nationalities the French polls gave a vote of 565. All the people in these districts are not French-speaking people ; there are some Germans and some English-speaking people, but I class these as the French polls. The German polls gave a vote of 356 : the Galicians, 780 ; and the half-breeds 525. Now, if the House would care to hear how these people voted, I will give the figures. These English-speaking polls gave a majority for myself of 916. How many of my friends on the other side of the House have as large a majority of English-speaking people to their credit"? I fancy the hon. member for East Elgin has not. JThe French polls gave me a majority of 295. the Germans gave me a majority oif 254, the Galicians 330, and the half-breeds Mr. OLIVER.
208. The majority at the English-speaking polls was nearly as large as the total majorities at all the other polls. The proportions worked out approximately in this way: At the English-speaking polls," the vote was 2 to 1 : the Half-breeds 2 to 1; the Galicians 21 to 1 ; the French polls, 34 to 1 and the German polls, 6 to 1. And I may mention that the Germans at these polls are all Protestants. Regarding religious divisions, these, of course, can only be given approximately. But, as I have lived in that country the greater part of my life, I may claim to be somewhat familiar with the conditions. I figure that there are about 2,535 of the English-speaking votes, Protestants, and about 300 Catholics. Of the French 565 are Catholic. Of the Germans 365 are Protestants ; of the half-breeds about one-quarter are Protestants-that is 125 Protestants to about 400 Catholics ; the Galicians, 780, about half or a little less, belong to the united Greek Church, which is, to a certain extent, affiliated with the Church of Rome, but they are not Roman Catholics, and the remaining half are of the Orthodox Greek Church, which has no more connection with the Roman Catholic church than has the English church or any other Protestant denomination. So, as I judge the total might be counted as being made up of 3,116 Protestants and 1.265 Catholics. Crediting half the Galicians to the Roman Catholic church and half to the non-Roman churches, which, iu this case may be classed together, there are 1,655. Roman Catholics, and 3,406 others, whom, to include them all under oue name, we may speak of in this case as Protestants, or a Protestant majority of 2 to 1. These are the facts as I read them, and I put them on record for the information of the members of the opposition party in this House and out of it who excuse their failure to back up their challenges and threats by action when they were given the opportunity, and take refuge in attempts to discredit an opinion they were unable to influence.
Now, in regard to the character of the people. The city of Edmonton cast a total of 1,343 votes. The city of Edmonton is admitted to he if not the most rapicll'ly progressing place in this Dominion, at least one of the most progressive. It is as thoroughly up-to-date as is the city of Ottawa or any other city in Canada so far as the appliances of civilization are concerned. It is second to no place of its size in the matter of trade and everything that goes to make a successful civilized community. When hon. members of this House take pleasure-in belittling aud discrediting the standing and enterprise of the people of that city and surrounding country, they are simply striking a blow at the most progressive part of their own country and are doing themselves very little credit by their action. And I think the country will give them very little credit for it.
Now my hon. friend from East Elgin

(Mr. Ingram) derived a good deal of amusement from reading a list of names of tlie voters on the list at a certain poll in the Galician settlement. I do not know that it is the fault of the voters of whose names he read-or spelled, rather-that he found a difficulty in dealing with them. I do not know that they are more responsible for the lion. member's lack of knowledge of their language than they -art* for any other lack in his education for I note that when he came to the poll where the names were French he balked at them just as much as at those of the Galicians and he passed them up carefully.
Now in regard to the relations of the opposition with the Galician voters, I may tell the House and the country that in the election of 1904 it was the party of the opposition who hoped to capture that vote and who depended for the election of their candidate on their success in capturing it,-and depended on misrepresentation of statements made by me in regard to these Galicians to secure their votes. If these gentlemen were not successful it was their own misfortune and not their fault; they did their level best. I may say however-and it may contribute to the amusement of my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram)- that the two largest majorities that my opponent received in the election of 1904 were secured at two of the Galician polls. He was able to roll up a majority of sixty-one at two of these polls and he could not get anywhere near that majority at any otner place. He had a majority at seven polls in all out of some eighty-one. Now, for the information of the House and to let the country know the effort that our friends on the other side have made to secure the vote of these now despised Galicians, these people who, it appears, are not entitled to say what kind of schools they shall have in that country, who are not entitled to be treated as citizens by our friends on the other side, who are to be denied the ordinary consideration that is supposed to be allowed to citizens of our country, people who are living their lives here, who are contributing to our success according to their ability,-just to let the country know what efforts were made to secure the favour of these men I shall present a few facts to the House. Not only was there a Galician paper started in the city of Winnipeg and not only were cartloads of alleged literature of campaign nature in that language printed at the expense of the Conservative party, sent out and distributed through the district setting forth the demerits and misdeeds of my humble self, l ut our friends were not content to condemn me or the Liberal government, but went further and promised what the Conservative party would do for the Galicians if they came to power. A document was circulated amongst these people in the Russian language, which was headed * For good Russian Electors.' This contains an allusion to
the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The writers have fallen in with the idea of mv friend the leader of the opposition not to oppose the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, not to oppose it ostensibly, but to oppose it by suggesting the building of a railroad in some other way and their view is set forth in the following words :
The Conservative party wants Canada to build a railway for herself and not Americans. The Conservative party wants to build for us churches, schools and roads, and wants to exchange the poor farms on which some of our people have settled for good farms elsewhere, the farms thus left vacant to be permitted to grow up with* timber as government property, the people to be paid for the buildings which they have erected on the poor farms, so that they will have money with which to build on the good farms.
Now I submit this to the House and the country that even those despised Galicians showed by their votes that they bad enough sense not to be caught by such an absurd proposition as this :	but what are we to
say of our friends the Conservative party ? What does our friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) say to this attempt to secure the votes of these despised Galicians as an expression of opinion on the national questions of Canada by holding out to them hopes of getting land for nothing, of getting schools and churches built them by the Conservative party. That is the school of politics, that is the kind of appeal that is made here in Ontario, and it is expected to go with the Galicians, but it does not. At the conclu-siou of this precious document there was appended a list of names of the Conservative candidates for whom the good Galician electors were exhorted to cast their patriotic and intelligent votes. That list is as follows :
W. Sandford Evans, A. A. C. Lariviere, Glen Campbell W. J. Roche, T. A. Patrick, John MacLaren, James McKay, Richard Secord, W. W. Coleman, R. L. Richardson, O. Bush.
Thig is signed by the Canadian-Russian party.


William Paterson: Our friends opposite seem not disposed to expedite matters particularly, and I do not want to join them in that course. However, if we are to continue the discussion there Is one circumstance which I wish to bring before the notice of the House and of our friends opposite and the leader of the opposition particularly. I would like to have from him an explanation on that one point. In his remarks he referred to what had been stated by the Finance Minister when he alluded to an important event having taken place in the district of Edmonton, and he asked : What about Centre Toronto ? If the hon. gentleman will remember wbeu I bad the honour of addressing the House on this question and was noticing the challenges that were being thrown out, notably by the hon. mem-

os<:
ber for South York (Mr. AY. F. Maclean) I stated that we had been challenged to open London, and to open Oxford, but that it seemed to me that if we wanted to have a test of the feeling that was alleged to exist on this question the better place would be in the Northwest, the provinces to be that are affected. That was generally acclaimed with [DOT] hear, hear,' by gentlemen on the other side of the House, and when it was decided by the government to open a constituency there, a constituency was chosen which X think the leader of the opposition (Mr. It. Ij. Borden) in some remarks that he made, suggested would be a very good district, that the representative of Edmonton would make a very good minister and that he would have pleasure in endorsing such a move. Having met his views in that, after a constituency was opened, the very constituency that they wanted opened in the very part of the country in which they wanted a test, and the result is such as it has been in Edmonton, all manner of excuses are made by the opposition why they did not run a candidate. Now the point I want to make out is that the gentleman who addressed the House last (Mr. Ingram) who denies that he said anything abusive with reference to settlers in the Northwest Territories, can hardly claim immunity from the charge of abusing gentlemen on this side of the House when he gives credit to the 13 members usually acting with the Conservative party for voting conscientiously on this point. I think one gentleman either that hon. gentleman or the hon. gentleman behind him-I do not wish to misquote him and I think I am quite correct- said that if the gentlemen on this side of the House had voted according to their consciences three times 13 would have been found voting against their party. I do not know how it has seemed to hon. gentlemen opposite, but it seems to me clear as was stated that to state that gentlemen on this side of the House voted contrary to the dictates of their consciences cannot at any rate be taken in the light of a compliment. I do not think you could say anything that one would be much more inclined to resent than that.
However, that may be. Let us deal with the question of the nationalities that prevail in this district of Edmonton. The reason they allege, why no candidate was found was that they could not hope to succeed there. Well, I believe they could not hope to succeed, but one point I want to make is this : The desire for the opening of a constituency in the Northwest Territories was based on the unceasing declaration of hon. gentlemen opposite that there was the most profound and indignant feeling pervading the whole of the Territories that we proposed to bring into this Dominion as provinces, and that it only wanted an opportunity for the people in some way to express that indignation and we would get it. That opportunity was afforded by the Mr. PATERSON.
acceptance of office by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). A constituency was opened. Now, I am not careful for the purpose of my argument, as to whether the Conservative party did wisely, in the party point of view or not. I want to ascertain whether there is truth in the statement of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) as continued day after day in our hearing that there is a profound feeling in the Northwest Territories, that he has his telegrams and his resolutions and his petitions and he is sure that the whole country up there is deeply stirred and agitated. I can understand that the Conservative party, as a party, perhaps think it was party policy not to run a candidate, but if there were people in the Northwest Territories who were feeling in that way, if there were people in the district of Edmonton who believed and felt that they were being bound and chained and their liberties taken from them, as hon. gentlemen opposite say, how is it that an opponent was not found ? Not necessarily a Conservative opponent. What was required in order to give an opportunity for an expression of the people upon this Bill ?-only 26 men out of the thousands that are there, 25 men to sign the nomination paper, one man to accept the nomination and $200 of a deposit. Yet, we find that there were not 26 men within this country, within this whole district that is being bound and gagged and in which there is such an intense feeling to come forward under these circumstances. Where were the Orange lodges up there ? Where were all these petitioners who were so indignant ? Would $200 stop them with then-hearts wrung with anguish desiring only an opportunity to show how they felt on this question ? Could it be possible that when mens' liberties are being sacrificed, when shackles are placed upon them there could not be 26 men found to give the people an opportunity to pronounce upon it ? In our own province, as the hon. gentleman knows, time and again you have men who hold views, not necessarily connected with either views, but who think neither party comes up to their views and who run their candidate, not with any hope that they will succeed at all, frankly admitting that there is no hope of it succeeding, but determined to give expression to their views. Well, if these men find and if they feel that they are being shackled and gagged and that their liberties are being taken from them, how I ask my hon. friend from East Grey and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, is it that 26 men out of the thousands, out of the thousands of Protestants that are there, out of the thousands of English speaking people that are there, leaving out the Doukhobors. the Galicians and others who come from Europe if you like-how is it that amongst the thousands of the conceded English speaking residents that are to be

5S74
found there, 26 men could not be found in that country to give the people an opportunity of expressing their views ?


An hon. MEMBER.: You found more than 26 in Mountain.


William Paterson: Evidently we had not an opportunity of testing it there, but we were told tnat what the hon. gentleman has said in reference to Mountain would be found in the district of Edmonton. But it appears they were not found there and that is the place we should have found them, if I understand geography aright, Mountain is not in these Territories ; it is not a portion of the country that is being bound and shackled, while Edmonton is. There is no use of trying to minimize the result of this election. There was a great desire to open that constituency conceived in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. According to their own declarations they had no hope of defeating my hon. friend 'the Minister of the Interior, but they said that there would be such a vote in a constituency in the Northwest as would strike terror into the government here ; yet when the opportunity is given, not 26 men out of the thousands upon thousands of Englishspeaking Protestants, not even 25 to' sign the requisition and one to accept the nomination, come forward and the .$200 deposit is not put up. Now, what is the use of talking about the. feeling up there ? What is tile use of talking about Doukhobors, Galicians and that kind of thing ? If the feeling existed there to the extent that tli^se hon. gentlemen represent it does, I think beyond all question that they ought to concede that as far as the Northwest Territories are concerned 26 men could have been found at any rate to give the people an opportunity of voting against this legislation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I just wish to say a few words in reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson), because I think his speech is deserving of a reply. I am reminded that my juugment is in fault with reference to that. Perhaps it is. At any rate I choose to say something in reply to him as well as in reply to the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). I want to refute the statement made by the hon. Minister of the Interior that any hon. member on this side of the House was ever abusing or desiring to abuse the people of Edmonton, and to say that in my judgment there was not one word said in reference to the people of Edmonton that was fairly susceptible of that interpretation except wliat was spoken by himself. If we took the trouble to quote the language which he used regarding these people only a few years ago when he declared that this immigration would have the inevitable result of lowering the Anglo-Saxon, race


An hon. MEMBER.: Anglo-Saxon nothing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, the inevitable result of lowering the Anglo-Saxon race, that fact would be evident. If anything has been said on this side of the House that is equal to that I would like him to point tc it. In regard to the question of how far an election may be regarded as a test of public opinion up there, I would say to the hon. Minister of Customs that the government organ first announced here that the election was to take place in West Assi-niboia and that the choice of the new minister was expected to be Mr. Scott, that he was going into the ministry. In view of that our party proposed to avail itself of the opportunity of testing public opinion to show what it was in that country, because we regarded it as a locality where there might fairly be a test taken. We prepared for that, but when the government after sending their agents I presume to ascertain the situation, they had not the moral courage to test public opinion there, what did they do ? They were obliged to drop the hon. member for West Assiniboia and take a new man into the ranks who had a constituency the complexion of which was of such a peculiar character that he stood a chance of re-election. Let me give him a little information. Did the shortness of the time given to allow the ascertaining of public opinion, look like courage. The election was announced on Saturday and a little over 21 days were allowed to run an election in a territory several thousand miles from here. And before the election was announced five or six of their members were put on a train and sent westward, and as we were told presumably with a good supply of funds to help them to carry that election.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And who were they applying to for a test of public opinion ? I refer to the fact that a large majority of these people were not English speaking.


Some hon. MEMBERS: But they are.


William Paterson: There are more than twenty-six of them anyway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the laugh about?


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. member say that a large majority of the people of that constituency are not English speaking ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think I said a large percentage, but I would even go further and say that I believe from my information that a majority of them are not English speaking in that riding.
Mr. OLIVER, Then I am to understand the hon. member to say, that a majority of the people in that riding are not English speaking.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From my inquiry so far as it has gone, that is the impression left on my mind.



An lion. MEMBER. Your inquiry lias not gone far.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am stating the facts to the best of my judgment. Do we want any better evidence than the voters' lists which were read here to-night in which in poll after poll you could not lind an English name.
An lion. MEMBER. There are Irish there?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I looked at polling list after polling list where I could not find an English name.


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. gentleman mention one in which there is not an English voter ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is too childish for anything to expect me to take a voters' list at which I looked to ascertain what was the complexion of the people up there, whether English or not, and be able to keep the name and the number of each sheet or polling subdivision in my head. If it is a fact, and I believe it to be a fact, that a very large percentage of these people do not understand the English language, and know little or nothing about our educational system, is that the class of people from whom you can get a fair test of the public sentiment of the people in these two provinces regarding the merits or demerits of our educational system ? Had they gone to East Assiniboia or West Assiniboia 1 would have said it was a fair test.


Frank Oliver: You would rather test it in Toronto ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me say another thing. I was informed upon inquiry that there are peculiarities in the situation there which made it practically impossible to get a fair test of public opinion. I will give the information I got from people in the locality. They said : In the first place Mr. Oliver is coming back here as a minister of the Crown, as the head of the Interior Department which controls all the Crown lands in that country and whose agents have to do with the foreign element which is coming in here in large numbers, and consequently have an influence over them which no one else could have ; these people are practically like wards of the government and the government have such control over them that it would be utterly impossible to get a fair test of public sentiment on any public question. In the next place, Mr. Oliver was living in the city that was made the capital of the province and they were very grateful to Mr. Oliver for getting Edmonton selected as the capital, and they would regard it as an act of ingratitude if they did not endeavour to give him an election by acclamation. In the third place, the question of the headquarters of the Grand Trunk Pacific in the Northwest was not yet decided, and Mr. Oliver was supnosed to have a powerful influence with the Mr. SPROULE.
company in determining whether the headquarters would or would not be at Edmonton, and they thought Mr. Oliver would be likely to fight in their interest. These are some of the reasons why we were told it was utterly impossible to get a fair test of public sentiment up there. Therefore it would not be the part of wisdom to put up a candidate, and esspecially so with the short time at our disposal. It was said that if we had time to go among the people, and through interpreters debate these public questions fairly so that these foreigners might understand the dividing line between the parties and what the policy of each party represented, then we might hope to have a good vote in that country, but otherwise we could not. That being the case we did not choose to put up a candidate because we thought it was not a fair test of what the sentiment of these two provinces was. Were we right or were we wrong ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Wrong.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who says wrong ?


An hon. MEMBER.: You are always wrong.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Always wrong ; well, we are at least sometimes right.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, *we are as nearly right as the hon. member who has interrupted me. Need I give him an instance of where he was not always right ; if he invites it much further I will do so. In view of these things we did not think it advisable to make an effort because we had no fair chance and we could not get a fair average of expression of what was the will of the people, and because of that I say we did not desire to either waste our time or spend our means to try an election where all the odds were against us ; where we had no chance whatever to test public opinion.


Frank Oliver: Am I right in understanding the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) to speak of spending their means ; surely not ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, spending our means because you cannot travel up there without spending money.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not spending one dollar improperly, but it requires money to travel and carry* on a campaign, and you cannot go into a country where you spend half a dollar or a dollar for every meal without spending money. In view of these facts I would not regard it as a proper thing to contest the election. There was a verdict given and the hon. member was elected by acclamation, and that is supposed to be a fair test of the sentiment of the people of these two provinces-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who says hear, hear ?


Alexander Johnston: Everybody.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, the hon. member who speaks Is not everybody.


An hon. MEMBER.: He is nobody.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be nearer correct to say that than to say he is everybody.


Alexander Johnston: I have not the same presumption that you have to represent everybody.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Oh I see it is the weakling again, and I will excuse him knowing the frailties of human nature with which he is endowed. Under these conditions we could not hope to get a fair test of the average sentiment of that country from people who did not understand our language, our educational system, or the questions that divide the two parties in this country. But when we came to portions of the country where they did understand, when we came down to Manitoba what were the results there 1 A constituency that from time immemorial returned a reformer ; did it endorse the government ? No. The government supporters were sent up there to try and influence public opinion


William Paterson: Who was running as the candidate of the Dominion government in that constituency ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A government supporter, Mr. Greenway, went up there with his friends, Mr. Crawford and Mr. Jackson and others, and tried to carry the election on the strength of the' government policy, but they utterly failed, and Mr. Green way has not put in an appearance here since, so discouraged was he with the result. There was another opportunity in Centre Toronto. Did they test public opinion there ? It is not a pronounced Conservative constituency; it was carried by the Reform party not many years ago. Did they dare to test public opinion there ? Not at all. Now, we are inviting them to test it in London. 1 do not know whether they will venture or not. If they do, we will say it is a fair test, and we will go into the contest with the desire to see what is the public sentiment on this question there.


William Stevens Fielding: Why mention London ? Why not mention Levis, which is vacant at the present time ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A province which gave us one single supporter. That is just the kind of constituency the hon. Minister of Finance wants us to test.


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend permit me ? He is mistaken. The opposition have a number of supporters from that province on other questions and one on this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the government had ventured to put up a candidate in Centre 1864
Toronto, we would have tried our strength there. Let them open any other constituency in Ontario.


William Stevens Fielding: Why Ontario ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We do not ask it in Ontario alone ; we ask it in tbe Northwest Territories. But give us a show ; do not play with loaded dice. Give us a fair opportunity to place before the people the representations of the Minister of Finance and the abuse he has heaped upon those who dare to assert their rights. Let me give a little of what appeared in his own paper.


William Stevens Fielding: What paper is that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Halifax ' Chronicle.'


William Stevens Fielding: Allow me to say to my hon. friend that if he quotes that as my own paper, I want to know his authority.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman owns that paper now or not, but it was edited by the hon. gentleman for a number of years, and it is regarded as reflecting his views on the political questions of the day.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not what my hon. friend stated. He said it was my own paper. I have had nothing to do with fhat paper for twenty years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it represent the hon. gentleman's views ?


William Stevens Fielding: It represents my views no more than any other paper so long as it is in harmony with the Liberal party. It is a paper which generally supports the Liberal party, but sometimes disagrees with it; but I have no more to do with that paper than I have with the Toronto ' Mail.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The paper, in some of its articles, did represent the hon. gentleman's views.


William Stevens Fielding: I challenge the hon. gentleman's statement that the paper ever represented itself as speaking on my behalf. I believe it never said anything of the sort.
. Mr. SPROULE. The -hon. Minister of Justice may laugh, but he will laugh on the other side of his face before this is all over. Don't you forget it, either.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think it is fair for the hon. gentleman to attack me in that way at this late hour of the night.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I only want that respectful attention that I always give to the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Finance, or any other man on that side of the House. I only ask that and nothing more, and I intend to have it. If I stand up and speak for the people of this country


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say if I stand up and speak for the Protestant element of this

country, X want at least the same respectful attention that is given to any Roman Catholic who stands up and speaks on belialf of the Roman Catholics of this country.


Air. BTNLAYSON.: I, as a Protestant, deny the hon. gentleman's right to speak for me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not talking to the hon. gentleman. All I ask lion, gentlemen opposite is to treat me with courtesy as X do them. I want to quote what is put out by Reform papers, which, on this question represent, I assume, the Minister of Finance and his party.


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend allow me to say that he must not quote anything from any paper and assume that it is authorized to speak for me. The ' Canada Gazette ' is my only organ.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman has gone back on the ' Globe ' lately, and I think he has gone back on everything else that represents his party, because he knows what is coming.


William Stevens Fielding: No ; I do not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me tell him what is coming. We choose to represent what we believe to be the sentiment of the majority of the people of this country. How are we met when we are doing our duty ? Is it courteously ? Here is what the Halifax [DOT] Chronicle ' says with regard to Centre Toronto, and the members of the association I represent in this House, the chief Liberal journal of Nova Scotia :
The Libel al party has more important business on hand than the vain wooing of yellow-dog constituencies.
That is said with regard to Centre Toronto. ' Yellow-dog constituencies '-what is meant by that ? The Orangemen of Canada, whose colour happens to be orange.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let some one speak who knows what he is talking about. The article goes on :
The Liberal party is not running an opposition peanut stand. Neither is it butting its head against yellow-dog walls for the entertainment of yellow dogs in general.
That is the characterization of a class and a society which. I will venture to say, is composed, on the average, of as respectable citizens as can be found in Canada to-day, and fully one-half of whom, in the maritime provinces, have in the past been supporters of the Minister of Finance's friends, and have voted for them over and over again.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will permit me. I happen to know one gentleman connected with the Halifax 'Chronicle.' whom I know to be an Orangeman, and I Mr. SPROULE.
cannot imagine that any such meaning is to be attached to that article.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman deny that it appeared in the ' Chronicle ' ?


William Stevens Fielding: It may have ; I cannot deny it.
Mr. SPROULE ^reading) :
That is why it did not go through the useless form of putting up a candidate in yellow-dog Centre Toronto, while the whole inclosed pack was in a state bordering on political hydrophoj bia.
That is very respectable and very entertaining, as levelled against a very important element of the Protestant community of the Dominion of Canada. How far will every hon. member supporting the Liberal party from Ontario, from British Columbia, from Manitoba, from the Northwest Territories, endorse that sentiment ? Are they prepared to endorse it and stand by it ? They do endorse it by their conduct in this House, because from the first word I have spoken on this question to the present I have been treated as though I ought to be ostracized from society, as though I was unworthy of respect in this House. Whenever I have spoken as representing the Orange element of this country, sneers have been heaped on me without number, invectives, the strongest that could he found in the English language, have been hurled against me, everything I have said has been treated with disdain or contempt for the ' yellow-dog ' element, which is the Orange element of this country. That element is too strong to-day to take these insults as compliments, and I want to tell hon. gentlemen that when I speak for them I speak for 500,000 intelligent citizens of Canada, who will resent these insults when the time comes, and will speak out with no uncertain sound. When that day does come, I can invite either the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of .Tustiee, or the Minister of Customs, to say whether they or their friends were discreet in heaping abuse on the ' yellow-dog ' element, the Orange element of this country. They have been gibed at and insulted in this House. Every Invective that could be used is used against them, and now we are told to-day that they represent a class of people who are bordering on hydrophobia, that they are an element which should be kept down, that they are arousing strife and kindling a fire. I ask who started the fire ?


Alexander Johnston: You did.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 say the hon. gentleman is wrong. Who started the fire hut the party that introduced this Bill ; and then, when we ring the fire alarm to extinguish it. we are accused of fanning the flame. For the last 37 years, what has - been the history of the introduction of these questions in this House ? Almost every time these dis-


MAT 11. 1905
[Stage Direction]
turbing questions have been introduced by tbe Reform party or the Roman Catholic element in this country. Is tlfat any evidence that the Protestant element desire to keep up strife ? Who introduced the home rule resolution ?
An bon. MEMBER. Who voted for them?
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who introduced the resolution concerning the Coronation Oath ? Who introduced the New Brunswick school question and the Manitoba school question ? 'Who is introducing the question before us to-day ? These questions have always beeu introduced by the party opposite or by the Roman Catholic element ; they have always been introduced by these people who declare they desire to live in peace and harmony with their fellow-citizens. Is that an evidence of it ? And because we oppose the introduction of such questions, and because we vindicate the rights of the people, we are declared to be firebrands, to be bordering on hydrophobia, to be unworthy of respect, to be fanning the flame of religious and racial strife. Those are the epithets that are heaped upon us, and 1 want the country to know it. so that the people will be able to estimate at their proper value the statements of boil, gentlemen opposite who blame us for what they alone are res-pofusible. We desire to liye in peace and harmony with every son of Adam with whom we are brought into contact and especially with our fellow-Catholic subjects. We Lave no feeling of antipathy against them, no feeling of prejudice. We desire to live in amity with them; but when our rights are assailed, are we to be blamed because we defend them ? When you tramp on a worm it will turn, and so will the yellow dog Orangeman. But is this sentiment to which is being given so wide-spread expression to-day confined to tbe Orange element ? Need I point to tbe Reform party in tbe city oi Toronto, which passed a resolution condemning the government for the introduction of this vexed question. Need I point to the resolution .passed at a public meeting at Medicine Hat in the Northwest Territories to the same effect ? Need I point to the resolution passed at Moosejaw by a public meeting called for the purpose of considering this question and composed of Reformers and Conservatives alike ? They all, with one unanimous voice, condemn this government for Its course with regard to this educational clause. Need I point to the petitions that have come here from all over the country, signed ver>
often in equal numbers by Reformers and Conservatives alike, condemning tbe government ? Need I point to tbe ' Globe ' newspaper, that great organ of public opinion, which has constantly and intelligently condemned the government for what they have done, from the day they introduced this measure until the present ? Need I point to all these as an evidence that the sentiments expressed by the other side
are not those which are entertained by tbe people ? It is not tbe sentiment of the Orange element of the Conservative party which I am expressing, but of the great mass of the people of this country, composed of Reformers and Conservatives. That being the case, it is time for this abuse to stop. We are told that the people are misled with regard to this question. Well, I have here the statement made by one hon. member who says the people are misled. I have here the statement of Mr. Crawford- I do not know what constituency he represents.


An hon. MEMBER.: Portage la Prairie.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That hon. gentleman says :
I thought that there was being established In the Northwest Territories what the people have in their minds to-day, and that is Roman Catholic church schools. I oppose that as strongly as any one. I would not stand for it a minute, but we have nothing of the kind. The very opposite is the condition, and I am prepared, as I think every Orangeman in Canada should be, if he lived up in that country, to support this.
Ail hon. MEMBER. Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Crawford says that we are not given by this Bill wbat the people understand in Ontario as separate schools, and that if we were, he would oppose it as much as anybody. They are not, he says, church schools or separate schools. But what does the Minister of Justice say ? Here is what lie says with regard to the Bill :
My object was really to apply section 93 of the British North America Act, which is applicable to every province in the Dominion, to these new provinces. That was my object and to confirm the people of those Territories in those rights and privileges mentioned in section 93, which they now enjoy.
Then he goes on to say with regard to ills understanding of it;
In my judgment, section 93 of the British North America Act would bring in all the rights and privileges which exist in favour of denominational schools in the Territories at the present time or on the 1st of July coming. These rights and privileges would include all those in favour of denominational schools which are covered by section 11 of the statute of 1875.
He would include all those rights and privileges, and those rights and privileges that are covered by section 11 of the Act of 1875 mean separate schools exactly as they exist in the province of Quebec or separate schools as they exist in Ontario. That is what tbe Minister of Justice intended.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would like my hon. friend not to construe my intention but to confine himself to my words. I would prefer that.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 have read them already.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not want the hon. gentleman to Interpret them for me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman has said that he intended to make section 93 of the British North America Act apply, and he had an object in view :
In my judgment, section 93 would bring in all the rights and privileges which exist in the Territories at the present time or at the 1st of July coming. These rights and privileges would include all those which are covered by section 11 of the Act of 1875.
That is what he aimed at. He tried to make section 93 of the British North America Act apply, and his object in making it apply was to bring in all. these rights and privileges. Then we are told that the separate schools given by clause 11 of the Act of 1875 have been whittled down by the ordinances to such an -extent that they are not the same thing at all as was provided in that Act. But the Minister of Justice says his intention was to give the rights and privileges contained in clause 11 of that Act. It is because the people are misled by this and because something is being foisted on them that they do not know, that we asked the Minister of Justice to explain to-night that educational clause. He has told us that he intends to deal with it on Monday afternoon. Now, in view of the fact that the country has been misled-if it be a fact, and almost every member from the Northwest says we have been misled, and so says the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller), so says the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Martin), so says the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell)-


Archibald Campbell: No, he does not. [DOT]
Mr. SPROULE-in view of that fact, I want the Minister of Justice to explain what the Act does mean and what it will mean with this clause in it. And after that explanation, let time be given so that, through the press, it may be communicated to the country and let the country speak with regard to that explanation. Then, I shall be satisfied. Will the hon. minister do that ? But it will not do for the hon. gentleman to explain this clause on Monday afternoon and attempt to force it through at that sitting. It would almost seem that that is his desire, so reluctant is he to give this information to the country. Why did he not give it on the second reading of the Bill ? Or, not having done that, why does he not give it at the earliest possible moment ? If the country was being misled should he not have afforded it light as soon as possible ? I say that was his duty, and, not having done it, he failed in his duty. Laymen cannot understand the Bill. Why, even the lawyers of the House do not agree as to the interpretation of it; is it strange, then, that laymen cannot understand it ? And, when the Bill is so drawn Mr. SPROULE.
that members of the House cannot understand it and different interpretations are given to the country, does it not become more important that -we should have an explanation so that the country may be seized of the purport of the Bill ? I rose more particularly to call the attention of the minister to the fact that it will not be satisfactory if he makes this explanation on Monday, and then endeavours to force the educational clauses through at the same sitting, the country having had no opportunity to learn what his explanation has been or to exercise any judgment upon the Bill before it is disposed of.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) does not always do me
the honour to listen to what I say-
*


Robert Laird Borden: I may say that that has all been arranged.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman's (Mr. Sproule's) leader is satisfied, and we have had this tempest in the tea-pot for nothing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not aware of the fact. Had I known it, I should have been relieved of the necessity of speaking at any length.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman should have inquired of his leader.


William Paterson: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has made a mistake. He said he rose to reply to some observation that I made


David Henderson: It is not worth while.


William Paterson: Yes, I think it is quite worth while. I referred to the fact that qn explanation was needed-


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) a question ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The question is this : Wny does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) consider it necessary to continue this process of obstruction and prevent the Minister of Justice going on with clause 2 ?


William Paterson: I have no desire to do that.


Robert Laird Borden: But the hon. gentleman is doing it, just the same.


William Paterson: Evidently, hon. gentlemen opposite do not wish to proceed, and I thought we might just as well have a hand in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will tell the hon. gentleman why I did no-t reply-


William Paterson: I want to make another remark. I can understand that hon. gentlemen opposite, from a party point of view, owing to local condition and the popularity of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. 5SS5

Oliver), could not, as a party, enter into this contest. But the great point the House wants to understand is how hon. gentlemen opposite reconcile the result in the election of the Minister of the Interior with what they have told us about the feeling of the people in Edmonton. They have told us about people being bound and shackled and robbed of their liberties. And one hon. gentleman on the other side, I think, ended his speech with the words, * give me liberty or give me death.' One would think, if the feeling were so strong as these hon. gentlemen say, there would have been enough dissatisfied electors, even dissatisfied Liberals, men who would not care to take part in the Conservative caucus, to otter opposition to the minister. When I spoke I said it required only twenty-five men to nominate and one man to accept as candidate and a deposit of 8200. But I have since been told that in the Northwest Territories it is only necessary for four to sign the nomination. Of course, there would still be one to accept-five in all. It would appear that there were not five men found in the whole of Edmonton to make this protest when the opportunity for protest was offered. There are thousands of English-speaking Protestants there, and, yet, notwithstanding these strong declarations of hon. gentlemen opposite, there were not five of these men to come forward.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman tell me why he could not find twenty-six in Centre Toronto ?


William Paterson: That would not be a test. The people of Centre Toronto were not being bound or shackled. Their hearts were not being wrung and their liberties being taken from them. Why, in various consuiuencies we find independent parties, for instance, the Labour party, whose members do not claim to have great wealth. They nominate candidates in many cases where they have no expectation of carrying them and tell you so. They put up the necessary deposit though they may feel sure that they are going to lose it. But here, though there was, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, this feeling of indignation because men were being shackled and bound, their hearts wrung and their peace destroyed, not four men to nominate and one to accept and a deposit of only $200 could be found to make a protest when the opportunity offered. To ask why we did not put up a candidate in Centre Toronto is no reply. We have never said there were people there whose hearts were being wrung, who were being gagged and fettered and bound. But will hon. gentlemen give us the reason why there were not found, even among the dissatisfied Liberals of Edmonton, leaving out the Doukhobors and Galicians, enough men to take this practical means of expressing public dissatisfaction when it was offered ? That is the point I
desired to have answered. Until it is answered, I cannot believe that there is the feeling there that hon. gentlemen say. There is no use to talk about the petitions they have sent and the resolutions they have passed. Only five men were required to give expression to any public dissatisfaction that existed and in a way more effective than any other that could be afforded. As to the remarks of the hon. gentleman, they do not do him credit. He read an extract from a newspaper and applied it to an organization to which he referred-though the newspaper had not so applied it-and waxed indignant because he says these references are offensive. He speaks of petitions. He knows these petitions came in properly. The signers were not afraid to express themselves. And, of course, they had a perfect right to petition. Now, to answer those who who sent in those petitions is not to sneer at them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There has not been a mention of a lodge on the part of anj' hon. gentleman opposite in this House without a sneer.


William Paterson: Not at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am speaking of what I know.


William Paterson: I am sure there are many of us would who admire the way the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) fights his battles. But let him not attribute statements to hon. members on this side with which we have had nothing to do. He reads a statement from the newspaper and, though that newspaper does not apply it to the order to which he refers, he does apply it, and then attributes the statement to hon. members on this side. That is not fair, I am not going into it, I stick to my point. How is it that among these people that are being shackled and bound, amongst whom there is such profound indignation, that of all these thousands of English speaking Protestants five men did not come forward to give an opportunity to express that feeling ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman has asked that question about fifteen or twenty times. I suppose he asks it for the purpose of suggesting that no one is shackled or bound or tied or hampered in any way.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Except the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Except the Bill. The Minister of Customs has joined the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior, in obstructing the Minister of Justice to-day and has succeeded very well indeed, but when he wants to come to any conclusion about the shackling and the binding of the Northwest might I respectfully suggest to him that it would be just as well to go to Toronto and ask some of his Liberal


William Paterson: That would not have shown the feeling in the Northwest.


Frederick William Borden: I understand the hou. gentleman claims that the sentiment of the people of Ontario on this question is in favour of the government.


William Paterson: I claim that the feeling of the people in Edmonton is, because there were not five men found.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not asking about the feeling of the people in Edmonton ; I am asking the hon. gentleman as premier minister of this cabinet for Ontario whether or not he understands that the sentiment of 1lie people of Ontario is in support of the government on this question ?
ill-. PATERSON. I cannot tell until the test is made, but when the test is made if the result is as it was in Edmonton, I will say yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Was he not anxious to have a test made ?


William Paterson: In Edmonton, yes.


Mr.   I@: For the purpose of ascertaining the feeling of the people of Ontario ?


William Paterson: Was not the hon. gentleman anxious to have a test in Edmonton V


Mr.   I@: The hon. gentleman was anxious to introduce this question and we will give it a Dominion wide range. I ask him, as premier minister for Ontario, whether he believes the sentiment in that province to be against the government on this question ? He can answer or not as he sees fit.


William Paterson: I have given an answer.


Robert Laird Borden: The answer he gave was that he tests that in Edmonton.


William Paterson: I am saying that if the result is as in Edmonton, yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I am asking what his contention is. The hon. gentleman is not so voluble as he was a moment ago.


William Paterson: Quite so, I want to know about these five people in Edmonton. That is what I want to know.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman will not leave that. As a minister of the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
Cabinet, representing Ontario he sits dumb in liis seat and will not answer questions as to the sentiment in Ontario. We will leave him at that. I want to say to the Minister of the Interior, so far as any abuse of Edmonton or its people is concerned, I heard nothing of it from the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram). That gentleman quoted altogether. He quoted in the first place from the census. I do not know whether the Minister of the Interior claims that the census contains any abuse of Edmonton. He quoted next from certain documents printed by tlie government at the printing office, Ottawa. I do not suppose ho claims there is any abuse in these. The only other quotations he made were from the remarks of the minister himself, and if there was any abuse it was contained in the remarks of the Minister of the Interior.
ill1. OLIVER. Would the hon. member tell us the purpose of the quotations of the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) from the census and the other reports ?


Robert Laird Borden: A more worthy purpose than that which was in the mind of the Minister of the Interior when he accused the member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) of heaping abuse on the people of that country.


Frank Oliver: I have asked the hou. member a straight question, but he has not seen lit to give me a straight answer. He can give me a straight answer or he will have to accept the judgment that he is short either on hearing or understanding.


Andrew B. Ingram: I wish to say here now that I challenge the Minister of the Interior to put his finger on one word of abuse of any elector, or about any elector in the Edmonton district in my remarks, because I recognized the character of the man I have to deal with. His conduct and his language has been such since he has returned as a minister of the Crown that I am sure no man in this House can fail to see and admit that it is rather beneath the dignity of a minister of the Crowu. It might be used by a back bencher.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman until quite recently filled a back bench and perhaps I would not be saying too much it I were to say that is where he properly belongs at this moment, and I will go further and say that if the geographical position of the Northwest Territories had not been represented by the hon. gentleman and the complexion of that particular district as I have already referred to this afternoon had not been favourable to the government the hon. gentleman would be occupying a less important seat than that which lie occupies now. But the hon. gentleman had to refer to some personal affairs : he could not treat this in a way that would be dignified and worthy of a minister of the Crown, he had to make some personal references. I do not think any one

will accuse the hon. gentleman on account of his great Intellectual ability. He has never shown any great intellect so far as this House is concerned, hut he has shown hi.s very great inconsistency on practically every question that has been discussed by him since lie has had the honour of a sear in this House, and I want to say as I said before, the only reference that I have made to the hon. gentleman that he might consider as of a personal character was that 1 believed the government in the first instance had made up their minds to select the hon. member from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) and I took the opportunity of saying that if the government had selected the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) that on this particular question, a better test would have been made than by opening the district of Edmonton. I still hold to that opinion. Now so far as the Galicians or Doukhobors are concerned, I have not uttered one word against these gentlemen. I have simply quoted the language used by the hon. gentleman himself some few years ago ; that is what I am guilty of in that respect, 'the Minister of Customs talked about this election in Edmonton as being a test on the question. We have, I think and I think I can produce it at a later period, evidence that the Minister of the Interior while passing from Edmonton to the capital admitted that this was not a test question in his election. His election lie claimed was not testing this question in Edmonton. He rather complimented both parties In Edmonton and in his district on no candidate being put up against him. He recognized the very friendly way in which be was treated by both political parties and disclaimed any credit for his election as a matter connected \v i 1 lT this particular legislation. Then. I say that being true, how does it come that the all-wise Minister of Customs wants to know so much about why a condidate is not put in the field, why five men could not be produced and wily $200 could not be raised in order that this question might be tested ? The hon. Minister of the Interior would not make such a ridiculous assertion as that in the face of the circumstances concerning the election in Edmonton. On Saturday, the 15th April, the hon. Minister of tne Interior was selected and sworn in and on the 25th of the very same month, ten days afterwards, the nomination papers had to be prepared, these four men that the hon. minister talks about had to be produced, the $200 the hon. minister talks of had to be provided and a candidate had to be selected. It was necessary to do all these tilings in order to have a contest in a constituency 463 miles long and 211 miles vide with very little railway communication and would even the courageous Minister of Customs go up there if lie were called upon to contest the seat against tlie lion. Minister of the Interior ? Would be undertake to do it ? Does lie think
that other people are any bigger fools than be is himself ? He would be a big fool to undertake the task. The bon. gentleman and the government have handicapped, chained and fettered public opinion in the Northwest Territories. They have chained any man differing from this government on this question in the Edmonton district by reason of the unfair contest that they entered Into in Edmonton.


An hon. MEMBER.: It may be so but tlie people do not know it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who is the hon. gentleman ?


William Paterson: All they required was four of them to sign the nomination paper and -the fifth to accept. Where were the five ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I am sure that when the great Liberal organizers of this country to-morrow read this statement of the lion. Minister of -Customs they will say that they would receive great help from that hon. gentleman. The Liberal party of tlie province of Ontario could not have a greater organizer than the bon. Minister of Customs. Imagine the bon. Minister of Customs going to Edmonton and taking part in this election. Imagine giving ten days for bis opponents to -provide four people to sign the nomination paper, a candidate and a deposit.


Thomas Walter Scott: Be a little more accurate.


Andrew B. Ingram: What does the hon. gentleman say ?
-Mr. SCOTT. Give us an approach to accuracy. You are a week out.


Andrew B. Ingram: All I have to say to my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) is that I have the map here.


Thomas Walter Scott: Do you find the date on the map ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it the distance that the hon. gentleman has reference to ?


Thomas Walter Scott: No, my hon. friend is cutting a week off the time. He is giving it as ten days when it is seven days longer.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am talking about the time given in order to prepare these documents that the hon. Minister of Customs spoke about.


Thomas Walter Scott: Tlie hon. gentleman made the statement that my hon. friend tlie Minister of tlie Interior was sworn in on the loth April and that the nomination was on the 25th Ajiril. I point out to him that he is not accurate. He is cutting a week off.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, state it.


Thomas Walter Scott: The lion. Minister of tlie Interior was sworn in on the 8th April, if I recollect aright. The period was not ten

days between the time be was sworn in and tbe nomination.


Archibald Campbell: That is near enough for him.
iMr. INGRAM. No, it is not near enough. If the hon. Minister of the Interior will say that is correct, I will accept that statement and withdraw the statement I made.


Frank Oliver: I think the hon. member will have to accept the statement of my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott).


Andrew B. Ingram: I am bound to say I will not accept the statement. I will accept the statement of the hon. Minister of the Interior. If the hon. minister who was the candidate on this occasion will state that he was not sworn in on Saturday, 15th April, I will accept his word. Is that correct or is it not ?


Frank Oliver: I say again that the hon. gentleman will have to deal with my hon. friend from Assiniboia.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is quite evident that I am right.


Thomas Walter Scott: No, my hon. friend will permit me. This is a matter within my personal knowledge. I left here to go to Edmonton on Tuesday, the 11th April, and I am certain it was on the previous Saturday that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior was sworn in.


George Taylor: It was the Saturday after you left. You left four days before he did.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will not accept the statement of the hon. member for West Assiniboia.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will call to the attention of the hon. member the rule of the House. He is compelled to accept. I make this statement within my personal knowledge.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman will have to study up the rules of the House. I will not accept the statement that he has made. He has contradicted my statement. I have as much right to have my statement accepted as the hon. gentleman has to have his accepted. I have given an opportunity to the hon. Minister of the Interior to correct my statement and on nis correction I will amend it if I am wrong ; otherwise I will not amend it.


Frank Oliver: I want to know if the hon. member has made his statement on his responsibility as a member of this House.


Andrew B. Ingram: Certainly I make the statement on my responsibility as a member of this House.


Frank Oliver: Then I say the hon. gentleman is incorrect.


Thomas Walter Scott: 


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman kindly tell me-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman kindly tell me on what date he was sworn in ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I have stated to the committee as a matter within my personal knowledge that the date upon which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior was sworn in was the Stli April. I know that because it was on the Saturday previous to the date on which I left Ottawa for Edmonton and I know the date on which I left Ottawa was Tuesday, the Util April. I draw the attention of the hon. leader of the opposition to this matter. He gives very frequent lectures to this side of the House on the proper conduct of debate.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) was present when the hon. Minister of the Interior was sworn in and knows it of his own personal knowledge,
I suppose ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I make my statement as being within my personal knowledge.


William Stevens Fielding: A personal statement of fact as to a matter is one thing, but I am afraid there is no point of order in it. I think the statement of my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Ingram) must be erroneous, but I do not think there is any point of order in it.


Frank Oliver: I will merely call the attention of the committee to the fact that the hon. member for East Elgin has taken it upon himself to state that there were only ten days intervening between the occasion of my being sworn in and the date of the nomination. That statement is absolutely and totally false. I was sworn in on the 8th April.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am very glad to health at.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did you not say so ten minutes ago ?


Frank Oliver: I wanted to see how far the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) would go.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I want to ask the ruling of the chair if it is in order for any lion, member of this House to say that the statement of another is absolutely false.


An hon. MEMBER.: So it was.
IMr. SPROULE. I want the ruling of; the chair.


Frank Oliver: If it is out of order to say that the statement is absolutely false, I will withdraw, but I will say, that, when the hon. member told the committee that I was sworn in on the 17tli of April. I was not sworn in on the 17th of April.


George Taylor: He did not say anything of the kind. He said 15th.


Robert Laird Borden: We cannot get anything straight now.


George Taylor: No, they are all crooked over there.


William Stevens Fielding: Let the matter drop now and proceed witli the Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: I made the statement that the hon. Minister of the Interior had been sworn in on the 15th April and that the nomination took place on the 25th. I have no means of knowing when the hon. gentleman was sworn in. I have to be governed by what I see, or read, or understand.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. Surely the hon. gentleman Knows what took place in tne House ? It is on the records of the House that on the 10th April, Mr. Speaker announced that there was a vacancy in Edmonton and that he had issued his warrant for a new election.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that an lion, gentleman who is supporting this legislation ?


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. I will take care of the legislation, but it does seem to me that it is a great waste of public money for the hon. gentleman to keep on discussing whether it is the 10th of April or the 15th of April, when he has the record before him to tell the date.


Andrew B. Ingram: This so-called independent member ; this man who has lost no opportunity to strike the government when he could with regard to this legislation, but who always takes mighty good care to strike the other fellow a little harder-


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. Is it striking very hard to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that after he makes the statement that he has no means of knowing, I point out that on page 4200 revised ' Hansard ' he will find that the Speaker announced there was a vacancy in the electoral district of Edmonton and that he had issued his writ.


Mr. BLACK.: The member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) is wasting time, and that is what he is here for.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will take mighty good care that I will not say that one Doukhobor is worth 100 Englishmen.


Judson Burpee Black: No Doukhobor would impose on his audience as the hon. member (Mr. Ingram) has imposed on this House today. He has hopped up and down off that seat twenty times to-day like a jack-in-the-box, and I leave it to any hon. gentleman on either side of the House if he has spoken ten sensible sentences in that time. The man who was elected to parliament by 18
of a majority, thinks, I suppose, that he can waste the time of the House


Andrew B. Ingram: If I did get up twenty times to-day I will not take up an hour of the time of the House to-morrow apologizing for what I have said to-day. My hon. friend (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) draws my attention to what is in ' Hansard,' but I can tell him that I am in this House oftener than he is, and that I am as well posted on ' Hansard,' although I do not know what appears in every page of it. This gentleman went up to Toronto denouncing the ieader of the opposition, denouncing my friend from East Grey.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. Never.


Andrew B. Ingram: He denounced them and other gentlemen because they did not rise in their might and denounce the government for introducing this iniquitous law. Where has he been ever since ? Where has he been during all this discussion and what has he done since to defend the great Protestant people of this country?


An hon. MEMBER.: Sproule is looking after them.


Andrew B. Ingram: Of course he is, and the member for Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) held out a big bluff in Toronto, but the people found him out and when he goes back to .Simcoe next election-but he is not going back, he is going to be comfortably located before the next election and it will not be necessary for him to go back. On the 10th of April it was announced that a vacancy occurred in Edmonton and Mr. Oliver was sworn in on the 8tli of April. How was it that the vacancy only occurred on the 10th, when the hon. gentleman was sworn in on the 8th of April.


Frank Oliver: The reason was that the House did not sit between the time I was sworn in and the time the announcement was made.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, the occasion was so important that it is a wonder the House did not sit specially for that purpose. Now that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) is in an answering mood, will he tell me whether it was at his expense that the printed lists were supplied to the enumerators and to his political friends up there ?


Frank Oliver: I had nothing to do with the printing of any lists.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is not answering my question. Now that we have the time amended by one week sooner, does the Minister of Customs think that ample time was given to fight an election in a district of that magnitude ?


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) is wandering from the point. The question is that the statement was made here that the country was on flame, and yet

It appears that the Conservative party could not find four men to nominate a candidate aud one man to accept the candidacy. That could have been done before the Minister of the Interior got there at all.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Minister of Customs now says the time was ample.


William Paterson: Of course it was for you to put up a candidate.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am willing to let the country judge as to that in a constituency where the voters' lists were withheld from the opposition and in which the Liberals were supplied with these voters' lists ; a country in which the Liberals had 82 enumerators paid $8 a day, eighty-two constables ; eighty-two deputy returning officers, 82 poll clerks or 348 government officials, not counting the members of parliament who were formerly land agents, and who were sent up there. The Minister of Customs thinks that is fair, *but let me ask him another question. When Mr. Robinette came t;o Ottawa from Toronto, representing the Liberal party of that city did the Minister of Customs advise Mr. Robinette to go back home and tell the Liberals of Toronto that the government did not want an election in Toronto ? He is one of the ministers representing the province of Ontario ; did he tell Mr. Robinette that or not ? Let him be frank in answering the question.


William Paterson: I never said that Centre Toronto was in favour of the government ; I never challenged the verdict there. They have their school system ; but I am talking about these Territories that are said to be shackled and bound ; I am dealing with this question alone. For instance, here is what the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said.


Andrew B. Ingram: Never mind the member for East Grey ; I am asking the hon. minister himself.


William Paterson: The hon. member for East Grey said :
Is it because of the dearth of public men from that country and the impossibility of finding any one in the ranks of the government supporters sufficiently intelligent to be a cabinet minister ? It cannot be the latter, because the government has many supporters from the Northwest, any one of whom would be a credit to any cabinet. We are driven, therefore, to conclude that it is because of the unpopularity of the measure, and because the government dare not ask the Governor General to appoint a new minister, and by an electoral contest, allow the people of the Northwest to express their opinion upon the measure.
The people up there knew, days bef ore the Minister of the Interior could arrive, what this Bill was ; there were thousands of English-speaking people there all represented as being inflamed against the government ; there was ample time to get a nom-Mr. PATERSON.
illation paper signed aud to raise $200 for the nomination before the minister could arrive.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have been trying to be frank with the Minister of Customs, and 1 was giving him credit for being frank too. I asked him a plain question as a minister representing Ontario in the Cabinet, and be declines to answer. Therefore 1 must assume that he was interviewed by Mr. Robinette and advised him not to take part in a contest. That being true, did the Liberals have any difficulty in getting twenty-live men in Toronto to sign a nomination paper or in raising $200 for a nomination ? Did they have any difficulty in getting the voters' lists '! Both friends and opponents would have got those lists. Our friends would not have been shackled there as our friends were in Edmonton. Both Liberals and Conservatives would have bad fair-play in Centre Toronto, and Mr. Robinette, I dare say, was willing to contest it; but be was advised by the Minister of Customs not to have a contest, but to go back and advise bis Liberal friends there not to have a contest; and the Liberal friends were dissatisfied with the explanation, when be told them that he had been in Ottawa and bad been advised not to have a contest in Centre Toronto. There may be a contest in London, and the Minister of Customs will no doubt, be there taking part in it. There will be some fun at the meetings in London, and the intelligent electors of that city will be given an opportunity to announce themselves without being shackled. They will not be shackled, but they will have a voters' list and will have British fair-play, and we will see what the result will be, though the government candidate will be favourably handicapped as against the other man, by having a portfolio, the government at his back, and a private car and its equipment. Then we will know what the public feeling of this country on this question is. Sc far as North Oxford is concerned, there it: bound to be a contest there. Everybody knows that that constituency has a majority of at least 1,500 Liberals, and should the government candidate be elected by a small majority, I have no doubt that the government will claim that as an endorsation of its policy.


Mr. GALLIHER.: At the risk of incurring the charge of obstructing the Bill of the Minister of Justice, I will say a few words with reference to the matter spoken of by tlie bon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I feel certain that the hon. member misinterpreted the meaning of the article he quoted as having appeared in the Halifax ' Chronicle.' I would be very sorry indeed to think that any paper, whatever its political complexion might be, would apply tlie term, in the offensive sense in which my hon. friend appears to have interpreted
5S97

it, to any body of men in this country. I have heard the expression ' yellow dog ' used many times, as I have no doubt the bon. member from East Grey and other lion, members of this House have ; but I have only heard it used in one sense, that is, with reference to a class of Liberals or a class of Conservatives as the case might be. The expression has been used by electors that they would rather vote for a yellow dog than for a Conservative, or they would rather vote for a yellow dog than for a Liberal. I do not want the impression to go abroad that the paper which published that article was striking at the Orange order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Undoubtedly it was.


William Alfred Galliher: I do not think so. I would be very sorry indeed if it was. That is my interpretation of that article, looking at it fairly.


George Taylor: Have you read tile article?


William Alfred Galliher: I heard it read by my hon. friend, and I paid particular attention to it. What it meant by using that hackneyed phrase was that there were so many Conservatives who would rather vote for a yellow dog than for a Liberal in Centre Toronto that a Liberal candidate would be practically butting up against a wall. I am satisfied that is the correct interpretation of the article. I would be sorry to think it meant what my hon. friend interpreted it to mean. If my bon. friend interpreted it in that way, I do not blame him for the heat he exhibited in denouncing a publication of that kind ; but if he will think the matter over, he will recall how many times he has heard that expression used in years past in the sense I have mentioned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the first place, reference was made to the city of Toronto. It was said that this whole agitation was centred in Toronto, that Toronto was the head centre of it, and that it was the head centre of the Orangemen, and that the Orangemen were responsible. Reference was made m this House to the same thing, and following that up comes this paper, which speaks for the Reform party. That paper says the Liberal party is not running a peanut stand or playing for a yellow-dog, and that it is not going out there with a whole pack bordering on hydrophobia. What does that refer to, if not to the Orangemen ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I move that we take up clause No. 20.


George Taylor: We will not take it up before we get through with this matter. I want to say, in the first place, as an Orangeman. and as the fifth or si-xth oldest member of this House-my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. 'Sproule) is the fifth-that I can agree with every word he has spoken tonight. He has not risen to his feet once
this session upon any question without being sneered at by lion, gentlemen opposite, although he represents 500,000 Orangemen in this country, and I can look into the faces of men who depend on Orangemen for an election, but yet who cast their sneers at the representative of that body. It was a perfect bear garden here to-night when my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) attempted to speak ; and I may say to my hon. friend, the lawyer on the other side who has argued this yellow-dog question, that it was only when the hon. member for East Grey got into the heat which my hon. friend said he got into about this question, that he got a hearing at all.


William Alfred Galliher: I hope the hon. gentleman is not alluding to me as one of those who interrupted him.


George Taylor: No, you are the one gentleman on the other side. No matter who speaks here, you generally give him an attentive hearing ; but I say, on behalf of my hon. friend from East Grey, that from the beginning of the session until to-night he has not received from hon. gentlemen opposite a respectful hearing on any question, and particularly on this Autonomy Bill. Hon. gentlemen who have been elected to this House by Orangemen, who have the support of Orangemen in their constituencies, should be ashamed to join with others in casting insults at the Grand Master of that institution. My hon. friend from East Grey lias not said one word disrespectful to any religion or race in this country. There cannot be found in ' Hansard ' one offensive word uttered by him, but he is fighting the battle for liis party, and I just want to read into his speech something he omitted to-night. He quoted these words from the Minister of Justice, which will be found on page 593-t :
In my judgment, section 93 would bring in all the rights and privileges which exist in favour of denominational schools in the Territories at the present time or at the 1st of July coming. Those rights and privileges would include all those rights which are covered by section 11 of the Act of 1875.
X think that my hon. friend from East Grey should have read into his speech the Act of 1875.


Mr. D. II. McKENZIE.: I presume the hon. gentleman has no desire to be unfair to anybody, and I would ask him to read all that the Minister of Justice said in that quotation lie gives from page 5934.


George Taylor: I am making this speech.
Mr. I). I). McKENZIE. I am asking the hon. gentleman to be fair to tile Minister of Justice.


George Taylor: I have the floor, and if the hon. gentleman wants to ask me a question I will give way to him. but I do not want to have my speech broken into by him or anybody else.


Charles Marcil: Tlie hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has the floor.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I want to ask him a question.


George Taylor: The hou. gentleman did not rise to ask me a question, but for the purpose of correcting me and asking me to be fair. That was not asking me a question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I still ask you to be fair.


George Taylor: I am going to have my rights in this House respected, or I will stand here without uttering a word until I get the attention of the House.


Thomas Walter Scott: Be fair, and we will have no trouble.


George Taylor: I have quoted fairly what the Minister of Justice said.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Quote the whole of what he said.


George Taylor: I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to name the hou. gentleman who is interrupting me, and have his name go in ' Hansard.'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not afraid of you, sir.


George Taylor: Neither am I afraid of you, either in this House or outside. I have been here long enough to know my place and my rights, and I am always respectful. I want to read section 11 of the Act of 1875, which the Minister of Justice says reads into the Act submitted to us. I am a layman, and I like to have laws so framed that laymen can plainly understand them, and this section 11 of the statute of 1875 is of such a nature. That section reads :
When and so soon as an/ system of taxation shall be adopted in any district or portion of the Territories, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of the council or assembly, as the case may be, shall pass all necessary ordinances with respect to education ; but it shall therein be always provided that the majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories, or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they may see fit.
That clearly provides that the Northwest Council shall-not may-pass all necessary ordinances in respect of education, but it shall therein be always provided that the majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories, or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they may see fit. Does that not mean that they may establish clerical or any kind of school they think proper ? The Minister of Justice says the Bill before the House reads that section into it.


George Taylor: 


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He does not say anything of the kind.


George Taylor: My hou. friend may follow me and have the pleasure of contradicting my statement. There are the words of the Minister of Justice, as quoted by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and there is the section 11 of the Act of 1875, which he says is read into the Bill before the House, so that this Bill gives the people the right to establish any kind of schools they may see fit. What does that mean ? Woulld hon. gentlemen opposite who spoke on the subject have opposed the Bill if they had known that it gave the privilege of establishing clerical, church or denominational schools ? The Minister of Finance said it established national schools, but gave opportunity for a half-hour's religious training after 3.30 in the afternoon. Yet we have the statement of the Minister of Justice that the Act of 1875, section 11, gives the people in any school section the right to establish any kind of a school they see fit. Could anything be plainer ? I would like hon. gentlemen opposite to get the Act of 1875 and read section 11, which the Minister of Justice says he intended to have read into this Act.
Now, let me reply to my hon. friend who spoke of the references that have been made on this side to ' yellow-dog ' newspaper in Halifax. I am ready to ask how it can he construed to refer to any except the Orangemen or Protestants of Centre Toronto ?
The Halifax ' Chronicle,' the chief journal of Nova Scotia says The Liberal party has more important business on hand than the vain wooing of ' yellow-dog ' constituencies.
No appeal to the electors was then being made in any constituency except Centre Toronto. To what other constituency could this refer ?
The Liberal party is not running an opposition peanut stand, neither is it butting its head against yellow-dog walls for the entertainment of ' yellow dogs ' in general. That is why it did not go through the useless form of putting up a candidate in ' yellow-dog ' Centre Toronto while the whole inclosed pack was in a state bordering on political hydrophobia.
That is clearly not susceptible of the construction put upon it by my hon. friend from Kootenay (Mr. Galliher). The people [DOT] Inclosed ' in Centre Toronto, that ' yellow-dog pack ' include Conservatives and Liberals, but it is well known that that constituency is the stronghold of Orange-ism, And this is published by the newspaper that is supposed to be the mouth-organ of the Minister of Finance. Now, the Minister of Justice moved and I said I would second it, that we take up clause 20 ; but I think it is so late now that we had better adjourn and take up this matter when we feel fresher for the discussion.


Mr. DERBYSHIRE.: We ought to do a little business, George. Let us do a little.


George Taylor: I will leave the Orangemen of your constituency to deal with you.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to say a word with regard to this ' yellow dog ' matter. I hold no brief for the Halifax 'Chronicle' and have had nothing to do with it for nearly a quarter of a century. It has not always agreed with the government and too often, as it seemed to me, it was mistaken in its course. But I must say that the statement quoted by the hon. gentlemen from the Halifax ' Chronicle ' is no warrant whatever for the interpretation put upon it. Whether those statements are reasonable and proper criticisms of public affairs is a matter far consideration by those interested. But I contend that the references to the Orange body are made by the hon. gentlemen who have spoken and not a word has been quoted from the newspaper referring to the Orangemen.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say it was deliberately intended for that purpose'and it is susceptible of no other interpretation as applied to Centre Toronto.


William Stevens Fielding: It is always dangerous to say what somebody else has deliberately intended to do, because no one can say what was ' deliberately intended ' by another. I know something of the gentlemen connected with that paper, and, though I have had no communication with them on this point, I am perfectly satisfied that nothing was further from their thoughts in this paragraph than to make allusion to the Orange body. I know that one of the gentleman on the editorial staff of that paper is himself a member of the Orange body. Taking the quotation as it has been given, whether hon. gentlemen thftnk it a reasonable or unreasonable discussion of public affairs, there is no shadow of a foundation for the statement that it referred or intended to refer to the Orange body.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My information from the maritime provinces is to the effect that it was so intended.


William Stevens Fielding: Now, is not that unreasonable ? There are Orangemen in Nova Scotia


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are. That is why it seemed so unfair.


William Stevens Fielding: It would be unfair, as the hon. gentleman says, if it were intended. But the fact that this" is a political journal and anxious to win the good opinion of people, surely creates a fair presumption that they did not intend to make an offensive allusion to the Orangemen.


Judson Burpee Black: I have been trying four or five times to be in order and yet occupy the attention of the House for just a moment.
A speaker from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) made some reference to some remarks I had made in regard to Englishmen and Doukhobors. I made before this House, I think, a gentlemanly and. ample explanation and apology for that, and I say that the member who refers to that after I made such explanation and apology, is a coward.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Charles Marcil: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Black) should not use that expression.


Judson Burpee Black: Mr. Chairman, I will take it back if you say so. I wish there was some other word that d could use that would express the same meaning ; I would use it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Judson Burpee Black: The speaker who accused me has caused me annoyance only once. When I first came into parliament and saw his antics and1 actions my curiosity was aroused. But, since then, with all his antics, his jumping up and down, his hat-lifting and hand-fiinging, I have never had any feeling but one of quiet contempt, until, in a moment of weakness, I confess, I did feel annoyed at what was said. I say that no gentleman would have referred to me in connection with Englishmen and Doukhobors after the explanation I made.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Judson Burpee Black: Is there anything else you want me to take back, Mr. Chairman ?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It is not my intention to delay the House at great length, but I must express my opinion of some of the remarks that have been made here and of the conduct of a portion of the members of this House. I am a new member, and I must say that I am surprised that the business of the House is conducted in the manner in which it is. One might think himself to be in a bear-garden to see the antics and observe the tactics of gentlemen on the opposite side of this House. What we have observed to-night is not unusual because we have seen the same kind of thing day after day, and especially when the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) attempts to speak. I think it most unfair to that hon. gentleman. I have listened carefuly to him while he was speaking and I have never heard him say anything but what must be regarded as fair, moderate and tolerant towards people of all shades of opinion. I have watched from time to time, knowing the position he occupies, to see if he would say anything that could be construed as other than fair and courteous to those of other religious denominations than that to which he belongs. But, I must say truthfully that I have failed to find any-
590c

thing to which exception could be taken. But, while he is on the floor the constant cry from hon. gentlemen on the other side has been ' Orange Order.' Was that designed as a compliment to that order, or was it intended as an insult to that organization of which the hon. member for East Grey is the head ?
X did not find the hon. members for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) or North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) who claimed to be champions of Protestantism and who represent counties that are largely Protestant rise to defend the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I say it is unfair to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) who has always conducted himself since I have been in this House as a gentleman in the House should conduct himself. It is unfair to him and to the great order of which he is the Grand Master, an order composed of 500,000 loyal law-abiding citizens of Canada. Among 1he Orange Order of Canada are some of the best people of the country, people who were to a large extent born in this country, law-abiding citizens, ready to fight for their flag and country at any time they are called upon to do so, and yet hon. gentlemen on the opposite side hurl across the House insulting languages, sneers, &c., at the hon. member for East Grey because lie is the Grand Master of the Orange Order in Canada. Nearly all the hon. gentlemen opposite when they speak allude always to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). They want to make a point against him and against the Orange Order in order that they can drag their speeches and their insults against him as Grand Master of that Order into the province of Quebec. I want to repeat that they are law-abiding citizens and when the time comes for the order to show their hand, many hon. gentlemen opposite who represent constituencies in which there are many orangemen. will And they will resent the insult and the treatment that their Grand Master has received in this parliament since I have been here. If they do not I am greatly mistaken indeed in the sentiments of those people who belong to that great order. The Minister of Customs says the words ' yellow' dogs ' and the statement that they had hydrophobia were not intended for the Orange Order. It is all right for him and other members to try and withdraw that statement that has been made through the Liberal press of this country. It is all right to say it is not the Orange Order that was meant. But what did they mean ? Was it the law-abiding citizens of Centre Toronto whom they especially mentioned as yellow' dogs ? I think if it was Centre Toronto they can be held up as being as good citizens as there are in this country ; there are no better citizens anywhere than in Centre Toronto, and w'hy should' they be styled yellow dogs and told they hail hydrophobia. That is the kind of language that the hon. gentlemen opposite use. That Mr. LABOR.
is wdiat they call tolerant language ; they preach tolerance and that is tolerance. I do not think that * yellow dog ' is a very proper name to be applied to the citizens of Centre Toronto or to the Orange Order of this country. The hon. member for Hants stands up in this House and makes some very, insinuating remarks in reference to gentlemen on this side. He says the member for East Elgin is a great curiosity to him.


Judson Burpee Black: So he is.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I am sure wTe are very pleased to know that the member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) is so interesting to the member for Hants (Mr. Black), the gentleman w'ho has repeatedly withdrawn in the House a statement I heard him make that one Doukhohor was as good as a hundred Englishmen. He may withdraw that statement, he may correct that statement in ' Hansard,' but that is the statement he made in this House, and every gentleman-


Judson Burpee Black: I never made such a statement.


Charles Marcil: I think the rules are very clear on that point. You have to accept an hon. gentleman's interpretation of Ills own statement.
Mr. LALOIt. I must accept the statement when he says he did not make it, but I must certainly say that my ears on that particular day must have been in a rather strange condition.


Judson Burpee Black: Your ears were about as badly impaired as your tongue is now.
Mr. LALOIt. I think the member for Hants, when he speaks about curiosities has presented to the House to-night as great a curiosity almost as we will expect to find anywhere. He has been constantly trying to get on his feet to speak, and to assure the House that he did not make certain statements which it lias been insinuated he has made. The Minister of Customs has entertained ns to-night in reference to the election in Edmonton. He has told us that if we could have got five men to sign a requisition we might have had a candidate out there. The Minister of Customs is a gentleman of wide experience in election campaigns. I have heard gentlemen styled as Wandering Willies, but I think the Minister of Customs has wandered around a good deal in his political experience. He formerly represented South Brant in this House. Then the elections in South Brant did not go his way and he had to go up to Grey. The late member for Grey informed me that North Grey w'as a pure county so far as elections were concerned, that they never knew what it was to have a dollar spent In North Grey until the Minister of Customs went up there and then they spent $20,000 in order that he might be elected. The Minister of Customs wandered from North Grey down to North Brant



[Stage Direction]
where lie now lias a safe Liberal seat although I presume he will have it only until the electors have a chance of voting on this great question. 1 claim that if there has been any act of cowardice on the part of this government it was appointing as Minister of the Interior the gentleman who now holds that position. I do not say that with any disrespect to that gentleman, 1 do not insinuate for a moment that he is not qualified to fill that position, although there may be differences of opinion-and I understand that such differences exist on the Liberal side- as to whether he was the right man or not. The reports are that the government had another gentleman selected for that position who was the proper man to fill the position, but that gentleman refused the position because he knew he could not carry the constituency if he went back for re-election and it is because they were afraid they could not carry a seat in the west from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean, that the hon. gentleman is now filling the position of Minister of the Interior. He is Minister of the Interior by accident, purely a location accident, just because the riding that he represents happens to be one in which the Doukhobors, Galicians, and Russian Jews, and other foreign elements exist, and for that reason the hon. gentleman went back there and was elected although we had, as the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has already told us a few days, only a few days in which to bring out a candidate in opposition to him. It was on account of the elements in that division that the hon. gentleman can thank this House for being Minister of the Interior to-day, and no one knows that better than the hon. gentleman himself, the hon. Minister of Customs, the hon. Minister of Finance and other ministers who are sitting in their seats to-ndght. I* will ask the hon. Minister of Customs or the hon. Minister of Finance if they will stand up and tell us if it is not the fact that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) was the man who was first selected for the position ?
William Stevens Fielding: What odds if I should answer my hon. friend, because they will go on asserting that as they have for a month past. I say now there was no selection for the position except that of the hon. gentleman who has been appointed to it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It is all right to say there was no selection. I do not say there was a selection, but the hon. member for West Assiniboia was the choice of the ministry and he was the one who was named for the position, but he did not accept it because he knew he could not be elected.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no foundation for the hon. gentleman's statement, but as they will go on repeating it why deny it ?	'


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think there should be a certain amount of fairness between political parties. There should be a certain 187
amount of fairness on the part of the government towards the opposition, and I claim that in that election that fairness was not shown towards the people of Edmonton, or the opposition, or the Conservative party. We have been told that the voters' lists for that division were printed in the Government Printing Bureau at Ottawa, and that when the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) went to the Printing Bureau and asked for one of these lists he was refused and told he could not get it without the permission of one of the ministers. These lists were printed, they were not given to the Conservatives in that division, and they were not sent to the candidate whom the hon. Minister of the Interior defeated at the last general elections as is always the case. AVe know that they are always sent to the defeated candidate.
I would like to know who prepared these lists ? Was it the government here ? AVere they prepared out in Edmonton ? AVho brought them to Ottawa and "who ordered them to be printed ? The hon. Minister of the Interior says he does not know anything about them. Who>
is the minister who is responsible for these voters' lists which were printed for the benefit of the Minister of the Interior, and which the Conservatives were not able to obtain ? I think it is due to this House and to the country that the government should answer that question and tell us who is responsible for these voters' lists and who had them printed. No answer comes. It is the same as when every other speaker on this side of the House has put a question to the government. They refuse to answer any question, they refuse to tell us who is responsiole for the voters' lists and why the Conservatives were not able to get them.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Minister of the Interior allude to my hon. friend from East Elgin as toe did. All of us in this House have not had the benefit of a college education. We are not all graduates. We cannot all write B. A. or M. A. after our names, and I think it is to the credit of my toon, friend from East Elgin that he is a self-made man, that he probably received his education in our national or public schools and that he has risen to the position of a member of this House. I am glad that he is holding that position and it ill becomes the hon. Minister of the Interior to throw the insinuation across the floor of the House that my hon. friend from East Elgin is not an educated gentleman. I do not t know what the qualifications of the hon. Minister of the Interior are, but I do not believe, if we followed the matter up, we would find that he occupies a very much higher scholarly position than my hon. friend from East Elgin does. The hon. Minister of the Interior has given us a statement of the vote that was polled in the division that he represents in this House. I do not want to dispute that
revised edition

statement but it strikes me as strange that he should be abie to tell us how many Galicians, how many Doukhobors. how many French, how many Protestants and how many Catholics voted in that great district 463 miles long and 211 miles wide. It is very strange that he should be able to specify the nationality and religion- of the people _ of that district and I doubt very much if he is really able to do so. But, I think the statement submitted by my hon. friend from East Elgin and the names that he read from the voters' list tell us more plainly than any words of the Minister of the Interior, or of any other hon. gentleman on tlie other side of the House, the composition of the people living in certain polling divisions in the riding represented by tiie hon. Minister of the Interior. These names tel] us that these people are foreigners and the result in one polling division was that 82 votes were cast for the hon. Minister of the Interior and 5 for his opponent, showing very plainly that in that paiticuiar division the foreign vote was polled for the government candidate in the last Dominion election.
Reference has been made to the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) both by myself and other speakers. I have just had handed to me a little paragraph from a paper which I want to read, as follows :
Every nation has its quota of silly men. Some of them, by some curious mischance, find their way into the parliament. Then, if they exercise their privilege and speak, their silliness is recognized. For instance, if Dr. Black, M.P., for Hants, had continued to practise medicine he might have continued a reputation for being a wise man as well as a clever physician, but he heard the siren voice of political ambition and entered parliament. Even then that excellent reputation might have remained unimpaired. But he spoke and told the House that one good Canadian whose life had been saved is as good or better than a score of Doukhobors or a hundred Englishmen. Then the secret was out-there was another silly man in the Canadian House of Commons.
I do not want to say that I am responsible in any way for that. It is simply a newspaper extract and has been handed to me. I had not read it before and if I had read it probably I would have hesitated to have 1-ead it over.
Mr. Chairman, I just want in conclusion to say one word in reference to the representation of Ontario in the cabinet of lion, gentlemen opposite. I do not think that. Ontario is very well represented. I think we ought to have a very great improvement in the representation of the province of Ontario in the cabinet of the present government. I do not want to say anything in reference to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr, Paterson) whom I respect very much and who I believe may be a very good official in his department. But the difficulty with the representation of Ontario in the cabinet, is 1


Francis Ramsey Lalor: that we have in the Senate that fine old gentleman, Sir Richard Cartwright, who, I believe, is past four score years.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: We have also in the Senate the Hon. R. W. Scott, who is pretty much in the same line, and I was going to say we have in this House-but he is not very often in the House-the Postmaster General, and we have the Minister of Customs.


William Paterson: And the Minister of Public Works.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: We have no Minister of Public Works, and if reports are true the acting minister is very uneasy for fear he never will be minister. Unfortunately for him he has to face an election in London, and if public opinion can be gauged by the feeling that seems to exist in Ontario, I will be surprised if Mr. Hyman is elected.


Mr. TALBOT.: You will be surprised.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: In looking over the Ontario representatives in the cabinet it makes one think that if Dr. Osier's ideas are correct, then these gentlemen are long past the age when they should have been Oslerized.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Ask the member for East Grey about that.
Mr. 'SPROULE. I agree with his judgment when applied to this cabinet.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The member for East Grey is pretty well able to take care of himself. Gentlemen opposite have tried to cry him down, they have called ' order ' they have called him an Orangeman, they have called him a bigot, they have said everything they could against him, but he is alive and fighting and able to take care of himself. I am anxious to see this session ended, because we want to get home to attend to our business and look after our families, and the Minister of Justice could shorten the session if lie felt so disposed. I am pleased to hear that there is an arrangement that he is to tell us on Monday next, what this school clause means. We have had the member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) and the member for Saskatchewan and other Liberal members telling us that the Bill meant national schools with religious teaching for one half hour each day, and if the Minister of Justice will confirm these statements, then we shall know what we are doing. It is unfair to parliament and to the country, that this Bill should be before the House for weeks and that there should be such divergencies of opinion expressed as to its meaning, while the Minister of Justice has declined to tell us exactly what the Bill means so that we may vote intelligently on it.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Mr.  L. G.@: 
Francis Ramsey Lalor: I hope the hon. gentleman did not understand that I insinuated anything different ?


Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY.: I so understood mm. I was going to say to the hon. member for Haldimand, and the hon. member or East Grey will bear it out, that neither he nor Ins predecessor as grand master ever lifted a hand to help me to come back to this House either in 1900 or 1901, but on the contrary they both took the stump in mv riding in support of my opponent.


Benjamin B. Gunn: that constituency. I am free to admit that the hon gentleman who represents Loudon today is one of the most popular men, whether Liberal or Conservative, in that city an exceedingly popular man. He will go hack there with the prestige ot a portlolio, that of the Public Works Department, the largest spending department of this government. 1 am not going to express an opinion as to what the result will be but if a Conservative should be elected I * sure it will be the death-blow of 'the Liberal party in the Dominion of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Why ?


Mr GUNN.: Because it will show that the sentiment of the people is adverse to the government.


Mr FIELDING.: It would show that one constituency was adverse, but what else would it show '!


Benjamin B. Gunn: I am referring to the province of Ontario.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend said that it would prove the death-blow of this government throughout the Dominion. That is what I take exception to. They say that as goes Pennsylvania so goes the uniom but I do not think we should say of ai constituency in Canada, as goes that constituency so goes the Dominion.


Mr GUNN.: The Minister of Finance knows that this is the first time that I have spoken in this House, and perhaps I hace made a mistake,.but I don't think so.


Mr FIELDING.: I beg pardon ; I should not have interrupted the hon. gentleman.


Mr GUNN.: 
Mr SCOTT.: If my hon. friend will permit
me, i will give him the declaration immediately. I have every confidence that if the district of Western Assiniboia had been opened instead of .Edmonton, the government would have scored either an acclamation or a very much larger majonty than I polled last November.	,
Mr. GtjNN. I feel confident that the hon. gentleman would have made, a first-class Minister of the Interior ; but I have not a word to say against the hon. gentleman who at present occupies that position. _ I have every confidence that he will administer the department satisfactorily, if the other ministers allow him to. I have made these, few remarks because I think that the province of Ontario has not been treated in this debate with the respect due to that province as the largest tax-paying province in the Dominion ; and if I had thei opportunity of taking part in the by-elections, I would avail myself of that opportunity to let some of the people know what I have seen in this House of the conduct of members of the cabinet representing that pio-vince, who have not stood up for it as they should have done.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I regret that I am obliged at this late hour to occupy a minute or two of the time of the House. When the hon. mgmber for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was addressing the House I thought that if he were aware of everything the Minister of Justice said he would not have quoted him in any but a fair way ; and I stated, when he had the floor, that I presumed he-did not want to be unfair. Instead of taking mv interruption in the spirit ill which it was made, he flew at me and refused to-listen to me at all, and thereby caused some
unpleasantness between myself and him. The speeches, however, that were made by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) to-night were no doubt made for a purpose. They were clearly campaign speeches ; and in order to make them good, solid Orange campaign speeches, they had to contain something discreditable said by some one in authority. Therefore, they introduced into those speeches something which they alleged had been said by the Minister of Justice. But before I proceed further, I wish to point out that the Minister of Justice was somewhat bound by the agreement entered into by him and the leader of the opposition yesterday, that the discussion on this educational clause would not take place today. So that if the hon. gentlemen who follow the leader of the opposition had any regard for agreements made by him, this whole evening would not have been wasted in this useless discussion, the whole of which must come up again, when these hon. gentlemen will have to go.over the same ground or say nothing. What was the agreement entered into yesterday between the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Justice 1 It was as follows :


Robert Laird Borden: So far as I am concerned, the hon. gentleman has very courteously answered everything I wish to ask at this moment, and therefore I am perfectly willing to allow section 2 to stand for the purpose of convenience until we come to discuss it In connection with section 16.
Hon. gentlemen following the leader of the opposition should have known of this agreement, and not have precipitated this discussion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the leader of the opposition asked the Minister of Justice to give an explanation of section 10 before we came to deal with it ?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I leave it to the Minister *of Justice himself to say whether what I have mentioned did not take place.


William Stevens Fielding: The leader of the opposition confirmed that agreement this evening, and said that he was quite willing that the matter should stand over until Monday.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This whole discussion which we have just had was therefore in violation of the agreement entered into between the two hon. gentlemen m this House who should be followed by both sides respectively, and this debate was either due
to a mistake on the part of certain members of the opposition or was intended for the purpose of obstruction and waste of time. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has told us that the Minister of Justice made the statement that this Bill we are discussing would bring into force the Act of 1875, and that section 93 of the British North America Act would also bring that Act into force. But if we are to do justice to that hon. minister, if we are to correctly represent the constitutional view which he holds on this matter, we must read all he said. Had I been trained in any other school than that of the legal profession, perhaps. I would not consider it so serious an offence to misquote any man's statement or make a misstatement before a court or a parliament, but there is nothing that is considered so contemptible on the part of any one belonging to the noble profession of tbe law as to make a mis-quotation before the court or anywhere else. Therefore, I find it difficult to tolerate any mis-quotation on the part of any gentleman, and that is the reason why I could not very well stand the mis-quota-tions made to-night. What the Ministei^ of Justice said wTas that if section 93 is going to apply to the west, what would happen ? Then we must read in that connection the statement made by him at that same moment :
My argument now is that taking section 16, read in the light of these words in section 2 [DOT] except in so far as varied by this Act -that is to say that the provisions in the British North America Act are applicable to the new provinces, except in so far as varied by this Act-the effect of section 16 is to substitute it for the original section 93 in the British North Vmerica Act, and section 93 is not applicable at all, because that section is varied by section lo.
Where is the fairness in standing before tbe House and quoting what the Minister of Justice says about the . effect of section 93 if it came into force, when he distinctly said it will not and cannot apply, and that the amended section 16 takes the place of it entirely, so that whatever he said as regards what might happen if section 93 were to apply has no bearing at all on tbe final effect cf tbe passing of this Act. That is what I wish to put on record.


Mr INGRAM.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the words which the hon. member for East Grey read were a mis-quotation, or that tbe hon. member did not quote in full wbat the minister said t


Mr D. D. McKENZIE.: I said that he did not quote the whole statement made by tbe minister, and that to quote a part only was misleading and unfair to the countiy and tbe House. That is tbe reason I wanted the hon. gentleman to read all that the hon. minister'had said and there would then have been no misunderstanding. Now, Mr. Chairman I come from the province of Nova Scotia, where this journal, the 'Chronicle,

which has been quoted this evening, is published. We have in Nova Scotia a great many Orangemen. I know a great many, I have grown up among them, and I have yet to hear in Nova Scotia a word offensive said by any one in that country of any man simply because he happens to be, an Orangeman. I have never heard anything of the kind. We respect the Orangemen and we respect the society to which they belong, but I will tell you what we do not respect. We do not respect any man who plays on his position. If a man cannot give himself prominence in this country except by parading his position, for that man the Yoemanry of No\a Scotia have no respect, and they cannot conceal the feelings contrary to respect which they hold regarding any individual of that character. I do not think that there is the slightest necessity for parading Orange-ism in this House, or for men in tills House trading on their position as Orange leaders. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous than to see a gentleman standing in this House and declaring that he cannot get a hearing because lie is standing up for Protestantism. Why, about 90 per cent of this House are Protestants largely representing the Protestant people. How ridiculous therefore it must appear to see a man stand up here and say lie will not be given a bearing because he is championing the l rotestant cause. Nothing can be more absurd. I am a Protstsin.t myself, and largely represent a Protestant district. but at the same time I do not lor one moment allow anybody to stand up in this House, without a protest, and say he is speaking for Protestantism. There is no necessity for his doing so. There is no offence to Protestantism ever committed in this House and nothing offensive said regarding it and no offence intended. The rights of Protestantism are here absolutely secured, and nobody need trail bis coat along, to use an Irish expression, in order to see if any one will tramp on it and thus give him the opportunity of saying: I am the appointed leader of Protestantism and bound to defend it, and what is said to me is an insult to Protestants.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: i would like to know who are the bon. gentlemen who are cheering tins outburst. Are they the Protestant members of this House ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: the remarks that have been made, I can attribute these insults to nothing but to the fact that I am an Orangeman.


Some hon. MEMBERS: , oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why, the very name was mentioned over and over again. The colour has been spoken of. I have been referred to as an ' Orangiste,' and as parading my orangism, and my name has been frequently mentioned in connection with petitions sent in by members of that body. I read a quotation from the Halifax ' Chronicle ' to which my attention had been drawn by Orangemen from the district of the hon. member (Mr. D. D. Mackenzie) who spoke just now, and whicli I recognized, and which other papers have commented on in the same sense. I say that paragraph was intended as a deliberate insult to the Orange Association. And the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. D. D. Mackenzie) has many Orangemen in bis constituency who supported him and have written me that they supported him, but, who, I say, will resent such insults, as will Orangemen in other portions of the country. Though I have never posed as an Orangeman, I have received scant courtesy at the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite from whom I was entitled to the consideration due to a member of this House, because I have always extended that consideration to others. I have been here for twenty-seven years, and I have always treated every bon. member of this House with due respect. If when a member was speaking I desired to ask a question, I have always asked permission to do so. But often when I have risen to ask leave in this way, a howl has gone up from the other side, as though I were not entitled to respectful hearing which should be given to every member of this House. Why was this ? I can attribute it to no other'cause than the fact that I belonged to tlie Orange Association and for that reason was thought by some lion, gentleman to be unworthy the courtesy which should be observed between members of this House. It may be thought by some that I might reasonably expect that treatment from Roman Catholics, though I claim that, having treated them with due respect, I had a right to expect similar treatment in return. But I regret that even where I have been denied by members of that faith the courtesy that was due me as a member of this House, they were backed up by Protestants who ought to have had more respect for themselves and for the country to which they belong.


George Taylor: I never took much stock in any member of this House who would make a statement here or on the platform that he himself knew to be untrue. Now my hon. friend from North Cape Breton' (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) stated that the Protestants were represented in this House by

90 per cent of its members. That is what he wants to send out to the country Is it a fact ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is about as close to the facts as he came in his speech.
Mr. I'AYLOR. The fact is there are 70 members of the Roman Catholic faith, as I understand, out of 214. ThenT he insinuated that I had misquoted the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). I defy any man to show that I have ever misquoted a' member of this House or made a statement here or elsewhere that I did not believe to be true. I read the words of the Minister of Justice, and read as much as related to the argument I was making. The hon gentleman (Mr. D. I). McKenzie) read another clause, one that did not refer to the argument the Minister of Justice was making at that time. The hon. gentleman further said that he took no stock in a party that would violate its agreement. What party violated that agreement ? Hon. gentlemen opposite have done the talking. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) spoke for half an hour and before dinner the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding)-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He started the fight.
Mr. TAYLOR, And after dinner the Minister of Customs repeated between fifty and a hundred times


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) is giving too high a percentage now.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Only 90 per cent too high.


George Taylor: I do not interrupt my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. O. E. Talbot) when he is speaking, and I will thank him not to interrupt me. If the Minister of Customs will go over his speeches in ' Hansard ' to-morrow, I think he will find between fifty and a hundred times that remark about the twenty-six men and the four or five men in Alberta. And the discussion has been followed up man and man about. Yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) tries to make out that there has been a violation of agreement.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I read the agreement.
Mr. TAiLOR. But his is part and parcel of the Liberal party's methods-they try to make the people believe, as their newspaper did, that they are the white men and the Conservatives are the yellow dogs. When I spoke I said what I thought was due concerning the hon. member for Last Grey (Mr. Sproule). And the hon. gentleman has spoken for himself. No man has ever heard the hon. member for East Grey parade the fact that he is Grand Master of the Orange Society. And he may fairly claim that, because of that office he is entitled to respect instead of
being sneered at. He has asked for the protection of the House, and he tells us that from this day he will insist on being treated with the same respect that is due, and that he has always shown to other members. I am safe in saying that no hon. member on the other side has ever been interrupted while speaking as the hon. member for East Grey has been ? We, on this side, no matter who is speaking, endeavour to keep within, not only the rules of ,the House, but the courtesies that should exist between hon. members. I say now what I said two hours ago, that I think it is about time we responded to the request of the Minister of Justice and stopped this discussion.	The discussion should have
stopped and would have stopped, had it not been that it was carried on by supporters of the government. They began it and have kept it up.
Motion (Mr. Sam. Hughes) negatived.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I move that we now consider section 20.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 20,
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, subject to the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act, as amended, with respect to road allowances and roads or trails as in force on the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and five, which shall apply to the said province with the substitution therein of the said province for the Northwest Territories.
Charles Fitzpatrick: I move to strike out the words ' Northwest Territories Act as amended,' and substitute ' any Act of the parliament of Canada.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not intended to dispose of this clause to-night.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have an arrangement with the leader of the opposition on that point. I also propose to add a subsection to clause 20 of the Alberta Bill and this subsection will apply only exclusively to the Alberta Bill. It is as follows
2. The Rocky Mountains Park shall continue to be subject to the provisions of the Acts of the parliament of Canada applying thereto and to regulations made or to be made thereunder ; provided that the provincial laws shall apply to and be operative within the said park so far as they are not inconsistent with such Acts and regulations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to say if the Minister of Justice will not deign to reply to a respectful question he can take that as his means of doing business


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think that the hon. member who has been delaying the committee all evening has a right to lecture me in this way. I had an arrange-

ment with the leader of the opposition that when we got to this clause X was to move the amendment and that the matter was to remain there and I notified the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) to that effect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to tell the Minister of Justice that if I understood it I was in charge of this side of the House. I have noticed that disrespect more than once. Now to-night I asked a question which I did for a purpose. I know that some of our members desire to deal with this question but are not here to-night, and X think at least it was due to any one who was representing this side of the House that they should be treated to the courtesy of a reply but the Minister of Justice does not deign to do that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I made my reply. I am endeavouring if I can to proceed with some regularity in regard to this Bill. Of course I adopted the proper course. I moved that the clause be considered, I moved the amendment, and when that was done I intended to make the explanation that the clause was to remain in abeyance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was I out of place in asking the minister what he meant to do ? He said :	' I made an arrangement with
the leader of the opposition.' But the leader of the opposition was not here and was it incorrect to give a reply and to give the explanation ? I knew that certain members desired to discuss this clause. That is just one of those lacks of courtesy which the hon. minister has shown more than once.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 1-40 a.m., Friday.

Friday, May 12, 1905.