Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Would he be good enough to give us the next stanza of that same poem respecting the public schools ? 0

Mr. LAURENCE.

I do not remember it ; I am not able to do it, but the hon. member is quite at liberty to give it. Before I take my seat, I want to read a quotation from the Montreal ' Witness,' though I do so at the risk of reading something that has already, some portion of it at any rate, been read to the House. I regard this paper as a

fairly strenuous upholder of Protestantism in season and out of season. I do not think it is illiberal in its views, but I think it is fairly reasonable and sensible on most public questions. In its issue of the 11th of April it says :

What is curious is that, while every one feels that repugnance to the very principle of separate schools is the real source of the feeling against the education clauses of the constitutions of the new provinces, all those who have expressed themselves strongly on the subject, whether public bodies, passing resolutions, or orators, or newspapers, have had an instinctive unwillingness to allege this. In every case the fight is made upon provincial rights. Even the ' Globe ' has set interference with provincial rights as the danger which threatens the country. This mode of arguing has its weak side. The strength of Canada does not lie in provincial separateness, but in national solidarity ; and this universal shouting for provincial rights as paramount, and this speaking of the national government as an outside power which has no business with local affairs, is, nationally speaking, a very bad sign. It is not hard to understand the strength of provincialism in Ontario, whose whole history has been an effort to get free from the adjoining province, which at one time had too powerful a sway over her.

But it always seems strange to us when this cry is echoed among the minority in Quebec, which has everything to lose by it. The declaration that education is absolutely a matter for the individual province, and that any national stipulation with regard to it is an outrage, sounds very strange coming from people who would not submit for a moment to such a system of schools as the majority in their own province would consider ideal. When asked if they would so submit, they say with surprise, ' Why, that is a totally different thing, the Quebec system would be sectarian, while the common school system should be so carried on as to offend no religion.' They do not see that this is begging the question. Of course the two ideals are very different. It it were not so, there would be none of this trouble. But just as strong as is our objection to the clerical school for our children, so strong is1 the objection of the Roman Catholic for the non-clerical school. People may say they do not believe this ; that many Roman Catholics in their hearts prefer the non-sectarian school. This is not to the purpose ; they say they do not hold these conscientious objections, and who but themselves can say what they believe ? When they cease to prefer separate schools they will presumably have none. We may say it is only the priests who want the separate schools, but our system of government is based on persuasion, and, if they can persuade the people more than we can, we have to accept the declarations of our fellow citizens as to what they really do want.

Iii conclusion, I merely wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have no hope whatever that this statement of my views will influence any member of this House. But they furnish to me satisfactory reasons for supporting the Bill introduced ky the Prime Minister. and they are views which, I am confident, will be accepted with approval by a large majority of the people of the county I have the honour to represent. I am con-

fident, too, that they, in common with the people of the entire province of Nova Scotia, will have the confidence and respect which they entertain for the Prime Minister enhanced toy reason of the liberal, tolerant and patriotic stand he has taken on this question.

Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton).

Although I do not agree, Mr. Speaker, with many of the arguments which the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Laurence), who has just taken his seat, presented to the House, yet I cannot help but recognize the able manner in which he placed those arguments before us. I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman when he tells us that this Bill will settle the question of education in the new provinces. In my opinion, the best way to settle that question would be for my hon. friend to advocate and vote for the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. I cannot agree with him when he says that if a province has a sectarian system of education established when it enters the union, under which the rights of the minority are secured by law, that system can never be altered under our constitution. According to that contention any province, such as those now entering the union, although it had no choice in establishing a law such as the Act of 1875, would be compelled to abide by that law tecause it happened to be on its statute-Irooks at the time it entered the union. I do not think that any such doctrine would be fair or reasonable or consistent with provincial rights. My hon. friend has told us that an attempt is being made to stir up strife in this country. He did not directly charge hon. members on this side with the responsibility, but he insinuated as much. Let me, however, call his attention to the fact that it is the government which, by presenting the legislation submitted to us, is responsible for the agitation now going on in the country. I was sorry to hear the reflection which the hon. gentleman made on the worthy leader of the opposition. He charged that hon. gentleman with lacking courage on this question. I cannot believe that my hon. friend is well acquainted with the leader of the opposition or he would not have ventured any such statement. The leader of the opposition, Sir, has submitted his case to this House and the people in the strongest possible language, and there has not been a man on the government side, even the hon. gentleman himself, who has dared to attempt to refute the arguments which my hon. leader submitted. The hon. gentleman tells us he is not surprised that hon. members should disagree on this question, and yet he would lead us to believe that our leader has not the courage of his convictions regarding it.

But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was not so severe in his remarks as was the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) yesterday. That lion, gentleman made use of this language :

Mr. LAURENCE.

The only part of our population in the province of Ontario which is really excited over these Bills is the city of Toronto. I ask my hon. friends from other provinces not to do us the injustice of thinking that the blatant mob of Toronto speaks for the whole province of Ontario.

I cannot help but think that these remarks were not carefully worded and that the hon. gentleman was doing an Injustice to the people of Toronto. I have no need to defend the people of that city as they are quite able to defend themselves. Toronto is well known, not only in this country but in the United States and throughout the civilized world, as composed of perhaps the most intelligent, the brightest and most progressive people on the face of the globe today, and it ill-becomes the hon. member for North Ontario to cast on them the reflections he did. In speaking of the Toronto press, the hon. gentleman called them fire brands and other names it is perhaps as well not to remember, but I think an impartial mind must be convinced that the Toronto newspapers are merely presenting to their readers the ideas which the majority of the people of the province of Ontario and the other v'('stern provinces believe to be right. He tells us that the city of Toronto is practically the only place where there is agitation over this question. Evidently he has not been reading the papers and does not know what is going on in other parts of the country. Perhaps he has not read of the large public meeting at Moosomin in the Northwest Territories which passed resolutions condemning the clause. We have had protests against the school clause from the president of the Calgary Board of Trade, from Dr. Wordsworth, corresponding secretary in the missions of the Northwest, from Premier Ilaultain. from Principal Riddel. Alberta College, Edmonton, from John C. McKay, mayor of Wetaskiwin, W. R. Abbott, Maple Creek, Assiniboia, John McCurdy, mayor of Moosomin, Assiniboia, and from the Vancouver Liberals. All these men and all these gatherings have most conscientiously condemned the government for their action on the school question. >

The Manitoba government are doing their utmost to assist the west in not having the educational clauses forced upon those provinces. Throughout Ontario there ,is hardly a town but we have heard from many of its prominent men condemning the action of the government in forcing these clauses upon the Territories. As for Toronto, Mayor Urquhart, Professor Goldwin Smith and the Liberal club belong to the 'blatant crowd*the hon. gentleman would like us to believe live in that city. Now, the measure before the House seeking to grant provincial autonomy to the Northwest, whereby half a million acres of the choice land of that great Northwest will be divided into provinces, is one that deserves our most serious consideration. Much has been said on the floor of this House

and in the press throughout our country in praise of that fair land. To my mind we, as a nation, have just begun to realize the vast possibilities of that great country, and future generations will condemn us for not grasping the situation earlier and developing sooner that land of great promise. There is a question pending before us to-day affecting the provinces and one that cannot be underestimated. Let us, therefore, be guarded, let us not saddle on the new provinces legislation that will not only hamper the rights of the people living there to-day, but will leave to the generations yet unborn a heritage that will retard their growth and development in the future. In the year 1S96, this House had before it legislation affecting the schools of Manitoba. Many were the heated discussions on that Bill, and no more passionate appeals were ever made to the prejudices and religious feelings of a large portion of the people of this country than those made by the hon. members who are leading the government today. The cries of these hon. gentlemen w ere, ' Hands off Manitoba,' ' No coercion,' * We believe in provincial rights.' ' No coercion under Laurier.' While the leaders of the present government were avowing these principles and telling the people of Canada that these principles were right, I was telling the people of the county of Lainbton that I also believed these principles were right; I was defending the cause of provincial rights and educational freedom for Manitoba as conscientiously and as honestly then as I am now saying to the present government : You should stand to

your principle of provincial rights, you should stand by your own doctrine of no coercion in matters of education for the Northwest Territories : Be true to the principles you avowed in 1896 and the people will love, honour and respect you. But, if you do not harken to the people to-day, your government will go down to deserved ignominy and defeat. If public men or governments can avow certain principles, agitate those principles to the extent of defeating a government so as to establish 'those principles, and, when they attain power laugh at the professions they made and cast the principles they advocated to the winds, they are aiming a blow at public morality, they are lowering the position of public men, and we need not wonder at people scoffing at the idea that public men can be honest. I believe that disgrace and defeat should await any public man or any government in Canada that will not fulfil promises made to the people. And, when you come to realize that the present government have not been carrying out their promises ever since they came into power, when you come to realize that they are to-day practically a government of opportunists, it seems an easy matter for them to break faith with the people. They seem to

believe and to act upon the old adage that the people like to be humbugged. But there is also an old saying that you can fool some of the people part of the time, and you can fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. I feel confident that the people of Canada will soon come to realize that, the present government have been humbugging them for the last nine or ten years, and they will put a stop to it at the earliest opportunity. They professed in 1896 that if they were given the reins of office they would reduce the running expenses of this country. They have nearly doubled them. They told the people that they would reduce the taxes. They have increased them. They talked about free trade as it is in England, commercial union, and annexation. And practically the only plank in their platform that was worth standing upon was provincial rights, and here they are to-day ready to abandon that also. The people of Ontario, last January, declared that they did not believe m double-dealing, that they had had enough of corrupt government in that province, and the old government went down and out. Honesty among public men is regarded as necessary by our people, and they will not condone wrong-doing. This government has had an opportunity to create a unity of feeling between the races in Canada as no government has ever had before. Had the principles avowed by hon. gentlemen leading the government to-day been the same as the principles they avowed in lS9b, they would have given to these new provinces absolute control of education and would thereby have cemented the bonds between the races. Look back at the situation created in 1896, when race and religious feeling ran rampant in this land, when neighbours mistrusted each other, when Roman Catholics regarded Protestants as their natural enemies and Canada was not a united nation. Look at this country to-day, and cannot you see that feeling is more intensified than it was in 1896 ? Have not the members of this parliament presented more petitions to this House, have they not had more letters sent to them urging them to stand by one principle or the other ? Does not the government see that a flame is being fanned to-day that a score of years will not quench ? And, if this government forces separate schools upon the new provinces, they throw into the political soil of Canada 'a seed that cannot be uprooted for all time to come. We can never make Canada a great nation, we can never make Canada a united nation, we can never make our people a united people until we blot out the strife and ill-feeling that is abroad in the land to-day. This feeling is the greatest detriment to our national growth ; it retards immigration, it hampers our agricultural, commercial and industrial growth. Worst of all it creates distrust in the minds

of the citizens of Canada. Then, I say, representatives of Canada, irrespective of race and creed, let us lay aside any differences of opinion we have on this question ; let us think of a nation of a hundred million souls being thrown into the same turmoil and excitement that this country is in to-day, and let us ask ourselves the question ; Are we legislating for the best interest of the future Canada, by forcing upon these provinces these clauses with reference to education ? Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we are legislating for the best interest of the future Canada by forcing these clauses on these new provinces, and that we would be legislating for the best interest of the future Canada were we to eliminate these clauses and support the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition.

Those of us who are opposing this Bill have a duty to perform. We are fighting for a principle ; it behooves us to fight as we have never fought before, to put forth our best energies and abilities to uphold provincial rights and allow no domination of church or creed. We shall be called bigots and fanatics, men not worthy to conduct ihe affairs of a state. But we can say with the poet :

They are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing and abuse,

Rather than in silence "shrink Prom the truths they needs must think.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help thinking that many of the supporters of the present gov-[DOT]ernment are shrinking to-day from the truths they needs must think. It is said that we are fighting against the Roman Catholic church. But I want to say that is not a fight against the Roman Catholic church, or against our fellow Roman Catholic citizens. Our Roman Catholic fellow citizens have as good a right to live in this country as we have, they are welcome to the best our country can produce, and to the enjoyment of their civil and religious liberty in the broadest sense of the term. Hon. members opposite are mistaken when they talk to us as though we were here representing wholly Protestant communities, charging us with being prejudiced against our Catholic fellow citizens. That is not the case. Some of the best friends I have in private and political life are Roman Catholic citizens of Canada. I want to say to you that I have interviewed a number of these men, and I have failed to find a man yet that will justify the present government in forcing upon these new provinces, as they are attempting to do, the educational clauses of this Bill. We need fearless criticism of this measure, we need fearless criticism of all acts, honest and dishonest, no matter from what source they may emanate. But even more do we need criticism that will be truthful. Taking this stand, can any man reasonably call us bigots and fanatics ? We are fighting against a weak government, a government that is to-day trembling before the angry voice of Mr. ARMSTRONG.

the people, a people whose righteous, indignation has aroused our nation as nothing ever did before, and we are justified in condemning the action of this government.

In the first place, we cannot condemn too strongly the hasty manner in which this Bill was presented to the House. The exMinister of the Interior who represented that great west, and was acquainted with its needs was not consulted on the educational clauses of this Bill. The Finance Minister, whose department is responsible for the expenditure of millions of the people's money, was not consulted ; the representatives from the Northwest were not consulted on one of the most important clauses of the Bill ; the Northwest members whose interests are closely connected with those of the people were practically ignored in the framing of this measure of such vital importance to the people of that vast country. Now the question naturally arises: Who is the author of the present Bill ? If the two ministers of the Crown most directly interested were ignored in the framing of this legislation, if the representatives of the Northwest and the delegation from the Northwest government were ignored, and as we are told that the council meetings are secret, people can only surmise who is responsible for the Bill. The Prime Minister has not denied that he consulted with the Papal delegate with reference to the original clauses of this Bill ; the right hon. gentleman has not yet denied that he consulted with that gentleman also with reference to the amended clauses of the Bill that have been presented to this House. Therefore the people cannot be blamed for surmising that this foreign delegate had considerable to do with the framing of the clauses which are before the House to-day.

Since the introduction of this Bill we have had very interesting and strange proceedings. On the 21st of February the right hon. gentleman introduced this Bill with great blowing of trumpets and well rounded periods, proclaiming to this nation that he was standing on the rock of the constitution. But since the leader of the opposition has shattered his arguments to fragments, we scarcely find a man on the government side to-day who will dare stand up and defend the constitution, as we have a right to expect it to be defended by hon. gentlemen supporting the government. Well, in a few days after the introduction of the Bill the Minister of the Interior arrived, and took a bold and brave stand in opposition to it; and the people throughout our land said that the ex-minister was going to stand by provincial rights. They expected of course that the western men would follow him, although they did pound their desks when this Bill was presented to the House in its original form. But the ex-minister has since that time swallowed his principles, and stands to-day as a self condemned man in the eyes of the people of Canada.

I -would like, Mr. Speaker, to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). That hon. gentleman said that the Finance Minister was a good swimmer, but that he had to be thrown into the water. The ex-Minister of the Interior, I understand, is also fond of the water. When he resigned his seat he was pulling with both oars to the rescue of provincial rights. He started up stream with his faithful band of Northwest members, the people on the shore applauding; put soon the clouds began to lower, the ex-minister and his companions began to weary in well doing, very soon they began to pull with one oar taking back water with the other, and the only excuse the ex-minister, the captain of this brave enterprise, had to give us was that there must be peace, and the adventure, if carried out, might cause mutiny amongst the crew. Peace 1 Mr. Speaker, Peace ! That hon. gentleman, by his actions, has done more to create disturbance in this country than any other man has ever done on the floor of this House. Had that hon. gentleman been true to his principles, had he advocated those principles, and had the Northwest members stood true to him, he, along with the Finance Minister, and the men from the east, could have held up this government and forced them to eliminate those educational clauses from the Bill. Sectarian peace 1 Is it true that we cannot have sectarian peace unless separate schools are forced on every province in this Dominion? There was peace in Mani-itoba before this Bill was brought down, peace in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. Sectarian peace ! Where do you find it so complete as in the United States, where the children of all creeds study side by side in peace and harmony ? We are asked to vote for these clauses in the name of peace and harmony, without which we are promised endless trouble. If the government will blot out these educational clauses they will take an advanced step towards sectarian peace in the Dominion of Canada.

When the Prime Minister compared Canadian observance of law and order with American laxity, he implied that the latter was due to the national school system of the United States. The right hon. gentleman must be aware that the public schools of the maritime provinces, Ontario and British Columbia are schools where children do not receive religious instruction, therefore his argument in that particular falls to the ground. It has been my privilege to investigate some of the public schools in the State of Pennsylvania, and I am glad to say they are far from being godless schools. The teachers are of the highest moral standing. their salaries are far in advance of what is paid in this country, the laws of Pennsylvania forbidding a teacher to be paid less than $550 per annum. The qualifications required are most exacting, and the standard

set for a public school teacher is the highest, the most advanced, of any country in the wprl4. I have often felt that Canadians might learn a great deal from the manner in which patriotic principles are instilled into the hearts and minds of the children of the United States. To my mind the children in the schools of this country are neglected in this respect, sufficient pains is not taken to instill a patriotic spirit into their hearts and minds.

We have had statesmen and warriors that might well be held up as men worthy of being copied, and if that is not sufficient we can go to the mother country where hundreds of men are worthy of being emulated in the schools of . this fair land. The patriotic songg that we have in Canada are not sufficiently sung in the schools of this country, and I believe that the time is coming when the people of Canada will realize that we must give more attention to the cultivation of these patriotic sentiments in this Dominion. When in the early and impressionable years of childhood Protestant and Catholics, Jews and Galicians, Doukhobors and foreigners of all kinds go to the same school, are taught the same language, learn the same lessons, play the same games and are forced into the rough and ready democracy of boyhood and girlhood to take each at his or her true worth, it is not easy later to-make the disciples of one creed persecute those of another. The common school is the place where true patriotism is engendered and common lessons of free citizenship in a free country are germinated and matured. The premier inferred that the United 'States schools are the causes of divorces, murders and lynchings. We might ask him why divorces, murders and lynchings are not prevalent in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and British Columbia; five out of the seven provinces have to a great extent the same national school system as they have in the United States. We are nation builders; let us look ahead. The questions before us are of an extremely important character and will stand the fullest discussion. The government are enacting legislation containing a vital principle and the press and people have spoken in no uncertain tones against the separate school clauses being embodied in this Bill. If special privileges are granted to denominational minorities in the new provinces by the British North America Act, why is it necessary for parliament to enact legislation to endow them with that privilege? Why does this government try to lead the people to believe that the Territories to be created are already provinces before they are taken into the union when, as a matter of fact, they are not, and why does the government say that the expression 'the union' in the British North America Act must mean when the Bills come into force? Reformers have said in years gone by that there is no coercion under Laurier. Now the mask is

thrown off, the true colour is shown, the will of the majority of the people is thwarted and a measure is forced through this House contrary to the will of the people, contrary to the spirit of progress and contrary to the constitution of Canada. In Manitoba all elements of the population are content with the common school where common citizenship and true patriotism is_ developed. Many creeds and races join in a common language and they are free from sectional strife. In 1875 when the Act establishing the Territorial government was before the Senate, Hon. George Brown protested against the separate school system being extended to the Territories. He contended that this principle was quite contrary to the British North America Act. Nothing was more clear, he said, than that each province should have absolute control over education. He thought that was the only principle on which the Union Act could continue and yet the advocates of separate schools would have the British North America Act read something like this:

In every province now admitted or hereafter to be admitted into the union there shall be a system of separate schools.

If I understand the Act aright it was framed for the purpose of recognizing and protecting certain existing rights at the time it was made, the words 'at the union' meant 1867, and not 1905. In 1875 the Canadian parliament undertook to equip the Territories with separate schools. It is now said by the government that there are separate schools in the Territories and that, therefore, these Territories are in the same position now as were the provinces that came into the union in 1867. The government contend that people were induced to locate in the west owing to the knowledge that separate schools existed there when the facts are that not one of the pamphlets advertising the advantages of the Northwest contains a single reference to separate schools. Examine the 'Geography of Canada,' 'Cartoons of Canada,' and 'Farms and Farmers in Western Canada' and you will find no reference of the kind ; in fact, the last mentioned pamphlets state distinctly that the schools are non-sectarian and national in character. If some inhabitants went into the west because separate schools existed there, not having learned from the literature that the schools did exist there, then also many people went into that country having read in the literature that this government sent out that the schools were non-sectarian and national in character. Thousands of people went into the country from the United States, from the country of national schools, and the immigration agents who have gone into the United States to advocate the interests of the Northwest Territories have not stated and the literature tkev have disseminated throughout the United States does not contain a word which will tell these people that separate schools Mr. ARMSTRONG.

exist in the Northwest, but that literature does tell the people of that country and foreign countries that the schools are nonsectarian and national in character. Then are we not justified in condemning this gov-erment for advocating and bringing people into that country and telling them the schools are non-sectarian and national in character, and yet to-day they are practically ready to force upon these people sectarian schools and separate schools. I feel that we cannot too strongly emphasize that part of the question. If clause 93 of the British North America Act gives separate schools to the Northwest then what was the need in 1875 of passing the legislation of that date or what is the need of the clauses inserted in this Bill? Why not leave it to the constitution to decide? The British North America Act either does or does not impose separate schools on the hew provinces as they are created. If there is any great doubt about the meaning of this clause is it not for the courts to determine whether we have a right to force separate schools on these provinces? The very conference which adopted clause 93 provided for the future admission of the Northwest Territories and Kupert's Land, but there was not the slightest suggestion that when these should be admitted they would be subjected to the educational clauses which Ontario and Quebec had accepted by mutual agreement. It was not even suggested that the separate school system should be imposed on Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and by that fact have not the arguments presented by the government fallen to the ground? Many members of this House, I believe, have a wiyng conception of the French Canadians of Canada when they insinuate that not one of them can be found to support provincial rights and the constitution in this matter. Surely such arguments are not flattering to the intelligence of the Roman Catholics of Quebec. I think they are wrong. During the past two years I have had the pleasure and the privilege of meeting and becoming acquainted with a number of our French Canadian fellow-citizens, and I have learned to admire and respect them. I recognize their ability in debate and their broadminded grasp of public affairs and I believe that our thinking French Canadian Catholic fellow-citizens will realize the whole significance of the old adage that it is a poor rule that will not work both ways, and they will readily see that if the British North America Act can be amended in this particular instance to suit the views of this government it may also again be amended and construed' in the future so as to take away the rights which they now enjoy.

'All that we are asking of this government is to maintain the constitution in its entirety ; not to bend it or break it but to stand by it. We contend that this parliament has no right to read into the British North America Act anything that Act does not contain. The Minister of Finance, the

477S

Minister of Customs, the ex-Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Agriculture and a number of the other gentlemen opposite have ignored the constitution to say that they must compromise on behalf of peace-and party. Surely, Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen see to-day the falsity of the stand they have taken ; surely they see that instead of them compromising on behalf of peace they have created a disturbance in this country that will not be settled for years to come. A weak government may use weak arguments, but no arguments were ever weaker than the arguments used by this government. Man after man on the government side has tried to picture this country as in the hands of the opposition. Sir, if the people of Canada had an opportunity to-day, the affairs of this Dominion would be controlled and directed by the great Conservative party for the Conservative party is today voicing the sentiments of the people of Canada. If this government continues to juggle with the constitution then the people of Canada will soon demand that they be given a constitution that the ordinary man can understand. It was certainly not an edifying sight to see the way practically every supporter of the present government applauded the Prime Minister when he was taking away provincial rights from these new provinces. Nothing can atone in the life of a nation for a lack of courage, honesty and common sense in the men who are conducting the affairs of state. In matters of colonial legislation Great Britain always consulted her colonies, and their advice was always accepted. But, here the Dominion government legislate contrary to the demands of the provinces. Bear in mind that there never was a British constitution framed without the consent of those who had to live under it. Great Britain had our consent to the British North America Act before that Act was passed in the imperial parliament. In giving a federal constitution to Australia, the imperial parliament had the consent of the Commonwealth to every clause, and when there was a difference of opinion that difference was settled by agreement-not by coercion. The people who assume Dominion or provincial responsibility should have a voice in governing their admission to that status. The representatives of the Territories ask to have control of their public lands; they asked that if these lands were to be cut in two the line dividing the provinces should be placed sixty miles east of the line now proposed in the Bill. They asked to have perfect freedom in managing their educational policy. All these requests were ignored by the Dominion government; the only excuse given for not granting the demands with reference to the lands being that it would interfere with the Dominion immigration policy, and the only excuse for limiting the control of education by the province being, that it would interfere with the party. Great Britain renounced the control of Crown lands in Canada upon the establishment of this Dominion, and what Great Britain has done for the Dominion the Dominion might well do for her provinces. All provinces feel the disadvantage of being small. Eastern Canada was once composed of four provinces or colonies as they were then called. Cape Breton was merged into Nova Scotia, and there was also about the time of confederation a movement on foot to amalgamate the maritime provinces so as to cheapen legislation ; in fact I understand there is some discussion with that object in view going on at the present time. British Columbia was once two provinces, the Island of Vancouver being separated from the mainland, but the two are now united as one province. In the west we will have three provinces where two would have been sufficient, and were it not for the school question there is no good reason why we should not have but two provinces. The government lands in the United States are largely controlled by an independent body of men responsible to the president, whereas in Canada at the present time, the Crown lands are controlled and handled to the advantage of politicians. The right lion, the Prime Minister argued that the west was bought with a price, but now he finds that the west was not bought by Canada, that Canada never recognized the Hudson Bay deal, that there are no papers to show any transactions between Canada and any person for these lands, and that Canada would never recognize such a transaction. This government evidently does not think that the provinces can be trusted with their lands, but Mr. Speaker, the time is coming and not far distant, when these provinces will demand the rights to their lands as is conceded in section 109 of the British North America Act, and they will get them. The present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) made an unfair reference to the province of Ontario when he compared the amount of money that province received from government Crown lands, with the compensation which the new provinces will get for their lands from the federal government. Mr. Oliver said :

I find that the province of Ontario with a population of two and a quarter millions in the year 1902 derived from these lands $1,499, 000. We find by the arrangement that has been made with these Northwest provinces that when their population reaches that of the province of Ontario they will derive two and a quarter millions in respect of their lands.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) took just the figures for the Crown lands alone in 1902, but if he had come down to the present year he would find that the province of Ontario received from its Crown lands a revenue of $2,767,735.71. To that he should have added that the Ontario government received from the Dominion government in subsidy grant and interest $1,504,038.44

making a total of $4,271,774.15. This does not include the revenue from fisheries, licenses, companies, succession duties, public institutions, and the revenue from many other sources ; so that the hon. gentleman (Hr. Oliver) was unfair to Ontario in making these comparisons. He told us that when -each of these new provinces has a population of 2,000,000 they will receive a revenue from the Dominion of $2,200,000. But they will not have their own Crown lands, their timber or their minerals, and they will have to resort to direct taxation. Hence it is that I claim that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) tried to create a wrong impression in the west when he made these statements.

In the west we will have three provincial governments, three ministries, three legislatures, three sets of departments, three judicial systems and three provincial subsidies, where two under each department would be plenty. We have too much government in Canada as it is now, and the idea of multiplying unnecessary governments should not be encouraged. However, Mr. Speaker, the Bill was presented for its second reading, and, in the interim the press, the pulpit, and the platforms of this country had been educating public opinion on the question, and the draughtsman of the Bill saw it was best to change the wording of this clause pertaining to education. This change in the education clause has had the desired effect of apparently bringing the party together again, but there has not been a man of them who has succeeded in explaining the difference between the amended and the original clauses.

The Minister of Agriculture and a number of others have been asked to explain to this House the difference between these clauses, but they have not been able even to attempt an explanation of them. Carlyle says : ' Men never for any length of time

deliberately rebel against anything that does not deserve rebelling against.' So with the people of Canada. If they did not feel that this Bill was an imposition upon their rights, they would not be rebelling against it as they are doing to-day. They do feel that the government are forcing legislation on those provinces that should not be forced upon them, and that they are perfectly justified in rebelling against that legislation. Some government members have said that the people of Ontario are intolerant on this question. 1 want to say to these hon. gentlemen that they do not know the people of Ontario when they speak of them as an intolerant people. The people of Ontario are a most tolerant people, a people who have readily and willingly and gladly given to the minority in years gone by practically everything they possess. The ministers from Ontario, Mr. Speaker, are not representing the people of that province on this question. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) came into my riding during the Mr. ARMSTRONG.

last election and undertook to tell the people of that part of the country how to vote, if that hon. gentleman would come into that riding to-day, he would find a very different reception from what he did when he last went there. The Acting Minister of Public-Works (Mr. Hyman) also came into my riding. If he were to consult his best interests he will stay at home and attend to that little seventeen which lie had better foster and care for or it will be blotted out of existence. What about the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) ? It has been my privilege to live twenty-three years of my life in the county of York, I know the feeling of the people there, and I know that the Postmaster General is not representing the people of his own riding or the people of the province of Ontario in taking the position he does to-day. Had these hon. gentlemen stood true to the principles they avowed in 1896, they would have compelled the right hon. the premier to eliminate the educational clauses from these Bills, snd thereby cement the bond between the races ; but, instead of that, they are abandoning provincial rights, and they are ready to brand those new provinces with educational clauses that will be a detriment to them for all time to come.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, which deserves our most earnest consideration. I will read it:

All the words after the word ' that ' to the end of the question be left out and the following substituted therefor :-

Upon the establishment of a province in the Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed by Bill (No. 69), the legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy full powers of provincial self-government including power to exclusively make laws in relation to education.

I believe that this amendment is a just and a fair proposition to offset the proposed legislation of the government, and I am sorry indeed to have heard the hon. member for Colchester {Mr. Laurence) make the remark that the leader of the opposition did not display much courage in presenting that amendment. That hon. gentleman was not fair in that criticism, because no man has presented a more able and statesmanlike argument to this House than has the worthy leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition. Our leader's position on this question is like his position on all others, clear and statesmanlike. He stands by the constitution and by provincial rights, and his arguments have not been successfully refuted. He referred to many of the constitutional authorities, men like Blake, Clements, Sir Louis Davies, Christopher Robinson and the Hon. David Mills-all backing up his decis-

ion. And, Hr. Speaker, 1 am glad to be able to say that it is generally recognized, not only in this House, but throughout Canada, that there is no better constitutional authority in this country to-day than the worthy leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition in this House. Never a harsh or unpleasant rvord has passed his lips with reference to his Roman Catholic fellow-citizens or in reference to their schools. He stands on the rock of the constitution, and has surrounded it with such complete and masterly arguments that the volleys fired by this government only tend to make the rock on which he has builded shine out more clearly.

Then let us give these provinces home rule in the matter of education and lands. The inhabitants of these provinces are responsible men and women.-you can trust them. The Finance Minister said he could trust the people of Nova Scotia with reference to separate schools. Why can not he trust the people of these Northwest provinces ? This parliament has no mandate from the people to legislate for any denomination. The state should stand above and beyond that. We may all live to see the bulk of the population in Canada west of Winnipeg. Then, don't let us hamper the people of that growing country, or throttle their growth and development. The Northwest Territories have been up to this time in the position of wards of the nation ; hence the British North America Act separate school clause does not apply to them. They have had to abide by the regulations laid down for them by the Dominion government, having no relation to the British North America Act. When the Northwest Territories Act was passed, the people of that country had no say in the matter ; they had to obey the regulations made for them by this government. But when they arrived at the dignity of provinces, then they came from under the laws that applied to them as territories. When they are made provinces they should be given a free hand to make laws under the constitution, but this government are not allowing them this right.

It has also been argued by the member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) that because the Territories carried out a law, in the making of which they had no voice re the law of 1875, this fact should be an argument to allow the federal government to pass an unconstitutional law, which aims at coercing the provinces into doing as their own Act, as independent provinces, what they were forced to do by the Act dictated to them by the Dominion government. Many of these facts have been before the House a number of times and may sound trite, but in spite of their triteness they need to be reiterated over and over again, so that this government may realize that they are not legislating for the best interests of the people of Canada when they are forcing I upon the new provinces the educational |

clauses of this Bill. One year after confederation the west was ours. Nineteen years later the great railway that opened up the country and is to a great extent responsible for its development, was built. The prosperity of this country to-day is largely due to the opening up of that country by the Conservative party in building the Canadian Pacific Railway. Another nineteen years and what were formerly wastes occupied by Indians and buffalo are ripe for the provincial status. We are proud of the men who laboured for Canada's march to the west. Those who bore the burden and faced the struggle of bygone years, are repaid by the present enterprise and national greatness that is springing up in that country. Don't let us hamper its growth, don't let us hinder its progress ; rather let us strengthen the tie that binds the east and the west, and Canada will go forward with leaps and bounds, to become the mighty nation she is intended tc become.

There are many of the government members who know in their hearts that they are doing wrong by supporting this Bill and forcing it upon the new provinces. They know they are voting against the wishes of a majority of their constituents, and they have not the manly courage to vote to defeat this Bill, when they know it is their duty to so vote. They look ahead praying that something may turn up before four years rolls by, that may relieve them from facing an angry and determined people. The party whip is held over them so they crouch behind the shattered rock. Is it strange that we should question the change of front of some of these men ? We are led to believe that they are looking to the rewards of the faithful. If the members from the west are supporting this measure, let us see what is dangling before them. Two lieutenaut governorships-a complete judical outfit, four new senators, and a mass of minor offices which are to be filled by the first cabinet which the first governor will select. There are plums innumerable in this proposition, and not many to enjoy them from this House, so there is a balm for wounded feeling in this matter for those who vote with the government. Hon. gentlemen opposite will no doubt come in and vote like machines, they remind me of those gentlemen who go out as tourists with Mr. Cook, they enjoy great security, because they are personally conducted.

Let me again say to the men who are fighting this Bill, our duty is plain. The government have lost every fort of vantage. They are shivering for fear of what the next day will bring them. They are striving to throttle the west, which to-day is helpless. Let us make the walls of this old Chamber ring as they have never rung before, and let the echoes ring throughout Canada until an indignant people demand

47S4

justice at tlie hands of this parliament. Blackstone's theory is that the king represents power, the senators represent wisdom, and the eommouors represent good intentions. I can only say that the stand I take on this question before this House is taken because X believe I am in the right. We approach this subject with a certain amount of reluctance, but we would be weak men, men not worthy of being called Canadians w eie we to shirk our duties in big things or in little things, but especially a responsibility so great as the present one. Let us have a due regard for the honour and interest ot our mighty nation, and debate this subject in a broad and patriotic spirit. Let us not deceive ourselves as to the importance ot our task. I therefore urge on the government to be strong, to do what is right by the new provinces in education ; and if they do, they will support this amendment.

No matter how we vote on this question, we will be criticised and condemned or approved of : but if we are doing what we believe to be right we need not fear criticism. Canada possesses a large and ever increasing number of citizens who recognize that it is the duty of members of parliament not only to be faithful to their duties in this House, advocating what we believe to be right, fearlessly and conscientiously, but to have principles, and be not afraid to maintain them. Let us guard not only the resources of Canada, but let us guard her schools, and her education. Compromise in this measure is out of the question. Narrow politicians and papers may be satis-tied by it, but the people will not; it will not satisfy and settle the question. There is only one thing to do and that is to eliminate the clause as proposed by the leader of the opposition. Let Saskatchewan and Aiberta make their own laws with regard to education and work out their own destiny. The government would gladly seek refuge behind any weak subterfuge that may present itself. When ten years ago this same party were fighting for provincial rights, the people who are condemning them to-day were upholding them. In this land every important piece of legislation such as this turns on the will of the House of Commons, we are responsible to the people, and the people rule. If this body misconduct itself, we can refer the matter to the people and their decision will be final. Napoleon said that people grow old quickly on fields of battle. But my impression is that governments grow old more quickly in battle fields of parliaments. The present government is dying at the top, many of the strong men of this government have left it within the past few years, and weaker men have taken their places.

If we the men in opposition to the educational clauses are defeated in the amendment now before this House, all we can do is to say to the people of Canada : Forgive us ; we have done everything humanly pos-Mr. ARMSTRONG.

sible to convince the government of this-country of their responsibility to the people : fliey have ignored our protest, laughed at our fewness in number, taunted our weakness. The people returned this government to power with a mightly majority last November. They brought down this Bill, brow beat and lashed their followers into line, and to-day are practically ready to defy the majority of the people of Canada. We have appealed to their wisdom, we have apealed to their patriotism and their manly independence. These appeals have been flung to the winds, and to-day they stand ready to brand the great west for all generations, with what at best must be a running sore that will eat into its very vitals.

Mr. Speaker, I do not despair of my country. we are not at the mercy of any waves of chance. We may think our civilization is near its meridian, but we are yet only at the cock crowing and the morning star. Let us then guard well our country's laws, guard well our rights and privileges, and let us all join in singing Canada our home, Canada the land we love the best. Let us look ahead not ten years, or twenty years, but fifty years, and see not five hundred thousand souls, or five million souls, but ten million souls, who will inhabit these boundless prairies for which the speech of England has no name.

I appeal to hon. members to vote for the amendment and carry it. Then will die sectarian strife in Canada, and we will go on forging out the great destiny for which we have been created. In the name of peace and harmony I beg of this government not to force this measure through the House in its present form, but to amend it as proposed by the leader of the opposition.

Again I appeal to every member of this House, on broad patriotic grounds of citizenship, to assist us in carrying this amendment. The greater half of this continent is ours, ours to build up, ours to maintain, ours to cement together with a bond of the races, ours to destroy. Let us not at the dawning of a greater Canada, hamper its growth, retard its progress, and 'blight its _ future. Let us build up its educational institutions, its industries, and its commerce, develop its mines, its woodlands, and its agriculture, and thus place her in the foremost race of the nations of the world.

Mr. D. W. BOLE (Winnipeg).

I desire, Mr. Sepaker. to engage the attention of the House a short time, and will preface my remarks by saying that I am very happy indeed to follow the hon. gentleman from' East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), the riding of my birth, which I left 25 years ago in order to make my home in that great country of which we have heard so much the last few weeks. My hon. friend addressed himself most severely to some remarks by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Laurence) regarding the position oc-

cupied by the bon. the leader of the opposition ; but it seems to me that if the bon. gentleman has so high an opinion of parliamentary ethics, as be would lead us to believe be lias, be would not have accused the western members of parting with their votes and influence in return for certain senatorships and lieutenant governorships and minor offices in connection with the organization of these western Territories into provinces.

My only excuse for taking the floor is to express a view with reference to the educational clauses of this Bill, which I do not think has been sufficiently emphasized on the floor of this House. 'My hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Laurence) who spoke to-day, came the nearest to it. He did very nearly express my views with respect to this question.

But, before I engage the attention of the House with respect to the educational clauses, I should like to say a word or two with respect to the boundaries of these new provinces. When a proper time comes, when we take up the consideration of the various clauses in committee, I shall, perhaps, express my opinion on some of the other clauses of the Bill. But, with respect to the boundaries, I should like to state that my view is that the ideal division of tile western prairies is two provinces including the province of Manitoba. I think that while that is the ideal division of this western country, the opportunity to realize it was lost a good many years ago. I will also state that if it was possible to make a division now-which it is not, because there are vested rights there, and hon. gentlemen opposite who insist that these people who are living itn eastern Assiniboia should not have a choice of a province in which to live should not dictate to the people of the Northwest what kind of school system they will have-I say, if it were possible to have two provinces in the western country including the province of Manitoba, it would be desirable to move the boundaries down below to the 60th parallel.

I think the time is coming with that vast territory beyond the 56th or 57th parallel when it will be fitted for a new province. I do not agree with the opinion of certain gentlemen that the territory up there is useless territory. I regret that some of my hon. friends on this side of the House have expressed that view. This is not a true view according to my conviction. I am one of those who believe that the zone of production is moving very rapidly northward. In 1818, the United States government appointed a commission to inquire into the agricultural resources of Illinois. You would hardly believe it. Mr. Speaker, but that commission reported unfavourably on the agricultural resources of that great state. It is not more than twenty-five or thirty years since it was impossible to grow an ear of corn in the state of Min152

nesota. To-day, corn is one of the staples of that great state, as it is of the two Dakotas. At the present time, we in Manitoba are commencing to grow corn. And I believe the time will come when three or four hundred miles beyond the town of Edmonton they will be producing wheat profitably. I had the pleasure, a year ago, of listening to a very interesting address, in St. Paul, Minnesota, by a very eminent agricultural specialist of the United States. He stated that he had made a thorough examination of our great western country and was convinced that we have in that country both climate and soil conditions favourable to the profitable production of fall wheat two hundred miles north of the town of Edmonton. Therefore I think that if it had been possible to create two provinces in that western country and to have brought the boundary below the 60th parallel, it would have been the ideal division of that territory. But as I have already stated, the opportunity for that is past,-it is now impossible to realize that ideal. The people there do not want to go into the province of Manitoba. I regret that, because I think that Manitoba is not after all, a very bad province to live in.

Now, with respect to the boundaries of the province of Manitoba, I would like to state that that province has been very unfortunate indeed. In 1811, the old district of Assim-boia, which is now part of the province of Manitoba, contained within its borders a large tract of country below the 49th parallel of latitude. The International Commission appointed for the purpose of fixing the international boundary deprived us of certain territory down there. Many years afterwards, and some twenty years ago, the courts decided that we were not entitled to certain districts of territory east of our present boundaries, and the province of Ontario took from us through the courts about 75,000 square miles of territory. We were unfortunate also in having a government ruling the destinies of this country about twenty years ago who did not rise to the situation and extend the boundaries of the province of Manitoba westward. If that had been done, if the boundary could have been at about the location of the present city of Regina, and a new province made beyond that, we would have the ideal condition as to boundaries, I think. Now, while it is impossible, according to my view, to have the boundaries extended westward, there is a possibility, there is a certainty-

I feel quite sure in making the statement- that we shall have our boundaries extended northward. We have the right to this, if not the legal, certainly the moral right. In 1811, when the Hudson Bay Company ceded a certain district to Lord Selkirk-something like 94,000,000 acres of land-the settlers whom Lord Selkirk brought in at that time were guaranteed the perpetual right to use the waters of the Nelson river and the

478'

TPort of Nelson for ingress and egress to and -from the markets of the world. That right.

I believe, has never been abrogated. That -territory was ceded back from the heirs of Lord Selkirk in 1836 or 1837 but there are no records that I am able to find of any abrogation of the rights of the people of the province of Manitoba to use the waters of the Nelson river and the Port of Nelson. I do not state that this is a legal right. Other citizens of the Dominion of Canada have a right to use these waters, but it gives us at least some moral claim to extension of territory to the north. And 1 am quite sure that, when the proper time comes, the government will seriously and favourably entertain the proposition of the province of Manitoba that we should have our boundaries extended northward.

Mr. Speaker, I have had a good many aetters-well, I will not say a good many, but I have had a few letters-from my constituency, the city of Winnipeg, with respect to the most important feature of the Bill now before the House. 1 have been told to listen to the voice of the people of '96. I have had two letters to that effect. I think I have had a resolution of the Right Rev. Grand Lodge of Western Ontario in somewhat similar form. Now, what is the voice of the people of '90 ? The issue before the people of Canada in 1896 was the Remedial Bill. We are all acquainted with the facts. I have made a summary of a few clauses of the Remedial Bill, which, perhaps, you will allow me to read-the whole is too long to be read here.

Section 1. The Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of Manitoba shall appoint, to form and constitute a separate school hoard of education for the province, a certain number of persons not exceeding nine, all of whom shall be Roman Catholics.

2. If Lieutenant Governor fails to appoint, the Governor General shall do so.

3. Regulations for separate schools.

4. Board of education shall manage separate schools and authorize school books. Must approve plans for school houses and size of school grounds.

7. The Lieutenant Governor shall appoint superintendent of separate schools.

10. Municipalities cannot form new school districts without sanction of separate hoard of education.

16. Provides for election of separate school boards of trustees.

23. Provides for annual school assessment.

How money shall be disposed of.

If municipal council refuses to levy separate board of education may do so.

24. Subsection 8 provides that If municipal officers refuse to sell land for arrears of separate schools, then separate school board may do so.

28. Provides that no property of Roman Catholics shall be liable for taxes of national or tpublic schools if already taxed for separate schools.

29. Provides for equitable distribution of school funds by the legislature between public rand separate schools.

Mr. BOLE.

Clause SI provides for the compulsory education of the children of Catholic parents. Clause 90 provides that if the Lieutenant Governor in Council refuse to sanction a loan the Governor General may do so. Clause 110 provides for the establishment of a normal school in the town of St. Boniface. This Remedial Bill does not even give the legislature of Manitoba the option of locating a normal school. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was the issue.

Mr. HAGGART.

Is tbe lion, gentleman aware that that is simply a copy of the Act that was in force in Manitoba?

Mr. BOLE.

I have no doubt that it followed to a certain extent the Remedial Bill, extracts of which I have read. That was the issue before the people in 1896, and it Was upon that issue that the people were called upon to vote. I have stated that I have been asked by some of my constituents to remember the voice of the people in 1896. Now, what was the voice of my own province? The province of Manitoba, by a vote of 15,459 to 14,592, proclaimed that it was desirous that this party of provincial rights should impose upon the people of that country tbe Separate School Bill. By a majority of 967 the people of my province said that the government of that day should impose upon them this Bill which they bad rejected themselves. Should I listen to the voice of my own city of Winnipeg? Winnipeg, by a majority of 126 decided in favour of this Remedial Bill which provided for separate schools to the .province of Manitoba. Should I listen to tbe voice of Ontario ? I am not quite sure what the voice of Ontario^ was, because there were divers candidates in the field, but I will accept tbe statement made by the 'Mail and Empire' newspaper of Toronto. Their calculation is as follows: Conservatives majorities. 11,906; Liberal majorities, 11,843. In other words, tbe Protestant province of Ontario asked that separate schools should be imposed upon Manitoba by a majority of 63. But there were in that election Conservative independent candidates whose majorities amounted to 6,303. and McCarthyite independents whose majorities amounted to 1,554. So the Conservatives and Conservative independent majorities amounted to 18,209, while the Liberal and McCarthyite majorities amounted to 13,397. I am not quite sure that I am interpreting these figures correctly, I am simply giving the statement of the 'Mail and Empire,' and we know that it is not always right. But I understand that the Conservative independents when they came down to Ottawa to the parliament of 1896 immediately took their places in the Conservative caucus. So we find that the Conservative and Conservative independents had a clear majority of 4.812 over the Liberals and McCarthyites. That. Mr. Speaker, was tbe voice of the province of Ontario.

An lion. MEMBER. Would the hon. gentleman give us the figures of Quebec in that same general election.

Mr. BORE.

The province of Quebec, that priest-ridden province, that intolerant province, declared by a majority of 3 or 4 to 1 that this Remedial Bill providing for separate schools along denominational lines should not be imposed upon the province, one of whose constituencies I have the honour to represent in this House. Then, Mr. Speaker, should I listen to the voice of Ontario? I heard my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) quote the other night, and he quoted with apparent joy, the remarks made by my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) when he was campaigning in the county of Haldimand in 1896, stating that the coat was the coat of a Conservative government, but the voice was the voice of the church. Now, Mr. Speaker, which shall I turn to, shall I touch the garment or shall I listen to the voice of the church? I will do neither,

I will accept the conditions just as I find them. I will look at all the surrounding circumstances of the case and will form my own conclusion.

Mr. BERGERON.

Will the hon. gentleman tell us how the province of Manitoba voted in 1896?

Mr. BOLE.

I have already given the figures, but for the benefit of the hon. gentleman I will say again that by a vote of 15,459 against 14,592 the province of Manitoba voted in favour of the imposition upon itself of the separate schools provided for in the Remedial Bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to state to this House very briefly my own opinion with respect to the school question. My judgment is that in view of the conflicting opinions expressed by eminent constitutional lawyers, both inside and outside this House, with respect to the application of section 93 and other sections of the British North America Act, it is the duty of parliament to Interpet the clauses of that Act and give to the new provinces a constitutional certainty without which it is impossible to expect proper educational and social development.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the several propositions before the House ? We have the proposition of the right hon. the leader of the government which provides that the school system now in force in the Northwest Territories shall be made permanent. We have also the proposal of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) which provides that the people of the Territories shall have a free hand subject to and in accordance with the British North America Act, 1867. We have had also a proposal from the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Leighton McCarthy) which has not j et been crystallized into a definite principle for our consideration, but which however has been anticipated by him, that 152}

these new provinces should have unreservedly the right to legislate with respect to matters of education. I propose to very briefly give my opinion with respect to these different proposals and after that to give my reasons for supporting one and rejecting the others.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. BOLE.

Mr. Speaker, when you left the chair at six o'clock I was proceeding to give expression to the views which influence my opinion on the important subject which is engaging the attention of the House. My own position briefly stated is : that in view of the conflicting opinions expressed by eminent lawyers both inside and outside of the House with respect to the application of clause 93 and other clauses of the British North America Act, it is the duty of this parliament to interpret these clauses into the Bill, in line with the spirit of the constitution, and give to the new provinces a constitutional certainty without which it is impossible to expect satisfactory social and educational progress. What are the propositions now before the House ? We have in the first place the amended clause introduced by the right hon. the Prime Minister, confirming to the new provinces that system of education which is at present enjoyed by the people of the Territories. We have in the second place, the amendment of the leader of the opposition which provides that the people of the new provinces shall have a free hand subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act. We have later on, the proposition in embryo of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Leighton McCarthy) which in effect is that the new provinces shall have unreservedly the right to legislate with respect to matters of education. I shall very briefly state my position with respect to these three propositions, and I shall give my reasons for approving of one and rejecting the others. In the first place, I claim that the amended clause as proposed by the leader of the government contains an element of certainty, is in line with the spirit of the constitution, and is acceptable to the great majority of the people of the Territories. On the other hand, the proposal of the leader of the opposition is not certain ; it invites litigation and it promises to have imposed upon the people of the new provinces by the courts a constitution with respect to educational matters which might tie the hands of the new provinces, thereby defeating the aim and purpose of that amendment. The third proposal made by the member for North Si.mcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) is not yet crystallized in the shape of a resolution, but so far as I can understand it is objec-

tionable in that it makes an invidious distinction, not contemplated by and contrary to the spirit of the constitution.

Now, is the present system of schools in the Northwest Territories acceptable to the people ? I think it is. I feel that I am quite safe in stating that the present educational system in the Territories if continued would be acceptable to at least 90 per cent of the people there. I have some knowledge of the conditions as they exist. I lived many years in the Northwest Territories and just before I came to take my seat in the House, I made a trip through that country, so that I think I am able to speak with some little authority on the subject. Premier Haultain has told us that if he were dictator to-morrow he would continue in the new provinces the present system of schools, and that being so, is it not fair to assume that the present system is satisfactory to the people, else why should he or any other dictator impose upon the people a system to which they object. We have in addition the fact that two years ago the government of the Northwest Territories of their own accord sat down and framed an autonomy Hill, and that Bill contained the principle that the present system of schools should continue. Remember, that is two years ago, when it was impossible to anticipate the difference of opinion that now has arisen on the subject. It was at a time when the government of the Territories sat down with a cool head and I hope a patriotic heart to draft a constitution for their own people, and which I have no doubt they believed would be conducive to their ' continued happiness and prosperity. This is very fan-evidence that the system of schools at present in the Northwest Territories is not onlv satisfactory to the people, but that it is just exactly what they want. Again, the seven Liberal members in this House representing the Northwest Territories have expressed themselves as satisfied that the present school system should be continued in the new provinces, and I have not heard from the three Conservative members from the Northwest Territories the expression of any unfavourable opinion against that system. Of course, it may be said that members occupying a seat in this House have their political prejudices and that their opinion and their vote may be biased accordingly, but it is also true that the people who sent these representatives here have their own political prejudices and are biased when they cast their votes. Is it a fact that the seven Liberal members from the Territories do reflect the opinion of the people there ? I think they do I am somewhat acquainted with the condition of affairs as they exist in the Territories, and I am quite sure that 90 per cent of the inhabitants of that country, irrespective of party, are perfectly satisfied that the present "conditions should continue. The hon. * member for West Assiniboia quoted rather copi-

Mr. BOLE.

479$

both inside and outside this House, expressing diametrically opposite views. But it is just this conflict of opinion amongst the lawyers which makes the situation so uncertain and which might cause the adoption of the amendment of the leader of the opposition to be the very worst blow that could be struck at the national school idea in the new provinces. If I understand Mr. Haultain and those who hold his views, the word ' union ' in clause 93 and the other clauses of the British North America Act of 1867 applies to the Territories when taken over by the Canadian government in 1870. If that opinion be good law, then the national school idea or any other idea which the legislatures of the new provinces might feel it their duty to enact would have full sway, because in 1870 there were no separate schools in the Territories to claim the protection of the British North America Act. But on the other hand, if the opinion expressed by other eminent lawyers, including my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), be good law and the word ' union ' applies to the provinces the day they are constituted as such, and if nevertheless the legislatures of the new provinces should refuse to establish separate schools, it is fair to assume that the courts, when appealed to by the minority, would compel them to do so. More than that the courts would be asked to decide the kind of separate schools-the minority are entitled to-whether the kind provided by the ordinance of the Northwest Territories in 1892; or the kind anticipated by the Northwest Territories Act of 1875, which were in vogue between 1884 and 1892. If the courts should decide in favour of the latter, the people of the Territories would for ever be tied to a system of separate schools of the extreme type, purely denominational, with every vestige of the national idea lost for ever. Are advocates of the national schools prepared to take that risk, for that is the risk they take by supporting the amendment of the leader of the opposition.

What is the difference between these two kinds of schools-the school they had in the Territories between 1884 and 1892 and the schools are there at present? All the members of this House have had before them the text of the Northwest Territories ordinance of 1S92, so that it is not necessary to explain in detail the school system now existing in the Territories. I may briefly say that the schools now in vogue are national in the full meaning of the word. A responsible minister is at their head, they are administered by a national council, they are inspected by a national inspector, they are taught by teachers qualified under national and common conditions, and use text books in common authorized by the national council. What else ? If a minority either Protestant or Catholic, are sufficiently strong to support a school out of their own taxes they may do so. For what purpose? In order that Mr. BOLE.

they may for half an hour each day teach religious subjects according to the faith that is within them. The schools then that are in the Territories to-day are national to the fullest extent of the meaning of that word. Is that a bad system ? Are we to be told by a Christian nation that that system is good except in this respect, that a half hour is given in the separate schools for religious exercise after the school hours are closed ?-I refuse to believe that this country will pronounce that system a good one save for this single exception. Are we to be told by a Christian nation that a system is good except that clause which provides for a half hour religious teaching each day ? I refuse to believe that neighbour will rise against neighbour and go to war over such a provision as this, and yet it is about this that all the agitation is aroused. You may talk about provincial rights until the end of the chapter, but provincial rights has only a remote and distorted connection with this agitation that is existing in the province of Ontario to-day. Mr. Speaker, I am here to-say that if it is a proper thing to have the name of God mentioned in our schools, if it is proper to supplement the religious teachings of the home and church with a Christian atmosphere in the school-room- and such a thing is declared proper by the leaders of all the churches-then the only practical way is to separate the children for this purpose. My hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Ames) quoted the other day the opinion of the late Dr. King, principal of the Manitoba college in favour of -teaching religion in the schools. He might also have quoted his successor Dr. Patrick, who is a strong advocate of religious exercises in our public schools. He might also have quoted the late Archbishop Macrae, primate of all Canada, who expressed very strong views on the same subject, and the leaders of the Methodist church in Manitoba. If then, it is right and proper to have the name of God mentioned and honoured in our public schools and a short time devoted to religious teaching, the only practical way in which you can do that is to separate the children. It is beyond the wisdom of mortals, it is impossible for human ingenuity to devise a common religious ground upon which all can stand. But we are told that if the children are separated in school, they will be separated as citizens in manhood and womanhood. There is no doubt some little truth in that statement; but if we carry this idea to a logical conclusion, we must close all our denominational colleges and seminaries. Are there half a dozen hon. members in this House who are not supporting voluntary separate schools ? I am at this-moment, so are others on the other side of the House-not alone for theological purposes but for purposes of secular education. We hear a good deal about the boys of separate schools meeting the boys of public schools after hours and arguing the subject