Mr. BRODER.

year to support a teacher. It was found after a while that the revenue from the Island was not sufficiently large to pay expenses and they transferred it to the town on condition that the town would pay the expense and .that was the first school supported by direct taxation at which education was given to the children of the people whether they were able io pay taxes or not.

That was away back in 163!). They went over into New Hampshire, crossed the Green mountains' of Vermont, through Connecticut, away up through the Dutch settlements in New York, out to the valleys of the Mississippi and Missouri, thence to the sources of the Oregon river and on to the Pacific coast to where the Oregon rises on the Pacific coast, and they planted the school and the church. If you look up the history of these people who are charged with religious zealotisin, you will find that the crime in the United States does not rest at their door, but at the door of the foreign element coming to the United States and from countries where there were no public schools either. Not only is that the case, but the crime is due largely to the civil conditions and the race complications that exist in the southern states. When the northern flag was unfolded over the south, the puplie school was instituted. Previous to the civil war the south had the advantage in * higher schools and colleges because the planters were wealthy and they wanted to educate their sons and daughters, but the common school was neglected and not until the northern army was victorious was the public school system established in the southern states. I think that the right hon. gentleman made a mistake in charging against the public school system of the United States, the crime which exists in that country to a greater extent than in Canada. But the right hon. gentleman forgot another fact. To hear him speak you would think that there was not a religious school in the United States. That is not so. So far back as 1846 the brothers of the Christian schools-a branch of the order in Ireland, I believe, which controls most effective schools-the brothers of the Christian schools were sent to the United states and established themselves in the city- of Baltimore. In 1848 they came to New York, in 1852 they went to St. Louis and to-day there are 35,000 pupils .attending these schools in the United States. Have these schools no deterrent effect on this crime which we hear so much about ? The right hon. gentleman did not cover the whole situation when he charged the public schools in the United States with the undesirable conditions which exist in that country:

The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) went back a great many years to prove the attitude of the hierarchy of Quebec towards the British Crown. He spoke of the loyalty of the bishops from 1774 to

Mr. BRODER.

Mr. SPROIJLE.

Why did'nt they send that to the Pope, to let him know it was settled ?

Mr. BEjODBR. But now we are told that the Manitoba school question is not settled, and so it turns out that the people of Canada were deceived as to that. While that assertion was being placarded all over the country, an emissary was sent to Rome, behind the backs of the people, to say that the settlement was only an instalment. Have not the people of Canada a right to be apprehensive as to their rights and their concern in the welfare of this country, when the party in power backed up by a strong majority saw fit to deal in that way with matters that are sacred to every man ? I am not going to say much about separate schools on their own merits-I will leave that question in the hands of its own friends, and that's bad enough. We have heard a great deal from our friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) about the condition of education in the province of Quebec. .

Some people will ask : What business is it of yours whether our schools are good or bad ? I reply that certainly it is our duty. If we appropriate public money for school purposes, we are certainly interested in seeing that the money is properly expended. If it were any particular church which was spending its own money on the schools, then of course it would be the business of nobody except those belonging to that church what these schools were like. Let me read here what the lion. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) said in the Quebec provincial legislature about these very same schools in that province. You may talk about the intolerance of Ontario, but, I defy you to look through the speech of any public man in that province and find in it a stronger indictment against the school system in Quebec than is made by the Minister of Justice. I am taking the report of the Montreal 4 Herald,' and of course, as the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has a good deal to do with that paper it could not by any possibility indulge in a lie. Here is what Mr. Fitzpatrick said :

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

In what year ?

Mie.BRODER. The speech was made on the 10th February, 1893, and this appeared in the 'Herald' the following day. The occa'sion was the voting of supplies for the schools. I have taken the trouble to compare the Montreal ' Herald's ' report with that of the Quebec 'Chronicle,' and find they are both alike. The ' Herald ' of course is friendly to the Quebec government, but 1 do not know on what side is the Quebec

' Chronicle.' But here is the report in the ' Herald ' of Mr. Fitzpatrick's remarks :

Mr. Fitzpatrick, supporting Mr. Marchand, said that our common school system was the very worst that could be found in any country ; its evil effects were everywhere apparent. The House had been informed that in many parishes the .people were so illiterate that it was impossible to find school commissioners able to read or write. He, himself, knew that thirty per cent of the jurymen in our law courts could not sign their name, yet large sums of money were voted last year for the common schools. To what use was that money put, aud were the popular classes better educated today than twenty years ago ? He thought not.

A large amount was also yearly expended on normal schools which appeared almost totally useless under the existing state of things. He was informed, he wished to be corrected if he was wrong, that over fifty per cent of the graduates of the normal schools were at present seeking a living in the United States. This was not to be wondered at when we reflected upon the ridiculously small salary paid to teachers in this country. Classical education was on a fairly good footing in this province, but in respect of all that concerned financial and commercial pursuits the majority were on an unequal footing, not that the ability was wanting, but because of the vicious educational system. Our banking and commercial occupations of the higher order were consequently in the hands of a certain class of the population. Education was the basis of success. Popular education in this province must be thorough and practical, otherwise we would never he anything but hewers of wood and drawers of water to the educated minority.

That is what th(T hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick said about the schools in the province of Quebec in 1893.

Mr. IV. F. MACLEAN.

Is that fanaticism ?

Mr. BRODER.

That would be called intolerance if any man in Ontario had said it. But said by a Quebec man. that charge cannot lie. But Mr. Fitzpatrick's comments are rather hard on the statements made by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture the other day. It ought to be the aim of every man in this country to have our schools efficient. These schools ought to be the schools of the people. If the right lion, the First Minister was sincere in what lie said about public schools, he certainly cannot be sincere in giving to the minority in the Territories the small concessions lie is giving them in the Bill before the House, if we are to judge by the criticism of his own friends. We have had man after man of them get up and say that the school clause does not mean anything that it merely establishes public, schools with half an hour religious instruction added. If that be the case, then the right hon. gentleman is not dealing honestly I with the minority and is not consistent ! with his own professions. If he believes that public schools are not in the interests of the country, then he should see that the people in the Territories lie really given separate schools, and that the minority there

be given the full rights to which the right hon. gentleman says they are entitled. We find the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) going to the province of Quebec and telling the people there : Oh, this Bill does not give enough, it is not satisfactory. But that, Mr. Speaker, is no doubt only intended as a bluff in order to pacify and set at ease these fellows from Ontario who are supporting the government. It gives them some excuse for saying : We are not giving anything ; it does not amount to anything. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not an honest way of dealing with the question. If you are giving the minority any rights, give it to them like men. If the constitution does not give you the right to deal with that question here, as the leader of the opposition says it does not, let us leave the people in the Territories to settle their own differences in the general interests.

It is impossible for an Ontario man to understand the condition of things perhaps in the province of Quebec. We find there a very large majority voting for the First Minister, although the right hon. gentleman turned his own compatriots down in the province of Manitoba. Here are three fingers. The first represents religion, the second language and the third nationality. The right hon. gentleman finds that the two representing language and nationality are more sacred than the other one. But where does the English Catholic come in ? He has just got the little finger, religion, and the others have the other two. We find right here in Hintonburg that the English Catholic has difficulty in getting his full rights in the minority schools. Why ? Because the French majority say : You must learn in the French tongue. We find the same difficulty in Montreal. and it is high time that somebody should speak up for the Irishman, who I think has as good a right as anybody to have his views respected. But his rights are overlooked in the great cry of religion, nationality and language in the province of Quebec. I say that the man in that province who has only his religion ought to have some consideration as well as the man who has besides the other two fingers, language and nationality^ Give this man who has only a little finger in the pie, the English Catholic, a little chance.

Before I sit down I want to say that in a new country like this, where the possibilities for a man's success are largely from within and not from without, it is what a man prepares himself to do and what he is able to do in the world which makes him successful or otherwise. That being the case, in this great country of ours, full of great possibilities, every man in it ought to be fitted to the fullest possible extent for the business of life. No man understands better than does my right hon. friend, that business competition, that competition in every vocation of life, is so keen that it behooves our public men should take an

Mr. BRODER.

interest in the preparation of our young generation for that fight.

And, Sir, that being the case, this question of schools is an important question to every man. Whether he thinks as I do or not is his own business, not mine. All I say is, that, in a new country, we ought to be careful about making mistakes that will affect the future. In 1896, I said to my people : There is a grievance, because an agreement with the Manitoba people has been broken. And I took the responsibility of that issue. I met the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) speaking against me, I met Mr. Dalton McCarthy, I met Mr. N. Clarke Wallace, I met Sir Richard Cartwright, all speaking against me. And you talk about the tolerance of Ontario. But let me tell you that, in that strong Protestant riding I was elected on that issue in spite of the opposition of all these gentlemen. But one thing I thought I might have been spared. When I was willing to take my political life in my hand, in defence of the minority of Manitoba, I thought 1 might have been spared the active, personal opposition in my county of the hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). But. the hon. gentleman's visit did no harm. This question is one in which the people have a living interest. It is a great pity that any question of religion should intervene in political affairs. But sincere men on either side can respect their sincere opponents. I will never'find fault with any Roman Catholic for supporting his religion ; all I ask is that whether a man is Roman Catholic or whatever may be in his religion, he shall be sincere. The man who is n6t sincere is not of much use. I regret deeply that these questions should be again forced to the front of our political discussion. If you ask a man who is advocating separate schools whether a school trustee is an officer of the church or the state, what will he tell you ? Some will tell you that he is an officer of the church, others that he is an officer of the state. It has come to the point where the people resent the encroachments of the church, whether Protestant or Catholic. This question of separate schools was a burning one in Ontario for years. When the question of the clergy reserves was settled, in the very Bill in which that settlement was embodied, was a clause declaring that this Bill was to do away with all possibility of connection between church and state. And the people thought they were done with these questions. And who stood up and fought for the rights of the minority yi Ontario-though, perhaps, he did not believe much in the principles which seem to them so important ? The man tvlio fought for the interest of the minority was Rev. Egerton Ryerson, a Methodist minister. He was a man of statesmanlike ability and moulded in the strong mould of theological discipline. And we can name similar men from the Catholic side, such as Bishop Connolly, of

Halifax. These men are bigger than the church ; they belong to the people. And Dr. Kyerson and his supporters endeavoured to settle these vexed questions against the opposition of the Liberal party led by Hon. George Brown, and reached a settlement in 1863 which was supposed to be final. And how long did it last. Just three years, and then the agitation began again. But what I say is this: If you admit the

principle that this is according to the genius of our institutions, you must admit the necessity of change and improvement and must avoid that feature of the issue in future.

Mr. J. BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice).

Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up much of your time, for this question has been pretty thoroughly threshed out, and hon. members have made up their minds whether they are to support the amendment or the Bill. But, before I enter upon the discussion of the Bill itself, there are a few statements made by my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) on which I wish to take issue with him. The hon. gentleman has given it as a mark of the great tolerance of the people of Ontario that French is taught in the schools. - Let me tell my hon. friend that we do not make English a part only of the curriculum in our schools, but we teach it in a practical way. And the hon. gentleman has had in this House some fair samples of what common schools can do to teach English to the French Canadians of Quebec. If the teaching of a language different from that of the majority is so great an evidence of toleration, I think that we in Quebec can fairly claim to be considered tolerant. The hon. gentleman would not have been regarded by his friends as making a speech if he had not tried to discredit the school system of Quebec. He had to read from the Montreal ' Herald ' an extract which, at the very least, was very much exaggerated. It may be from the mouth of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) ; it may be from the newspaper owned and controlled by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). But I say that the schools of Quebec are not as inefficient as the htfn. gentleman would have us believe. If you wish to form an opinion of our system of schools, judge it as you would judge anything else. You judge a tree by its fruit ; judge the schools of the province of Quebec by the fruits of them that you see about you. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Broder) said that the French majority votes for Laurier, thotigh he did not know their wants or recognize their claims in 1896. Let me tell my hon. friend that the French majority in Quebec listen, read and think before they vote. Let me mention just one case. There never was in Quebec a more popular man than the late Hon ore Merrier. Yet, when the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite were able to bring that great leader even under the shadow of suspicion of corruption and dishonesty, the French Canadians voted

against him and he went down in irretrievable defeat. I do not think that the protestations of tolerance on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite will be received by the public. These hon. gentlemen accuse the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) of being the cause of the agitation and the strife that is going on in the country. But, Sir, with all the friendship and respect I have for my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) I am compelled to say that he was the man who started this agitation. When I read ' Hansard ' I find that it has already been put on record that a circular was issued throughout the country by my hon. friend from East Grey, that circular being dated 16th February, 1905. Now, the Bill we are now discussing was brought down on the 21st of February, 1905. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has stated in this House that he only used his right to petition parliament. I would be the last to deny that right to any man. But, the question is, did the hon. gentleman, as a representative of the people and as an elector of this country act in such a way as to bring peace and harmony, or did he not ? He begins this circular to which I have referred, ' Dear Sir and Brother.' I suppose the hon. gentleman felt a sudden gush of brotherly love for his electors, or he thought that to call them brothers might create a little more sympathy. Let me read further on in the circular, and I find something else. Then he says, on the 16th of February :

We believe an effort is to be made to impose separate schools for all time to come on the people of the new provinces.

Now, Sir, why 'impose1'/ Did the hon. gentleman know anything about the clauses which this Bill was to contain? Did he know anything about the particulars, so as to be able to say how much imposition there was going to be in this Bill ? Did he have any special information? If so, how did he get it, and where did he get it ? Perhaps he may have got it in the same way that the confidential memorandum was obtained that was put before the Council by the ex-Minister of Railways. How could he foresee, with all his parliamentary experience and far reaching knowledge, how could he foresee, on the 16th of February, the details of a Bill that was not brought down until the 21st of February ?

Mr. SPROULE.

Was the forecast right or wrong?

Mr. BUREAU.

Well, Sir, we can find that out by reading the balance of the circular, and by reading a little in the constitution. I say that the forecast was wrong, and for this reason.

Mr. SPROULE.

I say the forecast was right.

Mr. BUREAU.

That is where we take issue. You cannot impose anything on

people if they are willing to accept it. Imposition means an unwillingness on the part of the receiver, and a major force on the part of the one who imposes. Now what did this Bill impose? It merely confirmed a principle that these people in the Northwest Territories had imposed upon themselves. The imposition, if any, was made by the local legislature of the Northwest Territories and sanctioned here. Therefore if there are any shackles being put on the people, they put them on of their own free will.

Mr. SPROULE.

Does the hon. gentleman not admit that by the . Northwest Territories Act, 1875, they were compelled to do certain things? Now what people are compelled to do is not done voluntarily, is it ?

Mr. BUREAU.

Why, Mr. Speaker, they were compelled to respect the rights of the minority, as we want them to do now. Now let me go on with this circular, and I will show you where the imposition comes in. It says :

It behooves every lover of liberty, and especially every Orangeman, to give a helping hand to prevent this injustice being perpetrated.

Now, Sir, ' it behooves every lover of liberty.' I think if we read the past history of the people of this Dominion we do not have to go to any sect or to any organization to find lovers of liberty. I have travelled over this Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I have lived on the western plains, I have lived in the east, and I have found among all the people where I have lived, I have even found in the city of Toronto where I had the pleasure to stay for a few weeks-I found lovers of liberty. Why, Sir, it is the Orangemen who wish to make of this measure a question of religion and a question of race. Well, the Orangemen are a much abused lot if we are to accept as true what is said of them as being opposed to Catholics.

Mr. SPROUDE.

I ask the hon. gentleman if there is a word about race in the circular?

Mr. BUREAU.

No, Sir. but this House knows it to be a fact, it is known in the streets, that the Orangemen and the Catholics are antagonistic. Does the hon. gentleman deny, for instance, that the Orange men are unsympathetic towards the Catholics?

Mr. SPROULE.

Yes, I deny emphatically that there is any antagonism between Orangemen and Roman Catholics-on the part of the Orangemen. And what is more, they have usually worked harmoniously together.

Mr. BUREAU.

I am asking if they are sympathetic to the Catholics?

Mr. BUREAU.

Mr. SPROULE.

Yes. I say that according to the principles of the Orange order they must be kind, humane and sympathetic towards Roman Catholics.