I am afraid hon. gentlemen opposite are evading the question. We will not press them further on that point. I am sure that if the hon. member for West Assi-niboia had gone back to his constituents he would have met the same fate, that, I am afraid, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) will meet when he appeals also to his constituents. *
Now, the hon. gentleman says that according to his reading of the British North America Act, that Act applies to these new provinces in regard to education, and that these provinces are to be saddled with these separate schools -whether this clause appears in the Bills before us or not. Surely then, by following the course they have followed in this matter, the government are making it necessary for these two provinces to face and settle a disputed question which might as well be settled by a reference to the Privy Council, the highest court in the realm, before dealing with it in this House. And that is the course, which, I understand, the hon. gentleman himself favours, and in that I would agree with him entirely. The hon. gentleman says he does not believe in separate schools, yet he is in favour of saddling these two provinces with separate schools for all time to come. Where is the consistency of the hon. gentleman in that ? I am glad to say that he approves of my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) reading the ' Globe,' and says that if that hon. gentleman is sensible he will pay attention to what the ' Globe ' has to say. Well, we on this side are paying attention to what the ' Globe ' says, and most of us propose to vote exactly as the ' Globe ' dictates on this occasion. It is not often that we can agree with the ' Globe,' but we read it very carefully and we are glad to find this great newspaper of the Liberal party in Ontario in accord with us on this question.
I listened yesterday, with interest, and perhaps, some little amusement, to the two hon. members from Quebec who addressed the House yesterday, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Parmelee) an English Protestant, and the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) whom I may call a Catholic French Protestant. In so calling him I do not wish to apply a name which will be unacceptable to the hon. gentleman. His speech was made up of protests, and so he may be described as I have described him. The hon. member for Shefford, who, I regret to see, is not in his place, spoke of a contrast between the treatment of the minority in the province of Quebec and of the minorities in the other provinces. To be quite fair to the hon. gentleman, I desire to read his own words as they are found at page 5074 of the unrevised ' Hansard' : I
I find it difficult to refrain from making a contrast between .the treatment accorded the minority in the province of Quebec and that accorded the minorities in the other provinces.
And so he goes on to tell how generously the minority are treated in the province of Quebec. All this is satisfactory to know. We Protestants from the province of Ontario are very glad to hear that the minority in Quebec are treated fairly, as I believe they are, and as I believe they always will be, regardless of what may be said in this debate. But the hon. gentleman stops there. He does not show that the minorities in other provinces are treated any worse than are the minority in the province of Quebec. He simply suggests a contrast and shows that the minority are well treated in Quebec. but does not show that they are not well treated elsewhere. But there is an innuendo, an insinuation, in the hon. gentleman's remarks, and that insinuation is that the minorities are not treated well in other provinces. Where is the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) ? That hon. gentleman is a Roman Catholic and understands exactly how the minority are treated in the province of Ontario. And where is the hon. member for Kingston ? (Mr. Harty). Why do not these hon. gentlemen stand up and tell this House and this country that the minority in the province of Ontario is basely treated, if such is the case. But, Sir, we have never had any complaint of the treatment meted out to the minority in the province of Ontario.
We have never heard any complaint regarding the treatment of the minority in the province of Nova Scotia which the Minister of Finance spoke of in his address. There is a province where, by law, separate schools do not exist, and yet the Minister of Finance stated without any contradiction in this House that the Catholic minority were well treated in that province, that though they had by law no right to separate schools, yet separate schools existed there, and were flourishing in the city of Halifax and other parts of the province. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was ungenerous enough to say, oh, well, if you have given separate schools to the Catholics in that province you did it because they were becoming so strong that you were obliged to. There is another instance. We find the Minister of Railways and Canals admitting that in the province of New Brunswick where there are no separate schools by law, yet the Catholic minority are treated fairly and justly, as they are in the province of Nova Scotia. Again I say there is no complaint from either of those provinces where separate schools do not exist by law, and I defy any one to report any complaint as to the treatment of minorities in any of the English provinces where there is a Catholic minority. When these hon. gentlemen get up day after day and laud the treatment of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec and insinuate that the Catholic minority in other provinces do not get the same treatment, I think thev should produce some evidence before this House to substantiate their
claim. Now, almost every lion, gentleman wlio has spoken on the government side ot the House has mentioned the fact that Mr. A. T. Galt was instrumental in getting the separate school clauses introduced into the Confederation Act with regard to Ontario and Quebec. That is quite true. But Mr. Galt was then seeking to legislate for a different set of circumstances altogether from the circumstances of the Catholic minorities in the other provinces. It is a well known and admitted fact that In the province of Quebec the national schools are not such as Protestant children can attend. That is not the case in the other provinces, because there is nothing in the national schools of the other provinces which prevents any Catholic child from obtaining an education in them. Of course there is the sentimental objection on the part of our Catholic fellow citizens to allowing their children to go to such schools. But I tell lion, gentlemen in this House that in the great majority of the towns and villages of Ontario separate schools do not exist, and Catholic children go to the public schools. As an instance, I can mention my own town, containing something over 4,000 inhabitants, where there has never been a separate school. The Catholic boys and girls are educated in the public schools side by side with Protestant children, and I venture to say that they become just as good citizens, just as good Catholics and just as good people in every sense of the word, as children who are educated in the separate schools. I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that in the town where I reside I do not believe there is a single illiterate child, either of the Catholic or of any other persuasion. They all get the same education, they are all satisfied with it. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) said last night that the same state of affairs exists in his town, and I am sure that it exists in hundreds of towns and hundreds of municipalities in the province of Ontario. Therefore, I say that there is no parallel between the need for the insertion of a separate school clause in favour of the Protestant minority in the province of Qu-bec and the need for the insertion of a separate school clause in favour of the Catholic minorities in the other provinces.
Now both these hon. gentlemen indulged yesterday in an attack on the Orange order, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has done the same thing this afternoon. That seems to be a considerable part of the stock in trade of these hon. gentlemen ; they endeavour to fix upon the Orange order the responsibility for every protest that has been made against the educational clauses of these Bills. I can tell these hon. gentlemen that I have been an Orangeman for a great many years and I am proud of it, and I am no bigot. I may mention that in 1889 ^hen a motion was made in this House to disallow the Jesuit Estates Act passed in the province of Quebec, I had the honour of a seat in this House, representing a strong
Orange constituency ; yet I voted against that motion and in" favour of the principle of provincial rights, allowing the province of Quebec to deal with this question as affecting its educational institutions. I had no reason to believe that it was not right that the province of Quebec should deal with that matter without interference by the federal government. I think that the same principle should prevail now in regard to the educational clauses of these Bills, and that we should allow these new provinces the same right to deal wtih their educational institutions. It does not follow, as some hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House seem to think, that if absolute provincial autonomy is given to these provinces separate schools are going to be abolished. That result does not follow at all, and is not likely to follow. Surely if you can trust to the province of Nova Scotia, to the province of New Brunswick, to the province of Prince Edward Island, to the province of British Columbia, to deal justly with the minority in respect to education, you can trust these great new provinces in the Northwest to deal justly with the minority also. I think we may safely assume that the men who are at the head of the government in those provinces now will continue the same rights to the minority that exist at the present time. But it is the principle that we oppose, the principle of refusing to those new provinces absolute autonomy, the principle of dictating to them what sort of schools they shall establish for themselves. If the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister were here I think he would excuse me for saying that the kind of autonomy he wants to give those provinces is this : You can do as you like as long as you do what we tell you. That is the sort of autonomy this government wants to give to these new provinces.
As I have said, attacking the Orange order seems to be a part of the stock in trade of hon. gentlemen opposite. _ Another favourite pastime with them is to attack the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). His record has been raked up by nearly every hon. gentleman who has spoken on the other side of the House. My hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Parmelee). in speaking yesterday, said that the hon. member for North Toronto had swallowed his principles, and he followed up that statement by saying that the place of the member for North Toronto was on the other side of the House. I entirely agree with him that his place would be on the other side of the House if it were true that he had swallowed his principles, or was capable of swallowing them. Now these hon. gentlemen go on and appeal for justice to the minority. Sir, that is what we want to give to the minority, we on this side of the House want to give them absolute justice, we want to give them just the j amount of justice which is given to them by j the constitution of this country ; and if the amendment of the leader of the opposition is
adopted, notwithstanding what has been j said by the hon. member for Welland and j other hon. gentlemen who have criticised that amendment-I say if the amendment of * the leader of the opposition is carried into j effect, the minorities in the Northwest pro-vmces will get absolute and entire justice.
These hon. gentlemen want more than justice. Whether the constitution gives them the right or not they want these schools established in the Northwest. My learned and genial friend from Three Rivers-and I am sorry not to see him in the House-used the stock argument of hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec in saying that the Catholic minority had rights in these Territories because years and years ago their missionaries discovered that country. AH honour to those reverend gentlemen who entered that great Northwest in the early days. They had much to contend with and we honour the work they did there, but these hon. gentlemen invariably laid down the rule that they are entitled to these rights because the country forsooth was discovered by these missionaries. I am told by an hon. member who comes from the Northwest that they never discovered the territory which will form these Northwest provinces. They never got within 300 miles of these provinces. Therefore, that claim to the right of separate schools in that country, falls absolutely to the ground. But, what I have noticed in the speeches of these hon. gentlemen is that they entirely ignore the constitutional point. They do not desire to have just what the constitution gives them, but they want a little more than the constitution gives them. I would present for the information of these hon. gentlemen what the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) said in the remarks which he made upon these Bills before the House.
I am glad that I have this statement from perhaps the only really eminent lawyer who has spoken on that side of the House besides the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). This is what the hon. Solicitor General said as reported at page 3458 of 'Hansard':
It is in the light of our constitution that the question must be examined. To look at it from any other point of view is to err and to quibble. According to the British North America Act has the minority in the Northwest Territories any rights to a system of separate schools ? That is. in my judgment, the only question to be decided.
Now, the hon. Solicitor General agrees entirely with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). He does not agree with his constitutional argument altogether, but there is this statement of the Solicitor General, who is a member of the government, and it ought to have considerable weight emanating from such a source, that the whole question must be a constitutional question and in
his judgment that is the only question to he decided. But, the way the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. tlourassa) and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken skate over that constitutional question is a marvel to me. I do not pretend to be capable of entering into the argument of the constitutional question, but it reminds me a great deal of a story I once heard of an American, a breezy westerner, who came down to see his member of congress at Washington. He had in his mind a Bill of tremendous importance of some kind or other, and he thought that he had only to speak to his member about it to get it through the House. But, on presenting it to his member, this is what the latter said to him : Well, my dear fellow
that is contrary to the constitution ; it cannot be done, to which the westerner made reply: To the devil with the constitution;
what is the American constitution between friends! That is about the attitude of these hon. gentlemen in giving to the Catholic minority in the western provinces, not absolute justice, but more than they are entitled to. What does the constitution amount to so long as they can deal out what they consider to be fair-play, but what we consider is a little_ beyond fair play ? There is no one in this House who will not accord to the Catholic minority such absolute fair-play as they are entitled to under the constitution. I do not believe there is a man on this side who would not be willing to give that fair-play, and when these questions are fraught with so much doubt and so much difficulty there is only one course, as I shall state presently, to be adopted in order to satisfy the public mind. The debate so far has been a very exhaustive one, and the arguments pro and con have been so exhaustive that it Is almost impossible for any member addressing the House at this late stage of the debate to say anything new or anything of interest to the country, hut I simply desire to impress upon the members of the House this view in regard to the constitution. The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Lauder) in introducing these Bills stated that he was going to give absolute autonomy to the Northwest provinces. I have already stated what that autonomy amounts to where these reservations are made and I desire simply to call the attention of the House to the fact that the light hon. gentleman, in introducing his Bills, stated distinctly that he stood upon the rock of the constitution. He agrees thus far with the hon. Solicitor Genera! and with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. But, Sir, the arguments that he brought forward in regard to his standing on the rock of the constitution were not in my view, very strong, and after H1'; speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, which, I must say, appealed to every hon. member who will express his
convictions in that regard, the right hon. leader of the government stood no longer upon the rock of the constitution but he had shifted the pedestal on -which he stood to a sand bank. There is no question about that, and I will tell the House where the confirmation of the views of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition stands. The confirmation of his views stands in this way that there is not one hon. gentleman on that side of the House since his speech was delivered who has made any attempt whatever to controvert his statements. No successful controversion of his statements has been made, and I say that when so much doubt has been placed upon the constitutional point there is only one course which will satisfy the public mind that can be taken by the right lion, leader of the government, and that is to have the point in dispute submitted to the Privy Council in England along with all other questions which should be submitted, so that we may have this constitutional question absolutely decided one way or the other and so that there may be no further controversy upon the point. It is the dutv of the government and the duty of the right hon. gentleman not to press tiiis clause upon the House, but to submit for one question : Do tile subsections of clause 93 of the British North America Act apply to these provinces? If they do that settles the question. If they do not a further question should be submitted as to whether or not this government has any power to go any further and force these separate schools upon these two provinces.
There is not only that question which is in doubt, but we all know, after listening to the speech of the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), that a conflict of opinion has arisen between him and the premier of the Northwest Territories. We have read the interview with the premier of the North-west Territories published in last Friday's ' News,' in which that gentleman contends ^ clause 16 is passed in its present shape, it will.impose upon the new provinces exactly the state of affairs which existed in 1875 after the passage of the Act of that rear giving the Territories the constitution thev now enjoy. In the face of all these doubtful points of law- affecting the constitution, there should be a submission to fae Privv Council in England, perhaps to the Supreme Court first, and the public mind would be set at rest by a decision from that quarter in a way in which it could not be otherwise.
I do not propose to take up the time of the House any longer on this question, because I think that at this late stage of the debate speeches should be curtailed as far as possible ; but I would make this appeal to the right lion, leader of the government, to submit the points I have mentioned : First, as to whether or not the subsections of section 93 of the British North America Act apply to these new provinces. Second, if Mr. WARD.
they do not, has the government power to pass this legislation ? And, third, does clause 16 give greater powers than are on the face of it intended ?
I have nothing further to say upon this question, except to express the hope that iu future there will be no necessity for any unkind remarks to be made from either side of the House. We on this side of the House have been accused of fomenting this agitation in the country. Well, that is for the public to decide. -I contend that this measure, as it was originally proposed in this House by the right iron, leader of the government, has done more to foment and bring about the state of affairs that exists in this country to-day than anything else, and I do not believe that there has been one thing said on this side of the House that would induce the people to agitate in any sense of the word. I, therefore, trust, after the whole matter is over and the question is decided one way or the other, that we shall have peace, good order and good government in this country.
Mr. Speaker, a great deal has be'en said upon this question ; almost every phase of it has been threshed out; and after all that has been said on both sides of the House and all that has been written in the various newspapers, I would have said nothing upon the question, but that if I gave a silent vote, it might be inferred that I was unwilling to say one word in favour of this Bill. I iwould not have it supposed for one moment that I wished to shirk any responsibility which rests upon me in this regard. I think the House and you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that I have not troubled the House very much or spoken unduly on every subject that came before it since I have been a member. I do not think any one can accuse me of that terrible disease which has been properly termed a running at the mouth. If there is one disease which I abhor above another, it is that; and I only feel justified in speaking on subjects in which I am specially interested. . With reference to this Bill, more perhaps has been said and written upon it in the city of Toronto than in any other place in the Dominion of Canada. It is there that the great volcanic eruption has taken place; the great craters are found in the newspaper offices and on the platforms of that city. I have great respect for the people of Toronto and for the papers published there ; but I must say that it is not conferred upon any newspaper or anv city to know all that is to be known in this world. It is not permitted to any one individual to monopolize all the intelligence in the country ; and I think there are other sections of the Dominion of Canada, particularly in the province of Ontario,' that should be heard from, that have views entirely different from those set forth in some of the newspapers and expressed on most of
the platforms of the city of Toronto of late ; and that is the reason why I am now speaking on this Bill,
The first feature of the Bill to which I wish to draw your attention has reference to the ownership of the lands. It has been said that the lands should be owned by the provinces themselves. That may be true in many cases ; but in view of the fact that Ithis government has expended so much money in bringing the proper kinds of immigrants into this country, and has got the immigration system on a good basis, we surely ought to leave that matter in the hands of those who have brought it to such a successful issue. We want the best class of immigrants we can have in this country, and I believe the government are exercising precautions to secure that class. We have never before had such a rush of immigrants into this country as we have to-day. We are delighted to have so many coming from the American union-Our own Canadian sons coming back to live with us again and bringing their families with them, and others who went from European countries to the United States and graduated in the school of agriculture there and learned how to farm on a system suitable to a prairie country. These are the kind of people we want, and when this government is doing so much to bring them, why should we not leave the immigration in their hands ? The only way we can do that is to leave in their hands the control of the lands.
There is another thing which we should take into consideration. You know that we have in the Northwest a large extent of country which is very fertile, provided it is supplied with fresh water by means of a proper system of irrigation. There are millions of acres of that kind of lands in the west and we want to see these lands brought into the best possible state of cultivation. They are being settled by a thrifty class of people, progressive farmers who are doing well on these lands and we want to have it clear for all time to come that there shall be a sufficient amount of water for proper irrigation there. This brings us into direct antagonism with some of the States of the American Union. There are some streams which originate in the United States and flow into our country and difficulties are already cropping up between this country and the border states. Surely we ought to have this matter in the hands of the Canadian government so that they will be able to take hold of it and carry it through to a successful issue.
There is one feature in particular about which I wish to speak, that is the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. Not much has ibeen said of late about the extension of her boundaries to the west because as has been made quite apparent by the members from the west the people in that portion of the Territories do not want to have themselves annexed to the province of Manitoba. But there is a more serious feature about this question, that is the extension of her boundaries to the east. Here is the serious feature of that question. Reports have been sent broadcast that this extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba to the east is being taken advantage of by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Canada in order to secure an extension of the facilities for separate schools in Manitoba, and the worst feature of it is that an attempt is being made to cause the belief that the Prime Minister has been a party to the intrigue, and that he was responsible for the interview between the Manitoba ministers and Mousei-gneur Sbarretti, the Papal ablegate, that lie is the man who is responsible for having this agreement attempted and by which an increase of territory should be granted to Manitoba on condition that the Roman Catholics in (Manitoba should be given increased privileges in regard to separate schools in that province. I am exceedingly anxious that this thing should be set in its proper light before the people of Ontario because if these newspapers in the city of Toronto and these speakers on the platform at Toronto who are sending broadcast through Ontario this infamous news and trying to antagonize the good people of this province, against the good people of Quebec and our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens in Manitoba. I wish to read you the exact words which the Prime Minister used in refuting this statement. He said :
Before I proceed any further, I may say at once, referring to the whole tenor of this document, that in so far as there is a charge that there was an understanding between Monseigneur Sbarretti and myself to have the school question considered in connection with the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, there is not a shadow nor a tittle of truth in it. Mr. Rogers uses this language :
It is certainly idle for any person to assume that Monseigneur Sbarretti, occupying the position he does, would presume to make the suggestion of terms and conditions which he did without the full knowledge and consent of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues.
I assert that if Mr. Rogers states that Monseigneur Sbarretti did press him to make the suggestion of terms and conditions which he says Monseigneur Sbarretti did with my knowledge, he states something which is not in accordance with truth. If that has taken place it has taken place without my participation, and I never heard of it in any way whatever until last Saturday, when the matter was brought to my notice by a telegram from the Toronto ' Globe.' Then Mr. Rogers goes on to say :
I am delighted to know and I think every one of my friends in Ontario is delighted to know that the Prime Minister was able to give such an emphatic denial to this as he did and I wish to have it felt throughout Ontario that we should have just the same amount of respect and trust the Prime Minister to the same degree now, as we
have always done. So far as I am concerned nothing that he has done with reference to this Bill has abated by one jot or tittle the respect which I have always had for him, and I think these stories which are being spread broadcast over the country will do him in the end more good than harm. I may say that we should not be deluded by the amount of noise that is emanating from the city of Toronto. It is more noise and wind than anything else, and I think you will find in the end that it will not have that responsive answer from Ontario that the agitators expect, nor do I think that there is so much at the bottom of it as some have thought. There are not so many sounding the big trombone in Toronto as they would have us believe. It reminds me of a story which I heard of a commercial gentleman who came from the city of New York to a rural section where there was a large pond. The New Yorker wanted to buy a large number of frogs and he went to a farmer and said : I want to contract with you for 1,000 frogs.
Yes, the farmer said, I will undertake to supply them.
The terms were agreed upon and the next day the buyer came back and said : Where are my frogs ?
The farmer replied : Well, Sir, to tell you the truth I have just five frogs.
But, I thought you were to deliver the number we agreed upon, 1,000.
The farmer answered : Well now, to tell you the truth, when I heard the immense amount of noise these frogs made I certainly thought there must be 10,000 of them, but when I came to catch them, all I could really find, was five.
Now, I think when this matter comes to simmer down in the end you will find there are not the thousands of people in Toronto who are shouting and howling; they will come down to a very small number indeed, and so far as I am concerned, I do not fear the trouble which they may make in Ontario when all the facts are brought out and made clear to the people.
He read an article from that paper, and although I did not catch Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.
all that he said I understood him to say that the Reform members in the House of Commons were living in a fool's paradise. That is what the 'Globe' said, I understand. I have been in this House for five sessions and I think I have enjoyed this House just about as well as anybody else, but so far as I am concerned even in my wildest admiration for a seat in this House, I never dreamed for a moment that I had a seat in Paradise. And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, on the 5th day of this month when the electrical currents were surcharged and were going fast and swift from side to side of this House to the other and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was hurling anathemas across the floor against the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for East Grey was hurling them back at him, I never for one moment dreamt that this was paradise. On the contrary, I thought it was almost anything else, and it seemed to me that if at any moment a spark were set to this electric current, so highly charged, going at the rate of ten thousand volts and one hundred amperes per hour, I do not know what the result might have been. All I can say is that if the editor of that newspaper thinks the House of Commons a paradise, when I come to be judged after death I do not want to be sent to that kind of a paradise. Just at the clpse of that article the 'Globe' advised us to consult our constituents and the country at large. I thoroughly endorse that advice. They say that great minds think alike, and the right hon. the First Minister evidently took the same view. The result was that he opened the constituency of Edmonton just to see what the people really did think, and the moment the telegraph wires carried the glad news to that district that there was to be an election and that Mr. Oliver was to be the government candidate and Minister of the Interior, what happened? Did the thousand and one opponents jump up there like a Hydra's-head antagonist ? Not at all. On the contrary there was not the slightest opposition. The people out there said: This
is the man we want. In every corner of that constituency meetings were held, and both Tories and Reformers agreed that Mr. Oliver was the man for Galway. The result was that he was elected by acclamation. Surely this is one of the constituencies chiefly interested; and if that is not good evidence that the country is with us, I do not know what better we could have.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) wanted this Bill to stand. He does not happen to be in his place this evening. I believe he wished to place some observations with regard to it on record. Perhaps the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) will have no objection to allowing it to stand.
Topic: PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic: TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was here when the Bill was in committee, and at his request it was allowed to stand. It had ah-eady been fully considered in the Banking and Commerce Committee, and the consideration of it in this House has stood over several times. It was amended m Committee of the Whole to meet lire suggestions of the hon. member for North Toronto, and those amendments I agreed to.
I hope the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) will not insist upon his objection.
Topic: PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic: TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY.
I do not specially insist upon it. The Bill, having been amended in Committee of the Whole, could not be read the third time at the sitting at which it was reported from committee. This is the first occasion when the third reading could be proposed. Therefore, it has not stood over unnecessarily thus far. I have not made my suggestion at the request of the hon. member for North Toronto, but I remember that he said he wished to make some remarks, and, I think, to enter sonic protest against the provisions of the Bill.
Topic: PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic: TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY.