Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).

Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I intend to ask the attention of the House to a very grave matter ; and, if necessary, to put myself in order, I will conclude with a motion. The very important matter to which I propose to call attention has reference to provincial rights, particularly the rights of the province of Manitoba, and I regret very much that neither the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) nor the late premier of Manitoba (Mr. Greenway), who has now a seat in this House, is in his place. It is largely because these hon. gentlemen have not chosen to call the attention of the House to this matter that I do so to-day. I think I can best bring the question immediately within the view of hon. members by reading a translation of an article that was published in ' Le Soleil ' of Quebec, on February 11.

Mr. EMMERSON.

Read the original.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

securities of Canada, to form a school fund, and the interest arising therefrom, after deducting the cost of management, shall be paid annually to the government of the province or territory within which such lands are situated, towards the support of public schools therein; and the moneys so paid shall be distributed for that purpose by the government of such province or territory in such manner as it deems expedient.

Now, from the statement which was made to all Canada the other day, we must infer that the Dominion Lands Act is to be changed, and that in the province of Manitoba these school lands, which are now consecrated to public schools, not to separate schools, are to be sold, and the proceeds distributed in an entirely different way. That follows from the statement made here the other day, and on behalf of Manitoba I protest to-day against any such change in the law, or any such chastisement being meted out to that province as is proposed by this organ of the government. That organ wants Manitoba chastised because of certain laws which that province has passed in connection with the school lands, and yet this same organ is the mouthpiece of this government, of which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) is a member, and of which the late premier of Manitoba (Mr. Greenway) is an ardent supporter. If any wrong has been wrought to the Roman Catholic minority of Manitoba in connection with the school question, is not that due to the Minister of the Interior and the late premier of Manitoba ? They it was who caused the Manitoba legislation now complained of to be enacted. It was the ' Liberal party which passed it, and did so in the interests of that province. Yet to-day we have the Dominion government, of which these gentlemen are the mainstay, threatening, through its leading organ, to chastise Manitoba because of that very legislation. That organ says to the province of Manitoba : You shall not extend your bounds, you shall continue in the lowly inferior position you now occupy. On behalf of that province, and because these gentlemen are not here to raise their voices in its behalf, I raise mine.

Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

I raise my protest because the proposal about to be made here is of a most far reaching character. Not only the school lands of Manitoba, but the whole educational fund of that province, is to be changed by a general Act, which must follow from what was said here the other day. I draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to this. If these important changes are to be made on the lines laid down by him, then it follows that remedial legislation is in order as concerns Manitoba. The argument is an a fortiori one. Remedial legislation must follow, and it will be introduced in this House by the right hon. gentleman who warned the coun-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

try against such legislation eight years ago. There is this prospect for Manitoba, that all her schools lands are, in every probability, to be diverted this very session of parliament to other purposes than those to which they are devoted to-day by a general Act amending the Dominion Lands Act. Furthermore the Manitoba school funds are to be diverted by legislation which must follow as a logical sequence from the statement made the other day. Logically the right hon. gentleman is bound to introduce a Bill remedying the school grievances of the minority in the province of Manitoba, and yet these very so called grievances are due to the Minister of the Interior of this government and his friend (Mr. Greenway) who, I am told, is to be his immediate successor in this government. It was to give these hon. gentlemen an opportunity here to repudiate this language, to say they could not be parties to any such legislation, that I brought this mattter up to-day ; and in all probability the absence of the hon. the Minister of the Interior from this House ever since the beginning of this session and the absence of the hon. member for Lisgar, (Mr. Greenway) to-day are due to their desire to shirk their manifest duty in connection with this matter. The hon. the Minister of the Interior was here only for a moment the other day, and his absence no doubt is due, as well as that of the other hon. gentleman, to what is in the immediate future in store for them. If what was foreshadowed the other day is to happen, it must follow that those school lands are to be diverted from their present purpose and a Remedial Bill introduced this session, and the party, which claims to be the defender of provincial rights from one end of the country to the other, is to-day doing nothing to prevent the shackles being put on the provinces of this great and free Dominion. These provinces are to-day free, ahd my right hon. friend must know that if there is one thing which the people who breathe the free air of the prairies, the people of the great west, value, it is their political liberty ; and if the right hon. gentleman insists on shackling these people in connection with the dispossession of their school lands, he will make a great mistake. He apparently does not understand the genius of the western people if he thinks that by aid of any constitutional argument, he can interfere with the school lands of the province of Manitoba. I leave the case for the present but may have to return to it.

Hear, hear.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

But I shall wait until the Minister of the Interior is in his place. Again I call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the absence of a number of his ministers from this House. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) is not here. I regret that he is ill, but the constitutional practice is that when a minister is not able to take his place in

the House he ought to vacate the position, both in his own interest and that of the country- The hon. member for London, (Mr. Hyman), who is discharging the duties of the Minister of Public Works, is contravening the constitution every day under the circumstances.

Oh, oh !

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh, but they used to attack the late government about this very thing. I regret that the Minister of the Interior, (Mr. Sifton) was not in his place at the time when these provincial rights which he held at one time to be most dear to the people of Manitoba, were being assailed. I recollect when that hon. gentleman came down to the province of Ontario and told the people of Haldimand that of all things the people of Manitoba did not want separate schools or remedial legislation imposed upon them. He came to the province of Ontario for sympathy on that score and he got it. But now if we are to believe the right hon. gentleman's organ, all that is to be taken back, the school lands are to be diverted from their proper purpose, and the hon. gentleman is bound, if he carries out what he promised, to introduce this session, an Act to remedy the school grievances of the minority of Manitoba. If any such thing be attempted, the wrong will be done, provincial rights will be taken away, and to-day, in the absence of the two hon. gentlemen to whom I especially referred, I rise to protest against the policy outlined by the right hon. gentleman in connection with these matters. I move that the House do now adjourn.

One could hardly imagine that any hon. gentleman would rise to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of inflicting on us such a ramshackle- if I may use such an expression-delivery as we have had from my hon. friend. He has given us a very modern exemplification of the old story of Don Quixote tilting against wind mills. My hon. friend is becoming every session more and more quixotic in his views and methods. Take this item which he has just read from the 'Sol-eil ' and on which he has built so unwarranted a conclusion that the government contemplates introducing a Remedial Bill to amend the law of Manitoba. There is not a scintilla in the article of the 'Soleil ' which can warrant any such conclusion. The whole thing is manufactured-I will not say wilfully-but if not, I know not how to characterize in what manner it was manufactured. Where is there a single word to warrant what the hon. gentleman sees there ?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

I did not say that it was there.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

My hon. friend admits there is nothing there to warrant his outbreak. The whole thing is in my hon. friend's own mind, and it is from his own mind alone that he has evolved the notion that this government contemplates any such thing as introducing a Remedial Bill for the province of Manitoba. That is the only authority he has for his remarks this afternoon. The thing is too absurd for consideration. My hon. friend professes to have his soul harrowed by the prospect he contemplates. Let me tell him once and for all that the government since 1896 has never contemplated introducing any Remedial Act affecting the province of Manitoba and does not intend doing so.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

What about the school lands ?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I may say to the hon. gentleman that the government has not contemplated and does not contemplate to introduce any law to amend the School Law. Is that categorical enough for the hon. gentleman?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

You cannot change the School Law without changing the Dominion Lands Act.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Then I will make my answer more categorical yet. The government has not contemplated, does not contemplate and will not contemplate any amendment to the Dominion Lands Act. I do not understand what the hon. gentleman is aiming at to-day. If he has any object it must be to try and create a false impression to arouse prejudices somewhere. But the hon. gentleman began by expressing his deep regret that the Minister of the Interior and the hon. member from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) the former premier of Manitoba, were not in their seats. Why, Sir, it would have been very easy for the hon. gentleman to secure their presence in their seats if he wanted them to be present. Why did he not notify them that he wanted to bring before the House some question requiring their presence, and which required them to make some defence to charges that he intended to bring against them. Did the hon. gentleman notify the Minister of the Interior that he wanted him here today? Did he notify the hon. member for Lisgar that he desired his presence here today? I am in the judgment of the House when I say that the hon. gentleman, when he intended to bring charges against the members of the House, wilful and deliberate charges, has not had the manliness to notify them that he intended to do so. As to the ' Soleil,' I have no interest whatever in that newspaper, financial or otherwise. It generally supports the government, but sometimes opposes it. If the hon. gentleman expects me to be responsible for anything that is published in the ' Soliel,' he is asking more from me than one would ask

from any other member of parliament. The hon. member may be responsible for what appears in the Toronto * World,' I have not had the same connection with the 'Soleil., I have nothing to do with the article in the ' Soleil,' which I had not read and had not heard of until it was read on the floor of the House.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is trying to draw a red herring across the track. This newspaper which declares it is his organ, and he has not repudiated it, says that the province of Manitoba is to be chastised because of its pretentious school law, it is to be chastised by the right hon. gentleman and his party, and the chastisement is in evidence now before all the people. Manitoba expected that her boundaries would be extended, and she expected that the Minister of the interior would be here to see that her boundaries were extended, but Manitoba is being chastised to-day, as the organ of the right hon. gentleman says, because of her pretentious school laws. They are not pretentious, they are constitutional, she had a right to make them, yet she is to be chastised to-day. The right hon. gentleman said practically the other day that the province was entitled to have its boundaries enlarged, it was entitled to be put on an equality with the other provinces. All over the country the statement has been published that Manitoba is being chastised because of her manliness in connection with public schools. The right hon. gentleman says he does not propose to interfere with the Dominion Lands Act. He does in substance, he does in a certain measure which I know of, where it is all outlined that the public school lands and the public funds in relation to education are to be interfered with. It may be in a special Bill, but the intention is to make laws in that direction. What follows then is this, that in the way the right hon. gentleman aproaches this question he is making flesh of one and fish of the other ; certain provinces are to enjoy certain school lands and others are to be denied them. If that is not an injustice and an interference with the lands of the province, I do not know what it is. The right hon. gentleman is trying to get away from this question in saying that he does not propose to introduce remedial legislation. He is bound to introduce it if there is anything in the constitutional argument he made here the other day. There is nothing in that constitutional argument, but there is a great deal in the constitutional argument tli at Manitoba is entitled to remedial legislation. If that is true, I will have to put up for the present with the trivial reply of the right hon. gentleman; but before two weeks are over, before another week is over, he will sing on the other side of his face. He will find that the people of Canada are in favour of the maintenance of provincial rights; they are not in favour of Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

a paternalized autonomy like that which the hon. gentleman proposes. The people of this country believe in provincial rights as they have been defined and won out by the province of Manitoba. Again I say that the hon. gentleman is attempting a revolution, and the Minister of the Interior ought to be in his place here to-day, since these things are being done in the department over which he presides. The hon. gentleman asks why I did not notify the Minister of the Interior? Am I the Minister of the Interior's keeper? If he is not in his place, where shall I have to go to find him? It is not for the right hon. gentleman to say to me that I should notify this man or notify that man; let them be here to look after themselves.

Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington).

The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) who has just resumed his seat, may not be the keeper of the Minister of the Interior. But there is a rule of courtesy recognized in this House which requires that when an hon. member intenus to bring up a matter pertaining particularly to any department, the minister presiding over that department must be notified. Ministers have all sorts of reasons for not being in the House. Deputations wait upon them from time to time, as we all know. We know not why the Minister of the Interior is not in his place to-day; but there is this much about it, it is a small thing and a mean thing for the hon. member for South York to make these remarks without having intimated to the Minister of the Interior that he desired his presence here. Now I desire on this occasion to enter my protest against such interruptions and interjections, on the Orders of the Day being called, as have been made by the hon. member for South York. If there is anything calculated to stir up strife and trouble in this country it is speeches such as that hon. gentleman has delivered, and articles that appear in his newspaper. If hon. members in this House would treat the question which the hon. member for South York has introduced, with calmness, with candour, with that liberality which no doubt they all possess, there would be no danger of producing that storm and that inflamed condition of the public mind which appears in the party press and among the people,, which we see to-day, and will see throughout Canada. Now, the hon. member cites the case of Manitoba. I am not going to dwell on that, I merely say that so far as I am concerned, as a member of this House supporting the government, the question of schools in the province of Manitoba is a settled question. There is no analogy whatever between the conditions of Manitoba and the new provinces which are to be admitted in to the confederation; I say this now, although these are matters which will more properly come up when the Bill is read the second time. But when we per-

mit a province to come into this confederation, we permit it to come in on such terms as this House deems proper and equitable. It was so with the other provinces, and, I presume, will be so with the provinces that are to come in. Mr. Speaker, I only rise to protest against interjections and interruptions by lion, members such as those of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) who seeks both by his voice in this House and by the newspaper, which, fortunately or unfortunately, he controls, an inflammatorv condition of indignation in the country. I think that, when the Bill is before us and when discussion is proper, then the hon. member for South York can enter any protest he sees fit. But, until' that time, it is much better for the House and the country that we should remain silent on the subject.

Motion (Mr. W. F. Maclean) to adjourn, negatived.