1916-05-10

PRIVATE BILL.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Martha Isabella Kenny.-Mr. Nickle.

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

Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	How many employees were there in the following departments, on the first of July, 1895 : Public Works, Interior, Finance, Post Office, Justice, Agriculture, Marine and Fisheries, Mines, Customs, Railways and Canals, Public Printing and Inland Revenue?
2.	How many employees were there in the said departments on the first of October, 1911?


Mr. BLONDIN:: Public Works: 1.1,587-2.4,690.-
Interior: 1. 279-2. 1,893.	-
Finance: 1. Inside service, 33; outside service, 27; temporary employees, 11, total, 71-2. Inside service, 83; outside service, 29; temporary employees, 8, total, 120.
Post Office: 1. Inside service, 285; outside service, |1,726, total, 2,011-2. Inside service, 549; outside service, 4,342, total, 4,891.
Justice:	1. 345 .	2. 519.Agriculture:	1. 172.	2. 807.
Marine: 1. 2,609. 2. 7,269.
Mines: Geological Survey Department: 1. Permanent, 32; temporary, 16, total, 48- Mines Departments. Permanent, 118; temporary, 39, total, 157. The Department of Mines (Geological Survey and Mines Branch) was created April 27, chap. 29, 6-7 Edward VII.
Customs: 1. Outside service, 1,313; inside service, 33, total, 1,346-2. Outside service, 2,265; inside service, 206, total, 2,471.
Railways and Canals: 1. 6,726-2. 14,082.
Printing Bureau: 1. 431-2. 865.
Inland Revenue: 1. 479-2. 671.


SAGUENAY RIVER IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What has been the total cost of Improving the channels from Point Roches, River Saguenay, to Chicoutimi, and during what years were such operations carried on?
2.	Is it a fact that the resident engineer at Chicoutimi reports the least depth of water in the channel at low water spring tide is now 14 feet?
3.	Has any official chart been published or issued of the said channel?
4.	Has any official notice been issued to mariners as to the depth of water in the said channels ?
5.	Is it a fact that in the case of a Quebec pilot, whose license also takes in the Saguenay, that his duties cease on arrival at the anchorage of Point Roches, eight miles from Chicoutimi, when inward bound to that port, and do not commence until the vessel has reached the same place, outward bound from Chicoutimi?
6.	Is it a fact that the reason the pilots

give for such action is that the channel has not been declared officially opened?
7.	Do the steamers of the Canada Steamship Company refuse to recognize the channels as other than Half Tide channels, on the ground that the depth in said channels has not been officially declared?
8.	Will the channels be officially declared open this season? If not, why not?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Fiscal year.	Cu. yd.	Price.	amount.	1907-08.. ..	.. 8	$2 65	41,054	34	$14,070	781908-09.. ..	. . 64,615	32$	22,851	171909-10.. ..	. . 112,609	321	37,410	931910-11.. ..	. . 152,875	213	33,329	101911-12.. ..	. . 184,022	32$	165	2 50	60,292	411912-13.. ..	. . 17	2 50	249,425	32$	81,741	211913-14.. ..	. . 30,600	32$	*9,769	5034,300	32$	11,147	501914-15.. ..	.. 6,006	32$	1,951	95Total. . ..	$272,564	55Chicoutimi	wharf.	Departmental Dredging Plant.	Fiscal year.	Dredge.	Cu. yd.	Cost.	1904-05.. ..	No. 110	1,500	$ 172	50Lady	Minto, etc.	141,100	31,094	781905-06.. ..	No. 110	62,500	27,125	001906-07.. ..	No. 116	37,800	9,639	001907-08 .. ..	No. 116	101,800	29,861	041914-15 .. ..	No. 116	45,840	20,406	92Total	
$108,299 24Grand total	
$380,863 792.	The district engineer at Chicoutimi reports that least depth below extreme low water is 10 feet.3.	The British Admiralty have published chart No. 1370 of the Saguenay river and approaches. This chart may be purchased from the Admiralty or Admiralty agents. A Canadian chart covering area from St. Fulgence to Chi pshaw on the Saguenay river is under preparation by the Department of the Naval Service,, and will be published in a few months. This chart may, upon publication, be purchased from the Department of Naval Service, or from the agents of the Marine Department.4.	No.5.	The Pilotage Regulations provide for pilotage on the Saguenay river from Tad-oussac at the mouth of the Saguenay, to Chicoutimi, and from Chicoutimi to Tad-oussac, and the fact that the department pays the pilots' board at Chicoutimi and did so off and on all last season would indicate that the pilots do go to Chicoutimi. The department has no information that the pilotage of vessels outward bound is undertaken by the pilots only at Point Ro-ches, eight miles from Chicoutimi.6.	7, and 8. No information.


CLAIM OF REV. D. R. MACDONALD.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	Is the Rev. ,D. R. Macdonald still endeavouring to secure the sum of three thousand dollars, or any sum, for ballot used by the Dominion Government, claiming it is his design?
2.	Has the Government paid this, or any sum, to Rev Mr. Macdonald for ballot?
3. If not, does the Government intend to pay this or any other sum to Rev. Mr. Macdonald on account of ballot?
4.	Has Rev. Mr. Macdonald received any sum in the past, on account of ballot?
5.	If so, how much, and when?


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	The Reverend D. R. Macdonald contends that certain devices covered by a patent issued to him, applicable to ballots used in elections, have been appropriated under the Dominion Elections Act, 1900, 63-64 Victoria, Chapter 12, and the Act to-amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900, 1 Edward VII, Chapter 16, and that under the provisions of the Patent Act, Chapter 69 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, Section 52, he is entitled to compensation therefor.
2.	The Dominion Government paid to the Reverend D. R. Macdonald the sum of $333 in the year 1902, which was no't accepted in satisfaction of the -above claim.
3.	The Government will pay any legal claim which may be established under the Patent Act above referred to.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 2.


MANITOBA SCHOOL LANDS.
Mr. CRUISE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to-sell any school lands in the province of Manitoba during the year 1916?
2.	Are school lands ever sold by private sale?'


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	It is contemplated holding some auction sales of school lands in the province of Manitoba during the present year, but no definite arrangements have so far been made.
2.	School lands are only sold by private sale to railway companies for right of way, station grounds, and other purposes of the railway under the provisions of the Railway Act, to Boards of School Trustees for school sites under the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 39 of the Dominion Lands Act, and for the right of way of pipe lines and reservoirs in connection with irrigation works under the provisions of the Irrigation Act.


WAR SUPPLIES-TRANSPORT TRUCKS.
Mr. McMILLAN:: 1.	On what date was the contract let for the 300 transport trucks for whicSi the manufacturers were asked to quote prices on February 10?
2.	Who were the manufacturers who received the orders anil what was the price paid?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	February 12, 1916.
2.	Petrolia Wagon Co., Petrolia, Ont., 150 wagons at $118 each: Adams Wagon Co., Brantford, Ont., 150 wagons at $118 each.


OKANAGAN INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. OLIVER:: What are the names of the Indians of the Okanagan Indian reserve to whom money was paid out of the amount received for right of way from the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and the amount paid to each?


Mr. ROCHE:: Herman Gregoire, $752.50; Joseph Jimmy, $703.19; Alexander Chela-hitsa, $2,763.50.


STEAMSHIP BALEINE.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	Who are the owners of the SS. Baleine, the name of which appears on page ZZ-119, Auditor General's Report?
2.	How long has she been in the service of the Government and at what rate per month?
3.	What is the size of the ship and what is her port of registry?
4.	Of what horse-power are her engines?
5.	What amount has been paid to the owners of the said ship from the date of hire to date.
6.	Is the said ship still in the service of the Government?


Mr. HAZEN:: r. The Lockeport Cold Storage Company.
2.	From the 1st Feb., 1915, to date; $3,500 per month, the owners to pay the wages and board of the captain and crew, also provide and pay for engine room and deck stores and oils; time lost from break-down of machinery or hull due to their defectiveness for periods over 24 hours, to be deducted from the amount of hire, the owners to secure and pay for ordinary marine insurance.
3.	Length, 159.3 feet; breadth, 26.2 feet; depth, 13.7 feet; St. John's, Newfoundland.
4.	98 nominal.
5.	$52,548.93.
6.	Yes.


INQUIRIES FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GRAHAM:: A few days ago the
House passed a motion for the production of a copy of the lease of certain property

in North Bay. I think the return has not yet been brought down. It is a small matter, just a copy of the lease. It refers to the Militia Department.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I shall direct
attention to it.


THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden for Committee of Supply:
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the amendment that is in your hands:
That all the words after " that" in the main motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
" It has long been the settled policy of Great Britain whenever a country passed under the sovereignty of the Crown by treaty or otherwise, to respect the religion, usages and language of the inhabitants who thus become British subjects ;
" That His Majesty's subjects of French origin in the province of Ontario complain that by recent legislation they have been to a large extent deprived of the privilege which they and their fathers have always enjoyed since Canada passed under the sovereignty of the British Crown, of having their children taught in French;
" That this House, especially at this time of universal sacrifice and anxiety, when all energies should be concentrated on the winning of the war, would, while fully recognizing the principle of provincial rights and the necessity of every child being given a thorough English education, respectfully suggest to the Legislative Assembly the wisdom of making it clear that the privilege of the children of French parentage of being taught in their mother tongue be not interfered with."


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion of the hon. member for Kamouraska is an amendment to the motion that I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply. This amendment contains certain declarations in the nature of a preamble, and asks the House, for certain reasons, to respectfully suggest to a Provincial Legislative Assembly the wisdom of a course of action recommended by the general tenor of the amendment. A point of order has been raised that this amendment is not in order because the subject matter of the amendment is not within the jurisdiction of this Parliament.
It is the duty of your Speaker to enforce, and, subject to your instructions, to administer and interpret the rules and practice enacted and prescribed by your House for the orderly conduct of its business and debates; but the privileges, powers and jurisdiction of the House are matters of the very greatest importance and must be determined by the House itself.

A motion to go into Committee of Supply is parliamentarily of a different nature from other motions in that debate upon it need not be relevant to the motion before the House. Almost any matter can be discussed on the main motion itself. There are, indeed, a few limitations of a strictly technical nature which need not be referred to here (See Bourinot, 3rd ed., p. 585). The present amendment is one asking for an expression of opinion on the part of the House upon a matter of general public interest and need not be relevant nor upon a subject within the legislative powers of this House. As to the nature of amendments which may be made at such a time, May (5th ed., p. 554) says:
The ancient constitutional doctrine, that the redress of grievances is to be considered before the granting of Supply, is now represented by the practice of permitting every description of amendment to be moved on the question for the Spea'ker' leaving the Chair before going into the Committee of Supply. Upon other orders of the day such amendments must be relevant, but here they are permitted to relate to every question upon which any member may desire to offer a motion.
Bourinot, 3rd ed., on page 583, quotes these observations with approval, and adds:
The same practice is now followed very extensively in the Canadian Commons.
He cites in support of this statement many pages of the Journals of the House. Bourinot refers to certain limitations of this right, such as that only one amendment may be moved .at a time, but he nowhere suggests that sueh an amendment would be inadmissible because the subject matter was beyond the legislative jurisdiction of the House.
The Journals are replete with instances of amendments of almost every description on going into Supply. These have been debated and voted upon without objection on the grounds either of relevancy or want of jurisdiction.
Members of this House, being here to act in the interest of all Canada, I think it is proper that any of them may bring before it, on the motion to go into Supply, any matter which in his opinion may be detrimental or advantageous to any section of the population.
In my opinion, the point of order is not well taken. By ruling that this amendment is in order, I mean that this House has the right to discuss it, not with the view of depriving a province of what may have been enacted by its legislature, but merely with the view of,,allowing the House to express its opinion.
Mr. W. B. NOKTHRUP (East Hastings) appealed from the ruling of Mr. Speaker.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I feel it to be my imperative duty to move this resolution and to invite the discussion of this subject, which is of the utmost importance for the welfare of this country. I assure the right hon. the Prime Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, that, previous to his appeal of yesterday, I had given to this matter the most earnest and serious consideration. I knew that the course which I had adopted would be disagreeable to many and that I would receive remonstrances and even castigations. For the last few weeks we have been cautioned and warned against approaching this subject in the Dominion Parliament on account of its extreme gravity, lest it should lead to further and more acute dissension between the two gtreat races which compose the majority of the Canadian people. But ignoring difficulties, ignoring problems, is not solving them. On the contrary, I believe it is our duty, as the national representatives of the whole of Canada, to deal with the subject which is embodied in the resolution which I have the honour to move. This question, from its nature, has become a national question. We cannot ignore it. We have to treat it courageously and patriotically. There is no question which affects vitally one section of this country which does not affect the others; especially is that the case when it relates to the language which one-third of the population of this country claim as their birthright.
I earnestly hope that this discussion, instead of being a cause of discord, will promote a better understanding and a closer union between the two races. I do not want to create any ill-feeling, although unfortunately that exists at the present time. I do not want to accentuate any ill-feeling that exists; my purpose is to dispel it. During the last two years Mr. Lloyd George has pleaded in Great Britain for peace at home. That is what we need in Canada also.
It is a coincidence of good omen that tihis House should be the first assembly in the British Empire to be called upon to endorse

and give effect in some way to the wish formulated in the resolution adopted unanimously on the 10th of April last by the British and French inter-parliamentary delegates at the meeting held in London on that date. The resolution, which I haw taken from the London Times, reads:
Believing that the alliance between the French and English peoples will be cemented by a more thorough knowledge on the part of each people of the mind and the literature of the other, the Franco-British Interparliamentary Committee expresses its conviction that the teaching and spelling of the French and the English languages respectively should be, as far as possible, encouraged and developed in both countries, and it commends this subject to the prompt and earnest consideration of the educational authorities and of the teachers in France and in the United Kingdom.
The mover of this resolution, Mr. Franklin Bouillon, gave an interview to the Daily Chronicle, and I take it from the edition of that newspaper of April 11, 1916:
We think that no solid union can be built up except by the mutual interpretation of mind, said Mr. Franklin Bouillon, referring to the question of the teaching of the English and Franch languages which he had introduced at the conference. That was the only way to bind the two peoples together. The feeling of the whole conference was that such a consummation was absolutely to be desired, and our duty, after what we had learned, was that we the dominions and countries united, should be prepared to make an arrangement in future so that we should be perfectly independent economically Just as we have been and would re- . main politically.
Lord Bryce was the president of the conference, and the resolution, which was carried unanimously, was moved by Mr. Franklin Bouillon and seconded by Sir Henry Craik, M.P.
I said that it was a rather fortunate circumstance that this Canadian Parliament should be the first to be called upon to endorse this resolution of the representatives of the Allied countries, and it is quite appropriate that such should be the case. This Parliament is the greatest bilingual institution in the British Empire, and it is but natural that we should view with favour and approval this new and most fortunate course adopted by,the representative leaders of our two great mother countries.
The Canadian Confederation was a compromise. It is certainly to be regretted that periodically questions arise that endanger the work of unity and national harmony which is so essential to the building up and development of a great country. Such questions cannot be avoided;

but it is the duty of Canadian public men to approach and to deal with them in a spirit of tolerance, justice, and liberty. It is impossible to prevent those troublesome questions from beingf thrown into the political arena; but surely, after fifty years of Confederation, the two branches of the Canadian family must have come of age; they must be able to put aside the fanatics and the demagogues; they must be able to adjust their difficulties and to settle their controversies in that most commendable spirit described by Lincoln: "With malice toward none; with charity for all." Our social fabric is based entirely upon the mutual respect of the rights of the two great Canadian races. This principle is at the very root of our constitution. It is necessary for those who are not familiar with the history of this country that they should be made acquainted with' that fact. There is no place in Canada for narrowness of mind or prejudice; indeed, there should be no place for them in any country in the world. Moderation, tolerance, and charity must be the governing principles of all creeds, races, and colours, and the Golden Kule should apply to all.
I do not purpose dealing with the legal and constitutional aspect of the question, although I may refer to it incidentally for the purpose of my argument. This resolution does not recommend the disallowance of any of the provincial laws of Ontario. It does not imply any blame or censure upon the course adopted by the Government in dealing with the petitions praying for the disallowance of that legislation. Indeed, I personally believe that disallowance would have been unwise; the Temedy might, perhaps, have increased the disease. Coercion of any kind will not settle the difficulties. I am a true Liberal and a believer in provincial lights. I will go so far as to admit that to be effective and successful any final settlement of this question must be made in Ontario and by Ontario herself. But, Sir, is it not the right of this Parliament, while declining to interfere with the provincial legislation of Ontario by the exercise of the power of disallowance or otherwise, to appeal to the rulers of that province for a generous and peaceful settlement of this disturbing question and for a redress of the grievances of the minority? If the majority would not accept coercion on the part of this Parliament with regard to what they consider to be their provincial rights, how can they
expect that the minority will tamely submit to coercion on the part of the provincial Legislature with regard to what the members of the minority also consider to be their most sacred and inalienable rights? Is it not our duty as representatives of the great Canadian family to plead with this member of that family, to ask him who is the big brother to be fair to his little and weaker brother, to be generous with him, to help him along in his struggles and not to quarrel with him? Surely, this is not coercion.
Sir, the French Canadians of Ontario love their language. We all love it. W,e love it because it is our own language. Let any hon. gentleman, let any man, consult his own personal feeling; let him consult his own heart and he will realize how great ds his affection for the language that he learned to speak on the knees of his mother. But we love the French language also because we sincerely feel that it is the sweetest and purest and noblest language which has ever been spoken by human lips. We love it because of its great literature. We love it for its glorious history. We love it because of 3 p.m. its clearness, which is so great that a German author is reported to have said: " I am anxious to have my book translated into French in order to understand it better." French, in the words of John Quincy Adams, is the acknowledged neutral language of all refined society; it is the language of diplomacy; its influence is world-wide. The reports of French literary statistics show that one-half of every edition of a French novel is sold outside of France, and that two-thirds of .the more serious works are sold in foreign countries. Take the case of my hon. friend the member for Wright (Mr. E. B. Devlin), the seconder of this resolution. My hon. friend is an Irishman who has not a drop of French blood an his veins. Where did he acquire that knowledge and mastery of the French language which he possesses? He acquired it in a college in Great Britain. Let me give an illustration of the real status of the French language in the world. I will quote an article entitled, " French spoken in Berlin," from La Gazette de Lausanne:
While Berlin is zealously striving to expunge from the German language all those grossly deformed and mutilated terms which they had originally borrowed from ours, French victoriously makes its entry into the capital of the Empire via Constantinople. A Bernese newspaperman who is a friend of ours, returning from a trip to Germany, states

liament of Canada and are entitled as a right to stand up in this Parliament and address you, Mr. Speaker, in the French language. It is not fair to contend that in order to exercise what is their right, they must have the privilege of receiving in the schools of the country, which they maintain with their own money, the education which will enable them to do so. But the advocates of By-law 17 claim that they do not want' to prevent the teaching of the French language, that their only purpose is to improve the methods and quality of bilingual education, and that their regulations have been enacted for the advantage and benefit of the French-speaking children. Sir, the sense of fairness is so deeply rooted in the mind of the average English-speaking Canadian that to induce him to accept' a wrong or an injustice, some moral excuse or justification must be given for that wrong. The wolf will always find some pretence to justify his eating of the lam'b. I assure you that this sort of benevolent despotism does not appeal to me. I acknowledge the good faith of many of those who support and defend these regulations. I believe that the greater number of them would refuse to endorse the proscription of the language which is the pride of so many of their fellow citizens. But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind, and there is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any one .who has received even a smattering of French education that these regulations, although they proceed more slowly, proceed obliquely, and more insidiously perhaps, but with no less certainty to the same end, namely, the strangling of the French tongue.
The time at my disposal does not permit me to analyse any of these regulations, nor do I think that this is the proper place to do so. Allow me to point out, however, that what is left of the study of French can only be made in the schools which were in operation and in which French was a subject of study previous to 1912. Does not that seem an unpatriotic reservation? It is inflicting a penalty upon the French-Cana-dians for being guilty of observing too well the law of multiplication prescribed by the Almighty. It is an inducement to race suicide. I believe, however, that the moral character and temperament of my countrymen will successfully resist any such unpatriotic design.
Another feature of the regulations which is also absolutely unacceptable is that no teaching of French shall be given in any manner except with the consent and on
fMr. E. Lapointe.]
the approval of the inspector, from whose decision there is no appeal. I cannot understand why such a condition of things should receive the approval of any fair-minded man. My idea of what constitutes liberty _ precludes me from admitting that it can be sufficiently preserved when the citizen must depend upon the benevolence, the whim, or, in some cases, perhaps upon the prejudices of a minister, or any of his servants. Surely that is not liberty. For my part I cannot help thinking that these regulations were an unfortunate wounding of the French Canadians of Ontario in their deepest and most permanent susceptibilities. They have resented it, and their countrymen of the same race and language have resented it as well, and we have been passing through a serious crisis which threatens to become still more acute. But what to my mind is the most deplorable feature of the situation is not the agitation which has developed; there is something graver than the abuses and violences of language. What is peculiarly painful is that this unholy war is being waged at the expense of the most sacred and innocent victim; at the expense of the child. The Canadian children ought to ignore our conflicts and our rivalries. They ought to live in an atmosphere of peace and order. Is it not to be regretted that in the blood of these children should be instilled the poison of old hatreds and antipathies. We need greater things in this country. As to the proscription of the French language in Ontario, I have no fear whatever. A coercive policy will never assimilate a race, nor proscribe a language. That is a truism of sociology which all the governments of the world ought to remember. Will you permit me to read in that connection an article by Emile Faguet, a member of the French Academy, on the recent proscription of the French language in Bulgaria, after that country had joined Germany against the Allies:
The Czar Ferdinand of Bulgaria has just forbidden in his kingdom the use of the French language. The fact strikes one as strange, even in a period of extraordinary happenings.
What can be the matter with that czar? As far as blood goes, he is a half-Frenchman. He is a grandson of the first and last " king of the French." He has received a French education. What then ails him, and, as the poet said: Against all his past history turns him on a sudden?
What harm has the French language done him? It is up to this day the instrument of diplomacy, and should we infer that the Czar Ferdinand has made up his mind that none of his subjects will take up the profession in which Talleyrand made a name for himself?

That would be taking a rather narrow view of the situation.
However, if such is not his purpose, such is the direct outcome of his action. A queer departure, indeed.
Would it be, perchance, that the French language is tainted and carries with it some deadly germ which it transmits to whoever uses it or tries to learn it? I wonder what it can be. It supplies a clear, systematic, direct means of expression, which enables one to speak to the point, without circumlocutions or roundabout verbosity; besides, a straightforward means of expression, which to those who make use of it can impart nothing but a liking for loyalty and honesty. Who is it fears such an infection? Who will acknowledge that he fears it? Who will allow such a suspicion to rest on himself? No living man. Well, then, why does the Czar of Bulgaria act as if he feared the natural play of the use of that tongue on those who make use of it? That is absolutely beyond comprehension.
There is no one-and that is a fact more especially as regards rulers of people-who is not desirous that his subordinates, his dependents, his subjects, should be above all true and honest. AH then should see to it that those over whom they hold sway learn French with all their heart and speak it fluently. The following anecdote is familiar to a good many: Louis the Fourteenth advised one of his courtiers to learn Spanish, and the latter, surmising that the king destined him to be ambassador at the court of Spain, forthwith set himself to the task but was sorely disappointed when on returning to the king with the news that he could now speak the Spanish language, was simply told: Very well, then I think you would enjoy reading Don Quixote in the original. Similarly, instead of a ruler forbidding the use of French by his people, I would fancy one inquiring from some of his courtiers: Do you know French?-No.-Well, learn it, that will impart to you notions of righteousness in every form.
Ferdinand of Bulgaria is doing exactly the opposite. It cannot be gainsaid, he acts strangely. He has reasons with very little reason in them, and which, besides, are not prompted by any kindheartedness.
I can perceive only one motive which may have had some bearing on the resolve taken by the Czar of Bulgaria. He has been jeered and to a certain extent discussed in French. It must be admitted that he has been somewhat ill-used in French. But, your Majesty, is that a reason? Is there any sense in prohibiting the use of a whole literature from Villon to Rostand, just because some of those who speak the language have used it to banter you? That is trying to get even with a vengeance.
How touchy the victim, and how magnifying and long-armed his desire for revenge! What! shall a language be proscribed as a whole on account of a few words in that language which have displeased you, and which, I aver, had) not been said for the purpose of conciliating you. A whole tongue put under ban on account of a few sounds which have grated on yours ears! That is exactly the stand taken by Aman in Racine's play, Esther:
" Un seul osa d'Aman attirer le courroux: Aussitdt de la terre ils disparurent tous."
And that stand has always been held to smack of megalomania. A language as a
whole cannot be proscribed, not any more than a people as a whole. Of course, that may be done theoretically, but by no means actually. Bulgarians will continue to learn French, with this added peculiarity that henceforth that tongue will have the further allurement of the forbidden fruit. Czar Ferdinand, in emitting that decree, has simply conferred on the French language a wider popularity, and that popularity will only increase in range and intensity as generations go by. Nothing is as effective as proscription towards furthering that end. Young Bulgarians will say to one another:
You know, that is the language which Czar Ferdinand intended to behead.*'
Sir, the present time is one when all sources of trouble and division ought to be removed. Canada is in urgent need of the union of her citizens. All moderate and welbmeaning men of the country must regard it as a pity that tihe schools of the capital city of Ottawa should be closed, and that thousands of school children should parade the streets while the fathers and brothers of many of them are fighting and dying for liberty in the trenches of France and Belgium. Is it not to be deplored that such a fight about the French language should take place when France and Britain have formed a glorious and indissoluble union for the good of the world and the great cause of civilization? There is no longer a channel between the peoples of Great Britain and of France. Why should there be one in this country between their descendants? I have referred to the resolution adopted by the Franco-Britisib parliamentary delegates on the 10th April last. Those delegates met first in France, at Paris and at Bordeaux. The first conference was presided over by Mr. George Clemenoeau, a former Prime Minister of France, and he was entrusted with the agreeable duty of welcoming the British delegates. I happened one afternoon, in the Teading room of this House, to read some beautiful and inspiring extracts from his speech. I fear that I have already detained the House too long, but if the House will bear with me I will give a few passages from this speech, which, as hon. gentlemen will perceive, are of a high literary order:
To the members of the British committee:
Gentlemen, we wish you a hearty welcome; and may the man who owes it to his advancing years to address you in the name of his colleagues of the French parliamentary committee, be allowed to tell you that, even in the darkest days, he never despaired of the concluding of an entente which appeared to him bound to materialize some day, though he had lost hope of seeing it effected during his lifetime.
Yes, gentlemen, X have been expecting you for endless jenturie^; and historians, who too often are out of touch with those undercurrents

of love and hatred which alternate in the lives of people, may express surprise at the length of time it took for us to join hands across such a narrow expanse of sea; an impassable barrier, if viewed in the light of so many adventurous war undertakings, but which is now in our eyes a great highway open to all who are worthy of comprehending and practising the future true brotherhood of nations, founded on a recognition of the equal rights of all and the proper consideration of the right of every one.
Yes, T repeat it, I have been expecting j'ou since Hastings,, since the days of the Black Prince. You may judge how persistent I am.
I was awaiting you, and you have come, and here you are the representatives of the English people who, of your own impulse, have crossed the Channel, not to conclude a political agreement-our respective governments will see to lhat. neither is it to investigate military tactics, a subject which is necessarily outside our purview.
No. your visit is something like the forecasted crowning of all these labours. We are meeting simply for the purpose of seeing one another, of understanding one another, and of finding ourselves capable of loving one another. The present time requires action, and civilians as well as the military, on both sides of the Chan- ' nel are engaged in action and will remain so, whatever the outcome, until the end. Until the end. do you catch my meaning?
With all the authority with which he is clothed, Lord Desart made that final statement. Our minds are made up, our purpose is set, our honour is pledged. We are giving our children, we will give our wealth, everything, everything, and such is the reward that may be expected from the triumph of the lofty cause of the independence of nations and the dignity of man, that despite the most heart-rending sacrifices, we shall never complain that we had to give too much.
Such is the great international secret which has led you across the seas to come to us. . .
True it is that to the war is due the miracle of a deep mutual understanding, which now could not be broken without calamity to civilization. We did not seek war, neither your nation nor our nation, and now we are both bent on having it, and so our good allies; and we are earnest about it, and we will have it as long as may be necessary to reach a complete victory-complete, do you hear?-that will repay us and repay our brave sons for those torrents of blood, such torrents as have never drenched any country in history. . . Heart to heart, as our soldiers are doing side by side, we shall live in a great bond of union, that no frenzy of hatred must ever tear asunder, and together we shall have accomplished something which short-sighted minds will perhaps deem insignificant because made without any display of pomp, but which nevertheless will mark an epoch in the forward march of humanity.
M. Paul Deschanel, President of the Chamber of Deputies in France, said:
Never was bond more necessary. The genius of Great Britain and that of France complete, impregnate and magnetize each other. Both bend themselves with a remarkable suppleness to the unforeseen exigencies of the most terrible of all wars. Together they come to the rescue of civilization now threatened with a frightful return to savagery; together, along-

side our dear and brave allies, they will save the honour of mankind. Long live England and long live France, forever united in the triumph of justice.
But, Sir, immediately after having read these fine words, expressive of union and amity, my attention was called to an article published in an important newspaper of Ontario, the London Free Press, on March 4, 1916, and entitled "A Quebec Plot," I quote the following sentence from it:
The Liberal leader in Ontario must cease this practice of speaking to French audiences in Ontario in the French tongue.
This sentence would have made a most painful impression on me if I had not believed then, as I believe now, that this newspaper was not representing the true sentiments of my English-speaking fellow citizens.
In closing my remarks, I trust that in dealing with this delicate subject I have not offended the feelings of any hon. gentleman in this House. I have only done what I deemed to be my imperative duty. My most earnest desire is that this resolution and this debate, instead of driving our two great races further asunder, will contribute to weld them more indissolubly together in the defence of liberty under the law. I ask my fellow members to proclaim with Gladstone, the equality of the weak with the strong. It is our most difficult task to unite and reconcile the nation. We must inspire Canadian public life with a lofty and courageous spirit; we must protect the equal rights of all the citizens; and above all, erect in this Canadian land a strong and solid wall against the mad blows of violence and prejudice. To reach that end, we must ask our fellow-citizens to make concessions, to be compliant, to bear with each other and respect each other's opinions. I hope that in this way we shall succeed in creating that harmony which is as necessary to the welfare of the State as it is to the welfare of individuals.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: Mr. Speaker, listening to the prayer with which we open our daily proceedings in this House, the words " May peace and harmony always reign among us," appealed to me as they always have since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, and I trust that the temper and spirit of my words this afternoon will not in any way be in discord with that pious supplication. The resolution which is now

before the House is divided into three distinct parts. It has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite that it is a great pity that this resolution ever came up in this House. Might I say at once that I have that feeling myself. I think it is unfortunate that legislation should be passed by any province -which would so affect the sensibilities of a great minority in this country as to force them to apply to this House for redress. Nevertheless, certain legislation, to which I shall refer, has been passed by the Legislature of Ontario. Petitions have come to this House, applications have been made to the representatives of the people to bring this question before the Canadian public through the Federal Parliament; speeches have been delivered from the public platform; I take it that all these are an appeal on behalf of the French minority in this country, not for the disallowance of any Act which has been passed by the Ontario or any other Legislature, but an appeal to the intelligence, to the judgment, and to the generosity of the Canadian people. I am a Canadian. I believe in the most absolute freedom and liberty for the people of all races and of all creeds in this country. Whenever I hear or read noble sentiments appealing to the generosity of the people of my country, I am forced to applaud. When I read a short time ago the speeches delivered by the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country in England, I felt that he was representing the true sentiments of the Canadian people. Will you, Sir, allow me to quote some words which the right hon. gentleman uttered in a speech at the town hall in Bristol, England, on August 10, 1915:
Throughout this Empire we have many races and many creeds; but all united by a single purpose at this juncture. So we In Canada are not all of one race. Those who-came first to the soil of Canada were of a great nation, now happily an Ally of ours, the great French nation. There are to-day within these islands, at Shorncliffe, several regiments whose mother-tongue is French, and not English, who have come from Canada to do their part in the great struggle. In the development of constitutional government in Canada-which has Indeed proceeded very much on the same lines as with you -Canadians of French descent have laboured harmoniously and effectively with us whose forefathers came from these islands. And no better exponents of the cause of constitutional government and liberty in Canada have been found than these descended from the first pioneer race of Canda, the French race. We in Canada find the need, realized everywhere throughout the Empire, that we should know and understand each other a little better. In a vast country like ours, with scattered communities, diverse in race, diverse in creed, and sometimes
in ideal and apparent interest, there is the greatest need of mutual understanding and comprehension. And as we have come to know ourselves better during the past twenty-five or fifty years, so the national spirit of Canada has been awakened, and has become strong and vigorous.
Those sentiments ought to be applauded throughout Canada as I feel they must have been applauded in Great Britain. Might I be allowed to make a further quotation from another speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister, delivered in the Guild Hall, London, England, on July 29, 1915:
While it may not be fitting that one of our kindred should speak of the British people as a great race, nevertheless, I may at least say that it has wrought great things. And the greatest of all its achievements is the upbuilding of an Empire sustained by ties such as those which unite ours. In the beginning, the founding of a nation within these islands, and the consequent necessity of orderly government, compelled a system autocratic in its character and methods. Then came the great charters of freedom and the will of the people to make their own laws and govern themselves. Orderly government on the one hand; indivi-vidual liberty on the other; justice, the -equality of all men before the law-upon these secure foundations the fabric of the national life was built; and in these later years there has come the not less noble ideal of a democracy founded upon equality of opportunity for all the people. . .
And Wily are the descendants in Canada of those who fought under Wolfe and of those who fought under Montcalm wlien contending for the possession of the northern half of the American continent, why are they now standing together in the Empire's battle line? To speak of later events, why do we find beyond the channel, in France or in Belgium, the grandson of a Durham and the grandson of a Papineau standing side by side in this struggle? When the historian of the future comes to analyse the events of this war, he will realize that some great overmastering impulse contributed mainly to this wonderful result. One such impulse is to be found in the love of liberty, the ideals of democracy, and the spirit of unity founded thereon, which make the whole Empire one in aim and purpose.
When I first read those words, my thoughts reverted at once to the celebration in 1908 of the Tercentenary of the foundation of Quebec and of the marvellous gathering of representatives of the component parts of the British Empire, and to the expressions, uttered in the presence of His Majesty the King, by eminent men of our Dominion, of their profound loyalty and attachment to the Throne, the flag and the free institutions governing this country and the Empire. Those sentiments were echoed by every one in every province in Canada. Canada was there represented as a Dominion; the narrow confines of provincialism

were forgotten, and men of the French race and men of the English race, grouped around the monument of Samuel de Champlain, seemed to form a new monument-a monument to the greatness of the unity of the people of Canada. There were expressions by eminent men of this Dominion as to the unity of the races in this country, as to the ideals which governed us in Canada. Some of those men have passed .away; some are still living. Let me refer you, Sir, to the opening remarks of the mayor of the city of Quebec at fhat time, Sir George Garneau:
The French-Canadians experience an inexpressible feeling of patriotic pride and gratitude towards the two great nations who have in turn presided over our destinies: France, always beloved, to whom they owe their life and noble traditions; England, who left them free to grow up keeping their faith, their language and their institutions, and who endowed them with a constitutional government based upon the largest amount of liberties, and which is undeniably the noblest and most perfect in the world.
Therein, in my humble judgment, is the teal feeling of a French Canadian. He is attached to France because from France he got life; from France he got his great traditions. He is attached to England because England has allowed him to grow up in his faith, in his language, and in his institutions, and because England has given to this country a constitutional Government founded upon the greatest sum of liberty, which is, as Sir George Garneau puts it, "the best and most perfect in the world."
The only other expression which I would like to give to the Mouse is of one who has passed away, Sir James Whitney, who, speaking upon the same occasion, said:
We, Sir, of the other provinces, respect and
love our fellow subjects of Quebec for their intrinsic worth and for their attitude and aid in times of stress and peril. We cannot forget the answer sent when they were urged to join hands with a foreign power against the British Empire.
We cannot forget Chateauguay, where the gallant de Salaberry performed the most scientific military feat of the war of 1812.
Sir, within a mile of my birthplace, on the historic field of Chrysler's farm, was done what Sir Nigel Boring would term a "comfortable feat of arms."
And we cannot forget that there and then a company of French Canadian voltigeurs reddened the soil of Upper Canada with their blood in. defence of British institutions and British connections.
Nor can we forget the memorable words of Sir Etienne Tachfi, when he declared that " the last shot fired in Canada in defence of British connections will be fired by a French Canadian."

Sir, we could not forget these things if we would, and on behalf of the provinces, I make bold to say also that we would not forget them if we could. We revere the memories of the great men of Quebec, of Tachg and Dafontaine, of Morin and Cartier, Chapleau and Dorion, among the dead and offer our tribute of respect and honour to Laurier among the living.
Those are the words which have been uttered by some of the great men of this country; those are the sentiments which I understand actuate every true Canadian, and in harmony with those sentiments I shall briefly deal with the resolution which I have had the honour of seconding. The first part of the resolution reads:
It has long been the settled policy of Great Britain whenever a country passed under the sovereignty of the Crown by treaty or otherwise, to respect the religion, the usages and the language of the inhabitants who thus become British subjects.
Referring solely to our own country, we find that that was exactly the policy which was carried put by Great Britain, because, if you refer to the third article of the Capitulation of this country, you will find:
That the inhabitants shall be preserved in the possession of their houses, goods, effects and privileges.
That article was granted upon the condition of the inhabitants laying down their arms. Later on in 1774, Sir James Marriott, then Advocate General, was asked to report to the King upon certain conditions existing in this country, and, amongst other things, upon that very article, and his report is contained in the following words:
The treaty made with the sovereign power of France, which, without taking notice of the capitulation transfers its subjects pleno jure, does not supersede the capitulation made with the inhabitants; because I consider capitulations, in the eye of the law of nations, to be not only as national, but personal compacts, and made with the inhabitants themselves, for the consideration of their ceasing their existence. It is consistent with the honour and interests of this Kingdom, that they should be religiously observed, and that the condition of the grantee should be rendered substantially better, rather than worse, so far as any person or persons are capable of taking benefit of the grant.
Since that time there have been several Acts passed by the Imperial Government concerning the constitution of our country. There was the Quebec Act of 1774, in which the principle was again laid down; there was the Constitutional Act of 1791; there was the Union Act of 1840, none of which Acts affected the use of the French language throughout the Dominion of Canada.

A.gain, there was the Confederation Act of 1867. The only section of that Act which deals with the nse of the Frer.cn language is section 133, which places both languages in the same footing in this Parliament, in the courts of this (Dominion, and in the courts and legislature of the province of Quebec. Since the legislation of 1867 permits the French language, to be an official language of this country-and you cannot in this Parliament oi in any legislature take away that right-is it the part of w.sdom to allow the children to use that , language on the streets of any village, town or city in Ontario, or in any part of that or any other province, and yet not give them the right to learn how to speak that language correctly? I may be wrong, but in my humble judgment, Sir, it is elementary logic that if by your legislation you provide that a language shall be official in your country, it naturally follows that you must give to the users of that language the opportunity of learning it.
The principle of the recognition by Great Britain of the right to the use of other languages than the English language has been referred to by the hon. member for Kam-ouraska. I find also that under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act of 1914, persons naturalized prior to January 1, 1915, may after that date apply for a fresh certificate of naturalization under new conditions; and, in order to be eligible for such certificate in the United Kingdom an alien must amongst other things be of good character and have an adequate knowledge of the English language. It does not say that he must have a thorough possession of the English language, that he must know the English language and that only; it says that he must have an adequate knowledge of the English language. In our country, by our Naturalization Act, he may know either the French or the English language. That law, passed by this Parliament quite recently, gives every French Canadian in this country, no matter into what province he wants to go, the right to use only the French language if he will. If the law is good, if it is sound, if it is based upon logic, is it the part of wisdom to prevent the children of these people, coming into this country and having the right to the use of that language, from learning how to speak the French language correctly?
The second part of the resolution is:
That His Majesty's subjects of French origin in the province of Ontario complain that by recent legislation they have been to a large extent deprived of the privileges which they and their fathers have always enjoyed since Canada passed under the sovereignty of the British Crown, of having their children taught in French.	-
The French Canadians of the province of Ontario claim that they have a grievance. They have, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, petitioned the Government; they have through their press and from the public platform told us that they have a grievance. They ask us as their representatives to bring that grievance before the Canadian Parliament, and to appeal to its judgment and its intelligence.' For a moment I should like to put be-
4 p.m. fore the House what the status of the French Canadians was prior to and since Confederation, and I want to do it, not in my own language, hut in the language of a gentleman who has written a work entitled: "Legislation and History of Separate Schools in Upper Canada, 1841 to 1876," who cannot be said to have any prejudice whatever in the matter. I refer to the work of Mr. George Hodgins, M.A., LL.D., F.R.G.S., barrister-at-law, Librarian of the Education Department for Ontario, and editor of the Documentary History of Education in Upper Canada. The chapter is 33; it is somewhat lengthy, but for the purpose of the argument which I intend making, I should like to read the whole chapter. Mr. Hodgins says:
There was one class of separate schools which gave the chief superintendent very little trouble. These were the French and German schools-chiefly Roman Catholic-which were scattered here and there throughout Upper Canada. All that had to be done in their case was to give them such teaching facilities as enabled them to go into operation under teachers who could speak the language of the ratepayers concerned, and that language only. Happily that faculty could be given under the general, not the separate school law, and that with the sanction of the chief superintendent.
There were two principles which Dr. Ryerson laid down at an early period in his administration of the Education Department. The first was that whenever he could meet special cases by a liberal, and often, with the sanction of the Government, a generous interpretation of his powers under the Schools Acts, and in terms of his commission as chief superintendent of education, it was his duty to give that interpretation in cases not specifically provided for-except by analogy-in the school law. The second principle which Dr. Ryerson laid down, and which he generally adhered to, was not to propose too frequent legislation with a view to meet special cases,

but only to seek such legislation at intervals of from five to ten years. Fortunately I was familiar with Dr. Eyerson's views as expressed in the first of the foregoing principles which he had laid down for his guidance, when the first application was made in 1851 to grant a certificate of qualification to a French teacher in the county of Essex, which had been largely settled by French Canadians. At the time that this application reached me from the Board of Public Instruction for the county of Essex, Dr. Ryerson was absent in England and I had charge of the department as acting chief superintendent. I therefore submitted the application, which had been received, to the Council of Public" Instruction for Upper Canada, with the recommendation that it be granted. This was concurred in by the Council of Public Instruction, and I was therefore, enabled to inform the Essex 'County Board, that:
The Council of Public Instruction for Upper Canada has sanctioned a liberal construction of the programme to which you refer, making the term " English " convertible into the term "French" where it occurs, and when applied to French candidates for examination before the County Board of Public Instruction. The certificate should, of course, be expressly limited to teaching in the French language.
A copy of this intimation was also sent to the then local superintendent of education at Sandwich, with the following addition :
The School Act expressly authorizes trustees to employ any qualified teacher they please; should, therefore, the one to whom you refer obtain a certificate from the County Board, the trustees can engage his services, and no board or school officer can prevent them as has been assumed in a memorial transmitted to me by the secretary of the County Board of Public Instruction, from certain inhabitants of School Seenon No. 6, Sandwich.
In 1858, a partial extension of the principle here laid down was applied to German teachers, and to meet the case a knowledge of the German grammar was by the Council of Public Instruction substituted in the programme of examination for a knowledge of the,English grammar. (Reading):
In 1871 a further difficulty arose owing to a delay of the Council of Public Instruction, to provide fully for the examination and licensing of German teachers in the German settlements of Upper Canada. To meet a special case, which occurred in the county of Waterloo,
I told the local Superintendent, who had called upon me, in Dr. Ryerson's absence:
To grant six months' certificates to such German candidates as would present themselves for examination in July; and I said that, by giving the department early notice of the real requirements in the case, attention would be given to the matter by the Council of Public

Instruction, and every provision made for the examination of such candidates, at all future examinations.	,
This was confirmed by Dr. Ryerson; and he informed the local Superintendent of the county, that examination papers in German reading, spelling, etymology and grammar might be prepared by members of the County Board, and that the other ordinary examination papers could be used in the case of teachers who could read English.
Similar applications, made in 1872 and 1875, were dealt with in the same spirit; and, in this way, every facility w'as given by the Education Department for the successful operation of French and German public and separate schools in the French and German settlements of Upper Canada.
That is further confirmed by a letter which Dr. Ryerson wrote on the 24th of April, 1857, which reads as follows: Gentlemen:
I have the honour to state in reply to your letter of the 16th instant that, as the French is the recognized language of the country, as well as the English, it is quite proper and lawful for the trustees to allow both languages to be taught in their schools to children whose parents may desire them to learn both.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. Ryerson.
Therefore, according to Dr. Ryerson's opinion, it was not only proper but lawful for the French language to be taught in the schools of Ontario prior to Confederation. Since Confederation the same right existed down to what is known as Regulation 17. I should like to call attention to a letter which was written by Mr. Col-quhoun, Deputy Minister of Education, on the 24th July, 1911, in which I find these words:
I am directed by the Prime Minister, Sir James Whitney, to acknowledge your letter of the 21st, and to state that no change has been made in the school law of the department regulations affecting the study of the French* language in the schools. I am directed to point out that the question is one entirely under the control of the Board of Trustees.
(Sgd.) A. H. U. Colquhoun.
The only provision respecting education which I find in the British North America Act is the provision contained in section 93, which reads as follows:
In and for each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the Union.
Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor-General in Council from any Act or decision of any provincial authority affect-

ing any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education.
Thus, so far, we find that the French language has been tolerated, has been allowed, and has been sanctioned by the laws passed in the province of Ontario. The French Canadians apparently had no grievance whatever until the passing of Regulation 17. But prior to the passing of Regulation 17 another regulation was passed by the Ontario Board which reads as follows:
In school sections where the French or German language prevails, the trustees may, in addition to the course of study prescribed for public schools, require instruction to be given in reading, grammar and composition to such pupils as are directed by their parents or guardians to study either of these languages, and in all such cases the authorized text books in French or German shall be used.
So that by Regulation 15, in the province of Ontario, the French language was sanctioned by the law and the German language was also sanctioned by the law. There was a subsequent resolution passed, regulation 17, which has been greatly spoken of in this country, and under which the French-Cana-dians feel that that they were aggrieved. Regulation 17, in effect proscribes certain privileges which have been accorded to the French Canadians in the use of their language as the language of instruction in their schools. The French Canadians feel that if the Germans are not proscribed in the right to their language in the Ontario schools, the French Canadians should not have their privileges limited. Before Confederation, according to Dr. Ryerson and according to Mr. Hodgins, the Germans and the French Canadians had their full privileges in Ontario. As late as Regulation 15 those privileges were continued and confirmed. By Regulation 17 the language of instruction during the first two years of their instruction may be the French language; but the idea and the spirit and the letter of the law is that the moment they have a sufficient knowledge of the English language, then the French language must be set aside entirely, and their whole education must be conducted along the lines of the English language. The French Canadians claim that they have a grievance. I feel, in my humble judgment, that their grievance is well founded; and, as a Canadian, wishing to see equal justice given to all classes in this community, wishing to see the same justice meted out to the French Canadians as I would want to see meted out to the English-speaking
people, I feel that the second part of this resolution is thoroughly applicable to the circumstances, and therefore I have absolutely no hesitation in agreeing to every letter of it.
The third part of the resolution reads:
That this House especially at this time of universal sacrifice and anxiety, when all energies should be concentrated on the winning of the war, would, while fully recognizing the principle of provincial rights and the necessity of every child being given a thorough English education, respectfully suggest to the Legislative Assembly the wisdom of making it clear that the privilege of the children of French parentage of being taught in their mother tongue be not interfered with.
I would not like to give my own appreciation only of that portion of the resolution which I have seconded, and I would not like the House to be guided solely by my opinion. I refer the House to other opinions to which they might attach, and I have no doubt will attach, a great deal more weight, the opinion of Sir Oliver Mow-at, for instance, in a speech made at Woodstock on December 3, 1889, when he said:
French-Canadians cherish their own language lovingly.
Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to in terject a remark and to affirm, as one who knows the French-.Canadian people that their language is part of their soul. They are attached to their language just as they are attached to their faith, to the traditions of this country, and to the British Crown. There is something in their love of their language which may be incomprehensible to those who have not had to do with the French-Canadians, who have not lived among the French-Canadians, and who are not intimately acquainted with them. Sir Oliver Mowat apparently had a thorough appreciation of the French Canadian when he used that language. He goes on:
They wish their children- to love it and be educated in it; but they know it will be for their interest to be familiar with English also, and to be educated in English, as well as French. Proscribe French, their mother tongue, and they will hate you and have nothing to do with your- schools. Permit their own language to receive attention, and they are glad to have their children learn English also as soon and as fast as it can be imparted. Such was the view of the commissioners as to the proper policy; it is the view of this Government ; and it is the view of all intelligent men, except our political opponents. It was the view of Dr. Ryerson and his Council of Public Instruction, even to the extent of putting no pressure whatever on French or German schools, and of awaiting their own spontaneous action as to English and other matters.
There you have the opinion of an English Canadian speakmg in the province of On-

tario. Will you let me quote the opinion of an English Canadian speaking in the province of Quebec only a few days ago before the Canadian Club, the opinion of a man who for years had a seat in the Legislature of Quebec, who has always lived among the French Canadian people, who later became the representative of the English minority in the province of Quebec in the provincial Cabinet, and who later was appointed a judge. I refer to Mr. Justice McCorkill, and I think his words express in better language than I could use the real feeling that animates the province of Quebec in this matter. Speaking on March 28, 1916, he said:
I need not tell you that X have heen a student of Canadian history from the very earliest days. X have read with the greatest interest the history of the old regime, the opening up of the "ountry, and then of the abandonment of the people by their country, so to speak, and of the tremendous efforts they made to keep the country for themselves. I have read the history of the country under the British regime, and how they have fallen in so well with the administration of justice, the administration in our Legislatures and municipalities under the British system. I believe that a certain Prench-Canadian at Ottawa is one of the greatest parliamentarians under the British Constitution that we have in any part of the Empire.
They have adopted our system, but there are two things they have clung to, their religion and their language. I believe that their national sentiment is even stronger than their religious sentiment-I really believe so. The national feeling among them is intensely strong, but I would ask you English, Irish and Scotch descendants born in this country, and brought up here, supposing a regulation similar to No. 17 were passed in the province of Quebec, what do you think our duty towards it would be? Supposing Sir Lomer Gouin-I cannot imagine it- but supposing he did have the courage, or the nerve, so to speak, to pass a regulation of that kind. There would be a rebellion in this province, I think. And here we have our French-Canadian brethren in the sister province who by constitutional means are trying to obtain the repeal or the modification of the regulation, or some other settlement of the question which would be satisfactory to all concerned.
I do not wish, Sir, to delay the business of this House. I have put as concisely as I conveniently can my sentiments upon this question, and have explained why 1 feel it an honour to second the resolution which was proposed by the hon. member for Kamouraska. Will you let me say in conclusion that I would hope to see this . vexed question settled. Our population is made up of several races true to the institutions of this land and of our great Empire. My trust is that in this moment of great crisis Ontario will send out the message that the word "liberty" is emblazoned upon its shield. My trust is that

Ontario, living up to the principles of its statesmen of the past, will prove that the same unity of intent and purpose exists at home as that which has guided and is guiding the courage, the valour, .and the * heroism of Canadian sons upon the bloodstained battlefields of Flanders. The Empire's dominions are out to uphold nationalization and constitutional' principles. Our sons have crossed the seas ito fight for the oppressed, consecrating with their blood the principles so dear to us, the protection of the .smaller nations, the rights and privileges of Belgium and of Servia, the solidarity of the Empire, the reign of justice and freedom. Such are also the underlying principles of this resolution submitted in the most respectful manner in favour of a race that has no superior in generosity, in liberality, in advancement and in education.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I desire in the first place to assure my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) that there was not the slightest intention on my part to attempt to administer to him any castigation. His speech was couched in very moderate and courteous terms'. His reference to the attachment of French Canadians to their language was touching, and his allusion to the union of our Empire with the French Republic in this war was eloquent. In all he said in both these references I heartily concur. It did not seem to me, however, that any considerable portion of his speech was. especially relevant to the resolution he has introduced. But in so far as it was relevant, it would have been an appropriate speech to address to the proper forum- that is, the Legislature of Ontario.
This motion is addressed to Parliament rather than to the Government; it does not call for any governmental action. Nevertheless, I conceive it my duty, holding the position of leader of the Government, to make my attitude clear in regard to the motion. Notwithstanding what has been urged by my hon. friend from Kamouraska and by my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin), I still adhere to the opinion which I ventured to express yesterday that this motion cannot result in any good and that it may result in much harm. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I cannot see my way for one moment to support it.
One would have .supposed that there

would have been some effort on the part of the hon. gentleman who proposed the motion to examine the legislation and the regulations which he has called in question by the terms of this motion, and as to which he desires this House to admonish the (Legislature of Ontario and that he would have endeavoured to show in what respect those regulations and the legislation upon which they are founded result in any unfairness or injustice to the French Canadian population of the province of Ontario. Indeed, the fact that my hon. friend has made so little attempt in that regard seems to me a very good reason why this motion should not be accepted by the House if there were no other, and more conclusive, reasons to that effect.
How many hon. members in the House would be prepared to pass an examination upon the effect of the legislation and the regulations of the province in regard to the subject under discussion? Yet, without any inquiry proposed-and the very idea of an inquiry suggests1 the unfortunate character of the proposed resolution-without any inquiry, with only the discussion that can take place in one debate, and without hon. members having before them for their consideration the legislation and the regulations in question, we are asked by this resolution to convey an admonition, to tender advice, to the Legislature of Ontario upon a subject that has been debated and considered most thoroughly and exhaustively in that legislature on many occasions. If we really propose to give advice to the Legislature of Ontario, if a resolution for that purpose could properly be introduced in this iParliament, would it not be reason aJble in the first instance to refer the matter to a committee of this House for the purpose of inquiry and report? Every hon. gentleman realizes that if a proposal for any such inquiry were made, this House would he embarking on a most dangerous and unfortunate course in entertaining it. Yet, without that inquiry, without even an attempt at perusal o>f the legislation and the regulations in question, we are invited to inform the Legislature of Ontario that the policy they have announced and put' into effect, under the legislation which they have passed and under the regulations which they have enacted, is not in accord with right and justice and that they should take our advice upon the question and amend their ways in that respect. It seems to me that the proposition needs only to be
stated to this House in order to make us realize how impossible of acceptance is the proposal which my hon. friend from Kam-ouraska and my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) have submitted for the approval of the House.
Reference was made by my hon. friend from Wright to an alleged interference with, and reference was made by my hon. friend from Kamouraska to an alleged attempt to proscribe, the French language in Ontario. I do not propose to examine that question. It is not the duty, as I understand it, of a member of this House to examine and pass upon legislation and regulations which are entirely within the control and jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislature and the Provincial Government; but I mav remark in passing that I have given some consideration to this subject. I have tried to understand it, conceiving it to be my duty, that -I should make myself acquainted with a matter which has aroused a certain feeling, a certain controversy, not only in the province of Quebec but in other parts of this country. I have been told by those who are in a position to be informed on the subject that the province of Ontario maintains a number of schools for the training of bilingual teachers; that it provides travelling expenses for teachers whose mother tongue is French in order that they may receive necessary training and acquire proficiency in both languages; that it provides their board and their expenses while receiving this training; that it provides tuition free; and that finally a special grant is made to bilingual schools in order that teachers so trained may be employed in such schools. It does not appear to me that a policy which produces such results can be fairly described as intended to proscribe the French language in Ontario.
As far as the general nature of the regulations is concerned, I do not feel called upon to discuss them, but I will invite the attention of the House to certain considerations which in my judgment make it undesirable that we should accept the motion of my hon. friend from Kamouraska. I thoroughly understand and entirely appreciate the natural attachment of the people of French origin in this country to their own language. I realize also that this attachment was taken into consideration by the Fathers of Confederation and as a result section 133 of the British North America

Act was incorporated in our Constitutional Act, and it is in these terms:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
That is the only provision of the Constitutional Act so far as language is concerned; and it is imy understanding that it gives the French and English languages the status of official languages in federal affairs and in the public affairs of the province of Quebec, that is to say, in the federal parliament, in the federal courts, in the Quebec legislature and- in the Quebec courts.
Subject to that provision, I would understand, so far as my knowledge extends, that the provinces of Canada have plenary power to deal with the question of language within their territorial limits. That is my comprehension of the provisions of the constitution of Canada as it is embodied in the Constitutional Act.
I realize that in Federal affairs both these languages occupy an official status, and when I entered public life in this country, and more especially when I became the leader of one of its great political parties, I conceived it my duty, so far as the demands upon my time and energy would permit, to improve my knowledge of the French language and my acquaintance with it. It seemed to me no more than my duty that I should do that, in order that I might converse with and write to persons of French origin in their own language, and might address public gatherings of my fellow-citizens of French origin, for a few moments at least, in their mother tongue. And I, for one, would resist with the utmost determination any attempt emanating from any quarter to interfere with the status of the French language as it is fixed in the Constitutional Act of our country. No one of my fellow-citizens of the province of Quebec could be animated with a more intense determination to uphold the rights of the French language in this country, as they are fixed by the Constitutional Act, than I would be if any attempt were made to assail those rights. But I have a great

respect for the Constitution, and I think that until that Constitution is altered in the regular and approved manner, and by approved and constitutional methods, it is our duty to respect and observe it; and it is for this reason that I consider the motion which my ihon. friend has proposed to the House to-day as not in the best interests of this country. I will go further, and say that in my judgment it is absolutely opposed to the best interests of the province of Quebec itself.
Section 91 of the British North America Act sets forth the powers and authorities which are possessed and shall he exercised by the Parliament of Canada. Section 92 of the same Act sets forth the powers and authorities which are possessed and may be exercised by the several provinces of Canada. Section 93 of the British North America Act contains certain provisions with regard to educational matters which confide the subject of education generally to the provinces, with certain limitations in respect of rights which were possessed at the time of the entrance of the several provinces into Confederation, and in respect also of rights subsequently acquired. My hon. friend the member for Kamouraska says that this motion does not call for the disallowance of any Ontario Act. He is absolutely correct in that. He would have been more within his constitutional rights if he had come forward with a motion in that regard, because that question was constitutionally before the Government of Canada and had to be dealt with; and for the reason that it was before the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada would have had a much better right to discuss that subject for the guidance and information of the Government, than to discuss and consider the question which is now proposed.
Let me point out for one moment the language of a great Liberal of bygone days with regard to that particular provision. I am alluding to the speech of the Hon. Edward Blake in the House of Commons on the 29th of April, 1890. He was not then leader of the Liberal party, but he had held that position, and he occupied a great' place in the ranks of the party at the time he uttered these words (Hansard, p. 4086):
I regard it as settled, for myself at any rate, first of all, that, as a question of policy, there shall be no disallowance of educational legislation, for the mere reason, that, in the opinion of this Parliament, some other or different policy than that which the province has thought

fit to adopt would be a better policy. I hold it to be settled, in the second place, that no address to the Crown shall be passed by this Parliament asking for a change of the constitutional Act as effecting any province at any rate against the will of that province, in this particular.
First, that Parliament, because it disapproved of provincial legislation in educational matters, should not seek to have that legislation disallowed merely for the reason that Parliament might think a better policy could be adopted; and, secondly, that without the consent of any province of Canada no change should be made in the Constitutional Act so far as such change might affect that province. No appeal as before Parliament at the present time, from the minority either in Ontario or in Manitoba; no question of disallowance is raised by the resolution; and therefore I venture to submit to the House with a great deal of confidence that there is no constitutional sanction under which we can be called upon to advise, or admonish or rebuke the Legislature of Ontario upon a subject entirely within the jurisdiction of that province.
What was the record in 1896, when the subject was constitutionally before Parliament? The result of the attempt then made to carry out the provisions of section 93 was not a very encouraging one, and I think with that opinion my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, who opposed inters ference at that time, will entirely agree. Let us remember that, subject to the provisions of section 93 and subject to the provisions for disallowance of provincial legislation, the provinces of Canada are as sovereign and supreme in their sphere as is the Parliament of Canada in its own sphere. That principle has been established and laid down by the courts. No man who has given the subject any 'consideration can gainsay what I have just now affirmed. If I desire to give an authority which I think will appeal to the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, I might quote his own language. In 1896, when he moved the six months' hoist to the Remedial Bill, so-called, he said:
The Imperial Parliament has the power of disallowance, of supervision over the Acts of these colonial legislative bodies. This may be easily understood because colonies are dependencies. But the relations between the Dominion and the provinces are not the same.
Between these there is no superiority and no inferiority, all are equal, with this exception, that the Dominion Parliament is Invested with larger powers, that is, powers of a more extended and more important character than the
local legislature. Indeed, It must be accepted and accepted as a truism that under popular government the majority must rule.
A little further on (he said:
The remedy of the minority under a free gov. ernment is to agitate and endeavour to bring over a majority to their way of thinking. This is the rule under free government.
He .spoke of a supposed power of the Imperial Parliament to supervise the Acts of Colonial Legislative bodies, and then he went on to declare that, even if that power were possessed by the Imperial Parliament, no such power exists in the Parliament of Canada to supervise the legis'-lation enacted by the Provincial Legislatures. If the principle embodied in this resolution is not an attempt to supervise the legislation of the province of Ontario, I do not know how to characterize it. We are called upon to consider legislation which is not before us, to take into account regulations with which we are not familiar, and then we are invited to give to the Legislature of the province of Ontario an admonition which cannot fail to be understood 'by that Legislature as a reflection upon the policy which it has approved and upon the legislation which it has enacted. That was not my right hon. friend's view in 1896, because when the question was then constitutionally before the Parliament of Canada, it was his view that there should be no interference. When the question is not constitutionally before the Parliament of Canada, why then should there be interference? He denounced the attempt of Sir Charles Tup-per's Government to proceed with the Remedial Bill because, he said, there had not been sufficient inquiry. How does he reconcile that with his proposal to-day to consider and to cast reflection upon legislation of the province of Ontario without any .inquiry at all?
He put forth views in even more distinct terms in the same debate, in a quotation which I shall now give:
For, Sir, experience has taught us that this remedy of interference with local legislation has never been applied and probably never can be applied without friction, disturbance and discontent; that you cannot apply that remedy without causing as much dissatisfaction as satisfaction.
If we are to accept my right hon. friend's words in the spirit in which they were uttered, and to give them all the effect which he intended, that quotation alone ought to be regarded by the House as a just reason for rejecting the motion of my hon. friend from Kamouraska.

3694 -


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: Take, your responsibilities.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think my hon. friend's interruption is very relevant.
I would also suggest to my hon. friend from Kamouraska that if he desired to admonish the legislature of Ontario as to the policy which it should adopt, and if he expected that admonition to *serve any good purpose, it seems particularly unfortunate that he should have waited until about a week after that legislature had prorogued. If his admonition was designed to nave any good purpose, it would have been .obcrt Borden.]
far preferable to address it to the legislature while it was in session and when it could take the admonition into consideration. As he let that opportunity pass, one might have expected that, at a time when all the energies of this country should be concentrated on the winning of the wTar, he would wait until another session when the legislature of Ontario would have been convoked and when this Parliament would also be in session. I do not know whether there are any incidents of a concurrent date which may have any bearing upon his course. I do not suggest anything with regard to that-but I do venture to remark on the extraordinary course adopted by my hon. friend in leaving this resolution to the particular date which he has selected.
Another remarkable feature about the resolution is that it omits any reference to tne province of Manitoba. I would assume from this very significant omission that the situation in Manitoba, so far as this question is concerned, must be entirely satisfactory to my hon. friend from Kamouraska.


Ernest Lapointe: I thought-and 1 think I have a fair ground for that opinion-that the question of the recent Manitoba legislation was not in the federal arena. No petition that I know of has been sent with regard to that legislation asking for its disallowance or otherwise, and I therefore did not think it was our duty to say anything about the Manitoba legislation. If my right hon. friend wants to know my opinion, I have no objection to telling him that I do not approve of injustice in Manitoba any more than I do of injustice in Ontario, and I shall have an opportunity of saying so on another occasion.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept entirely the explanation which my hon. friend has given, but I would point out that inasmuch as the question of disallowance has been dealt with by this Government without any motion from my hon. friend, and without any objection from him, the Ontario question is no more before this Parliament than is the Manitoba question. I challenge any contradiction of that assertion; neither one nor the other is before this Parliament for this purpose. The Manitoba legislation may toe before us later for the purpose of having the question determined as to its disallowance. I infer from what my hon. friend has said that he intends, at the

proper time, to make a motion asking the Government to disallow it, for only in that way can I accept his statement as an adequate explanation. Even so, I do not regard it as giving a very satisfactory reason wih.y Manitoba should be omitted and why Ontario should be included in this motion. The provisions of the Manitoba Act are well known; they have been known to my hon, friend for weeks, or even months. Yet he ventures to challenge in this Parliament the legislation of Ontario, and has not seen fit to challenge the legislation of Manitoba, which, if I am correctly informed, absolutely sets at defiance the principles which he advocates because it absolutely deprives children of French origin of the privilege of being taught in their own language.
The resolution then proceeds, as I have said, to advise and admonish the Legislature of Ontario. Is this Parliament to undertake the duty of tendering advice and admonition and rebuke to the legislature of every province of Canada that ventures to adopt a policy which may not be in accordance with the opinion of the majority in this House? Let me take an illustration. I understand that certain legislation was passed at the last session of the Legislature of Quebec, to which some portion of the people of Ontario take exception.
Would my hon. friend say that if a resolution were introduced into this House commenting upon that legislation and recommending to the Legislature of Quebec that it should not continue or persevere in such a policy, we should adopt it? If he is right in the position which he takes, it would be perfectly proper for a majority of this House to give that admonition to the Legislature of Quebec. So far as I am concerned, if any such resolution were introduced into this Parliament for the purpose of conveying admonition or rebuke to the
5 p.m. Legislature of Quebec, I would resist it as strenuously as I resist the motion of my hon- friend on this occasion. As long as these various legislative bodies are supreme within their own sphere, no good purpose can ever be attained by having any of them cast reflections upon the legislation or policy of the other. Let each keep within its own jurisdiction; let each deal with the matters that are confided to it by the constitution. Have we not in this Parliament, especially at the present time, a sufficiency of important subjects to engage our full energies and all our available wisdom without trenching upon
233i
matters of purely provincial concern? If we give advice on questions of language, why should we not undertake to give advice upon questions of education generally? If the province of Ontario, the province of Manitoba, or the province of Quebec sees fit to adopt an educational policy which does not commend itself to the majority in this House, we should logically proceed, if we accept the motion of the hon. member for Kamouraska, to convey advicej and admonition to all these legislatures , and invite them to give better consideration to the matters with which they alone are concerned and to change the policy which they in their wisdom may have fixed upon.
The resolution of my hon. friend in its concluding words is of a significance which I do not fully comprehend. I had the privilege of looking at the original resolution which was presented to his honour the-Speaker, and I observed that the word " is " in the last line was changed to the word " be." The change seems to give a somewhat different purport to the resolution. As it stood at first, before the change was made, it read in this way:
That this House especially at this time of universal sacrifice and anxiety, when all energies should be concentrated on the winning of the war, would, while fully recognizing the principle of provincial rights and the necessity of every child being given a thorough English education, respectfully suggest to the Legislative Assembly the wisdom of making it clear that the privilege of the children of French parentage of being taught in their mother tongue is not interfered with.	.
The purport of the resolution as it stood at first was a suggestion that the Legislature of Ontario should make it clear that the privilege of being taught in French is not interefered with; that is to say, they shornd make the effect of their existing policy perfectly plain. But as altered, the suggestion is that the privilege of being taught in French shall not be interfered with. Although the words are perfectly courteous; although the language is respectful, that is a suggestion-more than that, a dictation-to the province of Ontario as to what its future policy in that regard should be. I repeat that no good purpose can be served, in respect of matters entirely within provincial jurisdiction, by any attempt of this Parliament to examine, to consider, to advise or to dictate to any province.
My right hon. friend, speaking on this subject yesterday, in the course of the brief discussion that we had in the House, said:
Let us discuss it; let us hear both sides of it; and then. Sir, I believe that from this dis-

cussion we shall rise wiser and better men, knowing better what our position is, knowing better what the rights of the minority are; and I venture to say that when the question has been settled, as it ought to be settled, the minority will accept the situation whatever it may be.
I am not quite clear as to what my right hon. friend intended by that suggestion. If he means the legal rights as established by the constitution, then I would respectfully suggest to him that it is not the function of this Parliament to settle or determine them. That is the function of the constituted courts of this country which have been established for that purpose. They alone can deal with such questions, subject to a final appeal to His Majesty in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But my right hon. friend may mean something more than that. He may mean that we are to settle in this Parliament the question as to whether there should' be some amendment to the British North America Act by which the rights of the provinces in respect of language or otherwise should be cut down and the constitution amended in that respect.
I point to the opinion of the Hon. Edward Blake, which I read a moment ago, and which, in a few words, is this, that no change of the constitutional Act as affecting any province can be made against the will of that province. Surely it is not [DOT]suggested by my right hon. friend that the Parliament of Canada, without any consultation with the provinces, against the consent of the provinces, can pass or ought to pass an address to His Majeety for the purpose of so amending the British North America Act that the rights of the provinces of Canada shall be cut down and limited. Is there any hon. gentleman in this House who will uphold a proposal of that kind? I venture to think that the view which the Hon. Edward Blake in 1890 announced is not only in the interests of this Dominion as a whole, not only in the interests of all the provinces, but eminently in the interests of the province of Quebec. It is, I repeat, eminently in the interests of the province of Quebec itself. If it were possible for this Parliament, without the consent of the provinces affected, to pass a resolution upon which should be founded an amendment to the British North America Act cutting down provincial rights, no province in Canada would be in a more unfortunate situation than Quebec. We know that for this very reason, because Quebec desired to maintain

control of her own provincial affairs, Quebec was not willing to accept the legislative union which Sir John A. Macdonald desired. As a result we have a Federal constitution and not a legislative union. But if the proposal suggested by my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should be adopted, then any province of Canada, without its consent, without any consultation with it and against its will, might find its provincial powers cut down and limited by virtue of a resolution passed in this Parliament of Canada. If my right hon. friend does not suggest that by the language which he used yesterday, I should like to know what he does suggest, and perhaps he will inform us when he comes to address the House.	If it is possible foT this Parliament by a resolution to interfere with the autonomy of the English-speaking provinces in respect of their control of language, it is equally possible for the Parliament of Canada to interfere in the same way with the control of the language or education by the province of, Quebec. I venture to think that the resolution which my hon. friend from Kamouraska has proposed, if it is to be read in the light of the observations of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition as I interpret them, is the very last step which any hon. member from the province of Quebec ought to advocate in this House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: My hon. friend has no warrant to interpret my words in that way.


Robert Laird Borden: Then my right hon. friend, when he comes to speak, will be good enough to explain to the House what he does intend. I will read hie language again:
Let us discuss it; let us hear both sides of it; and then, Sir, I believe that from this discussion we shall rise wiser and better men, knowing better what our position is, knowing better what the rights of the minority are; and X venture to say that when the question has been settled, as it ought to be settled, the minority will accept the situation whatever it may be.
I understand my right hon. friend to say tha't this motion has been brought into this House for the purpose of settling that question. If his words do not mean that, they mean nothing. He is to have a discussion and he is to have the question settled.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I repeat -what I said a moment ago, that so far as the legal question is concerned, he will not affirm that this Parliament can settle it. Does my right toon, friend affirm that this Parliament can settle the legal question to which I have alluded ? He will not affirm that; he cannot maintain it before this House or elsewhere. Then what did he allude to? He alluded evidently to the question of policy, to the question of having some amendment to the British North America Act by which the undoubted rights of the provinces of 'Canada in this respect should be modified in some way. I say that this cannot be done, that it ought not to be done, without consultation with the provinces or without their consent; and I say that no province in Canada is more vitally interested in the principle which I have just enunciated than the province of Quebec itself. Therefore, when a suggestion such as that is made, pointing unmistakeably to action by this Parliament along that line, I say it is unfortunate, and particularly unfortunate from the standpoint of the province of Quebec. What is the purpose of this resolution? What object is to be attained by it? Suppose the province of Ontario and the province of Manitoba treat this resolution, if it should pass, with the scornful indifference which is indicated by the leading Liberal organ in the West of Canada. Parliament having given that admonition and that advice is to do what? To take the rebuke of that scornful indifference, or to proceed further? What is the purpose of the resolution? What do my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) and the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition expect from it? If they intend any action afterwards in case that scornful indifference should be encountered, what is the action which they propose? And if we are right in believing, as the leading Liberal organ in the West has told us, that any such suggestion by this Parliament will meet with that reception, what purpose is there in passing this resolution? Why not leave this question to the forum to which the constitution of Canada has assigned it, and in which forum such questions have been dealt with ever since the Confederation Act was passed in 1867?	[DOT]
For these reasons I regard this motion as unfortunate. I regard it as especially unfortunate from the standpoint of the province of Quebec. I cannot conceive of
any possible good that it can do. I can conceive that it may do a great deal of mischief; because it can hardly fail to intensify feelings already sufficiently aroused, and to strain the relations between the two great races in this country. No one is more anxious than I am that these good relations should be maintained and improved.
In the proper forum this subject is proper matter for discussion. In this forum I see no good reason why it should be discussed. So, for the reasons which 1 have assigned to the House, I for one, without the slightest hesitation, in the interests of this Dominion, in the interests of every province of Canada, and especially in the interests of the great province of Quebec, shall record my vote against this resolution.


Right Hon.   S@: Mt. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion of my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe). I approach the subject, however, in a very different spirit from the spirit which has been indicated by the observations of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government. I rise for the purpose of speaking with as much moderation As I can, and to appeal, not to passion or prejudice, but to the sober reasoning and judgment of my fellow countrymen of all origins. I discard at once all reference to constitutional arguments. I do not here and now bring within the purview of this discussion the British North America Act. I do not here and now invoke the cold letter of any positive law. Still less do I question the paramount power of the Legislature of Ontario to finally pass judgment upon this question and record the final verdict of its people. I rise, sir, not for the purpose of giving aavice or admonition to the province of Ontario. I rise to plead before the people of Ontario, in behalf of His Majesty's subjects of French origin in that province, who complain that, by reason of a statute passed by the province, they have been deprived of rights, in matters of education, which they have enjoyed, themselves and their forefathers before them, ever since Canada became a possession of the British Crown.
And if I take t'hie course, I am impelled to do it by reasons which, in my judgment, are stronger than any that are contained within the four corners of the statute complained of. If there be those-and, if I am right, my right hon. friend is one of them -who tell me that I have no right to come

before this Parliament to plead the cause which I am now pleading, that I am debarred from pleading it, and that the only forum before which it can be pleaded is the Legislature of Ontario, I tell my right hon. friend, and his friends beside him, that it was only four or five weeks ago that I was appealed to by an important organ of an important section of the province of Ontario-I mean the Orange Sentinel-under the signature of its editor, Mr. Hocken, to interfere in this matter, to give my views to my fellow countrymen and endeavour to put an end to the unfortunate agitation that is now going on. Sir, there have been amongst my friends those who resented that interference of the Orange Sentinel, who called it an impertinent letter, I do not share that view. I have no fault to find with the Orange Sentinel for thus appealing to me, I stand here in Parliament, and hold myself accountable to every citizen of Canada who temperately addresses me, as I was then addressed, to give my views upon every question which concerns the peace, good order and good government of this country. The very fact that I was thus appealed to shows that in the language of its editor, at all events, if I understand the English language aright, the question is not confined to the province of Ontario, but has gradually extended beyond its boundaries. Therefore, if I have to accept the invitation which was extended to me, I want to know if there is any other place where I could answer it than here from my place in the Parliament of Canada.
In the letter which was addressed to me there are statements of fact and expressions of opinion to which it is my duty respectfully to take exception. In the first place, I take exception to the manner in which I am addressed. I am addressed by the Sentinel as the leader of the French race in Canada. Here are the words of the Sentinel :	'
Do you not see that you have surrendered the leadership of the French race In Canada to the Editor of the Le Droit? Are you content to have him supplant you as the political hero of your people? Do you think it will add to their happiness and prosperity, or advance the cause of Canadian unity, for which you have expressed a strong desire?
Let me say at once that when I am addressed as the leader of the French race *in Canada I have to disclaim that proud title. I never had that title; I surrendered nothing to Mr. Bourassa. Mr. Bourassa and I have been on many questions at the very antipodes; indeed, in recent events he has been far nearer to the friends of
tSir Wilfrid Daurier.]
the Orange Sentinel than to my own. I have simply this to say, that, while I do not claim ever to have been the leader of the French race in Canada it has been my honour for the last twenty-eight years to be accepted as the .leader of Liberal Canadians-Canadians of all origins, Canadians by birth and Canadians by adoption; of all those Canadians who find their ideals expressed in those principles of British liberalism advocated in their time by Fox, by O'Connell, and by Gladstone, and cardinal among which was the protection of minorities. For those twenty-eight years I have been at the head of the Liberals of Canada. I have been at their head in good report and ill report; in victory and in defeat, and in many an arduous agitation, but I think I can affirm here, where my record is open to discussion, that at no time in any of those discussions, in any of those agitations, have I appealed either to race or to creed. I have endeavoured on every occasion to find a solution by appealing to the consciences of all men who love' freedom, justice, and tolerance. That is the position which I take to-day upon this .question which is now before the Canadian Parliament. Let me say that, whilst I have been the leader of the Liberal party in Canada, I am of French origin, and perhaps my judgment may be biassed, though I do not think it is. But I ask no man on this question to follow me; I want no man to vote with me unless he thinks in this conscience that the cause which I am now advocating is a right cause.
Sir, now that I have laid down the ground upon which I propose to proceed, let me try, if possible, to lay before Parliament the genesis of the agitation which, unfortunately, is now raging in the country. I thank Providence that I have lived long enough to see the old enmity of France and England at last at an end and replaced by feelings of cordial and mutual respect and good will towards one another. I thank Providence that I have seen the present alliance of England and France, consecrated as it is by the blood of the two nations, shed as we know for this most sacred of all causes. I thank Providence that I have seen this alliance which gives evidence of being the dawn of eternal friendship between those two nations, an alliance so lofty in purpose that already it is looked upon as one that must last forever-a war between England and France to-day wmuld be just as criminal as a civil war in either of those nations; an alliance

which has received its last consecration in the resolution adopted by the inter-parliamentary committee of France and England, suggesting to 'both nations that the study of their language should be made compulsory in all the schools of Great Britain and France.
Well, Sir, uhfortunately it has not always been so. England and France, as we know only too well, have filled the modern era with the history of their wars. They have fought in 'Europe, and they not onlly fought in Europe, but carried their quarrels and their wars to the virgin wilderness of this vast continent. The virgin wilderness of this continent resounded with the clash of their arms, and the war between them only ended with the final defeat of France. That defeat,	however, was not on
the plains of Abraham, which witnessed the victory of Wolfe over Montcalm; for, immediately after the defeat, the French army was rallied by the Chevalier do (Levis, who for one year maintained the unequal contest, until, in the month of (September, 1760, when the French army found itself between the army of General Murray and the approaching army of General Amherst, he surrendered, And that was the finish forever of the dream of a French Empire on the banks of the St. Lawrence. But there were 60,000 colonists who were then to become British subjects, and whose fate was a cause of anxiety to General de Levis. In the articles of surrender, he asked the victorious general that these 60,000 colonists should be granted their civil rights and the freedom of their religion. The articles were at once conceded 'by the generous victor, and when he had doubts he wrote: " they became subjects of the King ", implying that in that fact there was ample protection.
I am a descendant of those colonists, and [DOT] I am bound to say, what I have repeated many times but never with more pleasure than on the present occasion, that my fellow countrymen under the British Crown have found ample justice and liberty. But, at the same time, no one can deny that there have been jarrings and quarrels between the different elements. We should not be surprised at that, because we have the testimony of history that race quarrels are very persistent and will continue sometimes long alfter the cause which brought them about has disappeared. However, with all the jarrings and ail the quarrels that, we have had, there is one thing upon
which, for more than 150 years, there never was any friction whatever, and that is the subject of education. From the day that Canada became an English possession, and when the French settlements, extended all along the St. Lawrence from Gaspe up to the Detroit river, from that day in 1760 down to about 1885, there never was the slightest friction upon the matter of education.
The French colonists were allowed, in Ontario as everywhere else, to have their schools and to teach their language to their children. (So it was so long as Canada remained a Crown colony; so it was after the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada had been separated and given an embryo constitutional Government; so it was after Canada had been re- ' united and given responsible Government; and so it was after Confederation and down to the year 1885, when the rights of the French people with regard to education were first challenged. That was in the province of Ontario. That was under the Government of Sir Oliver Mowat, and the old veteran, to his credit be it ever said, rose up to the highest possible notch of magnanimity in standing for the rights of the French minority. He established, or rather he reorganized, the bilingual schools, and these schools gave satisfaction to the minority for many years and to th,e majority as well, until at last, six or seven years ago, it was complained that they had 'become inefficient. As to that I have no opinion to express. I grant that the schools may have become inefficient; but, if the schools had become inefficient 't wks not because the system was defective, but it was because the system was not properly enforced; and in my judgment the efficient remedy would have been to have had this system of schools carried out as it was conceived. But, instead of that," the Board of Education first, and the 'Legislature of Ontario afterwards, passed regulations which it is claimed by the French minority in Ontario interfered seriously with their efficiency and made them almost nugatory and barren' of results.	The French people have accepted the situation everywhere except in the city of Ottawa. They have accepted these regulations but under protest.	They have appealed to^ the
courts against them, and the appeal is still pending before the courts. They have been unsuccessful before the courts of the province, but they have carried their rights to the

foot of the Throne, to the Privy Council, and there the matter rests 'at the present time.
In addition, they have asked for disallowance of this legislation. The Government have refused the petition for disallowance, and as to that I have no fault to find. I have no quarrel, with the Government. I do not know that they could have taken any other course. The remedy by disallowance is very illusory. It is not a positive remedy; it is a negative remedy; the Government can annul a law, hut it cannot do any more than that. Our experience for many years has been that disallowance- and I have no word to change in what was quoted of some of my former utterances a moment ago by my right hon. friend-has not given satisfaction. Instead of giving satisfaction, it has been the cause of many of the agitations which we have had in this country. If the statute were disallowed what would be the result? The result would be that at the ensuing session the same law would be passed by the same legislature. I have no doubt whatever that many of the signers of the petition, and there were thousands of them, thought that by signing this petition and having the law disallowed, that would be the end of it, and that the Legislature of Ontario could thereby have its power curtailed and could not re-enact such a law. But that is a mistake; there is no such thing. If the law had been disallowed, there was nothing to prevent it from being re-enacted, and again re-enacted it would certainly have been.
But, while I do not blame the Government of Canada for having refused to disallow the law of Ontario, I am sorry that I have to express my regret that the Government did not think it advisable, as they had the power to do, to call the attention of the Legislature and Government of Ontario to the complaints of the minority and ask them to give them favourable consideration. My right hon. friend knows-everybody knows-that time and again, under Liberal Administrations and under Conservative Administrations as well, the Government, while refusing to disallow a law, would call the attention of the Government of the province to the fact that there were complaints against that legislation, and suggest to them that it would be wise to give heed to them and try to meet those complaints. Sometimes these remonstrances have been accepted, sometimes they have not been accepted; but I claim that it would have ESir Wilfrid Laurier.]
been a wise action on the part of the Government of the day to have made at least to the (government of Ontario some representation in that behalf.
Now, the matter rests. The only remedy is the remedy in the courts. For my part, I look upon the remedy in the courts under the present circumstances as a very illusory one. There has been, and there is at the present time, an agitation going on that has involved a great deal of bitterness and antagonism which, no judicial decision can allay. We have had the experience of the last fifty years that when rights are vehemently asserted on the one hand and haughtily denied on the other, a judicial decision, while it may enforce, on one side or the other a grudging assent, will not promote harmony, will not create good-will-and harmony and good-will are the considerations which are to be sought first, last, and all the time.
And now, Sir, if my right hon. friend wants to know why I support this motion, as I do, it is not that we wish to force upon the people of Ontario our way of thinking, or compel them to a course they do not want; we have no right to do that. But it is to ask them to consider the situation in 'the light of the present agitation, and to investigate the claims which, in their opinion, may or may not be well founded but for which, at all events, I would ask respectful consideration. My right hon. friend asked me what I meant yesterday when I said I hoped the matter would be discussed here. I want to have the matter discussed here so that on all sides we may frankly approach the subject from the basis of our common Canadian nationality, and, if possible, find a meeting ground where we shall be able to say to the minority: "You shall not go further than that," and to the majority, " You should grant what is reasonable; you should, at all events, make some concession." I ask no more than that. I read a few days ago in a paper of this city the following statement, to which I ask the consideration of the House:
The position of English-speaking Ontario is this-and let any Canadian who has any sense of national responsibility, be he French-speaking or English-speaking, try to understand it and use his influence accordingly before the racial fanatics of this city get their compatriots into fatal trouble. Ontario proposes to remain an English-speaking province in so far as the wishes of her present English-speaking people can prevail constitutionally.

I could quote hundreds of articles of the same nature, in which it is asserted, and again asserted, that Ontario is an Englishspeaking province, and will remain an English-speaking province. Who asks for anything else? There is an impression, I know, among some of my fellow countrymen whom I see on the other side of the House that the French Canadian has some sinister motive behind this agitation, that in some way he wants to get control of the province of Ontario. Sir, the idea would be ridiculous if it were not so serious as it is. But we know there are extremists everywhere; there are extremists who are to-day using language which I reprove as much as does any man of English origin. I am not asking anything at the present time for my Frenchspeaking countrymen of the province of Ontario, except the privilege of having their children taught in the French language untrammelled-a privilege they . have had for at least one hundred and fifty years. Will any one tell me that if the French Canadians of the province of Ontario are allowed to have their children taught in a language which is so dear to them-the French language at that, one of the noblest on earth-that Ontario will be less British than it is to-day? Will any one tell me that, if the people of Wales are deprived of the schools they have a right to, and of the use of their language in those schools in order that their children may acquire it, Wales will be less British than it is at the present moment or has been ever since it was joined to the British Crown? These are some considerations which I wish to place before my fellow-countrymen. Yesterday, when I stated upon the floor of the House that I wanted to have this question discussed, it was in the hope that discussion of it would make us wiser and better men, and that we should understand exactly where we were. There never is harm to be apprehended from a free discussion, and I hoped for a great deal of good. I meant nothing more than that.
Before I go further let me again refer to the open letter which the Orange Sentinel addresssed to me, urging me to interfere in this matte'r. Addressing itself to me it says:
Settle the bilingual controversy by convincing your people that they have no rights in Ontario, and we may look for a better recruiting record in Quebec.
Sir, I am not prepared to say that my fellow-countrymen of French origin have
no rights in Ontario; but I am prepared to say this, and I want my words to. be heard throughout* the length and breadth of this land: whether my fellow-countrymen have rights or no rights in Ontario, whether those rights are granted or denied, these considerations are no bar to the duty which the French-Canadians owe to themselves and to the honour of their race to come forward in their fullest numbers and take part in the great struggle that is going on to-day in the land of their ancestors for the cause of freedom, and of the civilization of mankind.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was speaking of the rights of the French minority in the province of Ontario. -1 stated that I was not prepared to say that the minority had no rights; on the contrary, I would be prepared to argue that under section 93 of the British North America Act the minority has rights which can be enforced in the courts of law. But I repeat what I said previously in the debate, that I do not approach this question upon the cold letter of the positive law. My aim and purpose in approving of the resolution of my hon. friend from Kamouraska is rather to appeal to the sense of justice of the province of Ontario-justice between man and man, justice not according to the letter of the statute, but justice according to the conscience of every living man, no matter what his nationality may be.
I will now put forward the view which I intend to present to the House upon this aspect of the question. I referred this afternoon to the capitulation of Levis to the forces of 'General Amherst in the year 1760. In those Articles of Capitulation no mention is made of language; neither is any mention made of language in the Treaty of Baris which confirmed the terms of the capitulation of Montreal. The only things which are referred to in the Articles of Capitulation and in the Treaty of Paris, are religious freedom and civil rights. There are, however, jurists of eminence who hold it as a canon of the law of nations that civil rights carry with them as a corollary the rights of language. I will not say that the opinion is unanimous, but it is held by authorities of the most eminent reputation. But

canons of the law of nations have no sanction. They are binding on conscience; they are binding on honour; but they have no other sanction. Nations can ignore them or nations can respect them. Nations there are which ignore them; nations there are which respect them. Germany is one of the nations which ignores the canons of the law of nations. She has given in the present war example after example of that contemptuous unconcern, not only in this war, but even in times of peace, and in .the events which followed war. The last instance that we have had of the policy followed by Germany is the case of Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian war. By the treaty of Frankfort the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were detached from France and annexed to Germany. She ignored all the canons of the law of nations and planted her brutal heel upon those two provinces, - ignoring the rights and privileges which, under another regime, the population of those provinces would have had a right to expect. She subjected the French language to many cruel restrictions and indignities. But England, I am proud to say, has always respected the canons of the law of nations. Wherever England has planted her colours by conquest, by treaty, or in any other manner, she has always respected the laws, the language and the religion of her new subjects. The last instance of that, is South Africa. She acted in that manner in Canada; she did it in India; she did it in Mauritius; she did it in Malta; she did it in the West Indies. Wherever she planted her flag the law of nations was observed, and the language of her new subjects was so welj respected that no one would have suspected that there had been a change of allegiance. How many years have elapsed since we were at war with South Africa? Hardly fourteen years. But I am proud, as a British subject, to say that to-day the Dutchman of South Africa i-s just as free to speak his language and to have his children educated in his language as he was before the South African war. All that I have to ask my fellow-Canadians of the province of Ontario is; which example are we going to follow? Which is the best polity for Canada? Is it the German polity? No one will say that. Well, then, will it not be the British polity, which for two centuries or more has been invariably followed in every part of the globe? I could follow the whole circle of the earth and everywhere I would find the same story re-
peated by every British subject, no matter what his origin, whether he is in Malta, where he speaks the Italian language, or in St. Lucia, in the West Indies, where he speaks the French language, or in South Africa, where he speaks the Dutch language, nay, even whether in India, where he speaks languages almost without number. The same story is repeated everywhere, and what I have to propose to my fellow countrymen in the province of Ontario is that we should follow the example of England in the polity she has adopted in all parts of the world. All I ask is that in the province of Ontario, and also in the province of Manitoba, our children should be allowed to be taught in the language of our ancestors:	in Ontario, because the
language was preserved by the Crown itself; in Manitoba, because, when that province was created, the French language was introduced therein by the deliberate will and action of this Parliament.
Speaking of Manitoba, I was more sorry than surprised at the language of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, as his statements in regard to that province added neither strength nor dignity to his argument. He endeavoured to compare my conduct of to-day with my conduct of 1896. Is there any parity or disparity between my conduct of to-day and my conduct of 1896? What was the situation in 1896? Phis Canadian Parliament undertook to pass a law of education for the province of Manitoba over the heads of the Legislature of Manitoba. Did I and my friends undertake to do anything of this kind? Did we attempt to force upon the people by the will of this Parliament a law which would be repugnant to the majority of Manitoba? The law which was introduced by the Government of 1896 was obnoxious to the great majority of the people of Manitoba. Sir, is it not a fact that the Legislature of Manitoba, having behind it almost the whole of the people of the province, had put an end to a system of education which they found obnoxious to them? Is it not also a fact that the Canadian ^Government of that day undertook to put a' law upon the statute-book, by the power of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada, which a large majority of the people of Manitoba resented? Well, Sir, I would not submit to that; I fought that proposed legislation. Is that all that I did? No, I did something else. I did then the very thing that I am doing to-day. I appealed to the

Government of Manitoba, to the legislature and to the people of that province, saying: "Here is a grievance. I do not care whether it is debated or not; I nsk you to be generous to the majority and to correct the evil which you have created". I am glad to say that my appeal was heeded. The Legislature of Manitoba, in response to my appeal, undertook to amend the Act which was agreeable to the majority but obnoxious to the minority, so as to remedy to a considerable extent the grievance of the minority.
My right hon. friend alluded to-day to the fact that that law has just been repealed. Under the remedy which was enacted in the session of 1897 by the Legislature of Manitoba, the minority were allowed to have religious teaching in their schools and the privileges of a French education. As was stated this afternoon by the Prime Minister, the Legislature of Manitoba has repealed the concession which it made in 1897 so far as the French language is concerned. That is true-only too true.
The right hon. Prime Minister reproached us because the hon. member for Kamouraska did not include an appeal to Manitoba in the resolution of this day. I ask if he was very sincere in his regrets? I thought his regrets were more like crocodile's tears than anything else. I understood what was at the bottom of his speech, I had only to look at the face of my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain) when the Prime Minister uttered those words. I saw an expression of glee on the face of the Postmaster General; he thought it would be a good argument in the province of Quebec. Let me say to my hon. friend the Postmaster General that I do not speak especially for the province of Quebec; I speak for the people of Canada as a whole. This language I shall hold in every part of Canada, whether it be Quebec, Ontario or any other province. In this resolution we did not include the grievance of the minority of the people of Manitoba; the remedy for that will be sought in another way. I will give my hon. friend another reason. So far as I am concerned, if I have advice to give to my fellow-countrymen of French origin I will tell them not to be has'ty, not to be premature, to take their time, to consider what course they should follow. We have not yet heard the voice of the people of Manitoba at the bar of the House of Commons or at the door of the legislature of that province. There is time enough for all this; the situation will be canvassed at the proper time. But, Sir, I resent that in a matter of so great moment an attempt should be made to mix up situations which ought not to be mixed up. I resent any attempt to look at this question from any standpoint except the broad basis of what is reasonable, right, just and fair.
I now come back to the province of Ontario. I have stated that I want to appeal to the sense of justice and fair play of the people of Ontario and to their appreciation of British institutions-mo more. Even if I am in the wrong-and 1 hope I am not-I am sure that a frank understanding between the majority and the minority in the province of Ontario, between the two great elements which compose the Canadian people, may force a solution of this troublesome question. Every man in the province of Ontario, every man in this room who comes from the province of Ontario, whether he sits on that side or on this side, is determined that every child in the province of Ontario shall receive an English education. To that, Sir, I give my fullest assent. I want every child in the province of Ontario to receive the benefit of an English education. Wherever he may go on this continent I want him to be able to speak the language of the great majority of the people on this continent. I want it, I say, not only because it is the law of the province, but because of merely utilitarian considerations. No man on this continent is equipped for the battle of life unless he has an English education. I, if I may be permitted to make a personal allusion to myself, I am of French origin, but every day of my life I have occasion to bless my father for sending me when eleven years of age to an English school. The benefits which I received there I have carried with me up to the present time. I want every child, therefore, to have an English education. Now I come to the point where I want to speak of my fellow-countrymen in the province of Ontario. When I ask that every child of my own race should receive an English education, will you refuse us the privilege of education also in the language of our mothers and our fathers? That is all tha1, I ask to-day; I ask nothing more than that I simply ask you, my fellow-countrymen, British subjects like myself, if, when we say that we must have an English education, you will say:	"You shall have an
English education and nothing else." There are men who say that in the schools of Ontario and Manitoba there should be no

other language than the English language. But, Sir, when I ask that we should have also the benefit of a French education, will you refuse us that benefit?	Is
that an unnatural demand? Is that an obnoxious demand? Will the concession of it do any harm to anybody? And will it be said that in the great province of Ontario there is a disposition to put aTbar on knowledge and to stretch every child in the schools of Ontario upon a Procrustean bed and say that they shall all be measured alike, that no one shall have the privilege of a second education in a second language? I do not believe it; and if we discuss this question with frankness, as between man and man, in my humble opinion, it can yet be settled by an appeal to the people of Ontario. I do not believe that any man will refuse us the benefit of a French education.
Then, in the newspapers, not all, but many of them, of both parties, I have seen the statement made that there is no disposition to curtail the teaching of the French language, and that it is already provided for. Well, sir, I welcome this generous indignation; and, if it be so, as I think I can show, that the teaching of French, which was organized by Sir Oliver Mowat between the years 1880 and 1890, has been very much restricted by Regulation 17, perhaps then we can come to a satisfactory conclusion that will be acceptable to both sides. Sir, I have seen it stated, and it is argued, that Regulation 17 has put no bar to the teaching of the French language. Before reading Regulation 17, may I read Regulation 15? Regulation 15 is as follows:
*
In school sections where the French or German language prevails, the board may, in addition to the courses of study prescribed herein, require instruction to be given in French or German, reading, grammar and composition, to such pupils as are directed by their parents or guardians to study either of these languages.
It is stated that this regulation is still in force, and so it is. It is very plain in its wording. It means this, that in all sections where the German element or the French element prevails, this element can ask the privilege of having its education in either the German or the French language. I repeat that this section is still in force. But it has been modified by Regulation 17, which is in these words:
Section 4. In schools where French has hitherto been a subject of study, the Public or Separate School Board, as the case may be, may provide, under the following conditions, for instruction in French reading, grammar and com-

position, in Forms I to IV, in addition to the subjects prescribed for the Public and Separate Schools.
Mark the words, "in schools where French has hitherto been a subject of study." What is the meaning of the word "hitherto" here, and why has it been introduced? Instead of one condition, which you had previously, you now have two conditions. One condition is that French henceforth is to be taught only in settlements where that language prevails and where it has hitherto been taught. In other words, Regulation 17 has created a restricted atmosphere in which French can be taught. It can continue to be taught, though in modified form, in all the schools where it was taught before June, 1912. But in other schools it cannot be taught. In other words, in no new schools can the French language be introduced. I know that this disposition has been dealt with in other papers. I have seen it denied. But I am told on good authority, and I have reason to believe it is true, that the regulation has been so interpreted as to mean that the French language shall not be taught anywhere except in the schools where it was taught before June, 1912. Will any man tell me that this is a liberal disposition? Will any of my friends sitting in this House tell me that they are satisfied with it? But if I am told-


Mr. ROGERS:: Will my hon. friend pardon a question? Will he tell us where that interpretation applies?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have told
my hon. friend.


Robert Rogers: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: It applies just what the word " hitherto " means, and I ask my hon. friend what the word " hitherto " means. Why is it there?


Robert Rogers: I will explain when my
time comes.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will explain now. If the word " hitherto " does not mean anything, strike it out. What will be the remedy I ask? Will my hon. friend agree to that? If it is meaningless why is it there? If it means nothing, why has it been inserted there? If it means what I say, why do you keep it there? Sir, we do not want any of this quibbling between us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not want any of this quibbling between us. This word

" hitherto " must mean something or it means nothing. If it means nothing, if it does not mean that the tuition of French is to be restricted to schools where it was taught in 1912, then all I ask is that it be removed, and we shall have no further quarrel. This is my position. I know that it has been so interpreted elsewhere; at all events, I understand so. But if it has been so interpreted elsewhere, by mistake or otherwise, all I ask now is that there shall be no equivocation upon it, and that we shall know exactly where we are.
There is another disposition of Regulation 17 to which I take similarly serious exception. I must say that I have taken a long time to make up my mind as to what was the character of this regulation and what attitude I should take. Looking at those regulations, and giving them the best understanding I can, there is another disposition which I submit to the fairness and justice of my friends, the majority in the province of Ontario. The other thing of which I complain is that the language of tuition between teacher and pupil is made to be the English language for the French children, even in learning English. Between teacher and pupil the English language is made the exclusive language, except under very exceptional circumstances. Here is Regulation 17, paragraph 3:
Subject, in the case of each school, to the direction and approval of the chief inspector, the following modifications shall also he made in the course of study of the public and separate schools.
(1) Where necessary in the case of Frenchspeaking pupils, French may be used as the language of instruction and communication; but such use of French shall not be continued beyond Form 1, excepting that, on the approval of the chief inspector, it may also be used as the language of instruction and communication in the case of pupils beyond Form 1 who are unable to speak and understand the. English language.
What is the meaning of these words, " where necessary "? They did not exist before; they were introduced in June, 1912. Here are a few children between five and six years of age going to school. They have learnt at their mother's knee the French language and no other, and they are told that they must be taught in the English language unless it is found necessary to teach them in the French language. Who is to determine? The chief inspector. Here is a school in the back concessions, and you have to apply to the chief inspector to know whether or not it is necessary that the child should be given the privilege of having an education in the
French language, in his own tongue, and not in English. Why this harsh provision,
I ask? Why this unnecessary and harsh provision? Sir, I am free to say, and I say it without any hesitation, that men are not necessarily or wantonly cruel and offensive. This regulation has been introduced for a purpose, and with an idea. The idea is that the French pupil who comes into school, the young boy who receives his education from the teacher in the English vernacular will make more progress than if he were taught in the French language. I take absolute exception to that view, and I put this as a proposition of schoolteaching under such circumstances that, if you want the child to make progress even in his own language, which is French, or in the English language, the medium of communication between the teacher and the child should be the French language. My proposition is plain. I put it to my hon. friends on the other side, and if I can make it good I hope they will give us the benefit of it. I will not give my own opinion as my authority; I will give authority much higher than my own. In the first place, I will quote upon this very subject the language of a man whose name I had occasion to mention before in this House, and who, though speaking from the grave, is still an authority in the province of Ontario as he was amongst the living; I mean Sir Oliver Mowat. In a speech delivered at Woodstock on December 3, 1889, he spoke upon this very point in these words:
Our opponents pretend that the Government should insist on all instruction being given to the French children in the English language. No such regulation was suggested by the Commissioners-
These were commissioners appointed by Sir Oliver Mowat to investigate the question.
-and none such has been made, because such a regulation would be absurd, and, instead of serving the cause of education, would often prevent education altogether.
This is high authority, I repeat. But I have other authority to submit to the House. The names are not as famous or as well known as the name of Sir Oliver Mowat, but they are the names of experts whose testimony ought to be acceptable, because they are regarded as experts in education in all parts of the British Empire.
In 1911 there was held in London an Imperial conference on education. Mark the words-Imperial conference on education; and a special sitting of the conference was

devoted to bilingualism. The conference on bilingualism took place on the 2nd of May, 1911, under the presidency of the Right Hon. Walter Runciman, then President of the Board of Education, and there were present experts from India, from Canada, from South Africa, from Malta, from Jersey, from the Scottish Education. Department, and from the Board of Education of England and Wales, all countries in which, at that time, and from time immemorial, there has been bilingualism. This subject was canvassed upon every side. I could tell you of the suggestions offered and of the speeches delivered by the delegates from South Africa-Mr. Thomas Muir, Superintendent of Education, Cape of Good Hope, and Mr. Viljoen, a Dutchman, Director of Education in the Orange Free State. It would take too long to go over the whole pamphlet; but I will give the House some of the opinions which were then expressed upon this very topic that we have now under consideration.
In the first place, I will quote the opinion of Dir. MacKay, . Sucerintendient of Education in the province of Nova Scotia:
In Nova Scotia less than 10 per cent are Acadian French. In New Brunswick perhaps less than 20 per cent are Acadian French. For a number of years we endeavoured to give them at least in the common school grades bi-lingual readers with instruction from the beginning in English. It was held by the French that the children could make no progress because they could not understand English when first entering school. In order to settle the difficulty a commission was appointed; and the commission determined, and the Government accepted the determination, that the education of the Frenchspeaking child should commence, and be continued during the first four years in the mother tongue, and French readers were provided for them. While these French readers were used during the first four years the teachers of these schools were expected to acquaint th'emselves with the method of teaching English colloquially, and during these four years the children were required to do as much as possible in English so that after the fourth year instruction could go on in English continuously. That is the way the matter stands at present in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I believe the French are pretty well satisfied with it. The children in this way learn English more easily. They can learn written French more rapidly, and that enables them with very little difficulty, to commence their studies in English thereafter.
Mark the words: children commencing their education in their own tongue can take' up English afterwards more easily. Now, I pause here and aek every man in this House, who has had a bilingual education, if this opinion of Dr. MacKay is not justified to the letter by hie own experience. Where a French child knows his grammar, and has the elements of a 
French education, the complications of the French language are so much more difficult than the complications of the. English language that the task of learning English afterwards is made quite easy. I am sure that every man in this House who hae had' a bilingual education will appreciate and endorse what I say.
But, Sir, the one opinion to which I am anxious to call the attention pf the House is the opinion of Mr. Owen Edwards, Chief Inspector of schools in the Welsh Department of the Board of Education in England, who spoke in this way:
With regard to the teaching of English to Welsh-speaking children, for a certain number of years we tried the method that seems to be condemned unanimously by the Conference to-day. We thought that the best way of teaching English to a Welsh child would be to make language and the atmosphere of the school entirely English, and to use Welsh, if at all, for the purpose of absolutely necessary explanation. I can hut state the result by quoting from a report of a small committee of teachers of great ability and long experience, a report adopted and published by the Anglesey Education Committee. The infant, as he leaves the infant school, is thus described.
" He reads words with which he associates no meaning, and is denied access to the written word which would at once call up ideas and stimulate his intelligence. Thus, when he has attained the age of six or seven, his book tells him nothing; the language he reads he cannot understand, and the language he understands he cannot read."
That was the typical product of our infant schools until a few years ago. As regards the bi-lingual districts, we have to face, in our smaller schools, the difficulty of a double curriculum and a double staff. We avoid both. If about 66 per cent of the children speak English as their home language, we take En glish as the language of the infant school; if about 66 per cent speak Welsh, we take Welsh as the one language. So far, we have had no difficu'ty that has not been easily overcome. Bilingual teachers are easily obtainable.
And he concludes with these words:
The results, so far as we In Wales are concerned, are certainly unmistakable. In the Welsh-speaking district, it is not too much to say that the newer method of teaching by means of the home language has practically doubled the efficiency of the schools. For one thing, it connects the elementary school with the home and with other educational Institutions, especially with two characteristic Welsh institutions : the Sunday School (which is a school for the whole people, not for children only), and the literary meeting. It has also greatly facilitated the learning of English. A child in Standard III, in a school employing the modern method writes English more correctly and reads it more intelligently than a child in Standard V, in a school in which the old method is till used. That is, a Welsh-speaking child .of nine, who has learnt his own language first, will write better English and read English more intel. ligently than a Welsh-speaking child of 11 who has been taught English exclusively from the

first day he entered school. This is""my experience.
Now, I quote to you the opinion of another of these experts in the Welsh language, Mr. A. T. Davies, secretary of the Welsh Department:
So far back as 1S93, the following instruction was issued by the Board of Education to Her Majesty's Inspectors acting in Wales :
" In the case of Wales it is clearly established that in many cases in Welsh-speaking districts the use of Welsh in the school, side by " side with English, will greatly facilitate an intelligent understanding of English. It is desirable that the attention of teachers should be called to this question, and that Her Majesty's Inspectors should encourage the practice of bi-lingual teaching by themselves making use of Welsh in testing children's intelligence. The use of Welsh songs and Welsh poetry in the schools in question will he of considerable service."
Now, I pass to another expert, Mr. Warre Cornish, who represented the Scottish department of the Board of Education. Mr. Warre Cornish expressed his opinions in these words:
The department refrain from laying down the law as to the bi-lingual problem; only they are careful that in the Gaelic-speaking districts there shall be an inspector, generally a Highlander, who thoroughly understands the difficulties of the problem, and who is in very close touch with the teachers, and it is left very much between the two parties; and I can only' say that, so far as I am aware, this method of leaving the problem to settle itself on the spot has worked with very general satisfaction to the parents.
Of course there are enthusiasts for the Gaelic language and extremists who may make their voice heard sometimes, but there has been very little complaint from the parents that that language is not receiving sufficient attention.
Dr. Viljoen:	Is it used as a medium in any
way?
Mr. Warre Cornish : There is no provision for or against the use of Gaelic as a medium.


The Chairman:: It is occasionally used as
a medium in some schools, is it not?
Mr. Warre Cornish:	It certainly is used as
a medium.
In the face of these authorities, in the face of these opinions of experts, in the face of the mature reflections of men whose lives have been devoted to teaching in bilingual schools, am I not justified in asking the Legislature of Ontario at all events to give us a rehearing upon this matter? I ask nothing more. I ask to have a rehearing in a matter of such importance to us as-to whether or not the policy which has been adopted by Ontario is right and proper or whether it may be improved.
But when I express this request I know that men will rise up before me
with uplifted hands and say, " Hands off,"-we have heard it to-day from the Prime Minister-. " Hands off; the province of Ontario is an autonomous province, and it will not brook any dictation; the province of Ontario has paramount powers in this matter." The province of Ontario has paramount powers in this matter, and it is for the province of Ontario to say whether or not it will give us that rehearing which I ask for my fellow countrymen of French origin or whether it will refuse it. The province of Ontario has paramount power, but may I not recall to the province of Ontario the words of the great poet:
O, it is excellent
To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant.
The province of Ontario has paramount power and I would be the last man to question it; I would be the last man to try to interfere with it. I am of the old school of Mowat and Blake, who were the prophets and the originators of the doctrine of provincial rights, and by that doctrine I stand to-day. T say that the province of Ontario will and shall determine that question; but I ask these new converts to the doctrine of provincial rights: Am I interfering with the doctrine of provincial rights when i ask humbly to be allowed to present my petition to the province of Ontario? Is it forbidden in the code of these nev adepts in the doctrine of provincial right! that you shall not even be allowed to stand at the bar of the province of Ontario? and make your plea? I stated at the beginning of my remarks that I did not come here to admonish or advise the province of Ontario; I came here simply to present the petition of a humble subject of His Majesty who happens to have been born of French parents, and who wants to preserve the right which has been preserved to me by the British Crown, a right which has existed as long as the British Crown has had sway in this country.
I know that there is to-day in the province of Ontario a sense of irritation at the position which has been taken by some of my fellow countrymen of French blood in the province of Quebec, who have from the first deprecated the participation of Canada in the present war, and who have exerted their influence to attempt at least to prevent enlistment. Alas, it is true; it is only too true. It is deplorable, and it is to me as unintelligible as it

is deplorable. It is true there are in my province men of French origin who when France is fighting a fight the heroism of which stirs the blood of mankind, remain with their blood cold and tell us: " No, we will not lift a finger to assist England in defending the integrity of France; we want our wrongs to be righted in Ontario." Wrongs or no wrongs there is the field of honour, there is the call of duty. But, Sir, though our cause be just and fair, shall it be impeded because there are men who so far forget the duty which they owe not only to their British allegiance, but to the French blood which flows in their veins. If there are men who have taken that ignoble stand there are many men, also, who have gone to the front, and who are now standing by the side of their British comrades, fighting under the British flag with as much courage as any British soldier.


An hon. MEMBER:: A pretty small number of them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Wilfrid Laurier: If anything is to weigh in the balance, is it to be the voice of the shirker, the voice of the slacker, or is it to be the voice of the man who has responded to the call of duty and gone to the front, and who is doing his duty to the Empire, even to the shedding of his blood? Some hon. member says they are few in number. Yes, perhaps not as many as there might have been; I admit that. But, if it is so, where lies the responsibility if it is not w'ith the men who, in 1911, said that under no circumstances should Canada fight for England. I have done my best, at all events. I have given the best of my life for the doctrine that I am now maintaining, not upon this question only, but in the fight for civilization which we aTe now waging on the soil of France. When Gladstone undertook to bind up and heal the wounds of Ireland and to give to that unfortunate country a last measure of liberty and justice, there were extremists among the Irishmen who did all they could to down the policy of the Grand Old Man. They did all they could to continue the old hatred against England, to sow discord, and to fan the passions of that unfortunate, but noble country.. But Gladstone, great man that he was, was not deterred. He went on. Though, like Moses, he did not bring the people to the promised land, he sowed the seed. The seed he 
planted has germinated and brought forth fruit; the cause of Ireland has 9 p.m. grown until it is fully matured, and to-day England is reaping her reward, in the unanimity with which the Irish people stand behind her in this war. Indeed, in spite of all the gold and all the plotting of Germany, which did nothing more than to raise a riot which was at an end after three days at the most, the policy of conciliation inaugurated by Gladstone has been vindicated and the insane plot will not dash from Ireland the cup of fulfilment which was at her lips.
I have lived too long not to know that the distrust that is caused by race quarrels is one of the banes of our life in Canada. If there is this exclusion of the French language which we complain of today in the manner whicK I have stated, is it because there is distrust of the French race? You do not look to the great body of the nation; you look only to certain extremists who have made use of the most detestable language. A journal published in the city of Toronto, edited by a man of great ability, an eminent writer who has given himself the mission of being the foremost advocate of a closer bond of union for the British Empire, has, within the last ten days, inaugurated a new programme, the first article of which is, "One language, and one language only." Under the present circumstances this means that only one language shall be taught in the schools of Ontario. The editor of that paper is not the only man to conceive that the Empire, to be united, must be united not only in aim and in purpose,, but in every detail. Sir, I wonder if this new theory for bringing about unity of the Empire is to be applied in Wales, and the Gaelic language accordingly prohibited in the Welsh schools. Is this theory to be applied in the Highlands of Scotland, or in Malta, or in Egypt, or in South Africa? Sir, if there is one thing which to-day stands to the glory of England-a feat unparalleled in the history of the world-it is that to-day on the battlefield in Flanders there are men who do not speak a word of English, but who for England have come forward to fight and die. If the Britisher, when he went to India, to Malta, to South Africa, or anywhere else, had implanted that new doctrine of "one language and one language only," and had suppressed the language of the people who had just passed under his dominion, do you believe, Sir, you would have seen that great and noble spectacle which has astonished and is still astonishing the

world? No, Sir. It is because British institutions everywhere have carried freedom and respect for minorities that England is as strong as she is to-day.
My right hon. friend, commenting this afternoon upon the resolution which has been introduced by my hon. friend from Kamouraska, and especially upon the words, "That this House, especially at this time of universal sacrifice and anxiety, when all energies should be concentrated on the winning of the war," wondered why this resolution had been introduced in the midst of the war. Can he have any doubt? Does he not see why? I will tell him. It has been introduced in this House for the same reason that a similar motion was introduced at the meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Committee of the Allies, held in old Westminster Hall. Assembled there to consider means for bringing about the end of the war, the committee declared that it would be in the best interests of unanimity to have the English and the French language taught wherever the banners of France and England floated. It is less than a month since eminent members of the French and English Parliaments met in that old hall to discuss the war and the best methods to be pursued in bringing it to an end, and one of the things which they did suggest was that the French and English languages should be taught where-ever the French or the English ruled. Did they believe that in doing this noble work they were doing anything that would militate against the successful ending of the war? No, Sir, their thought rose higher than that; they believe that in so doing they were fostering the very object which we have in view-and what a lesson it is for us to-day, my fellow-citizens in this House of Commons! Sir, we are engaged in this stupendous war, which is to determine whether or not henceforth might or right is to -rule the world. Alas, it is only too plainly evident that we are still very far from the end. More sacrifices will be needed; more mothers will have to mourn over their lost sons, and more horrors will be piled up on the soil of brave, desolate France and on the soil of unfortunate Belgium. But already to this black cloud there is visible a silver lining. After nearly three months of fearful battering, the citadel of Verdun, ever proud and defiant, still flies' the tri-colour at its masthead. This failure of the German arms makes it very plain that in this contest Germany cannot win- that might cannot triumph over right.
Already it is plain to any observer that in the trenches will be buried many of the old hatreds and old prejudices, and that from the soil of the battlefields will germinate a new spirit of affection and brotherhood, such as has never before been heard of or known since the angels themselves brought from Heaven the divine message of "Peace on earth, good-will to men." We have an earnest of this new spirit of brotherhood in the resolution adopted by the Interparliamentary Committee of France and England, which, as I said, came to us from Westminster Hall itself, that old and noble building which goes back to the time of the Norman Kings and which has seen the development and evolution of all that is contained in those great principles of freedom, justice, and tolerance. That call which was made in Westminster Hall to all British subjects, to all French citizens, I make bold to make here in Ottawa, not in any spirit of dictation, but in the same spirit which has inspired and -is the true spirit of British institutions, in the hope that it will be heard in Ottawa, heard in Toronto, and heard in Winnipeg.


Hon. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it shall he my duty to bring the attention of the House back to the real question before us, even if we have to descend from the high flights of eloquence attained by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. I was rather surprised this afternoon when my right hon. friend said that he had received from the Orange Sentinel the inspiration to bring this resolution before the House. That, after having been forty years in public life, for twenty-nine years of which he has been the /leader of the Liberal party he should look to the Orange Sentinal for his inspiration to become not the father, but at least the foster-father of this resolution, is, to say the least, somewhat surprising.
When I was practising at the bar I often watched the judges weighing the different arguments pro and con, and sometimes they were so long in coming to the point and rendering their decision that I was inclined to get impatient. I shall not on this occasion give the House time to get impatient awaiting my views on the questions before us. After the most mature deliberation, after having examined the situation, after having -studied the resolution now before the House, and considered whether or not under the present circumstances it can be of any profit, advantage, or benefit to the minority in Ontario or

Northwest Territories. I shall quote from some of the speeches made at that time by eminent men who have now passed away, to show in what spirit the French language was treated -by them. The hon. member for Kamouraska quoted from the remarks made by the late lamented Sir John lA. Macdonald. Let me cite what the Hon. Edward Blake said upon the occasion to which I have referred:
You may selfishly wish that he had agreed to be suppressed; you may have a profound conviction of the incomparable superiority of your tongue, your laws, your creed; you may earnestly desire for all men the inestimable boons of British birth, of English speech, of Protestant religion. But still, after all, cannot you put yourself in his place? And can you not, must you not, admire the courage, the fidelity, and the determination with which, at great odds, he fought in all fields-in the legislature, before the people, and in even sterner fields than these-for what to him was as dear as what you call your birthright is to you? Fought, aye, and conquered too! Cannot you recognise that his was after all a victory for humanity? And that if, as the case is, it has imposed greater difficulties and more arduous efforts and toils on those who are engaged in making a nation of Canada, it yet, by that very circumstance, gave the chance for more exalted triumphs, gave an opening for the exhibition of still higher and deeper and broader feelings of justice and liberality and tolerance than are permitted to a wholly homogeneous people? Can you not at least see-if that much you cannot see-that he has in fact conquered? Do you seriously hope to prevail to-day in a conflict in which, under infinitely greater disadvantages, he obtained the victory long ago? Surely if it were a conquest in which he was in the wrong, you had the right to struggle still; but his victory after all was for equal rights-rights equal with your own. That is all he asked ; that is all he got. But you say: no; his language must be obliterated; it is inimical to the Constitution that it should continue; you must teach him your tongue; he must forget his own; he must not have what he regards-and, from his point of view, rightly regards-as equal rights with you, the Anglo-Saxon, of whom the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) spoke so proudly this afternoon as destined by fate to swallow him up. Sir, I regard this larger question to which I have referred, and it is the real question we have to consider, as a settled question; and even were my views as to the settlement different from what they are, I would not consent, as a public man, to an attempt to reopen a controversy, long since closed, on grounds which do not give to my eye the least prospect of success, but which ensure ultimate defeat to the assailants, and meanwhile limitless disaster to the state. I say: No; a thousand times no! Whether you differ or agree as to what might have been best for the country, in the situation of the country as it stands, I say: No, a thousand times, no; to the least effort or proposal to reopen that settled controversy ; and I maintain that it is the duty of those who truly regard the progress and the prosperity of Canada, who hope to see it advance in its path towards nationality, to defend the rights of the minorities in this regard, as by law and by convention and by national 
settlement established. I intend for my part to defend them just as warmly as if I were one of themselves; and I should regard myself as dishonoured and disgraced if I were now to yield to the forces which press me to any other course.
And Sir John A. Macdonald, on the same occasion on which he used the words quoted by the hon. member for Kamouraska, said this further:
Why, Mr. Speaker, if there is one act of oppression more than another which would come home to a man's breast, it is that he should be deprived of the consolation of hearing and speaking and reading the language that his mother taught him. It is cruel. It is seething the kid in its mother's milk. The greatest, perhaps, of all the objections to this measure, is that it is a futile measure. It will not succeed. It cannot succeed. As my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) said the other day, and as the hon. member from the West Riding of Durham (Mr. Blake) repeated, in order to carry out an oppressive measure we must have a Russian Government or we must have a Stafford here ; we must put down the language with a strong hand ; we must exclude it from the schools; we must exclude it from, official life; no man in Canada who spoke French must be allowed to take office; the Frenchman must be made a Pariah, and his language must be made a mark of scorn; that is the only way to carry out the principle or the object of my hon. friend the minister for North Simcoe.
What was the outcome of this discussion during which these noble words were delivered? It was this that the question was to be left to the Legislatures of the Nbrth-west Territories, when they had received provincial organization. And all these men who spoke in this way of the French language came to the conclusion that this was a question not for the Federal but for the provincial domain. Why has this regard been paid to the French language, by custom, by Acts, by the speeches of eminent men? The French were the first comers in this country; they were the pioneers; they introduced civilization from the Gulf to the Rockies. They were a valourous race, they fell fighting with their faces to the foe. The British respected them, and after a few years gave them more liberal terms, by the Quebec Act of 1874, than were contained in the Capitulation.
Again, I do not put the question upon the legal ground which is submitted to the courts; I put it upon the historical ground, and I join with my right hon. friend in appealing to the generous sentiments of the people of Ontario. If it is true that these regulations are restrictive or prohibitive of the right of teaching French in Ontario, I appeal to the generous sentiment of my fellow Canadians, I appeal

to their sympathy, and I ask them to right what may be a great wrong towards the minority in the province of Ontario.
Mr. PUGSLEY': That is all that anybody wants.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: My hon. friend from St. John says: that is all that anybody wants. But will the resolution now before the House attain that? Will this resolution allay the agitation which exists in the province of Quebec and in the province of Ontario? I fear not. I shall not follow my right hon. friend or my hon. friend from Kamouraska in the discussion of Regulations 17 and 15, for it is not my province to be informed upon these questions as I would be if I were a member of the Legislature of Ontario. But, if I do not discuss these questions, it is for another reason, and that reason is that I would not wish that any regulation or law emanating from the Legislature of Ontario should be subject to the censure of the House of Commons. If there is one province in the Dominion whose acts it would not be desirable to discuss in this House; if there is one province in the Dominion who should be careful of her autonomy; if there is one province in the Dominion who should be careful that the provincial sphere is not invaded by the federal, it is the province of Quebec. As my honoured leader said this afternoon, at one time it was rumoured-I do not know whether the rumour has ever been substantiated-that during the conferences on Confederation Sir John Macdonald wanted, not a federation as we have to-day, but a legislative union, and it was the province of Quebec which prevented the adoption of that constitutional system. Now, Sir, I put this question to the House: if we discuss to-day the educational affairs of Ontario; if we discuss to-day the educational laws of Ontario; if we discuss to-day the educational laws of Ontario or the educational regulations of the Ontario and Department of Education, is it not a fact that it would be competent for us to discuss in this House any law or any regulation emanating from the Legislature of Quebec?


Mr. MARCIL:: Does the hon. gentleman imagine that the province of Quebec would pass such a regulation as has been passed in Ontario, or has he ever heard any complaint from the minority in Quebec?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is not the point at all. There are certain laws which have been passed by the province of Quebec- and I am not blaming the province of Quebec-which have been distasteful to the province of Ontario, and if, because they were distasteful to the province of Ontario, they were brought before this House and condemned or criticised, certainly I would be the first, and I have no doubt my hon. friend would be among those who would oppose any interference by the Federal House in the provincial sphere.
Let me examine this resolution. It says:
That this House especially at this time of universal sacrifice and anxiety, when all energies should be concentrated on the winning* of the war, would, while fully recognizing the principle of provincial rights and the necessity of every child being given a thorough English, education, respectfully suggest to the Legislative Assembly the wisdom of making it clear that the privilege of the children of French percentage of being taught in their mother tongue be not interfered with.
Sir, tii:is resolution either is not sufficient or it goes too far. What does it suggest? It simply suggests that the laws of the province of Ontario be made clearer. WelJ, now, it seems to me that it is not for us! that we have no mandate in this House, and that we have not sufficient knowledge, to say to the province of Ontario that its laws are not clear enough, that its laws do not clearly say such and such a thing which we would like them to say. My humble opinion is that this resolution is not only absolutely useless, but harmful. It is fraught with great danger to the other provinces, and especially to the province of Quebec.
What would be the result if this resoffi-tion passed the House? Supposing, for instance, the majority of this House passed the resolution in question. What would we do? How would we make the suggestion to the Legislature of Ontario, and bow would it be received by that legislature? That is what we have to ask ourselves. What reception would it get by the Legislature of Ontario and what good would it do? What good would it do? Supposing we passed this resolution and sent it to the Legislature of Ontario, what would happen? Sir, I have only to read some of the extracts from the press of the province of Ontario to show you what reception a suggestion of that kind would get from the province of Ontario, and from the Legislature of Ontario. The Toronto Star was one of the most sympathetic organs of public

opinion in Ontario to the cause of the minority, but it said on the 14th of April:
No row that can be raised at Ottawa, no play that can be made on the rivalry between the two political parties in Canada, will be of any avail whatever in modifying Ontario's position in this matter. In no school in the province will English be excluded. It will be taught by a teacher who knows how to teach English. The inspecting will be done by an inspector competent to see that the teaching is done.	.
That much being assured, the province of Ontario is disposed to be quite reasonable as to details.
Again, on the 27th of April it said:
Those who are seeking Federal interference in the present case may succeed in fomenting strife and increasing difficulty, but they will not help the French-Canadian in Ontario. To any conciliatory suggestion there can, of course, be no objection, but all notion of disallowance, or of any kind of coercive action, must be abandoned. For that reason, we see no advantage in starting any kind of debate in the House of Commons at Ottawa. Such a debate would be misunderstood.
Then, the Toronto Globe, not the Orange Sentinel, but the Globe of the 10th of May, eaid:
Canada is a Confederation. The Federal Parliament seems to forget that fact occasionally, when it gives advice to the provinces.
That is the reception which any suggestion from this Parliament to the province of *Ontario would get. Who are taking part in this agitation and where does the agitation exist? It exists in the province of Quebec, and in the province of Ontario, and I say that by bringing this ^ question up in the Federal House and asking us to pass this resolution, those responsible are sowing discord in this country, which will spread from one end of Canada to the other.
The resolution is insidious. It is skilfully drafted; it is drafted in such a way as to appear harmless to the uninitiated, who do not appreciate the distinction between the federal power and the provincial power, or between the executive power and the judicial power. After all, if the law is not clear, it is is being submitted to the courts for definition. There are two cases now which are on their way to the Privy Council, one in which the constitutionality, the validity and the meaning of Regulation 17 are submitted to the Privy Council, and the other in which the law which applies more particularly to the the city of Ottawa, and which substitutes a commission for trustees, is to be tested. Why should we, when these two cases are before the courts, seek to substitute the interpretation of 
this House for the interpretation which is being sought by the frier ds of the minority in the courts of this country? I say it is a dangerous principle to mix up in this manner the legislative power with the judicial power.
It is said that we have the expressive power. It may be so, but when the powers are defined by our constitution, as clearly as they are with respect to education, this Parliament, when it uses that expressive power in respect to subjects which are allotted to the provincial authorities invades a sphere from vhich it has been expressly excluded in regard to legislation or an expression of an opinion. There was one aspect of the question which could probably have been brought before this House, allusion to which has been made this afternoon, and that is, disallowance of the Act passed by the Legislature of Ontario in 1915, which was asked for by a great many people in the province of Quebec especially, and in the city of Ottawa. That was a proper matter to be brought before this House, as was correctly stated by my ^ hon. friends who have preceded me, and I was glad to hear them say so. The right hon. leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Kamouraska have said that they approved of the action of the Government in not disallowing that Act.# If we were right in not disallowing the Act, how is it that hundreds and thousands of signatures were procured in the province of Quebec and in Ontario asking us to disallow it? Was it for the purpose of keeping up the agitation, and is it by such means that the agitation is being kept up not only in the province of Quebec but in other parts of the Dominion? The fact that we have not been blamed, that no member of this House has dared to rise and condemn the Government for not disallowing the Act of the Ontario Legislature is not only a vindication of the position we have taken, but a condemnation of those who have gone around in the province of Quebec and in the province of Ontario gathering those signatures to a petition, the prayer of which finds no supporters amongst the 221 members of this House.
Questions similar to this have occupied the attention of this House in times gone by. I remember well when the Jesuits' Estates Bill passed by the Legislature of Quebec in 1888 was brought before this House in 1889. That Act was distasteful to a large proportion of the citizens of Ontario; it was distasteful also to a large proportion of the Protestants in the province of Quebec. The matter was brought be-

fore this House, and I am proud to say that under the leadership of the late Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir John Thompson, the principle was laid down that there should be no interference with provincial legislation by the Federal Parliament. The principles upon which Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir John Thompson, and the Conservative party acted in those days in respect to an Act passed by the Legislature of Quebec are the principles upon which this Government stands to-day. In refusing to interfere, to admonish, or to suggest Jo the province of Ontario in relation to a measure which is within its competency, we are only following the precepts laid down in this House by Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir John Thompson, and the other former leaders of the Conservative party. [DOT] I appeal to my hon. friends from the province of Quebec to-day to follow the example of the Conservative party, and especially of the English members of the Conservative party, in 1889, when, notwithstanding the fact that it was a Bill passed by the province of Quebec, a Bill which was distasteful to the great majority of Protestants in this country, the English-speaking Conservatives and the Protestant Conservatives of the House of Commons stood by Sir John A. Macdonald, by Sir John Thompson, and by the province of Quebec, in declaring that they would not interfere with provincial legislation.
I know perfectly well that I am running counter to the feeling of a large majority in my province, but in my sober judgment I think I am right. Let the storm gather, let the clouds burst and the thunder roll; ,the tempest will pass away, and to those who come after me I leave my defence.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House in respect to the resolution now before you,I am well aware that the course I am about to take may be misunderstood. It is always easy to avoid a difficulty of a transient nature, but there are issues of a higher order which compel a man with a sense of duty to face them squarely, come what may. The present resolution, moderate in form, gives expression to a sentiment and embodies a principle which cannot but rally the unqualified support of all who have at heart the welfare of Canada. A grievance, as was well said yesterday bj the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, because it happens to be the grievance of a minority, should not be lightly discarded or ignored.
On the contrary, the true basis of strength in a majority lies in the fact that it can dispassionately listen, as it has listened to-day, thank heaven, that it can scrutinize, weigh, solve. It has been stated, I know, that this Parliament should scrupulously avoid dictating its will to any province in matters essentially provincial. Far be it from my mind to dictate to anyone, ot to dictate to any province. Belonging, as I do, to the minority in Canada, need I say that I stand for provincial rights? Historically, traditionally, the Liberal party has always resisted any encroachment on what properly appertains to the provincial domain. But this Parliament, as was admitted a moment ago by the hon. Postmaster General, has never lost its expressive power, nor has any British legislature in the world ever lost its expressive power. My hon. friend said a moment ago that this was not the proper tribunal. I take issue with him on that point. I say that this is the highest court in the land, and that if a subject of His Majesty the King has a legitimate grievance he has the right to ask redress for that grievance before the supplies are voted. That is what the French Canadian minority of the province of Ontario is respectfully doing to-day.
There are questions, I know, more acute in one section of the country than in the other, and because of that very acuteness they affect the well-being, peace and good government of our country. The language issue, unfortunately, is one of these acute questions. It is not a new one, because in a country made up of several nationalities it is liable at times to appear on the surface and bring confusion and misery where peace, harmony, and concord should prevail. It is, unfortunately, a vexed issue, because behind it nestle feelings of pride which tend to embitter and inflame, but I hope that in the few remarks I shall offer the House this evening nothing that I will say may accentuate that bitterness, or arouse acrimony. I fully realize that moderation is a virtue. I will speak this evening the language I would use in the historic city of Quebec, and that I would use to-morrow in the city of Toronto. After all, in this country there is but one constituency for a public man worthy of the name, and that constituency is Canada as a whole.
The bilingual issue has reached such a climax that to-day we are face to face with a condition and not a theory, and I do not

intend to set up a case on behalf of the minority based on any treaty or any statutory enactment. Whatever may be the legal or constitutional aspect of this question, I know full well that a minority must always depend on the good will and forbearance of the majority for the full enjoyment of its rights and privileges. It is, Mr. Speaker, an appeal to reason; nay, more, it is an appeal to fair play, to those generous instincts which have always characterized the British race in its treatment of minorities that I intend to make this evening. The question of whether or not the French were conquered or were ceded does not affect the issue one way or the other. Granted that they were conquered, but I claim that the French were not conquered on the Plains of Abraham. They were conquered in 1774; in 1791; in 1841; they were conquered in 1867, when British diplomacy, wise and strong as it has always been, gave the French Canadian minority all the rights which the British subject enjoys wherever the Union Jack floats. That is your conquest of the French Canadians. The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1763, speaks for itself. The outstanding point remains that there is in Canada today an English-speaking majority and a French-speaking minority. But will you not agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of statesmanship to see that both should learn to appreciate and respect each other? Right here it may not be amiss to recall a proposition laid down by that great British jurist, Lord Mansfield, on the effect of conquest by British arms. Says Lord Mansfield:
The conquered inhabitants once received under the conqueror's protection, become subjects and are universally to be considered in that light, not as enemies or aliens.
The same principle was propounded by Wedderburn, by Marriott, by Thurlow, at the time of the Quebec Act in 1774. That has been the traditional policy of Great Britain in all parts of the world, and I need not say that it is due to that broad, tolerant and fair policy that the British flag to-day floats at the topmast of the British Navy over the Seven Seas, and that Great Britain owns one-sixth of the inhabited globe. A race may be ceded to another race, it may be conquered by force of arms, but every man who has a heart in his breast, every man who has some intelligence in his head-and I am addressing myself to men of the highest intelligence and to men who have hearts in their breasts

-will admit that, ceded or conquered, there are moral frontiers which cannot be overcome by mere force. The language of a race is one of these frontiers. This itself need not be safeguarded by the covenants of a treaty or by statutory enactment. Civilization would be a sham if that were necessary. Why? Because language is part of a man's soul, because there are traditions and ideas binding men to the same language by indissoluble ties, and because it would be cruel to deny,a man the right to speak the language that he learns to lisp at his mother's knee. That language is sweet with the breath and aroma of memories that bring to his heart the joyance of happy tears, that language which exalts, inspires and fills his heart with reverence and faith and heroism that shine as stars in the temple of his race.
During the last half century Germany has vainly tried to eradicate the French language in Alsace-Lorraine. She has vainly tried to suppress Polish in Posen and Danish in Schleswig-Holstein. The Magyars have vainly sought to make their tongue the language of Hungary. But all these attempts have lamentably failed; failed in Alsace, failed in Denmark, failed in Poland, and failed in Hungary. Sir, need I say that the German policy is not of the British ot of the French pattern. When the other day the French army reconquered a considerable portion of the lost province of Ajlsaoe, General Joffre issued a proclamation to th)e Alsatians containing the following ominous words:
Our return is final. You are French forever more; France brings you, with the liberties that she has always represented, respect for your liberty, the liberty of Alsatians, the respect for the traditions of your convictions, of your customs.
Sir, the greatest colonial Empire of any time has been built up by Great Britain, and she has been able to hold that Empire together largely by following the policy of her statesmen, that the traditions, the religious convictions, the civil rights, the customs, and the language of her isubjects shall be respected. It is radically false, I submit, to think that unity of Empire must be based on uniformity of language. Read the history of the world; read the history of the Roman Empire by Gibbon, and you will see that no empire has ever been united by oneness of language. To use the words of a modem writer "a nation, small as dt may be, is a torch and it is important that there should be several luminous centres in the world." I submit

that- the British example demonstrates that diversity of language and of laws, far from being a disintegrating factor, is on the contrary a most healthy and unifying influence. Not to mention India with her mosaic of languages freely taught and freely spoken, take that quaint little island of Malta where Italian is the official language of the courts, and parents have the right to say whether their children shall learn English or ^Italian at the schools. In South Africa, Dutch and English are on an equal footing. It was my privilege in 1910 to be present at .the inaugural ceremonies of the new constitution of South Africa. His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, the present Governor General of Canada, w-as there, representing his nephew, His Majesty the King. I well remember the lasting [DOT] impression made upon the minds of every one present when [DOT]the speech from the Throne was read in English and in Dutch, and when the prayers were recited in both languages, just as they are in this House of Commons every day. In Wales a million people speak Welsh, -and 250,000 of them speak Welsh alone. In Ireland the Irish Gaelic is taught in live thousand schools. In the highlands of -Scotland Scotch-Gaelic is the language of a quarter of a million people. In Mauritius, French is the official language. I have in this House friends of Scotch origin, and only yesterday my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) told me that his grandmother spoke not a word of English, but Gaelic only. In the county of Inverness, as in the old Scotch settlements of the county of Gaspe, which I had the honour of representing for fifteen years in this House, I know old Scotchmen who speak the English language with the greatest difficulty, and who have ever been attached to their mother-tongue, the Gaelic language. In the Channel islands things are much like Quebec, except as regards religion. The people in the Channel islands aTe Huguenots, while in Quebec they are Catholics, but both cling to their national traditions, to their language, to their laws, their customs and their usages. But at the same time both are loyal to the British Crown, and both have given evidence of their loyalty. Both are, however, of a conservative frame of mind. A change in the constitution ot an alteration in 10 p.m. the laws is always looked upon with apprehension by the minority. A man who after long struggles
has at last succeeded in obtaining what the Latin poet has so aptly defined " aurea mediocritas " will pause and reflect before he accepts any new proposition presented to him, and in this respect nations are not unlike individuals. Many people I know, honestly believe that there should be uniformity of laws and of language in the Dominion, because forsooth it would be far more practicable. Those who look at such questions from the mere practical point of view are apt to forget that sentiment, after all, is no mean factor in the map of life. I remember when I was a boy at college the first thing I learned in English was " Gray's Elegy in a Churchyard," and the first booklet I was asked to read bore the following suggestive title:	" Put Yourself in his Place."
I am simply asking the majority of my fellow men in this House to put themselves in our place. Our traditions, our laws, out language, constitute the inheritance which was _left to us by our forefathers in 1759. It is a glorious heritage which any man of honour will always treasure. Would not my English speaking friends have less respect for me if I were unfaithful to that sacred trust? For an Englishman, after all, valour is still of value; he will always admire courage, thrift, perseverance displayed by his defeated foe.
Let me remind you, Sir, at this juncture of what happens every day in London, at the very heart of the British Empire. In Downing street, next to the residence of the Fhst Lord of the Treasury, sits the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This able body of men, some of whom may be classed amongst the greatest jurists in the world, holds periodical sessions to hear the appeals from the several colonies and. dominions. From the Cause List, you will notice that one day an Indian case may be heard and the next day a Canadian case; one day the appeal is from Bengal, the next day it is from Mauritius or Ceylon. Each of these colonies-not to mention the many others-has kept its own laws, and one who is a daily attendant at the sessions, of the Judicial Committee, may listen to very able arguments based on -the common, law, the Roman law, the Dutch law, the Indian law, the Coutume de Paris, or even the Coutume de Normandie, when it is a case from the Channel islands.
It is argued by some usually fair-minded people that once you grant the French language its status in the schools of Ontario, you immediately open the door to similar-

privileges to the foreign-born who seek a *home in Canada. Hence, they say, the imperative necessity of a uni-lingual policy. I hold no brief for the foreign-born, be he Slav, German, Hungarian, Italian, or Greek, he is fully entitled to all the rights of his newly acquired British citizenship. But when an immigrant comes to Canada and settles on the homestead which is freely alloted to him by the bounty of the Canadian Government, he knows that he becomes subject to the laws of the Dominion. He cannot claim special privileges; he knows that there are in Canada but two official languages, the English and French. Surely no one will contend that, as between the immigrant coming from a foreign land and the son of the soil-and we the French Canadians claim to be the sons of the soil for eight, nine and ten generations, the men whose ancestry was here long before the Cession, two hundred and sometimes three hundred years ago-there is no distinction to be drawn. Quebec and Ontario were part of the territory then known under the name of New France, and it is that territory with all its inhabitants which the Treaty of Paris placed Under the domination of Hjs Britannic *Majesty.
As I have already stated, the traditional policy of Great Britain has even been to respect the religion, the civil rights, the usages, the customs, the language of a conquered people. The French Canadian is not an immigrant-I do not use the expression in any offensive sense-and he should not be treated as an immigrant. He does not come on this continent hat in hand, anxious to fit into the new ways of a strange country, ready to cut all bridges behind him, willing to surrender his race individuality by the process of the crucible or the melting pot. Canada is his fatherland; it is not for him an adopted country; it is his country and his only country. Occasionally, the habitant of the province of Quebec or from the French counties of Ontario will emigrate to the New England States to earn money in hard times to pay off a mortgage, but he never bids a final adieu to his farm; his heart remains behind with the long pastures, the bright-hued villages and the tall spires. He naturally clings to the traditions, the ideals, the language, which are so closely associated with the land where his forefathers long before him played such a prominent part.
Right here allow me to say, in order once and for all to answer the very insidious

criticism which is made of the language as spoken by the French Canadian of this country: his language is not a dialect; it is not a patois; it is the language of old France, of France of the I8th century, the language which since the Congress of Vienna has replaced Latin in diplomacy, the language which for centuries was spoken in England, at the Court, in Parliament, the language which in all parts of the civilized world constitutes one of the highest manifestations of humanity. That language has always been respected and recognized by a wise and far-seeing British statesmanship. Evidence of this can be found in a series of Imperial enactments, the latest of which is the British North America Act, of which section 133 reads:
Either the English or the French language may he used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec and both those languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses.
Mark the words:	either of the two
languages may be used in this House and in the Senate and in both Houses of the Quebec Legislature, and both languages shall be used in the records and the journals. Is it not an elementary proposition that, the English and the French languages, having been thus declared official, in the spirit if not in the letter of the Constitution, it follows that the teaching of both languages was intended to be left free and untrammelled.
Do you look, Sir, for some more evidence of the bilingual complexion of this country? Some thirty-five years ago, when the Marquis of Lome, later on the Duke of Argyll, was Governor General of Canada, he founded the Royal Society of Canada, which has been given an official status by this Parliament. i wish to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and my English-speaking fellow members of the House that there are two sections of that society, the English and the French sections. My hon. friend the member for Kamouraska this afternoon cited another enactment of this Parliament which is evidence that the bilingual complexion of this country is fully recognized. We passed two years ago a new naturalization law in order to meet Imperial requirements. It was sound policy to adopt that legislation. While it was peculiar to Canada a proviso was inserted in that law whereby the English and French languages were considered as test languages for the new-

comers applying for their naturalization papers.
I have read in the press, not without amazement, an assertion to the effect that bilingualism meant French domination. The English-speaking members of this House were solemnly warned not to surrender. Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, that in a country like ours, such warnings should find any echo? Is it possible that any such appeal could be successfully made to a proud and chivalrous race like the English-speaking people? Every French Canadian is anxious that his children should learn English, because English is the language of business. It is the language of the continent of America and no man is fully equipped for the battle of life if he is not conversant with that language. Besides, in a loftier sense the knowledge of English literature is in itself no mean privilege. The idea of French domination is altogether too silly an invention to be seriously entertained. On this continent of America, from the Rio Grande to the polar sea there are 100,000,000 people speaking the English language, and practically the English language only; and as against that immense number of people barely 5,000,000, perhaps less, Louisiana included, use the French language. Can this minority, will this minority ever attempt to dominate the vast majority? The idea is preposterous. No, Mr. Speaker; on this continent, in this country, in this great province of Ontario, the minority could not and would not dominate. It shall not be dpminated, either, if we are all imbued with the spirit of democracy, if we all live up to true British ideals. The French Canadians want equal justice. They want fair treatment, nothing more and nothing less.
Two men have been mentioned in this debate whose name and fame shall ever be remembered in history. They were political opponents, but both were patriots and statesmen. I refer to Sir John A. Macdonald and Edward Blake. They lived at a period when the French population was larger in proportion than it is to-day; when the British isles and the Western States had not poured into the western prairies that steady and healthy stream of immigration which made it necessary in later years to carve two new provinces out of that great lone land. Yet Macdonald and Blake, when the bilingual issue came up before Parliament in 1890, gave utterance
to their views in no huckstering spirit. Let me quote two short sentences from that historic debate in wihich both of them took such a prominent part. The first sentence uttered by Sir John A. Macdonald finds its application in the very Ontario case that we are discussing this evening. True it is that when he spoke he was opposing a Bill which toad been introduced by the late Dalton McCarthy to do away with the French language in the legislative councils of the Northwest Territories. I draw the attention of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and of the Postmaster General to these words of Sir John A. Macdonald. After quoting the resolution which was read a few moments ago by my hon. friend the Postmaster General, which was adopted by Upper Canada in 1793, providing for the translation into French of their Acts for the benefit of the few French settlers in the province, Sir John went on to say:
Are we, one hundred years later, going to be less liberal to our French Canadian fellow-subjects than the few Englishmen, United Empire Loyalists, who settled Ontario? No, Sir. This resolution would oast shame on men who tried to deprive our French friends in the province of Ontario of the privilege given them a hundred years ago by a body of men altogether speaking the English language.
Further on he said, in still more eloquent language:
Are we going to be less liberal? Forbid it, Mr. Speaker. In the name of humanity, in the name of civilization, in the name of the progress of this great country, I appeal to all our friends in this House, without reference to party, to forget what may be an inconvenience when they go back to their constituents on both sides, to forget that for a moment, and to merge everything in the great desire to make Canada, French and English, one people.
I am at a loss to understand the sentiments expressed this afternoon by the right hon. Prime Minister on whose shoulders has fallen the mantle of Sir John A. Macdonald as leader of the Conservative party. Does he believe for one moment that the resolution which is now before the House smacks of coercion? In 1890. the late Dalton McCarthy had introduced a Bill to do away with , the rights of the minority in the councils of the Northwest Territories. Sir John A. Macdonald in hi& answer took the very attitude which is taken today by the leader of the Opposition and by the member for Kamouraska, he appealed to the better instincts of the Canadian majority to treat the French minority in a fair spirit. Not that Sir John A. Macdonald wanted to impose his views upon the people of the Northwest;

not that he wanted to coerce the Executive he simply made the appeal that any true Briton is entitled to make whenever he thinks a wrong is committed.
Sir, thus spoke the old chieftain of the Conservative party, the statesman who built up Confederation, with Cartier and Galt. Listen now to the Hon. Edward Blake, the reader of the Liberal parity-not in 1890, because in 1887 he had himself moved that a man of French birth should succeed him in the leadership of the Liberal party-all honour to his memory for that. Edward Blake, a man whose profound knowledge of the law and constitution made him the peer if not the superior of any man holding a brief before any British court, said:	.
Whether you differ or agree as to what might have been best for the country, in the situation of the country as it stands, I say: No; a thousand times, no to the least effort or proposal to reopen that settled controversy; and I maintain that it is the duty of those who truly regard the progress and the prosperity of Canada, who hope to see it advance in its path towards nationality, to defend the rights of the minorities in this regard, as by law and by convention and by national settlement established. I intend for my part to defend them just as warmly as if I were one of themselves; and I should regard myself as dishonoured and disgraced if I were now to yield to the forces which press me to any other course.
Such was the language of two of the noblest men who ever appeared in public life in this country. But I may be told that what I have just quoted is not relevant to the Ontario case-and remember that when I speak of Ontario I speak with the greatest respect of the Legislature and of the people of Ontario. I am myself a resident of the province of Ontario, and my children I have brought up in that province. Let me state briefly, as I understand it, the grievance of the minority in Ontario. As was stated by previous speakers, long before the Union of 1867 French schools existed in Ontario, and when Confederation took place in 1867 the English minority in Lower Canada was confided by Sir A. T. Galt, by Sir John A. Macdonald, by George Brown, to the care of the Legislature of Quebec in educational matters; and the French-speaking minority of Upper Canada was confided by Sir George Cartier, in educational matters, to the care of the Legislature in Toronto. A denominational system, I may be told, was provided for, not a bilingual system. Is there any one who will seriously contend that Sir John Macdonald, Sir George Cartier and Sir A. T. Galt did not contemplate, in their honesty of purpose, a reciprocity of treat-

ment with regard to both minorities? I have already quoted the weighty words of Sir John Macdonald. Let me read a letter from Mr. Egerton Ryerson, formerly Superintendent of Education, upon that particular point. It is dated Toronto, 24th of April 1857, and was addressed to Messrs Donald McLean, John Cuttenach, Angus McDonnell:
Gentlemen,
I have the honour to state in reply to your letter of the 16th Instant that as the French is the recognized language of the country, as well as the English, it is quite proper and lawful for the Trustees to allow both languages to be taught in their schools to children whose parents may desire them to learn both.
I have the honour to be. Gentlemen,
Tour obedient servant,
(Sigd) E. Ryerson.
Subsequently, and long before Confederation, grants were made,.from time to time, to those bilingual schools. French inspectors were duly appointed to carry out the regulations of the Department of Education with regard to those schools. By regulation 15 the right of the parents to demand that the French or German language be the language of instruction and communication in the schools attended by their children was recognized. I will read, after others, regulation 15, because it cannot be read too often. It is the regulation which we ask the Government of Ontario to reinstate. Let the Department of Education restore that Regulation 15 on behalf of the French as it exists to-day on behalf of the German minority, and the agitation will cehse- and what boon that will be for Canada. That Regulation 15 reads as follows:
In school sections where the French or German language prevails, the trustees may, in addition to the course of study prescribed for public schools, require instruction to be given in reading, grammar and composition to such pupils as are directed by their parents or guardians to study either of these languages and in all such cases the authorized text books in French or German shall be used.
Such was the regulation governing the bilingual schools of Ontario when it was superseded by Regulation 17, a most drastic regulation indeed, which affects the French only and, mark well, not the Germans. I will not say that these bilingual schools were not at times threatened, but be it said to the honour of Sir Oliver Mowat, to the honour of Sir George Ross, they always treated the minority in a broad and generous spirit. The words, from S'ir Oliver Mowat on precisely the same issue have been quoted, but they may well be recalled.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Can my hon. friend tel-l me when Regulation 15 was changed or repealed?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not say it was repealed. Regulation 15 exists, but for the German minority only. It has been superseded by Regulation 17 as regards the French schools.


William Cameron Edwards: It is on the statutes
just as the hon. gentleman read it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As regards the French?


William Cameron Edwards: Just as you read it.
Do I understand it still remains on the statute book?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My contention is that
it remains on the statute book as regards the German minority, but not as regards the French minority. However, my hon. friend will have occasion in a moment to explain his point. I am proceeding with my remarks.


William Cameron Edwards: I want to make that
clear. Does he claim that the wording of Regulation 15 has been changed?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I claim that Regulation 15 does not apply to the French minority as before. It still applies to the German minority, but it does not apply to the French. If I am wrong I wish to be corrected by my hon. friend.
I was saying that on precisely this issue of the English-French schools, as regards the language of communication-and this is the crux of the grievance-Sir Oliver Mowat used the following language:
Our opponents pretend that the Government should insist on all instruction being given to the French children in the English language. No such regulation was suggested by the commissioners, and none such has been made, because such a regulation would be absurd, and, instead of serving the cause of education would often prevent education altogether. How can you teach in a language which the children do not understand?
Sir, Regulation 17, which superseded Regulation 15-and this is the point I wish to emphasize-does away with the system which Sir Oliver Mowat consistently maintained and defended. In other words, Regulation 17, reduced to ite real size and significance, means the gradual elimination of the French language as a language of instruction and communication beyond the First Form, and the suppression of the study of that language, beyond one hour each day, in the other Forms, such study, and the time allowed for it, remember, always and completely subject to the approval and direction of the chief superintendent of education and supervising inspector. Read the Regulation, shorn of its proxility, and any one whose mind is unbiassed will come to the conclusion that it is unworkable and ineffective. This is, put in concrete form, the gist of the complaint of the French minority. Surely three or four men of good will can be found in this Dominion who would sit around a table with the Minister of Education in Toronto, and I venture to say that in half an hour's time the whole controversy would be settled.
The assertion that Regulation 17 is unworkable and ineffective-that is the complaint of the minority'-I do not base on my own judgment, as my hon. Mend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) would infer. It is the conclusion reached by the six inspectors specially appointed by the Ontario Government to report as to the nature and effect of that regulation. The report was unanimous, and here are the findings. I ask any fair-minded gentleman who belongs to the majority in the province o' Ontario to listen to me at this moment because I have reached, I think, the point where the whole difficulty is laid bare. The inspectors appointed by the Government-three were French and three were English-agreed that
The above Regulation 17 has not been effective for the following reasons:	It was taken
to mean that French could not be used as a language of instruction and communication, it was regarded as an attempt to gradually eliminate the French language from the English-French schools.
I now ask were the inspectors unduly pessimistic? Is the FrenclnCanadian minority in Ontario unwarranted in resenting the radical change in the mode of instruction attempted by the Department of Education of Ontario? Let me answer very moderately but very frankly. When it is solemnly resolved by influential public bodies:	" that the use of the French
language in the public and separate schools of Ontario constitutes a grave menace to the integrity of the province, as an Englishspeaking community;" when it is alleged: "that it is not within the power of the provincial Government to compel the observance of the law as long as there is one loophole for the use of the French in the schools when the Government is asked: "to enact such laws and make such amendments to the regulations of the Education Department as will make it unlawful and

impossible for the French language to be used in any of the public or separate schools of the province of Ontario;" when, on the other hand, concurrently with these appeals and as a result of a regulation, most drastic in its terms and character, the number of bilingual schools is limited to those where French has hitherto been a subject of study; when the teaching of French must not exceed one hour, and it may be less; when the language of communication to learn the mother tongue is left at the discretion of the inspector; when the status quo ante .is maintained as regards the German minority-and I do not begrudge the privilege to the German minority, but I claim at least equal rights for the French Canadian minority-and specifically, mercilessly altered as regards the French minority, can anyone, I pray, be surprised if my fellow-countrymen feel aggrieved and molested in what they justly consider is their most sacred privilege?
My right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) this	afternoon	referred to the factthat	he had	learned	French after
he became leader of the Conservative party in the House of Commons. He and I were elected on the same day to this House and I have often told French Canadian audiences in the province f Quebec that I looked upon him as an example of what a British statesman could do in a bilingual country like ours. I have often commended him as I saw him struggling with a language which was not his own, yes, I have often complimented him on the feat, which he had accomplished, of speaking well-yes, very well-the language of my forefathers. I put the question to him, not as representing the minority, but, as I believe he is in spite of his speech this afternoon, as the friend of the minority; I address myself to him as the leader of the Government of this country; as such, I put him above our party quarrels, and I say to him: Take your own experience; you came into this House in 1896 as I did; I could not then speak the English language; you could not speak the French language; if he had been forced to use the French language as the language of communication and of instruction, would he have-attained the knowledge of the French language which he has attained?' And, Mr. Speaker, could I have learned what little English I know if I had been forced to learn it, by setting aside my mother tongue. Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. friends this is the case; this is the whole question.

This is no vain agitation; it is an appeal for generous treatment made to the majority of this country, and the right hon. gentleman might well rise above party polities and above party success in order to give to the French minority the privileges which it has always enjoyed since this country was ceded to Great Britain by France.
I ask again, Sir, is it to be wondered at that the French Canadians of Ontario feel themselves aggrieved and molested in what they justly consider as their most sacred privilege? No treaty, no statute, no law, can deprive a man of a natural right. If I were not as I am, and as I claim to be, a friend of peace, harmony and concord, I would say to the legislature of the province of Ontario: Maintain regulation 17 and the French will thrive under it; they will pay rates for schools that they cannot and will not send their children to, but they will pay double rates, too, in order to keep for their sons and for their daughters the teaching of the language which they have learned to lisp at their mother's knee. With regard to this question of natural right, the right of a child to learn and to speak the language of his mother, is just as sacred as the duty which devolves upon parents to look after their children, just as sacred as the duty which devolves upon children to support their parents if they are in need.
I may be told, and I believe it is right that I should be told, that the English language was not sufficiently taught in the old bilingual schools, and that this drastic departure was made necessary by that very evasion. I grant that this should not be permitted. But, Mr. Speaker, two wrongs do not make a right. You do not redress a grievance, you do not remedy an abuse, by destroying a privilege. Competent bilingual professors can, however, be found, they can be trained, and their training can be properly supervised and tested, just as their teaching of the pupils can be closely supervised and tested by the proper authority.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, I do not rest my case on- any treaty, on any statute. From my seat in Parliament I rather appeal to the spirit of fair play of my fellowmen of English birth, who are the vast majority in Ontario and in the Dominion of Canada. Let us not forget that it has been decreed by Divine Providence that we, French and English, should live side by side on this half of the North American continent. We

have, therefore, become the trustees of those two proud races which, after centuries of conflict, have become joint partners in Europe in the upbuilding of a higher and nobler civilization. May we not, long after the plains of Abraham, " meet each otner, understand each other, love each other?"
There are, I know, obstacles embedded in the memories of the past, but can they not be overcome by goodwill and mutual forbearance? Is not the history of South Africa an object lesson to us? Less than twenty years ago, that beautiful country was the scene of a deadly struggle-succeeding a turmoil of nearly a century's duration-which threatened to make of the veldt the seat of an everlasting feud. Two proud races were set up the one against the other. Two conflicting ideals were at stake. War with all its bitterness, its vindictiveness, war with all its horrors, raged. It left a land devastated and desolate, a country divided into two camps of victors and vanquished.
To those who judged only by surface indications, to speak of peace might well have seemed a mockery. But there were those who saw deeper and knew that peace had come at last. The brave men who surrendered at Vereeniging kept their selfrespect, but they in return, won the respect, of their adversaries. The war issues were settled without humiliation. England did not fear for her own greatness; the terms made were generous. British statesmanship knows by long experience that a brave foe is usually a staunch friend. Events in South Africa have justified the British in their treatment of the Boers.
I, too, will say to the English-speaking majority of Canada and of the province of Ontario: "Rise up to your own greatness; be generous with the minority; be fair; " and, to repeat the last words of the English captain of the doomed Titanic: " Be British." That is all we ask.
Sir, when after Mons and Charleroi the driven and defeated line of the Allies stood almost under the walls of Paris, when the world expected that the Prussian hordes would soon ride in through its historic gates, thus striking a death blow to the cause of human liberty, there was a halt called by Joffre, and as the grim old soldier stood and watched, men in khaki and other men in dim blue coats suddenly swung out in long lines upon the plain, slowly folding upon Von Kluck's army. As it wheeled eastwards, the bugler blew the charge, .and the English Tommies, for the second time in the history of British arms,
found themselves victorious at Crecy. There in the olden times English knights and French knights had fought and died under the ensigns of St. Denys and St. George. And there again they met in September, 1914, this time side by side as after a long lovers' quarrel to break the Prussian thrust and to once more deliver Christendom and save civilization.
Sir, let us Canadians of French and of English origin take a lesson from that eventful day in the history of mankind. Let us bury the past with its passions, its quarrels, its contention, its miseries. And, exalted by the unique spectacle given to the whole world by both our Mother Countries, let us in common brotherhood and mutual solidarity make of this country what the Fathers of Confederation fervently hoped it would be: a country of equal rights, of toleration, of freedom under the aegis of the British Crown.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, at this hour of the night I shall certainly not attempt an oratorical effort even if I were capable of such a thing. But, coming as I do from the province of Ontario, it does not seem unreasonable that I should at least attempt to outline, for the benefit of those who have criticised the legislation and regulations of my province, what I consider to be the law and regulations applicable to education in Ontario. I shall direct my remarks to three aspects of the question: first, the constitutional development of Ontario, and her attitude towards French as a constituted language of instruction in the province. I shall next direct the attention of the House to the development of this bilingual struggle, and then I shall endeavour to explain wherein I think a misapprehension exists in regard to the regulations. In the first place I might say that if anything were necessary to convince me that a resolution of this class should not be introduced into this House it is the great difference of opinion that exists among the speakers who have spoken as to the construction of the regulations, what their meaning is and what the position of the French in the province of Ontario has been and is to-day.	.
The first part of the resolution of the hon. member for Kamouraska says:
It has long been the settled policy of Great Britain whenever a country passed under the sovereignty of the Crown by treaty or otherwise, to respect the religion, usages and language of the inhabitants who thus beqome British subjects.

There is always a danger in stating a tact in the preamble of a resolution. But the resolution is cleverly drawn in this respect, that the preamble is misleading, and to my mind conveys the impression that the religion, usages and language of the original inhabitants of this country were protected and have a right to exist as the religion, usages and language of the province of Ontario. The first speaker this afternoon took the position that it was the inalienable right of every man to have his language, and that it was impossible to take it away from him by legislation, reasoning from that he claimed that it was the inalienable right of the scholar in the province of Ontario to be taught in the French language, and that the province of Ontario had no authority to modify that right. The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin), being a lawyer, and being more close to Ontario, perhaps appreciated the difficulty into which he was being led and his argument did not go quite so far. But he inferred that the French-Canadian in attendance at the schools in the province of Ontario had by implication certain rights under section 93 and section 133 of the British North America Act. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, in a most wonderful speech of classic eloquence, admitted frankly that this problem must be settled by Ontario. He stated frankly and openly that the predominant right lay with Ontario. Now it is quite impossible to reconcile these three arguments one with another, and I propose briefly, and, jl trust, not to such an extent as to tire the House, to show this House, and perhaps through this House, the country, what Ontario considers to be her position and what she claims is her right.
It has been alleged that by capitulations certain rights and privileges were guaranteed in reference to the language of the French-Canadian population of Ontario. I should like to direct attention first to the Capitulation of Quebec, 8th day of September, 1759. I am quoting from page 6 of the Constitutional Documents of Canada. And let me say. Sir, that if there is one thing I desire to do more than another it is to impress upon this House that Ontario has no desire to act the part of tyrant, and that in speaking as I speak to-night I am only frying to express to this House what I believe to be the true spirit of Ontario, and what I believe her desire and intentions are. Turning to page 6 of the Constitutional Documents of Canada, section 6 of the Articles of Capitulation at Quebec makes

no reference whatever to language, but it does refer to the question of religion, and this is what was demanded:
That the exercise of the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion shall he maintained; and that safeguards shall be granted to the houses of the clergy, and to the monasteries, particularly to his Lordship the Bishop of Quebec, who, animated with zeal for religion and charity for the people of his diocese, desires to reside in it constantly, to exercise, freely and with that decency which his character and the sacred offices of the Roman religion require, his episcopal authority in the town of Quebec, whenever he shall think proper, until the possession of Canada shall be decided by a treaty between their most Christian and Britannic Majesties.
And the answer was:
The free exercise of the Roman religion is granted, likewise safeguards to all religious persons, as well as to the Bishop, who shall be at liberty to come and exercise, freely and with decency, the functions of his office, whenever he shall think proper, until the possession of Canada shall have been decided between their Britannic and most Christian Majesties.
That is the only provision I know of in that treaty in reference to language or religion. Turning to the Capitulation of Montreal, which took place on 8th day of September, 1760, approximately a year
11 p.m. later, we find on page 27 of the same book, as follows (Article
41):
The French, Canadians, and Acadians of what state and condition so ever, who shall remain in the colony, shall not be forced to take arms against his most Christian Majesty, or his Allies, directly or indirectly, on any occasion whatsoever; the British Government shall only require of them an exact neutrality.
That is what was demanded, and the answer was:
They become subjects of the King.
Article 42 demanded:
The French and Canadians shall continue to be governed according to the custom of Paris, and the laws and usages established for this country, and they shall not be subject to any other impossibilities, than those which were established under the French dominions.
And the answer was:
Answered by the preceding articles, and particularly by the last.
The reason I made reference to these two capitulations is this. The right hon. leader of the Opposition in addressing the House this afternoon said, in reference to that answer " They become subjects of the King " that the French Canadian subjects of that day had reason to suppose that they would have protection. I suppose he desired this House to infer that protection meant that their usages would be respected,

that their language would be respected, and that their customs would not be disturbed. But if that was the object of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, certainly history does not bear out that conclusion; because His Britannic Majesty, by the proclamation of October 7, 1763, which is quoted on page 118 of the book from which I have been reading, certainly went a long way from protecting what was thought to be the laws and usages of French Canadians of that day, for he ruthlessly east them aside, and by proclamation introduced English Common Law into the province of Quebec. It seems to me that that conclusion cannot be otherwise than reached. And if you admit that the answer " They becoiiX. subjects of the King " entitled His Britan nic Majesty to introduce English Common Law into the province of Quebec, it certainly entitled His Britannic Majesty or any other competent legislative authority to pass'legig-lation affecting the French language in the province or what then constituted Canada. Those who have studied the history of Canada are aware of the discontent that followed in Quebec the proclamation of 1763. They know how the French Canadian, people, in the habit of being governed by the civil law, resented the imposition of the English common law. They know the petitions that went to His Britannic Majesty to restore again to them the law that they had known, and those who have paid attention to the fact are aware that in 1774 the law of France was again restored to Lower Canada. One might naturally ask:	Why
was this done? Was it all done out of kindly consideration for the French Canadian people, or was it done because England wanted to make Lower Canada unsuitable as a colony of Britain? Let me ask you to turn to page 389 of the Constitutional Documents of Canada, where, I think, some very enlightening information may be found. There is a quotation at the bottom of the page taken from one of Cavendish's debates, and this is quoted from one of Lord Wedderburn's speeches:
I think there ought to be no temptation held out to the subjects of England to quit their native soil, to increase colonies at the expense of this country. If persons have gone thither-
That is, Lower Canada.
-in the course of trade, they have gone without any intention of making it their permanent residence; and in that case, it is no more hardship to tell them, " this is the law of the Land "-
That is, the civil law.
-than it would be to say to a man whose affairs induced him to establish himself in Guernsey, or in any other part of North America. With regard to the English who have settled there, their number is very few. They are attached to the country either in point of commercial interest or they are attached to it from the situations they hold under Government. It is one object of this measure that these persons should not settle in Canada. -
Now, the reason I direct the attention of the House to that fact is this, that I want to impress on this country that in 1774, when the Quebec Act was brought into effect, it was not brought into effect with the desire of making Lower Canada a British immigration colony; it was brought into effect to make it a French colony, but part of the British Empire. A change took place, one might almost say, in a night. The war between England and the United States came and went, and men left the United States, preferring their allegiance to the flag to a home in the United States, and they settled in what is now known as Ontario. They were men who spoke the English language. Practically the only French settlements of that day were at the forts of Kingston, Niagara and Sandwich. These men did not know the laws of Paris; they wanted the laws they had known on the other side of the border, and the result was	that the Constitutional Act was passed by which Upper Canada was carved out from what constituted Canada at that time; one of the first Acts of that province was to bring the common law of England into effect, and that law has been .from that time to this the outstanding principle of law governing the province of Ontario.
In all those days nothing was said as to language. Ontario was free to have such language as she wished. It was recognized as an English-speaking colony and Quebec was recognized as a French-speaking colony. We know what history ' tells us subsequently happened. Discord arose not only in the lower province, but in Upper Canada. Lord Durham, astute of mind, far-seeing and tactful, was sent to Canada in the hope of reconciling the two races. His expressive sentence is well known; it is one of the outstanding remarks of history; he said he found "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state," and his solution was a legislative union between Upper and Lower Canada. In 1840 the Union Act came into force, and by that Act it was declared that English should be the



language of debate in that legislature. French was expressly excluded by the Act; but so chivalrous were the people of the joint legislature that in 1848 they passed a resolution asking that French be restored as the language of debate, and their request was acceded to. From 1840 to 1867 things were not just exactly as we might have desired them to be, and in 1867 the best minds in Canada brought about Confederation. Confederation was a compact by which the men in one province conceded certain rights to the men in the other province, and it is a well-known historical fact that Sir John Macdonald desired a legislative union, one central legislative body for the entire country, and I think it is equally well-known that that was found to be impossible because the province of Quebec did not desire such a legislative union.
The British North America Act is the Magna Charts of Canadian liberties; it is the document by which we must judge our rights, and if I read Canadian history aright, my opinion is this, that in these matters of racial and religious difficulties, when they are peculiarly relegated to one province as distinct from the Dominion, the Dominion -is wise if she leaves them alone. This position was the position I took in my very early days in the consideration of public questions when the Jesuits Estates Act stirred this country from one end to the other. I said that was an Act that came within the jurisdiction of the .province of Quebec, and that the Dominion had nothing whatever to say about it.
In 1896 this country was again shaken over another subject of similar character. The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition said: By "sunny ways" he could find a solution of the difficulty, and in 1896 I refrained from voting for the Conservative candidate in the city of Kingston because I believed that the principle that the right hon. leader of the Opposition then advocated was right, and that hands should be kept off Manitoba, because Manitoba had a right to work but her own educational system free from any interference on the part of the Dominion of Canada. To-night, when this question \s again before the country, I take exactly the same position on general principles that it is wise for the Dominion to be cautious and not start what it may not be able to stop.
Coming to the British North America Act, let us see what the rights of the provinces

are under that Act.' The rights of language are defined by section 133, which reads:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.
The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
Now, we men from Ontario construe that to mean this, that French is an official language in the courts established under the statutory jurisdiction of the Dominion; that French is an official language in the Parliament of Canada; that English has rights in the province of Quebec; but we say, neither inferentially nor otherwise, does that fact affect, regulate, or control the province of Ontario? It was never contemplated that French should have equal rights in Ontario with the rights accorded to English in the province of Quebec. We take the ground that the fact that right being declared, covers the whole principle of the argument, and that Ontario is free in so far as language goes to make such regulations and to pass such laws as she may desire.
In regard to education, the rights are settled and determined by section 93, which reads as follows:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions :
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province of the Union.
The question is, Sir, what right had any class in the province at the Union? The
section reads as follows:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affecting any right or privilege with respect to-denominational schools which any class of per sons have by law in the province at the Union.
Legislation falling within the prohibition of this" subsection is, of course, ultra vires. The rights and privileges protected are those which any class of persons had by law at the Union with respect to denominational schools. All legislation affecting those rights is not prohibited, but only such legislation as prejudicially -affects them. Whether any given legislation is prejudicial or not is a question of fact to be determined in the particular case. At

the Union the only law of Upper Canada that conferred righte or privileges with regard to denominational schools in Ontario was contained in 26 Victoria, chapter 5. It authorized the voluntary establishment of separate schools by Protestants, by coloured people and by Roman Catholics. The distinguished feature of the Protestant and Roman Catholic separate schools was religious belief. No provision was contained in the Act for the use of any special language. The only schools which were in any sense differentiated by language or race were the schools of the coloured people. There were in Ontario at the Union certain French settlements and also certain German settlements, but neither the French noT the German inhabitants of Ontario were authorized to establish separate schools. Their children attended either the comman, now called public, schools, or the separate schools, as best suited them. But the stathte 26 Victoria, chapter 5, did not, nor did any other law of the province, confer, upon either the French or the German" people any special right or privilege with respect either to the Protestant separate schools or to the Roman Catholic separate schools.
The point that I am endeavouring to make is this: by sections 133 and 93, Ontario has plenary jurisdiction in regard to what language of instruction shall be used in her schools, and she may pass any legislation she desires so long as she does not prejudicially affect the rights that were to be respected pursuant to that Act from which I have just read.
The question naturally arises, has Ontario been reasonable? In regard to the religious aspect of the case, I do not think there is a man in this House who will say that what is commonly known as Protestant Ontario has not been liberal to Roman Catholic Ontario. The rights enjoyed by the Roman Catholic people in Ontario to-day in reference to education are vastly wider than the rights they enjoyed at Confederation. Changed conditions have necessitated new laws: Ontario has met the condition and has been willing to widen the scope and influence and rights of the Roman Catholic population. But in regard to the racial question, in regard to language, a different problem confronts Ontario. We have, as you know, but one system of separate schools, and when you unite in that one school the Irish Roman Catholic and the French Roman Catholic, you must have, if
2354	'
both are to be adequately taught, two sets of teachers, or a teacher adequately conversant with two languages. Thus you throw a tremendous burden on the taxpayer, and that is the problem Ontario has had to face and is endeavouring to solve.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition referred to-day to what Sir Oliver Mowat did in 1885. That was the first time the question pushed itself into Ontario politics. But Sir Oliver Mowat, a man of tact and shrewdness, pushed it to one side and got it out of the way. He got in the region of Torres Vedras, and was successful. But, as one speaker said this afternoon, you cannot conquer a difficulty by running away from it, and Sir Oliver Mowat, by his speech in 1885, did not conquer the difficulty; he only diverted it. What came to Sir Oliver Mowat in 1885 came much more strongly to the Liberal Government of 1899. I want to read to you, Sir, portions from a certain document published by the Minister of Education for Ontario:
During several years subsequent to 1885 the complaints continued, until in May, 1889, the Hon. G. W. Ross, Minister of Education appointed a Commission of Inquiry, consisting of Messrs. John J. Tilley, Rev. Alfred Reynar and Rev. D. D. McLeod. The reasons given for appointing this commission were that the regulations of the Department of Education required -instructions in English to be given in all public schools, and that the department desired to learn with certainty whether and how far these regulations were complied with in the counties of Prescott, Russell, Essex, Kent and Simcoe or what steps should be taken for the more complete enforcement of the regulations of those counties. The commission, therefore, were specifically directed to consider and report in what way the study of English may be most successfully promoted among those accustomed to the use of the French language in their mother tongue.
The report of the commission declared that progress had been made in the teaching of English in the schools. In very few schools had sufficient attention been given to colloquial exercises, and in 28 schools less than the time prescribed was given in English. The school boards, however, recognized their obligation to obey the law of the province in several particulars, accordingly in 17 schools the results were very satisfactory indeed and in several schools quite equal to the work done in good English schools. In 21 schools fair progress was being made, and in 18 the pupils knew very little English.
That demonstrated, Sir, this fact: that if the regulations were adequately lived up to in the so-called French schools, an adequate education could be had in English and in French. (Reading) f
To meet the deficiencies found to exist the recommendations of the commission included (1) the establishment of a special school for the

training of French teachers in the English language; (2) the holding of special institutes for the benefit of the teacher then in the schools; (3) the calling of the teachers' attention to the necessity of making greater use of the oral or conversational method in teaching English; (4) the introduction of a series of bilingual readers. By the use of such readers, the commission reported, the pupils should in time be sufficiently familiar with English to enable them to receive instructions in this language in the various subjects prescribed. In accordance with these recommendations the department established in 1890, in the village of Plantagenet, a model school for the instruction of teachers in English and French, and a series of bi-lingual readers was introduced. In 1892 the department issued a circular of instructions to teachers in regard to the teaching of English.
In lf!93 the commission of 1889 was re-appointed, with instructions to report especially upon the condition of the schools in Prescott and Russell. They were " to consider and report what progress, if any, has been made in the study of English since the date of the last report." The commission reported in August, 1893, " a decided advance upon the state of things which we found on the occasion of our former visit." The commission also reported:
It only requires that the better methods now being used at the instance of the department be persevered in. In all educational measures time is an essentia! element. And from what has been accomplished in the past four years, the whole benefit of which has not yet been reaped, we may conclude that the continuance of these measures, and the use of such others as may yet be necessary, will give to the people of these counties schools which, as to efficiency, in English, will be quite satisfactory.
The results of the inquiries, with the adoption by the department of the reforms recommended, failed to meet expectations and in August, 1900, the Minister of Education. Hon. R. Har-court, issued a circular to the inspectors directing attention to the needs of the French bilingual schools. "The establishment some years ago", the minister declared, "of an English-French training school at Plantagenet did much towards improving the condition of the schools in the eastern part of Ontario. Advancement has not, however, been as rapid as would be desirable, owing to the difficulty of securing teachers who have the necessary knowledge of both the English and French languages." It was decided, therefore, to establish a course of professional training equivalent to the training given for provincial third class certificates. The minister concluded.
" The regulation requiring that so far as possible all communication between pupils and teacher shall be in English must be carefully observed. There should be a little teaching of English from books until the pupils have gained a fair knowledge of oral English. To this end the teachers should follow the instructions in the circular prepared by the Education Department on the teaching of English."
In 1910 a fresh Commission of Inquiry was appointed, and now I come to a portion of the subject of which I have peculiar knowledge, because I happened to be a member of the Legislature of Ontario at that time. The discussion was not launched

in such a way that it could be stated that it was a matter of religious difference. It was not a matter between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants; it was a difference between Homan Catholics in attendance at the separate schools in the province of Ontario, in the districts into which the French people were coming, and in which, by natural increase, they were increasing. The French Canadians took a predominant control in certain of the schools to such an extent that certain of the Roman Catholic authorities asserted that the English language was suffering in comparison with the French language, and as a result Dr. Merchant was appointed to report. His instructions were:
The investigation should be so conducted as to ascertain whether there has been any departure from the provisions of the Public and Separate Schools Act or any of the Departmental Regulations or circulars affecting such schools, and if so to what extent. As the School Law intended to provide all pupils with a thorough training in English, it is desirable that you ascertain whether, and if so to what extent, the means to attain this end are inadequate or defective.
They laid down the principle that Ontario wanted, every scholar to have an adequate education in English. The right hon. leader of the Opposition agrees *frith that, and I agree with him. It is absolutely essential, if the child in the province of Ontario who speaks French is to havie an equal chance with the child who speaks English, that the French child should' have every opportunity of mastering the English language, and Ontario has never been unwilling to do anything	she could
[DOT]to bring about this result. But before Dr. Merchant reported something occurred. The matter got into the legislature	in 1911.	There	was a
good deal of discussion at the time, a good deal of newspaper controversy, a good deal of national heat; but after giving the matter full consideration, the Legislature of Ontario, on the 22nd day of March, 1911, passed a resolution unanimously and I may say in passing that no French member in the Legislature of Ontario objected to that resolution which reads:
Resolved that the English language shall be the language of instruction and of all communications with the pupils in the public and separate schools of the province except where in the opinion of the Department of Education it is impracticable by reason of pupils not understanding English.
In 1911 I voted for that resolution, and I believe it was sound. As an Englishman I voted for it because I believed that

the children whose mother tongue was French had a right, if they lived in the province of Ontario, to be in their early days educated in that tongue so that they would have a fair chance in the province of Ontario. We did not stand on our strict legal rights in the Legislature. We did not say: if the French come into that province they must learn in the schools we have; but we said to them that in their young days they might be taught in French. We wanted to give them every chance, and that resolution is incorporated in the Legislation of Ontario and stands on the statute book? Could anything be fairer? And yet they say that Ontario is tyrannical, that Ontario is over-bearing. Do they understand the resolutions that prevailed? Do they understand that to-day, in the province of Ontario, if a French child not understanding any English comes into an English settlement and goes to an English school he is entitled to be taught in his mother tongue? Do they understand that we have accorded that right? True it is inconvenient; true it is at times bothersome; but Ontario has not stopped to object to that sort of thing. We welcome them all, we want to give them education because the State, we believe, is better if every pupil has an adequate education. But, as I say, that resolution was passed, and then Dr. Merchant's report came in.
Mr. iMAElCIIL: Did Mr. Racine, who represented Russell, inquire whether the adoption of this resolution would change in any way the standing of the schools of Ontario?


William Folger Nickle: I could not speak positively as to that and therefore I shall say nothing. The resolution passed unanimously.


Mr. PROULX:: It is true that before
this resolution was moved in the House there had been one standing on the Order Paper for a long time in the name of the acting-Minister of Education to-day, which went further than this went. It aimed to make the English language the sole language of instruction in the schools, and I understand that this resolution was moved by the late Premier, Sir James Whitney. He amended the resolution which had been proposed by the acting-Minister of Education, and assured the Legislature that it left the law as it was. In fact there is in the Public Schools Act a section which says, in enumerating the duties of teachers, that they shall teach in the English language, except where a child does not understand that language.


William Folger Nickle: Dr. Merchant's report
came in. The right hon. leader of the Opposition this afternoon read at some length, certainly I think to the point, as to what great educationists thought was the proper system of teaching a child in a strange tongue; and the surprising thing is that the very trend of argument of the right hon. leader of the Oppositiop is the thing on which Dr. Merchant relies in the preparation of his report. I wish to read to the House a part of this report to show what the attitude of Ontario towards this whole question of French instruction in Ontario is. It is on page 72 of the report on the condition of English-French schools in Ontario, by Mr. F. W. Merchant, published in 1912. Here is what he says oi^ conditions that promote efficiency:
In some of the schools, the French-speaking children are acquiring a good working knowledge of English, both oral and written. At the same time, they are learning to read and write French, and are being given a satisfactory training in the other branches of a public school education. The success of these schools demonstrates the possibility of carrying out the provisions for education in French-speaking and German-speaking communities if the necessary conditions are observed in the organization and the conduct of the schools.
In the course of the investigation I aimed to inquire into the conditions which appeared to promote efficiency. My conclusions are embodied in the remaining sections of the report:
1.	Language of Instruction. The best results are obtained when the medium of instruction is in the beginning the mother-tongue. Life in the ordinary school is so different from the life of the home that the child on entrance to school finds himself in a strange and perplexing environment. He is bewildered if the language he hears in his lessons has no meaning for him, and for a long time he makes but little progress.
When he appears to learn, he is usually but repeating meaningless words. My conclusions, I find, are in accord with those of others who have investigated the bilingual problem in other parts of the Empire. A discussion on bilingualism was held at the recent Imperial Education Conference, and the question of the medium of instruction received a large share of the attention. While the delegates differed regarding the question of the time when English should be introduced into the course of study, and also regarding the stage at which it should be used continuously as the language of instruction, all were agreed that the child on entrance to school should receive his instruction through the vernacular.
Dr. MacKay, of Nova Scotia, said: " In order to settle the difficulty a commission was appointed-
That was in Nova Scotia.
-and the commission determined, and the Government accepted the determination, that the education of the French-speaking child should commence, and be continued during the first four years in the mother tongue, and French readers were provided for them. While

these French readers were used during the first	four years the	teachers of
these schools were expected to acquaint themselves with the method of teaching English colloquially, and during these four years the children were required to do as much as possible in English so that after the fourth year instruction could go on in English continuously. That is the way the matter stands at present in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I believe the French are pretty well satisfied with it. The children in this way learn English more easily. They can learn written French more rapidly, and that enables them with very little difficulty to commence their studies in English thereafter."


Charles Marcil: He said four years in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.


William Folger Nickle: Yes;


Charles Marcil: I would be satisfied with four years.


William Folger Nickle: You have got three in
Ontario now. The report proceeds:
Dr. Parmalee, of Quebec, said: " Our experience abundantly proves that we must first give instruction in the mother tongue. We consider that the instruction must be in the first instance in the mother tongue. The change to a second language comes at a later stage."
Mr. Owen Edwards, in describing the condition of affairs in Wales before the introduction of Welsh as the language of instruction, said: " We thought that the best way of teaching English to a Welsh child would be to make the language and the atmosphere of the school entirely English, and to use Welsh, if at all, for the purpose of absolutely necessary explanations. I can but state the result by quoting from a report of a small committee of teachers of great ability and long experience, a report adopted and published by the Anglesey Education Committee. The infant, as he leaves the infant school, is thus described:	* He reads
words with which he associates no meaning, and is denied access to the written word which would at once call up ideas and stimulate his intelligence. Thus, when he has attained the age of 6 or 7, his book tells him nothing; the language he reads he cannot understand, and the language he understands he cannot read. That was the typical product of infant schools until a few years ago.' "
Then a change came about and Wales allowed the Welsh children to be taught in Welsh in the early days. The report goes on:
Mr. A. T. Davies, in describing the condition of affairs in Wales at the present time, says: " H.M. Inspectors, without exception, reported- I have a sheaf of reports here that I could refer to if necessary-most favourably upon the beneficent operation of the new provisions. Here is one report, dated 1909 (or two years after their first issue), and taken at random. It may be regarded as typical of numbers of others: ' The introduction of Welsh as the medium of instruction in the infant class has had a most beneficial effect on the whole school; the interest of the scholars is aroused from the beginning, and the older scholars bring to the study of other subjects an alert mind and not a mere memory.' "

When I read that, it seems to me that it must impress the members of this House that we in the Legislature of Ontario in 1911 were right when we said that the French child should be taught in French in its early days. Let me explain what Dr. Merchant's conclusions were as to organization. He says:
The organization which gives, on the whole, the most satisfactory results requires the pupil to remain three years in Form I and two years in Form II, during which time English is made gradually to replace French as the medium of instruction. At the end of this period the most backward pupil should have sufficient command of the language to follow with comparative ease lessons conducted in English.
This organization adds one year to the time commonly taken in English schools to complete the public school course. I am convinced that, considering the additional labour involved in learning a new language, the work cannot be done satisfactorily in a shorter time. In some good schools the extra year is taken in Form III, but, on the whole, pupils make more satisfactory progress when the additional time is spent in the earlier part of the course.
In schools attended by both English-speaking and French-speaking pupils the Englishspeaking pupils are best taught by themselves in Forms I and II. The French-speaking children naturally need, in the beginning, special attention in English not necessary to be given to the English-speaking children, and the separation of classes allows both the Englishspeaking and the French-speaking children to
i-oceed with the least possible loss of time. In such schools the classes are combined with advantage in Form III.
Let me emphasize this fact that when teaching the two languages they had practically to break the classes into two, and have the English in one room and French in the other during the earlier days. He proceeds:
The mixed school offers the French-speaking children the best opportunity of learning English. Not only does this form of organization give them an opportunity of acquiring English through association with the English-speaking pupils on the playground, but it permits of the teaching of English throughout the grades by teachers whose mother-tongue is English and of French by teachers whose mother-tongue is French by a system of exchanges in teachers easy to arrange. Now and then we find a teacher whose mother tongue is English who speaks French perfectly, and one whose mother tongue is French who speaks English perfectly, but instances are rare.
I have read thus far with the purpose of showing that the Education Department of the province of Ontario realized that instruction must be given in French to the French child until he attained a knowledge of English during his early years in school.
Now I come to the regulations, and if the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), has the control over his party which he

says he has, the whole question is settled, and as the right hon. the leader of the Opposition said to-day, we will rise from this discussion better and wiser men, because clause 12 of section 2 which the ex-Postmaster General said would satisfy the French people has never been repealed and is in effect to-day. The fact is that the men who are criticising these regulations do not understand them. They say that Regulation 17 is a modification of Regulation 12. It is not a modification; it is supplementary thereto. Clause 12 has never been repealed. I read to-night from the School Report of 1915, and this is the regulation that is in effect to-day; it is the law of Ontario to-night. If as the ex-Postmaster General says it meets the requirements of the French people, then the whole subject is settled. We thought there was going to be turmoil, but peace may come out of it. This is the regulation:
12. (2) In school sections where the French or German language prevails, the board may, in addition to the courses of study prescribed herein, require instruction to be given in French or German reading, grammar and composition to such pupils as are directed by their parents or guardians to study either of these languages, and in all such cases the authorized textbooks in French and German shall be used. But nothing herein contained shall be construed to mean that any of the textbooks prescribed for public and separate schools shall be set aside because of the use of the authorized textbooks in French or German.
That regulation is the law in Ontario today, and any school section throughout the province of Ontario where the French or German language prevails, the French people or the German people have a perfect right to have their language taught in their schools. But they must not neglect the English language and the right hon. gentleman the leader of the Opposition says that they should not. That is what we ask in Ontario. We say: when your language prevails in a section, you have a right to teach your language; but having become a majority, you must respect our rights and you must see that our children, and your children as well-because it is as important to us as it is to you that your children should have an adequate education in English. That is the law in Ontario to-day. Let us come to the celebrated Regulation 17.


Edmond Proulx: What does the hon. member mean when he says, where the French language prevails? I will cite the case of Grand Valley, in the country of Glengarry, where 75 per cent of the rate-payers
were of French origin and 75 per cent of the school children spoke the French language, and still the counsel for the Board of Education before the Court of Appeal maintained that the French language did not prevail, that it was the English language which prevailed, because the English language was the language used in the commercial transactions of the people.
iMr. N1CKLE: The hon. member for 'Prescott (Mr. Proulx) understands the regulation in regard to schools question as well as I do. The counties appoint the inspectors and where the county inspector decides that in his county the French language prevails he is the arbiter as t.o the schools. The county council appoint the inspector and the inspector says whether or not the French language prevails. It is a question of fact to be decided by the inspector.


Edmond Proulx: We have-


William Folger Nickle: I think I must be allowed to develop my argument and to carry it to its conclusion, after when I will be quite prepared to answer any questions, within the range of my knowledge, that any hon. gentleman may care ask me. There were two sets of Regulations 17. This was the regulation passed in 1912 and afterwards thrown out:
1.	There are only two classes of primary schools in Ontario-public schools and separate schools; but, for convenience of reference, the term English-French is applied to those schools of each class in which French is the language of instruction and communication as limited in 3 Cl) below.
'Clause 3 (1) is as follows:
The use of French for Instruction and Communication.
(1) Where necessary in the case of Frenchspeaking pupils, French may be used as the language of instruction and communication; but such use of French shall not be continued beyond Form 1 excepting during the school year of 1912-13, when it may also be used as the language of instruction and communication in the case of pupils beyond Form 1 who, owing to previous defective training are unable to speak and understand the English language.
The original Regulation 17 said that the French language could only be used in form 1 during the school year of 1912-13. But the slightest consideration ought to demonstrate to anybody the impracticability of that regulation. Regulation 17 passed in 1912 was purely temporary in character and in August, 1913, a new circular was prepared and it is called Circu-

lar of Instructions." Here is what the circular said:
There are only two classes of primary schools in Ontario-public schools and separate schools; but, for convenience of reference, the term English-French is applied to those schools of each class annually designated by the minister for inspection as provided in 5 below and in which French is a language of instruction and communication as limited In 3 (1) below.
Now, observe what was the intent of that instruction. As I have endeavoured to point out, the province of Ontario says that every child is entitled to an English education. The province of Ontario, tor l.< or 20 years, had been wrestling with this problem of bilingual education. It could not be solved by leaving it to the school boards to regulate each local situation. First, the minister said:	I am going to
take control of these recalcitrant schools and I am going to put them in a class by themselves. If every school will handle the teaching of English as it should be handled in the primary grade; if every school board will see that English is adequately and emciently taught, it may pursue it own course, but if any school board wu. not do that, then I am going to take the administration of that school under my control. That is what Regulation 17 does and it is in that respect that it modifies what is sometimes called Regulation 15. Regulation 17 simply enables the Minister of Education to say: If the school board in a certain school section will not see that English is properly taught, then I am going to see that it is done by virtue of the inspection that the section' provides for. The school may come under Regulation 17 today and not be under it next year. The School Board may observe the provisions of the law. The result will be that the minister will not have again to put the school under Regulation 17.
The sense of responsibility may make the School Board come to the conclusion that it will , observe the law of Ontario and see that the children get an adequate education in( English and, observing the law, and the minister being satisfied of their good faith, the school goes out of Regulation 17 and the general law applies. It is purely a supplementary system for controlling those who are not willing to accept what the province of Ontario considers the ideal educational system. That is all it is. It does not take from the French people anything; in fact, it gives them something that they have not legally aad. Accentuation has been put on the word "hitherto." That word gives the

French in Ontario more than they had before, because there are schools now under this Regulation 17 in which French was' illegally taught before they were brought under the regulation. It was illegally taught because French was not the language that prevailed in the section in which the school was situated. But, the province of Ontario was.so fair that they said: If you have taught French, we are not going to take the right from you and you can have French taught after you are put under Regulation 17.
Men from Ontario feel ruffled at times because we have sent our boys to avenge Catholic Belgium and maintain the status of France and we have been told by French Canadian newspapers, and it has been said by members of this House, that because there were differences on this educational problem, certain of the French Canadian people would not enlist. Certain of the leaders of French Canadian thought, to whom my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition did not refer this afternoon in complimentary terms, have induced the people to hold back when the men of Ontario were going. I want to say in all sincerity in this House to-night, and I trust I speak as a moderate man, that when this war is over, when victory perches on our banners, do not let the men who induced the French Canadians not to enlist, resent it if certain elements in the province of Ontario take theiir race at the value set upon it by their leaders. We in Ontario have sent our men overseas to protect Catholic Belgium in her agony, and to maintain France in her integrity, and we do not want to be told that ether men have not enlisted because they cannot have exactly what they want in Ontario. We in Ontario love our language, we demand our right to' have our children educated in the English tongue. It may not be as soft, as gentle, as smooth a language as the French language, but any man who associates it with his civilization, who knows it in his literature, regards it just as dearly a6 the French Canadian regards his tongue. We in Ontario require that every child gets a good education in English and if our French Canadian citizens will co-operate with us in this, then the province of Ontario will have no grudge against the French. But I say here, with every conviction and in all sincerity, that Ontario is determined that English must be the language of her schools. In the early days we are quite walling that the

French child should be taught in the French language, but we are determined that every child shall have an adequate education in English while at the same time we do not begrudge the, French child the privileges of our schools in order that he may be educated to take his place in this province and in this country.
On motion of Hon. Charles MaTcil, the debate was adjourned.


SOLDIERS' PENSIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. HAZEN laid on the Table the report of the Special Committee appointed to inquire into the matter of soldiers' pensions, together with the documents relating thereto, and moved that rule 74 be suspended, that the documents might be printed forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 12.01 Thursday.
Thursday, May 11, 1916.