Mr. P. D. MONK.

Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the

government if, in the appointment of a commission to inquire into the cause of the explosion at Kingston on the steamer 'Scout,' the government has secured the services of an expert ? The matter has been brought to my attention by a number of people interested in the manufacture of carbide and in the sale of acetylene gas as an illumin-ant. They think very properly that an explosion of acetylene gas just when that substance is beginning to be extensively used as an illuminant is calculated to do serious injury to that industry. Their pretension is that acetylene gas submitted to a pressure of over 30 pounds becomes extremely dangerous, and that where it is submitted to a pressure of 180 pounds, as I am told it was in the case of the accident at Kingston, the danger is much increased, and such would be the effect, not only with acetylene, but other gases as well. They, therefore, consider it very important that an expert, a man quite conversant with the uses to which acetylene gas may be put, should be joined to that commission of inquiry, in order that the facts may be fully brought out and made widely known, and that this industry, which is now being considerably developed, should not suffer because an accident happened under circumstances they consider were calculated to produce the explosion that did occur.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I am sorry that my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not in his seat, but I shall report to him the observations of my hon. friend.

Mr. A. BRODER.

Does the government intend doing anything for the families of those who were killed ? Two of the families are in the town in which I live, and in circumstances which ought to receive the attention of the government.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I am not in a position to answer my hon. friend to-day. We shall await the report of the commission before coming to any determination.

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.

Who were the parties forming the commission of inquiry into the accident on the steamer ' Scout ' ? I understand that they are all three officials of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I understand so.

Mr. TAYLOR.

I think the inquiry should be extended. The constituents I have the honour to represent are very largely interested. Within an area of half a mile square, and close to the town of Gananoque, there are three of these immense tanks lying out in the open air, exposed to any person who may come along and tamper with them. No person is in charge of them. The explosion that took place at Kingston was that of a small buoy, not one-fourth the size of these immense tanks lying exposed

to any accident that might happen to tlipm. They are in close neighbourhood, to many of the Thousand Islands, where hundreds of steamers are passing every day loaded with passengers, they are within a very short distance of the town, and if another explosion took place similar to that which I have mentioned, our town would be blown out of existence. A most rigid inquiry should be made. I warned the government when they first proposed to adopt this system of lighting that it was dangerous, and would surely result in accidents. An accident has occurred already, and even more disastrous than I expected. At every place in the country where people have adopted this system of lighting, accidents have occurred ; but the government, for some reason or other, went on and adopted it and are using it now. The people in Gananoque at present are very nervous on account of this immense quantity being stored there, and think this commission should be enlarged ; and if the stuff is found to be dangerous, it should he removed out of the municipality at once.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has already called the attention of the government to this matter. I realize fully the importance of the subject and the importance of the observations the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has just addressed to the House. I have not been able to confer with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but he will be here this evening, and I will mention the subject to him.

Mr. TAYLOR.

I think the commission should be composed of others than civil servants in the department which has control of the lighting.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Perhaps so.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I would like to call the attention of the government to a press despatch which purports to set forth some observations from an hon. member of this House in the constituency of Mountain, province of Manitoba, where, I understand, an election for the provincial legislature is now in progress. The despatch, which is as follows, may be found in the Montreal ' Gazette ' of the 24th April :

Winnipeg, Manitoba, April 23-(Special).- From a despatch received from Belmont in Mountain constituency, it would appear that Manitoba's boundaries are settled. In a speech at that place on Friday night, S. J. Jackson, M.P., for Selkirk, announced the new boundary lines, the following is an extract from the despatch : '

Mr. Jackson Is the first of the Dominion parliament members to take part in thp campaign in Mountain, and to-night he informed the electors that before the Roblin government took action for the boundary extension, Mani-Mr. TAYLOR.

toba. Saskatchewan and Ontario members had discussed the matter, and had arrived at a basis of agreement, which, though informal, embraces beyond all doubt, a basis of settlement on which the matter will be arranged. The enlarged province will then have a greater area than the new province of Alberta. The new province of Saskatchewan is to be increased in area by adding territory between the 60th parallel of latitude, and the Churchill river. With this addition its area will be about 275,000 square miles, and that of Manitoba will be about the same. [DOT]

Manitoba's western boundary will be as at present, except that it will continue straight north until the Churchill river is reached. The boundary will follow the course of that stream to its mouth, and continue down the coast line of Hudson bay until the mouth of Wenisk river is reached. It will ascend that stream to Wenisk lake and continue south through Lans-downe lake to Fishing lake, which is on the boundary of Ontario, and which will be the boundary for Manitoba until the 49th parallel is reached. That portion as delineated for the boundary award, Keewatin, lying between Wenisk river and James bay, is to he given to Ontario, which will thus have a deep water port on Hudson hay. By this arrangement Saskatchewan will have a Hudson bay port at Fort Churchill, and Manitoba will also have the use of this, the boundary line being the middle line of the river. In addition to this Fort York wil! also be in Manitoba's territory, and several other harbours south and east of this, while Ontario will get what that province has so long desired, a deep water port on Hudson bay.

' This arrangement is satisfactory to all parties,' said Mr. Jackson, * and as soon as the Autonomy Bills are disposed of, and the matter is taken up by Dominion government this will be the settlement arrived at.'

I thought it advisable to bring this despatch to the attention of the government, because it is unusual to have an announcement of this character made by a private member of parliament, more particularly when parliament is in session. If Mr. Jackson is well informed, it seems to me the proper course would have been for the First Minister or some other member of the administration, having particular charge of matters of this character, to make the announcement in parliament. For that reason, I venture to inquire whether or not Mr. Jackson's statement is well founded ; and if so, why is it that the government has seen fit to have the communication made to the people in this informal way ?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I have read the despatch to which my hon. friend has just called attention. I do not understand from it that Mr. Jackson presumed to speak on behalf of the government or to say that any policy had been arrived at and finally determined upon. What I understood him to say was that there had been conferences between members from the districts of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the province of Manitoba, and that they had come to a conclusion that an arrangement could be made which would be acceptable. Should that prove to be the case, and should the govern-

ment come to a similar conclusion, we shall furnish parliament with every, information in the usual way.

Mr. GEORGE H. PERLEY.

Before the Orders of the Day are called I desire to direct the attention of the government to an unfortunate incident that occurred in connection with immigration and which is reported in the newspapers of Friday and Saturday last. Some 40 Austrian immigrants arrived here from Montreal on Thursday evening last by train, without money and without food. According to the newspaper reports, there were no fewer than 40 poorly clad and weary looking immigrants finding themselves homeless and without shelter. There were a few women among them, though they were mostly men. They found their way to the police station in Ottawa, as there was no place for them at the Canadian Pacific Railway station where they could remain, because the railway authorities do not allow people to loaf about their station, and they were directed to the police station. They came there on Thursday evening and asked to be kept over night. Tney reported to the police sergeant that they were penniless, they had no place to go and they wanted to remain over night. Consequently room was made for them at the police station. I am given to understand that food was procured for them by one of the citizens of Ottawa, almost wholly at his own expense, who provided meals for them. These poor people are reported as saying:

We will starve unless we get something to do. Our money is all gone and we have no more food. The women need clothing and we have experienced many hardships during the journey. Canada was pictured to us as a land of wealth and plenty, and we do not expect to be disappointed.

Fortunately they were not disappointed, because the next day, on Good Friday, the immigration agency found work for all these men and they were sent away from Ottawa to work on some railway construction. Now, I want to call the attention of the government to the fact that when these people arrived here without any means or food, if they had not been able to secure work at once they would have been a charge on this city for an indefinite period. These people were Austrians and they are said to have come here of their own volition. It seems to me that something ought to be done by the immigration office to prevent this sort of thing occurring, to see that people do not come here without money and with no means of procuring a- livelihood. If the government are going to allow people of that class to come here they should provide for them at some seaport town where they can be looked after until they get work, arid they should not be allowed to find their way into the interior

in a destitute condition. Our country is filling up iiow very rapidly and we are all proud of it. We have got a grand land, and we ought to see to it that the proper class of immigrants are brought into this country. I would suggest to the right hon. the Prime Minister, who I understand presides over the Immigration Department for the time being, to take some steps to see that cases of this kind do not occur again.

I have to thank the House for allowing my hon. friend from Queen's, Prince Edward Island (Mr. A. A. McLean) to move the adjournment of the debate on my behalf at the last sitting of the House. I need not repeat what has been so frequently stated that the measure before the House is a very important one. Some features of the Bill have elicited much wider discussion than others. The main object of the Bill, as I understand, is to give autonomy to two new provinces of this Dominion. That is a very important measure to the people dwelling in the new provinces, Connected with that Bill as a part of the autonomy proposed to be given them, there are certain clauses which have elicited more than usual criticism and which will no doubt cause a great deal more discussion in the future. I refer to the clause relating to separate schools. I need not say that I for one regret that it was found necessary by the leader of the government to interject that question into the political arena. The discussion on these Bills has largely centered around the school clauses of this Bill. Sir, that opens up a very wide field for discussion. This is not the first time that public men in this country have seen fit, and have been obliged in fact, to discuss similar issues. When confederation took place it was brought about by men who, having sharp differences of opinion on these questions, found it necessary, so far as possible, to get rid of these issues and banish them from the federal arena, and the public men who took part in that great work supposed that they were getting rid of these questions for the future by taking them out qf the federal arena. The Confederation Act was accepted as a final settlement of that subject, and I consider it a great misfortune to this country that it has not remained so. We find that the people of the province of Quebec, who were largely interested in the minority rights, and properly so, believed that when they came into confederation they would have exclusive right to deal with these matters which were of an entirely local

nature. They were given control over certain questions which were of a sacred nature to them, and they accepted confederation as a guarantee that the question of education should remain for all time to come under the control of the provinces.

This was true not only of the public men of Quebec but of the public men of Ontario, including the Hon. George Brown and his followers. They accepted confederation in the hope that because of it these sharp issues would not again disturb the peace and quiet of this country. But that expectation, unfortunately, has not been realized. As we have progressed we have found a recurrence of these discussions and of this strong feeling that runs counter, as I believe, to our best interests as a people. And, Sir, no one is more responsible for the present condition of things in this country than the rigjt hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads the government. We had a right to expect better things from the right hon. gentleman. If we go back to 1896, we find that he took issue with the governing party of this country on the question of giving to Manitoba what many regarded as her guaranteed rights under the constitution. We find the right hon. gentleman, as the leader of a great party, throwing himself, as it were, across the path of his own people's interests and hindering the government of that 'day from carrying out what was known as tfie Remedial Order. Now, I will say that whether it was advisable to act as the government acted at that time or not, they were acting within constitutional lines according to their judgment and according to the best legal authorities the country could produce. And when the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) took the position he did, and went through this country, as he did. speaking to the electors, not only of Ontario but of other parts of the Dominion, he led the country to expect that in the future these issues would not be raised. Now, I had the good fortune-I suppose I may call it so-of listening to the right hon. gentleman, then plain Mr. Laurier, in the town of Morris-burg, in which I live. He carried on an Ontario campaign, and he did my town the honour-I do not know whether it was because I lived there-to open that campaign with a speech made in that town. And he was accompanied by no less a personage than Sir Richard Cartwright. I listened attentively to the right hon. gentleman on that occasion and I have taken the trouble since to look up the report of his remarks. He condemned the government of the day in the course they were taking, and advocated certain ' sunny ways ' if you please. And he told the people a fable, and no doubt, he will recall that fable. It was the fable of the contest of the sun and the wind. Meeting a traveller in the road, the wind said, ' I will wager that I will make Mr. BRODER.

that traveller take off his coat.' And the wind blew and raged, and raged and blew; but the more he raged and blew the tighter the man buttoned his coat. And when the wind gave up the job the sun said, ' Let me try my hand.' And he began to shine and glow and everything grew warm. And first the man unbuttoned his coat, but as he grew warmer and began to perspire he took the coat off altogether. And that is the way the party of the right hon. gentleman were to take the coat off Greenway -that was the proposition. This speech to which I refer was made on the 8th of October, 1895, and it was published in the ' Globe ' of the following day. . I shall quote briefly from the report as it appeared in the ' Globe.' ' The hon. gentleman told the fable as I have related it, and found fault with the way the government of that day were trying to solve the Manitoba school question. He said the government were windy, and said Ihov were trying to take the coat off Green wav bj wind. Aud he went on :

If it were in my power and I had the responsibility, I would try the sunny way.

Now, he has the power anl the responsibility, and what is he doing now' ?

I would approach this man Greenway with the sunny way of patriotism, asking him to be just and to be fair, asking him to be generous to the minority, in order that we may have peace amongst all creeds and races which it has pleased God to bring upon this corner of cur common country. Do you not believe there is more to be gained by appealing to the heart and soul of men rather than by trying to compel them to do a thing ? If you have a contest with one of your neighbours, and he comes to you and says ' you must do this," in a moment you will say 'no, I will not do it.' Your manhood will rise up against it. But, if you appeal to your neighbour and say ' we have a contest and we must settle it,' he will say ' I will meet you half-way.' But the government of Canada, Instead of appealing to Mr. Greenway in this way, have threatened to coerce Greenway and the people of Manitoba have declared : ' No, we will stand no coercion.' This is not the way to settle the question. Well, Sir, the government are very windy ; they have blown and raged and threatened ; but the more they have blown and raged and threatened, the more that man Greenway has stuck to his coat.

Now, what about Hon. Mr. Greeuway', coat now ? Has the sun been shining on Greenway V What about the coat of Greenway ? And what about the coat of Sif-ton? Of course, I cau understand that the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) took his coat off to turn it on this question -he had to do that. I want to make this point clear-if there was one thing more than another that made Greenwfiy and the Manitobans stubborn it was the conduct of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his discussion of the question throughout the country. The right hon. gentleman's attitude made it impos-

sible lor tlie government of the day to settle this question, because, he held up to Greenway the guarantee that the great party he led in this country would stand by him resisting a settlement of that question. And now what do we find? Well, it reminds me of an anecdote. And, perhaps we have been too serious in this debate, so, this anecdote may not be out of place. There were two ministers, one very successful in his vocation and the other unsuccessful. The second man went to his successful neighbour to ask the secret of his success. And the other man said,

You don't know how to fish. When 1 go fishing, I take a delicate hook, a slender line and a long pole; and 1 put on a nice bait and let it down into the water where the sun can shine upon it, and I catch fish. Rut when you go fishing, you take a beam for a pole, a pot-hook for a hook, a scorpion for bait and you bring it down into the water ker-slash!-' Bite or be damned.' And that is what the right hon. gentleman has done in this case. He was fishing in 1896, and he had the nice delicate hook, the slender pole, the twinkling, line and the enticing bait. And he caught fish-he got into power. But now he is in power, and he brings the bait down upon the water ker-slash!-bite or be damned ; that is what he says to the west. There are no ' sunny ways the sun has set so far as these things are concerned. It is a most unfortunate thing for our country that this question has been thrown into the political arena. It is against the interest of the schools and the harmony of our people. And the right hon. gentleman is not excusable upon the ground that he was not aware of what would take place. He referred to it in the speech with which he introduced the Bill. 1 quote from the right hon. gentleman's speech on the 21st of February. as reported at page 1526 of ' Hansard ':

I now come to the question of education, and this question is perhaps under the existing circumstances the most important of all that we have to deal with. There are evidences not a few coming to us from all directions that the old passions which such a subject has always aroused are not, unfortunately, buried ; indeed, already, before the policy of the government has been known, before the subject is fairly before the people, the government has been *nw.rned as to its duty in this matter, and not only warned but threatened as well.. The government has been warned, threatened from both sides of this question, from those who believe in separate schools and from those who oppose separate schools.

In the face of that statement the right hou. leader of the government is willing to throw this country into a commotion over this question. He was warned, forewarned in fact, of what would be the outcome and it ill becomes hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to get up and speak about the agitation of the countrv and try to 154 '

charge the fact that there is an agitation upon hon. members on this side of the House. The right hon. leader of the government had the agitation, no doubt, within his own ranks. That is where the commotion was because nobody else seems to have approached him. He must have felt that there were contending parties within his own household on this question. Notwithstanding that the right hon. leader of the government is willing to run the risk of. throwing this question into the political arena, let the contention and the commotion be what they may.

There is another matter that I wish to speak about and I do not intend to speak long. There has been a great deal said about the intolerance of Ontario. Ontario has a broader tolerance than the men who accuse her of intolerance and I will prove it. In the first place, take the public school of Ontario ; the public school of Ontario is a school that any man's ehild may go to, Catholic or Protestant. Can you say that about the majority school in the province of Quebec ? As a matter of fact the school nearest the public school of Ontario is the Protestant school of Quebec and the Catholic school of Quebec is not a school that a Protestant can very well send his child to. And they say : What business has Ontario to talk about this question which affects the west ? Well, there has been a good deal said by some of our French friends on the opposite side of the House about the intolerance of Ontario, about attacking their religion and all that. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) invoked the whole history of his church in this discussion. He went back to the missionaries of 250 years ago and invoked their whole history in the discussion of this question and in reference to their schools as well. If there Is any criticism upon this proposition it i'll becomes him or any of his friends to get up and speak of intolerance on the part of anybody. I find that in the province of Ontario fifty per cent of the English Catholic children are attending the public schools. That proves two things- that the English Catholic people are satisfied largely with the public schools of Ontario, and further that they receive treatment that is satisfactory to them in these schools or their children would not be there. In many instances the most active, energetic and efficient trustees, secretaries and workers in the interest of public schools are the English Catholics of Ontario. I can speak of my own town of Morrisburg. Perhaps there is not a town of its size in Ontario that has a collegiate institute of higher standing than Morrisburg. The secretary of the school in that town for thirty years has been a Roman Catholic Irishman who has been an effective worker in the interest of the public school. The Roman Catholics have been approached by their church authorities and requested to start

a separate school in that town, but the Roman Catholic people, many of them wealthy men, some of whom have passed to their long reward, in days gone by have felt and now feel perfectly satisfied with the condition of things which they have there. The priest is a member of the school board, and if you go to any entertainment in that town given by the young people of any of the churches *there you will find all classes present, Catholic and Protestant together carrying out the programme. No one will question the devotion or sincerity of the Roman Catholic people in that town as far as their church is concerned. I think this condition of things ought to be more general than it is. Then, hon. gentlemen opposite say : You are prejudiced against the Frenchmen. No matter whether you like the French or not you have to use them well. There is no great harm in that. Out of 24,000 children in the high schools and collegiate institutes of Ontario there are

13.595 studying the French language. Does that look like prejudice against the French people ? Nearly two-thirds ! Mind you, it is not compulsory ; it is optional and yet out of 24,000 over 13,000 are studying the French language in our high schools and collegiate institutes. I would like some hon. gentleman who talks about intolerance to show a like condition of things on the other side.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN.

I am going to ask the hon. gentleman a question. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he is aware that the high schools of Ontario are common to all children, that the separate schools of Ontario apply to the public schools only, but not to the high schools? Where there are separate school boards in Ontario Roman Catholics have the same privileges as members of that board as the Protestants. Where there are no separate boards the separate schools and the common school have one common board and the Catholics have the right to have one representative on the common school board. [DOT]