REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON TITLES, HONOURS AND DECORATIONS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston) presented the report of the special committee on Titles, Honours and Decorations.
House of Commons of Canada,
Ottawa, May 14, 1919. The Special Committee appointed to consider and report upon the propriety of presenting an Address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, praying that His 'Majesty may be graciously pleased to refrain hereafter from conferring any titles upon such of his subjects as are domiciled or living in Canada, except such titles as have reference to professional or vocational appellations conferred in respect to commissions issued by His Majesty to persons in the Military or Naval Services of Canada, or to persons engaged in the administration of justice in the Dominion; and that His Majesty may also be pleased to consider the question of taking measures to ensure the extinction at the death of the present possessors of the hereditary titles at present in existence in the Dominion ; and further that His Majesty may also be pleased to take into consideration the [DOT] question of in future conferring honours, titular distinctions and decorations upon subjects of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada, including those who have performed overseas, in Canada, or . elsewhere, naval, military and civilian services in connection with the war, beg leave to present the following as their report.
Your committee are of the opinion and recommend that an address be presented to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, in the fcl lowing words:-
" To the King's Most Excellent Majesty,
" Most Gracious Sovereign.
" We. Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased:-
" (a) to refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.
" (b) To provide that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to ensure the extinction of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, dignity or title as a peer of the realm, on the death of a person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada at present in enjoyment of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, dignity or title as a peer of the realm, and that thereafter no such title of honour, titular distinction, dignity or title as a peer of the realm, shall be accepted, enjoyed or used by any person or be recognized.
"All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration."
A suggestion was made that the titles of " Right Honourable " and " Honourable " be discontinued, but the suggestion did not meet with the approval of the committee.
Your committee, however, do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations, such as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, . Conspicuous Service Cross, and similar decorations to persons in military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty.
Your committee further recommends that appropriate action be taken toy legislation or otherwise to provide that hereafter no person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada shall accept, enjoy or use any title of honour or titular distinction hereafter conferred by a foreign ruler or government.
All of which is respectfully submited.
W. F. Nickle,
Chairman.
Mr. BELAND:: I understand that at this stage we cannot discuss the report of this special committee. May I ask 'the Government whether a day will be set for its consideration?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: It was the desire of the Prime Minister and of 'the Government that this question should be considered as promptly as possible by the committee and their report discussed in the House. I shall be glad to set Friday or Monday next for the discussion of the report.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Friday " and " Monday?


William Thomas White: Friday " or " Monday. I shall make an announcement to-morrow.


Mr. FIELDING:: Monday is a day when many members are absent, and I do not think it is the best day for the discussion of this important matter.


William Thomas White: May I suggest that I should within a few days make an announcement as to when an opportunity will be given for discussion?


William Stevens Fielding: If the minister and the chairman of the committee arrange it, that will be satisfactory.


William Thomas White: Yes.
2.396



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER POWER COMPANY.


Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council):: I beg to lay on the table of the House report of the hearings of the International Joint Commission-


Samuel Hughes: May I beseech the minister to speak out more clearly? Nothing empties the House and drives people to madness quicker than lack of hearing.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Will the ex-minister
(Sir Sam Hughes) repeat his remarks? I could not hear what he said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I lay on the Table report of the hearings before the International Joint Commission in -the matter of the application of the St. Lawrence River Power Company, as printed by the International Joint Commission. It gives the evidence taken on the hearings and includes certain maps and diagrams which the member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) inquired about the other day. I have arranged that copies of th'is report, about fifty of which are available, be placed in the distribution office, and hon. gentlemen who wish to have copies may obtain them there.



BIOLOGICAL BOARD ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 106, to amend the Biological Board Act. He said:
The object of this Bill is to change slightly clause 5 of an Act that was passed on the 1st of April, 1912, in order more clearly to define the jurisdiction that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and his departmental officers have over the Biological Board. There is .no difference of opinion between myself or any of my officials and the Biological Board; this clause in the Act of 1912 was rather ambiguously worded, and the object of the new Act is to make it clearer.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Acting Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce

Bill No. 107, to confirm the Order in Council of the 24th day of February, 1919, prohibiting the Importation, Manufacture and Transportation of Intoxicating Liquors and the Order in Council of the 12th day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof. He said: This Bill is founded on the resolution which was adopted by the House yesterday.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Is the Government aware that goods have been stolen from freight cars at Charny, on the Intercolonial Railway between November, 1918 and the 15th April, 1919?
2.	If so, has the Government reimbursed the owners of said stolen goods, and how much was paid therefor?
3.	Has the Government investigated these thefts? If so, what is the result of the investigation?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	What amounts have been paid by the Government to all persons who were appointed to represent the Minister of Justice, or the military authorities before the Tribunals of Exemption and of Appeal, respectively, at Montreal, Quebec and Ottawa, during that period when the provisions of the Military Service Act of 1917 were being enforced?
2.	What are the names of the said persons, and how much was paid to each?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1 and 2. The following are the names of and the amounts paid through the Military Service Branch, Department of Justice to t'he "Public Representatives" attached to tribunals at Montreal, Quebec and Ottawa. This list does not include the "Military Representatives" appointed by the Minister of Militia and Defence and attached to the above tribunals, who held office until superseded by the "Public Representatives" on February 4, 1918, by virtue of P.O. 196, dated January 26, 1918:
Montreal: T. Brosseau, $180; H. R. Mul-vena, $555; N. A. Millette, 5240; E. R. An- \ gers, 5150; H. St. Pierre, 5640; E. Beauchamp, 5830; A. Yvon, 5750; L. St. Denis, 5740; A. C. Rondeau, 5145; O. Thibault!

$127; J. MacDonald, $122; T. O. Bernard, $176; P. Surveyer, $385; L. Choquette, $589; T. Fortin, $644; J. Jette, $153; C. H. Berard, $136.80; P. Dore, $141.25; A. Dupuis, $534.25; W. M. Couper, $660; A. Chasse, $195; W. Laliberte, $98.50; A. J. E. Leonard, $113; B. Marchand, $177.85; G. Allard, $200; J. A. Piette, $294.64; L. A. E. Godin, $70; H. Parent, $103; R. G. De-lorimier, $515; G. McNaughton, $390; I. Westover, $520; J. H. Michaud, $520; F. Desrochers, $580; R. M. Brown, $150; A. Dufresne, $400; J. H. David, $475; H. Tucker, $310; R. A. Drapeau, $40; A. Lamothe, $230; total, $13,290.34. Quebec: E, R. Alleyn, $60; J. D. Lavergne, $42; F. Campbell, $100; E. H. Cimon, $20; Wilf. Lali-berte, $164.65; A. C. Dobell, $226; Raoul Fafard, $99; Emile Geliy, $90; Honore Grenier, $30; A. P. Caron, $150; C. V. Dar-veau, $280; Ovide Mayrand, $187; Jules Langlais, $97.54; Ernest Legare, $639.20; Chs. Fremont, $90; V. A. DeBilly, $278.45; A. J. Bender, $180; Lt.-Col. T. Rinfret, $250; F. X. Dufour, $213.50; Jos. Roy, $260; F. O. Drouin, $150; William Montgomery, $91; Lt. P. C. G. Gruchy, $107.55; P. J. Jolicoeur, $70; total, $3,875.89. Ottawa: Central Public Representative, John H. Moss, no salary as public representative.


STEAMER T. J. DRUMMOND.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	At what date was the steamer T. J. Drummond purchased by the Government?
2.	From whom was she purchased, and at what price?
3.	Was this vessel inspected prior to purchase? If so, by whom?
4.	Was a commission paid to any agent or broker? If so, how much?
5.	When was this steamer built, and what was the original cost?
6.	What is her net and D. W. tonnage?
7.	How much has been expended on repairs, refitting and insurance since date of purchase?
8.	What is her net earnings from date of purchase to date of the last voyage in which the accounts have been adjusted?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	April 18, 1917, under authority of an Order in Council.
2.	The Great Lakes Transportation Company: $515,000,
3.	Yes. The steamer was to be delivered subject to Glass Al, Lloyds, or British Corporation Registry, which is equal classification. One of Canadian representatives, Jas. I. Bales, surveyor to the British Corporation for the survey of registry and shipping.
4.	No. '
5.	(a) 1910; (b) No information.
6.	(a) Net tonnage, 1,664.43;	(b) Dead
weight tonnage, 3,400.
7.	$50,778.68.
8.	Net earnings, $257,032.06.


STEAMER A. J. McKEE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr.. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):	[DOT]
1.	On what date was the steamer A. J. McKee purchased by the Government?
2.	From whom, and at what price?
3.	Was this vessel inspected prior to purchase? If so, by whom?
4.	When was she built, and what was her original cost?
5.	What is her net and D. W. tonnage?
6.	How much has been expended on repairs and refitting this vessel since date of purchase?
7.	What is her net earnings from date of purchase to date of last voyage in which the accounts have been adjusted?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	April 18, 1917, under authority of an Order in Council.
2.	Algoma Steel Corporation: $500,000.
3.	Yes: The steamer was to be delivered subject to Class Al, Lloyds, or British Corporation Registry, which is equal classification. One of Canadian representatives, J. B. Foote, surveyor to the British Corporation Registry.
4.	1908. No information as to original cost.
5.	Net tonnage, 1,374.79; dead weight tonnage, 3,400.
6.	$386,554.52. This vessel was seriously damaged in the Halifax explosion, and later met with an accident in running on the rocks outside the port of New York.
7.	Net deficit due to causes mentioned in No. 6, $254,697.58.
TRAWLER No. 30.


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Did the Sydney Foundry Company do
any work on Trawler No. 30 during the summer 1918?	.
2.	If so, what was the nature of the work done?
3.	What was the cost?
4.	What officer of the department certified to the account?
5.	Did the Government pay the account of the said Sydney Foundry Company?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes, by local authority.
2.	Caulking and pitching decks.
3.	$284.16.
4.	C. H. Wellsford, Wt. shipwright.
5.	This account was received in Ottawa on April 19, 1919, and is now in way of payment.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Is it the intention of the Government to make use of the Transcontinental Railway between Winnipeg, Quebec, Halifax and St. John?


Hon. Mr. REID:: Yes.


COST OF HALIFAX TERMINALS.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What has been the total cost to date of the Halifax Terminals, including the construction of the branch railway connecting the terminals with the main line?
2.	How much more will be required to complete the work?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Total expenditure to March 31, 1919, was $14,802,655.11.
2.	To complete first unit of nine berths, including permanent station train shed, passenger landing and immigration facilities, two-storey permanent sheds at berths not now equipped with sheds and leaving four temporary wooden sheds as they are, grain elevators and conveyers, tracks, roadways, subways, etc., and completion of existing contracts, together with new engine facilities at Fairview, is estimated to cost $8,000,000 at present prices.


RIDEAU JUNCTION TOWNSITE.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-bo rough):: Has the townsite of Rideau Junction been taken over by the Canadian Government Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has H. C. Blair, Customs Inspector, been superannuated?
2.	If so, who has been appointed to his position?
3.	How long has Bryson MacDougall been in the Customs Department?
4.	What position did he nil previous to H. C. Blair's superannuation?
5.	What are his duties now?
6.	What salary does he receive?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Mr. H. C. Blair_was granted leave of absence with pay for a period of six months from July 1, 1919, and to be superannuated at the expiration of such leave.
2.	No person.
3.	Mr. Bryson McDougald has been in the Customs Department since July 1, 1912.
4.	Inspector of Customs.
5.	Inspector of Customs.
6.	$2,400.


MR. JOHN RIDLEY.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Was one John Ridley, of the town of Cornwall, in the employ of the Customs Department during the year 1918?
2.	If so, when did his services begin?
3.	When did they end?
4.	What amount did he receive for said services from the department. '


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4 answered by No. 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D'ANJOU:
1.	How many motor cars have been purchased by the Government for the use of the ministers and high officials since 1914?
2.	How many of said cars were for use in Ottawa and how many in other places?
3.	Is the Government aware that certain ministers and high officials have allowed their family to use these cars for social and calling purposes?
4.	If so, what are their names?

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunting-don):: I desire to draw the attention of
the Government to the fact that at the opening of this Parliament on the 20th February, the speech from the Throne mentioned certain legislation, namely, a Bill to amend the Franchise, a Bill for the construction of Highways and a Bill regarding Vocational Education. We have now been in session almost three months. The resolution regarding Highways was brought down on the 24th March, but has not been proceeded with. I think the Government will acknowledge that we on this side have not unduly hindered the passage of Supply; that we have not taken advantage of opportunities to move amendments on going into Supply. For instance, we might have moved for the repeal of the War-time Elections Act, but we have not done so as yet. Yesterday evening, in answer to an inquiry by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) made this statement:
The Acting Prime Minister requested me to say that to-morrow we shall take up the Estimates of the Public Works Department and the Post Office, and if we take up the Supplementary Estimates for the last fiscal year there are a number of items we might put through, after that we would proceed with other Estimates.

It will be observed that we arq, rapidly approaching conditions where the right of the Opposition to move amendments on going into Supply will be exhausted, and I ask, on behalf of the Opposition, that we have a statement from the Acting Prime Minister, either to-day, or at least this week, as to when the Franchise Bill will he brought down.


William Thomas White: My view is that, through the co-operation of hon. gentlemen opposite and diligence on the part of the Government, we have been making extraordinarily rapid progress with regard to legislation. Although I have been a member of this House for eight years, I have never known a period in which more legislation has been dealt with by the House than during the past month. From my hon. friend's remarks, one would gather that he fails to appreciate the importance of consideration by the House of the Estimates. I do not know of any function which the House discharges of greater consequence than the careful consideration of the Estimates involving as they do the expenditure of immense sums of money, and I do not regard the time of the House as wasted in giving consideration to these Estimates.
As regards the point mentioned by my hon. friend of the Opposition exhausting its opportunities of moving resolutions upon going into Supply, there is no ground for apprehension, because there are in the Main Estimates many remaining items to be dealt with; then there are the Supplementary Estimates of 1918-19, and the Supplementary Estimates of 1919-20 have to be brought down, In addition, there are one or more special Estimates before the House.
The legislation mentioned in the speech from the Throne is all before the House with the exception of legislation relating to vocational education and that relating to to the franchise which has been mentioned by the hon. member. Legislation relating to technical education has been fully considered by the Government and will be introduced within a few days by the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) who has it in charge. The Franchise Bill is an exceedingly important piece of legislation which has been and is receiving the careful attention of the Government, and it is the intention to introduce it at the present session of Parliament.


James Alexander Robb: The Acting Prime Minister apparently forgot the Highways Bill.


William Thomas White: That is before the House in a resolution.


James Alexander Robb: There is no Bill.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is sufficiently informed as to Parliamentary procedure to know that the passage of the resolution precedes the Bill.


THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: I wish to raise a question of considerable public interest, one of which I have already given the minister notice, and I raise it with a certain amount of reluctance. I refer to the matter of dealing with the administration of justice in Canada at the present moment. I do not wish to refer to the Military Service Act unduly, and I do not want to raise any of the nightmares of the war, but there has come to my notice a certain matter which I do not think bears out the principle upon which our constitution is founded, namely, those of freedom and justice to all the provinces of the Dominion. Certain young men who voluntarily reported and were granted exemption by the Military Service tribunals failed to renew their application for exemption after the Order in Council had been passed in the month of April, 1918, cancelling all previous exemptions. When they reached the city of Hull, which is the judicial centre, they found themselves in this peculiar predicament.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret very much to have to call the hon. member to order, but he is in effect entering into a discussion. If he wishes to submit a question to the Government it will be quite in order for him to do so, but not to enter into a discussion of the merits of the case.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It seemed ridiculous to put the question before giving the minister the necessary information. However, I have already spoken to him about the matter over the telephone, and I shall now simply ask him to give the House the reason why the judicial district of Hull, which is in the province of Quebec, should have been declared not competent to deal with any matter respecting the Military Service Act, and why young men coming before the tribunals in that judicial district have been ordered to go. to Kingston for court-martial or else be tried before a court in the province of Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: Through the courtesy of the hon. member (Mr. Devlin) I have been able to make inquiry as to the point he brings to the attention of the House and in respect of which he asks a question. I apprehend his question to be one demanding the reason why certain defaulters under the Military Service Act whose residence is in the province of Quebec, and, I think, in the county of Wright, have upon apprehension been ordered to appear before a court-martial, or before a magistrate. in Ottawa rather than before a magistrate in the county of Wright.
The name of the magistrate in the county of Wright is Mr. Goyette. The House will recall that when, three or four months ago, an Order in Council was passed under the authority of the Military Service Act and *the War Measures Act, whereby the prosecution was empowered, should a magistrate by his conduct reveal a lack of appreciation of the meaning of me Military Service Act and of his duties under that Act, to refuse to take any more cases before that magistrate, but to take them instead before a court-martial. That Order was found to be necessary by reason of the idea prevalent in the minds of certain magistrates at all events, that there was in reality no substantial offence in the violation of the Military Service Act uemanding more than a merely nominal punishment. I am sorry to have to say that the Department of Justice came to the conclusion that the case of Magistrate Goyette was one that demanded action under that Order in Council, and they refused longer to take cases before him.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I understood that that referred to cases where the magistrate had already taken action. In this case thq young men were not apprehended, but voluntarily gave themselves up.


Arthur Meighen: It is a case in which the magistrate has taken action, and by the character of his action has shown that he is not a magistrate before whom other cases of that kind should be taken.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Was any report made by the Justice Department to the Attorney General of the province as to the conduct of the magistrate in question?


Arthur Meighen: None that I know of in the case of Magistrate Goyette. There was one made in the case of a magistrate in the city of Quebec, which I am sorry to say was not very fruitful of results. As to
IMr, Devlin.]
Magistrate Goyette-I speak now with moderate, but not with absolute certainty-some time ago it was considered by reason of his conduct that these cases should be taken elsewhere. Subsequently, evidence was brought forward that he would better discharge his duty, and return to his jurisdiction was made. This month, however, by reason of his action in a series of cases it was determined that we could no longer , submit the administration of the Act to him as a magistrate. In 'this connection I cannot do better than read a report made to the Acting Chief Commissioner of Police at Ottawa by an official of the Dominion Police in respect of the action of the magistrate this month. The report is dated the 9th of May, and reads as follows:
Attached copies of several reports from my inspector with reference to cases recently prosecuted before Magistrate Goyette at Buckingham, Que., and also at Hull, Que.
I wish specially to draw your attention to the cases which were dismissed by Magistrate Goyette on the grounds that the men were sick at the time they were ordered to report, and that they did not recover until the armistice was signed. These men had been ordered to report as far back as March 18, 1918, and it is unreasonable to suppose that they were sick all this time. These cases were remanded previous to the sentence being passed, and I am of the opinion that this was done to give these men an opportunity to put in a defence so that the magistrate could have some grounds to dismiss them.
Further, I wish to draw your attention to the several cases which were dismissed in Hull today on the grounds, my inspector informs me, that the magistrate considered that these men were farmers and were doing their duty much better as such than they would as soldiers.
In other words, he was assuming the jurisdiction of the tribunals under the Act, instead of acting as a magistrate sitting upon the case of a defaulter. The report continues:
In connection with these cases, none of the accused appeared in person, but Mr. Fortier, M.P. defended them, and it looks very much to me as if he has considerable influence with the magistrate in regard to his decisions.
In view of the large number of cases which have been dismissed where there is really no legitimate excuse or defence made, do you not think it would be advisable to again turn over the defaulters apprehended in this district to the A.P.M. for court-martial?
To this report the Acting Chief Commissioner of Police appended his note " Submitted for approval," A. J. Cawdron, and Mr. Newcombe appended his note " Yes, court-martial." In support of that, I shall read some subsidiary reports on individual eases:

Ottawa, May 7, 1919.
Memorandum for Chief Inspector A. H. Holden.
Daily Report for the 6th instant.
Re: Joseph Hamelin, SC 253364, Buckingham, Que., Group 3.
I beg to report that the subject appeared before Judge Goyette at Buckingham.
This case was dismissed through affidavits that he was sick at the time he was supposed to report, and when he got better the armistice was signed, so he thought all was over.
The date this man was ordered to report was May 2, 1918, so he has been in default something over a year.


Samuel Hughes: Who made that report?


Arthur Meighen: Arthur J. Dumais, Inspector of Dominion Police. The other cases are as follows:
Ovide Robitaille, Buckingham, Quebec-I beg to report that the subject appeared before Judge Goyette at Buckingham. This case was dismissed through affidavits that he was sick at the time he was supposed to report, and when he got better the armistice - was signed, so he thought all was over.
William Laberge, Masson,	Quebec-I
beg to report that the subject appeared before Judge Goyette at Buckingham. This case was dismissed through affidavits that he was sick at the time he was supposed to report, and when he got better the armistice was signed, so he thought all was over.
Oscar Goulet, Masson, Quebec - I beg to report that the subject appeared before Judge Goyette at Buckingham. This case was dismissed through affidavits that he was sick at the time he was [DOT] supposed to report, and when he got better the armistice was signed, so he thought all was over.


Mr. JACOBS:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman is going pretty far in his criticism of the Bench, and in that connection I wish to refer him to Bourinot, page 358, as follows:
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and the speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not understand that the reference has anything to do with the Bench whatsoever; it merely concerns a magistrate.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand the criticism is made in regard to a magistrate sitting as a judge on the Bench.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That rule has never been held applicable to magistrates; only to judges.


Arthur Meighen: The next case is that ot Hyacinthe Dubien:
Hyacinthe Dubien-I beg to report that the subject appeared before Judge Goyette at Buckingham. This case was dismissed through affidavits that he was sick at the time he was ordered to report and when he got better the armistice was signed, so he thought all was over.
Napoleon Lavergne, Masson, Quebec-I beg to report that the subject appeared before Judge Goyette at Buckingham. This case was dismissed through affidavits that he was sick at the time he was supposed to report, and when he got better the armistice was signed, so he thought all was over.
These are the cases of protracted, chronic illness.	Then, there is another class of
cases that came before this magistrate, as shown by the report of the inspectors, dated the 9th May:
Athanase Durocher, Angers, Quebec-I beg to report that the above-mentioned man appeared before Judge Goyette and his case was dismissed. Reason that he was a farmer's son and that he was doing his duty working on the farm and that he did not see any reason why he should not be discharged. He said when Mr. Bywater was here he said Mr. Fortier had a list of young farmers' sons that were exempted by him through Mr. Fortier, M.P. Mr. Fortier said that on his honour that he had given a list of these young men to Mr. Bywater but Mr. Bywater said he did not really think he had the list so the judge said that he did not think Mr. Fortier would lie about it.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he is reading the judgments of the court or simply a report by one of his officers; an inferior officer of the department?


Arthur Meighen: I am reading the reports of the inspectors of the Dominion police on each individual case, which reports came before the chief inspector and were submitted to the Justice Department as a ground for the transference of future cases from Judge Goyette.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Are these all the cases which were tried by Mr. Justice Goyette, or are they the exceptional cases?


Arthur Meighen: I do not understand that there is a " Mr. Justice Goyette." I understand he is a magistrate in the county ot Vvright. These are not all the cases. These are cases that latterly were brought to the attention of the Justice Department as grounds for the course which was taken. I presume there were other cases to which objection was not taken. But I understand that they produced a list of cases some time ago to which objection was taken and which I am reading here.
Rene Philion, Angens, Quebec-same report.
Jean Baptiste Durocher, Angers, Quebec-same report.



Dolphis Durocher, Angers, Quebec-same report.
Romeo Roberge, Lac Ste. Marie-same report.
Donat Pliilion, Angers, Quebec-same report.
Arthur Davernois, Hull, Quebec-I beg to report that the above mentioned man appeared before Judge Goyette in Hull and was remanded until May 14th on their personal bail. I told the judge I wanted this man to be held under at least $300 which he declined to do. I saw the judge before court and told him about the record he had at the Hull police' station. He told me he knew he was a bad boy but he said he came by himself this a.m. He will be here on the 14th inst.
Joseph Lavernois-same report.
By reason of the submission of these cases, action was taken.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What induced the department to go to another magistrate in the province of Ontario and not to another magistrate in the province of Quebec?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Newcombe, the
deputy minister, on the submission of the matter to him, recommended recourse to court-martial. I gathered from the hon. gentleman's remarks that they were given the option of coming before the police magistrate in Ottawa, the neighbouring city, instead of going before a court martial. The Justice Department recommended a court martial.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is perfectly correct but there is where I find fault with the department. Why not have a reference to another magistrate in the province where these young men resided whether in the county of Wright or in other counties?


Arthur Meighen: In these matters the department is no respecter of provinces. Hull and Ottawa are all in the military district the centre of which is Kingston. They were permitted to appear before another magistrate or a court martial.


Samuel Hughes: Is not Wright county in the 3rd Military District?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
RETURN OF OUR SOLDIERS; PORT OF DEBARKATION.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. C. G. POWER:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mewburn) to a despatch that was published in all the papers of Canada to the effect that 55,000 Canadian troops were to be landed in Canada during the month of May. Those 55,000 were to he loaded on some 25 or 30 fMr. Meighen.]
boats, of which three were to come up the St. Lawrence. The remainder were to go to Quebec and Halifax. Is it a fact that of these troops, some 9,000, if I remember the figures correctly, are to come to Quebec and Montreal and the remainder to go to Halifax? Without saying anything derogatory of the ports of Halifax and St. John, is it possible for the department to find railway and sleeping car accommodation sufficient within one month to ship 40,000 or 50,000 troops from Halifax and St. John?
Major-General MEWBURN:	I have no
definite information as to the actual number of troops to arrive at Halifax, Quebec, or Montreal. I announced to the House several days ago that we had made arrangements with a large number of vessels for the opening of navigation, and that we expected that the bulk of the troops for the province of Quebec and for west of the Great Lakes and Ontario would disembark at Quebec and Montreal. I said that the troops for the Maritime Provinces would disembark at Halifax, and that in order to meet the situation created by that movement of troops in the Maritime Provinces and possibly through some portions of Ontario, we would have to use day coaches. We have secured a number of extra boats, and we have also got the Aquitania, the Mauretania, and the Olympic. These large boats object to proceeding up' the St. Lawrence.


Charles Gavan Power: For what reason?
Major-General MEWBURN: The only information I have is that the Minister of Shipping announced that these large vessels will disembark the troops at Halifax and then proceed to New York.


Charles Gavan Power: And these boats are chartered by the Dominion Government?
Major-General MEWBURN: No, they are not. These boats immediately return to New York to carry back cargoes from that port. It was with a great deal of difficulty that we got these ships. Wherever possible we have asked that troops for west of the Great Lakes and Quebec should disembark at - Montreal.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White for Committee of Supply:
Mr. JOHN WESLEY EDWARDS (Fron-tenac):: Mr. Speaker, before you submit
the motion to go into Committee of Supply

I desire to occupy a brief period of the time of the House in discussing a matter which I consider as of vital importance, having regard to the future peace, prosperity and well-being of Canada. Early in the session I placed the following resolution on the Order Paper:
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the British North America Act should be amended so as to secure the establishment of a non-sectarian school system throughout the Dominion of Canada.
Being unable to reach that motion in the ordinary course of the transaction of the business of the House, it was finally withdrawn from the Order Paper, and I now wish to make it the basis of such remarks as I shall offer this afternoon. I am well aware that in approaching this subject I shall encounter the opposition of some who seem to regard with the gravest apprehension any attempt to interfere with the British North America Act. In general, such apprehension might be well founded, having regard to the constitutional usage of our country. Yet there have been times when the British North America Act has been amended at the request of this Parliament; I think I shall be able to show before resuming my seat that there have been occasions when that Act has been violated, both in the spirit and the letter, as a result of the action of the Canadian Parliament.
A short time ago-to be exact about the second or third of April-an article appeared in the Montreal Gazette, which was reproduced from another paper published in the same province called Le Pays, The article in question deals with compulsory education and in part reads as follows:
In face of the hostile attitude of the clergy and the manner in which the debate on the question of obligatory instruction was closed, we .have no further hope for any educational reform from that quarter. In order to obtain anything we must turn our eyes towards Ottawa, as the central Parliament, by amending the British North America Act, would take over the control of educational matters.
So, Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that the idea of transferring- the control of educational matters from the provinces to the Federal Parliament does not originate from myself; there are some in the adjoining province of Quebec, who hold that that is _ the proper course to take. I do not. go that far. I do not say. nor do I wish to be understood as saying, that I think the full control of matters of education should be taken from the provinces and vested in the Dominion Parliament. That is not my idea of what should be done; but I do say, Sir, that in my opinion little can be done
153i
here towards the formation of a homogeneous Canadian people without the direct intervention of the Federal Government in matters of education. As to how far that intervention should go, would, it seems to me, be a proper subject for consideration by the Dominion Parliament and the several provincial legislatures.
The matter of the establishment of nonsectarian national schools is not by any means a newr one. Such a system of schools exists in the United States and in Australia; and some fifty or sixty years ago a non-sectarian national school system was introduced into Japan. I might also say that France, Belgium, Italy and Portugal have all brought education under the control of the State, and I have only to mention in contrast such countries as Spain, Austria, and Mexico, and the South American Republics, where the schools have for centuries been under ecclesiastical control, to justify me, if any justification were necessary, in advocating a change in our present educational system.
I am well aware, Sir, that in raising this matter I shall be subjected to criticism from different people based on varying grounds. One class of critics there are who, I suppose, will honestly differ from me in regard to non-sectarian national schools. For those who honestly and sincerely differ from me in that regard I wish to say that I have the greatest respect. I direct my appeal especially to such men who sincerely hold views opposed to mine, and I invite the consideration by them of the arguments which I shall attempt to advance in this House to-day in favour of doing something to improve the conditions in regard to education which exist at the present time in Canada.
There is another class of critics who perhaps agree in the main with my viewpoint, but regard the present time-in fact any time for that matter-as inopportune for a discussion of this question. They are men who are fearful of arousing antagonisms in this country, and while holding perhaps just as strong views as I do in regard to this matter, are afraid to broach the subject for fear of giving offence to some person. Well, Sir, I confess I do not clearly understand how a public man can take a position of that kind. There are certain Canadian journalists who regard any discussion along this line as a menace to the well-being of the country. They offer no reasons for holding such a view, and the only reason that occurs to me is that they are afraid as newspaper men of a fair and free discussion of what I regard as a very important matter.

I wish to draw the attention of the House for a while to past history in connection with educational affairs in Canada, and I purpose to do so very briefly, going back to 1841. At that time the population of Upper Canada, was 78,119 Roman Catholic and 351,837 Protestants; the population of Lower Canada was 99,553 Protestants and 572,643 Roman Catholics. So in the two Canadas the Roman Catholics were in a majority of about 100,000. I mention this fact because I think it has a direct bearing upon the subject, for you will understand that the minority was not the same religiously at the time of the Act of Union as is the minority to-day. I believe I am right in stating that Lord Durham in suggesting the Act of Union had in mind the bringing of Upper and Lower Canada under one code of laws and a common language. I am not going to discuss the language question to-day; that is not my purpose; I want more particularly to direct the attention of hon. members to religious instruction in our schools.
The advocates of dogmatic religious teaching in schools had the principle recognized in the first Common School Act passed by the Union Parliament in 1846. May I mention here that the Union Parliament of 1841 was composed of 42 representatives from each of the provinces? Up to 1852 only 50 separate schools had been established in the province of Ontario, and 32 of these had lapsed. But in that year the Roman Catholic Church started a very active campaign for the extension of separate schools, and by 1858 there were 100 such schools in the province.
In 1860 the Hon. R. W. Scott introduced into the Union Parliament a Separate School Bill, which was defeated on three different occasions, but in 1863 it finally passed, the vote, so far as the Ontario members were concerned, standing 26 against the Bill and 16 for it. That is, there was a majority of 10 from the province of Ontario opposed to a Bill which, I desire to impress upon the House, concerned only the province of Ontario, not in any way the province of Quebec. The point I wish to emphasize is that separate schools were fastened upon the province of Ontario against the wish and will of its people as expressed in the Union Parliament.
In 1864 a conference was held in the city of Quebec, at which the late Hon. Oliver Mowat moved that the provincial legislatures should have control of educational matters. The Hon. D'Arcy McGee added to the motion these words: " Saving the

rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools at the time when the Constitutional Act goes into operation." I maintain that from this it is clear that the constitutional limitations were only meant to apply to Ontario and Quebec.
In 1867, when the Scott Separate School Act was incorporated in the British North America Act, there was no system of separate schools in the province of Quebec as there was in the province of Ontario. I know it is frequently said that this was a compromise, that separate schools
4 p.m. were given to the Roman Catholics in the province of Ontario, and separate schools were also given to the Protestants in the province of Quebec. I wish to say, Sir, that that statement is not a statement of fact. I assert that there is no such thing, and there never has been such a thing as a Protestant separate school in the Dominion of Canada. You may tell me there are Protestant separate schools in the province of Quebec. I say; No; there are Protestant schools in Quebec, but those schools are non-sectarian; Roman Catholic children can attend those schools without any detriment to their religious beliefs. But that is not the case where Roman Catholic separate schools are established either in Ontario or in any other province; Protestants are excluded from those schools because of the fact that they are strictly religious schools.
Mr. THOS. VIEN (Lotbiniere): Will the hon. member allow me to put him right on this point? There are a number of Catholic schools in the province of Quebec which receive Protestant children with no interference in so far as their religious teaching is concerned. I might cite in Montreal the Ville Marie school, the Sault au Recollet school, the Convent of the Sacred Heart, Montreal College, Levis College-where I received my own education-and St. Mary's College. A number of Protestant students attend those schools without being obliged to receive any religious teaching.
Mr. EDWARDS; I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the public schools of the province of Quebec which are under the control of the dominant church in that province are schools to which the Protestant population cannot send their children because of the fact that religious dogma with which they do not agree is taught in those schools. It may be that there are some schools in that province where they make provision for

religious instruction during a certain part of the day.


Mr. BUREAU:: None whatever.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, there is no use mincing matters in regard to this. Hon. gentlemen know perfectly well, as does every person else in this country, that a Roman Catholic separate school is separate for religious purposes. What is tbe use of trying to get around that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. gentleman allow me a word at this point? If I thought I could convince the hon. gentleman that he was wrong


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to speak when I have concluded. I do not propose to allow half a dozen hon. gentlemen opposite to interject remarks when I am speaking.


Mr. VIEN:: State the right facts then.


John Wesley Edwards: 
Jacques Bureau: It is unfounded.
Mr. Edwards: -that there are no places in the province of Quebec where no provision is made for the education of isolated Protestant children. And I make this further assertion, that there are no places in the province of Ontario where no provision is made for the education of isolated Roman Catholic children. That is what I mean to say


Mr. BUTTS:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question?


John Wesley Edwards: No, I will not. My hon. friend may speak when I get through.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Just one simple question.


John Wesley Edwards: I repeat that wherever you have a Protestant public school system such as we have in Ontario, it is open to Roman Catholic children just as it is to Protestant children; there is no possibility of embarrassment in the matter of their religious belief. But where you have a majority in a community conducting a separate school, the few Protestant families who may be in that community are precluded from getting an education because of the fact that that school is a Roman [DOT] Catholic separate school. Let me give an illustration of that, taken from my own
county. We have in the county of Fron-tenac a small island known as Howe Island, all the families on which, except four or five, are Roman Catholics. Up to a number of years ago the three schools on that island were public schools, attended alike by Roman Catholic and Protestant children,, who grew up together without any trouble arising between them. No religious instruction was given in the schools; they were conducted as other public schools were conducted. But the archbishop demanded of the Ontario Government that these three schools be converted into separate schools-on the ground that nearly all the population was Roman Catholic, and to-day the three schools on that island are separate schools. The result is that as soon as the children of the four or five Protestant families there become of school age they must be sent to Kingston, Gananoque or some other place in order to receive their education. You cannot point to a single place in Canada where Roman Catholic children who happen to be in the minority are subjected to that kind of treatment. That is manifestly unfair; it does not make for peace and unity. So long as you have such a condition' of gross injustice as this, you have something which rankles in the hearts of the people who are subjected to it; you have something which makes for antagonism and . hostility among the people. It is in the interest of peace and harmony and unity in this country that that condition of things should pass away and that we should have a common system of schools where Roman Catholic and Protestant children may be educated and grow up together, side by side, leaving to the priests, the clergy and the parents the imparting of religious instruction.
In 1866 Sir A. T. Galt resigned from the Government because of failure to get legislation securing to English Protestants in Quebec a fair share of public funds for the Protestant schools. About the same time the Protestant teachers of Quebec sent a petition to the Imperial Government. What was the general tenor of that petition? They said to the Imperial Government that the Protestants in Quebec were deprived of the benefits of a general system of education such as the Protestants of Ontario enjoyed; that the Protestants of Quebec were liable to a tax to support Roman Catholic schools; that it was difficult for them to establish non-denominational schools or seminaries for themselves; that the settlement of Protestants in Quebec was discouraged and many families were forced to leave; and that they would prefer

a general non-sectarian school system. It "was not until 1869 that the legislature of *Quebec ~g~ave statutory recognition to Protestant schools in that province. Section 93 of the Confederation Act reads as follows:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions:	...
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province- at the Union.
Of all the provinces now forming this Dominion, Quebec and Ontario alone had separate schools at the time of the union in 1867-existing by law in Ontario and in practice in Quebec. Section 93 applies only to Ontario and Quebec, and was inserted in the Act to preserve rights or privileges created by these provinces when they were separate sovereignties. With regard to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, no restrictions or' conditions were imposed; therefore, those provinces are free to legislate regarding education as they may deem proper. I maintain that the same is true with regard to Saskatchewan and Alberta. Both the spirit and the letter of the British North America Act were violated by the Parliament of Canada when they passed the Autonomy Bills in 1905. A distinct attempt was made at that time to fasten upon Alberta and Saskatchewan separate schools for all time. Since then certain provisions in the Autonomy Bill have been referred to by advocates of separate schools as something which the province could not get over. I am going to take a little time in regard to this matter, because in my judgment it is within the jurisdiction of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan either to have or not to have separate schools, just as they like, notwithstanding anything contained in the Autonomy Bills of 1905.
Saskatchewan and Alberta were carved out of territory acquired from the Hudson Bay Company in 1870. As there were no white inhabitants in that territory at that time, no provision was made for the government of the -territories until 1875, when the Northwest Territories Act was passed. The legislative powers conferred by the Northwest Territories Act were temporary and entirely subject to the guidance, control and supervision of the Dominion Parliament. Section 11 of the Northwest Territories Act made provision for separate schools. But I would have you remember this: at that time there were only about

500 white people in that territory. These people had no representation' in the Dominion Parliament and therefore had no say in regard to a matter in which they were more interested than any one else.
When the Act came before the House in 1875 Hon. George Brown protested against the extension of separate schools to the Territories. He said:-
This provision is contrary to the British North America Act. Nothing is more clear than that each province should have absolute control over education.
In 1892 the Territorial Assembly passed an Act which was called the Haultain School Ordinance Act, under which all schools, public and separate, were brought under control of the Territorial Government from 9 in the morning until 3.30 in the afternoon. That is to say, by that Act, they established in the Territories national, non-sectarian schools, from 9 a.m. to 3.30 p.m., the teaching of religion being restricted to half an hour per day between 3.30 and 4 -p.m. At that time the Eoman Catholics claimed that their rights were impaired and they appealed to the Federal Government, but Sir John Thompson, who was then Minister of Justice, declined to interfere. I call attention to that, because that was an admission on the part of the Federal Government in favour of local control of education.
In the session of 1894, Dalton McCarthy moved in the House a resolution to repeal section 11 of the Northwest Territories Act, that is, the section providing for separate schools in the Territories, his idea being that with such a law on the statute book of Canada, it might afford the Dominion Government at some future date an excuse for perpetuating separate schools when new provinces were created. Subsequent events have proved that Dalton McCarthy had at that time considerable foresight. Sir John Thompson, at that time, made use of these words in discussing the resolution moved by Dalton McCarthy:
What the constitution of the future provinces shall be, in view of the pledges which have been referred to, or in view of any other set of circumstances, will be for Parliament to decide when it decides to create those provinces.
I want to give the House this expression of opinion by a man well known by reputation to every hon. member, namely, the hon. David Mills:
When the people of the territories, or any portion of the territories, are sufficiently numerous to constitute a province, when, in fact, they attain their majority in regard to local matters, and when they propose to set up for them- '

selves, this Parliament has no right to exercise control over them, no right to exercise any authority; it can give good advice, but it has no right to give commands. But we are not dealing with the future. When the territories have a sufficient population to entitle them to become a province they must decide for themselves whether they will have separate schools or not.
So far as the Territories were concerned-I do not at all admit that the introduction of separate schools there stands upon the same footing as the introduction of separate schools in the province of Ontario, or of the dissentient schools in the province of Quebec. In these provinces they were protected under the constitution ; they cannot be interfered with by the local legislature. But in the Northwest Territories, as the hon. minister has said, it has been a matter not of right, not of guarantee to any particular class of the population, but a matter of policy. They were introduced with the view of preventing conflict in this House upon the subject of separate schools, and for the reason that they were introduced there they should be maintained as long as these Territories are under the control of this Parliament. When this Parliament has discharged its duties and the people of the Territories have received the population to entitle them to enter the union, they must assume the responsibility for deciding for themselves under the British North America Act how far they should maintain the principle of separate schools or maintain the non-denominational system.
I also wish to place on Hansard the opinion of Sir Louis Davies, given at the same time:
My opinion is now and has been for years that when that time comes you cannot withhold from the provinces so erected the right to determine for themselves the question of education one way or the other. I would be the last to favour this Parliament imposing upon the people there any system of education, either free or separate. I only claim that when a Bill is introduced to erect those Territories into provinces that the Bill should contain a provision enabling the people of the different provinces so created to decide what system of education they should have.
In accordance with the view I have always held and hold now, I have no hesitation in expressing, respectfully, that the people of those new provinces should have the right to determine what system of education they shall have.
Next in chronological order is the memorable struggle which took place in Manitoba for national schools, a struggle which began with the Manitoba School Act of 1890 and resulted in the defeat of the Tupper Government in 1896, the defeat of the Roblin Government in 1914, and in the final repeal by the Norris Government in 1916 of the Laurier-Greenway Settlement of 1897. Perhaps I had better put on Hansard what that agreement was. It is contained in section 258 of the Manitoba 'School Act and reads:
When ten pupils in any schools speak the French language or any language other than
English, as their national language, the teaching of such pupils shall he conducted in French or such other language, and English, upon the bilingual system.
I am not going to follow that any further because, as I said before, my remarks are going to be concerned more with the religious aspect of teaching than with the language question.
In 1905, this Parliament passed the Saskatchewan Act and the Alberta Act, otherwise known as the Autonomy Bills. When the Autonomy Bills were being considered, the Hon. Robert Rogers, and the Hon.- Mr. Campbell, of the Manitoba Government, came to Ottawa to urge the extension of Manitoba's boundaries. The Papal Ablegate sent for them and suggested, that if the province would agree to re-establish separate schools, there would be no difficulty regarding the boundary question. I protest against that sort of thing, and I leave it to the judgment of hon. members that if the Imperial Government or the King himself had undertaken such an interference with legislation in this House as was undertaken by the Papal Ablegate, there would have been a howl that would have been heard from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The people would not have stood for it for a minute. We need not stand for that sort of thing, and I have a right to express my opinion in regard to it, and in doing so I am not making an attack on any gentleman's religion.


Mr. PROULX:: What is the hon. gentleman's authority for such a statement?


John Wesley Edwards: My authority is one which might not appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite. The statement was made without contradiction in this House by one of the gentlemen to whom I have referred, namely, the Hon. Mr. Rogers. Does the hon. gentleman say that was not the case?


Edmond Proulx: I do not think Mr. Rogers was in the House at the time.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman was ready to ask a question but he is not ready to answer one.


Edmond Proulx: I doubt very much
whether it is the case.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not doubt it and therefore I will give it. In 1905, when the Autonomy Bills were before the House, Sir Wilfrid Laurier made this statement regarding the language question. I want to put these words on Hansard because I want to make an application of them:

The fathers of Confederation did not pretend to authorize the French language in any part of the Dominion except in this Parliament and in the province of Quebec. Everywhere else the people were left free to deal with the matter as they saw fit.
I mention that because, if the principle of local control is sound as regards language, why should it not be in regard to religious instruction? It should be as good in the one case as in the other.
As regards the Autonomy Bills, I want to refer to the educational clauses of the Saskatchewan and Alberta Acts of 1905, because I think I can show that while some people in this country are ready to hold up their hands in horror at any thought of interfering with the British North America Act, the Parliament of Canada did lay violent hands on that Act and did violate it in principle and in letter in passing the clauses I am going to read. Section 3 of the Saskatchewan Act, which is the same as the Alberta Act, reads as follows:
The provision of the British North American Acts, 1867 to 1886, shall apply to the province of Saskatchewan in the same way, and to the like extent as they apply to the provinces heretofore comprised in the Dominion, as if the said province of Saskatchewan had been one of the provinces originally united, except in so far as varied by this Act, and except such provisions as ard in terms made, or by reasonable intendment may be held to be, especially applicable to or only to affect one or more, and not the whole of the said provinces.
Why the exception in that clause? What is the purpose of it? The purpose is more clearly shown in the succeeding sections. Section 17 says:
Section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said provinces, with the substitution for paragraph 1 of the said section 93, of the following paragraph :
1.	Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act under the terms of charters 29 and 30 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed in the year 1901: or with respect to religious instruction in any public or separate school, as provided for in the said ordinances.
2.	In the appropriation by the legislature or distribution by the province of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with the said chapter 29, or any Act passed in amendment thereof or in substitution therefore, there shall be no discrimination against schools of any class described in the said chapter 29.
3.	Where the expression " by law " is employed in paragraph (3) of the said section 93, it shall be held to mean the law as set out in the said chapters 29 and 30 : and where the expression " at the union " is employed in the said paragraph, it shall be held to mean the date at which this Act comes into force.

That was in 1905. 'Here we have, in effect, an amendment to the British North America Act of 1867, because it inserts certain ordinances passed by the Northwest Territories Assembly in 1901 under a delegated authority from the Parliament of Canada. The provisions of the constitution are departed from and are only to apply "except in so far as varied by this Act." -Subsection 1 of section 93 is abolished, and subsection 3 is amended by placing upon it an interpretation it could not otherwise bear.
What does the expression ~"in the prov-vince at the Union" mean? If it means 1905, then no amendment was required for the purpose of separate school establishment. If it does not mean 1905, by what authority did the Parliament of Canada change that Imperial Act? "At the Union" means when the territories were united to the rest of Canada and became a part of the Dominion, namely in 1870. There were then no white people in the territories, and consequently no schools, separate or public. The Saskatchewan Act and the Alberta Act were designed to perpetuate certain privileges created by the Act of 1875, and this was done by over-riding the constitution. Let me quote the opinion of Hon. Edward Blake in 1869:
It is perfectly clear on great and obvious principles that the basis of union settled by the British North America Act is not capable ol' alteration by Parliament.
Yet the spirit and intention of the Act was unquestionably altered by these Autonomy Bills passed in 1905. Mr. Clement, in his work on "The Canadian Constitution," says (page 352):
Can a new province be established with a smaller sphere of authority than that occupied by the provinces named in the British North
America Act, 1867?	It is submitted,
therefore, that any new province created must be given full provincial autonomy and powers as defined in the original British North America Act, 1867.
On March 22, 1905, on the second reading of the Autonomy Bills, Sir Robert Borden said:
In tsishushing a new province, can this Parliament wholly or partially alter the basis of Confederation? Can it ch'ange the distribution of legislative powers? That, I submit, oan only be done by the Imperial Parliament. Surely it cannot be contended that in giving to a new province the constitutional rights conferred by the British North America Act we can reverse the scheme framed by the Fathers of Confederation and embodied in an Imperial statute. Yet that is what the right hon. gentleman seeks to do to-day by the provisions contained in section 17 of the Bill. I submit we have no duty, nay we have no right or power to shatter the foundations then laid

or to re-write the compact into which we then entered.
Sir Robert Borden moved an amendment, but it wa3 voted down. Mr. Speaker, I have referred to these Autonomy Bills and to the history leading up to their passage by this Parliament for a purpose, which no doubt has already been plainly indicated. I say that the power lies within the legislatures of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, notwithstanding the special provisions1 in the Autonomy Bills of 1905, to establish in those provinces a nonsectarian school system whenever they feel disposed (to do so. I want to place a few statements before hon. members, and to ask them to consider them fairly and to meet them with argument if they have arguments to refute them.
I say that as regards privileges, all our citizens should stand on the same level regardless of the church they are connected with. I say that an educational system founded upon special privileges fosters disunion and disintegration, and leads ultimately to national disaster. I sincerely believe that, and I invite hon. gentlemen who do not agree with me to present their arguments in refutation. I say that all classes of our people without regard (to race or creed should share equally in the responsibilities of citizenship. Will any person object to that statement? I say therefore that there should be sufficient uniformity in our systems of education to ensure a uniform and common knowledge of what the responsibilities of citizenship are. If any hon. gentleman objects to that statement, I shall be pleased to hear his objection.


Robert Hamilton Butts: May I ask a question?


John Wesley Edwards: Not until I get through.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I thought the hon. member invited questions. Oh, bigotry where is your blush?


John Wesley Edwards: Am I then to be
charged with bigotry because I say that one class of the community should have no special privileges over another class? That is the assertion I have made. Am I to be charged with being an enemy of religion because I say that I favour a non-sectarian school system? Am I to be charged by the hon. gentleman with intolerance because I say that the church of which he is a shining ornament should have no special privileges above any other denomination in this country?
I want to tell him and any other hon. members of this House, if there are any
who share his view, that if it means being a bigot to say that one class shall not have special privileges over the other, I am willing to be called a bigot and I will not have as much reason to blush for being called a bigot as the hon. gentleman will have reason to blush for some of the sentiments that he is hiding behind the newspaper that he is holding up before his face.
When there are widely different standards of education, there are bound to be widely different conceptions of patriotism and national duty. That seems to be an obvious and reasonable statement to make. The great war has made it abundantly clear that some of the peoples of Canada have no proper conception of their duty to the State and can not be relied on in a great national crisis. The responsibility for concerted action in the war which has just closed rested where?-on the Provincial Governments or on this Government? The responsibility for concerted action rested on the Dominion Government and not upon the Provincial Governments. The Dominion Government has no say whatever in regard to the matters which, I say, make for the unity or disunity of this country. Sir William Peterson, former principal of McGill University said:
By what X think a most regrettable provision of the Constitution of Canada, the Federal Government is not supposed even to know that Education is being carried on in the Dominion. Education is remitted by the practice of the Constitution of the country to the Provincial Governments.
He adds:
*Now against that I have always protested.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the greatest human agency for eliminating the differences which divide the Canadian people is a non-sectarian national school system. I want to repeat that as being my earnest >
conviction and my warrant for speaking this afternoon. I say that in my opinion the greatest human agency for eliminating the differences which exist in this House, and which divide the Canadian people today, is a non-sectarian school system. I believe that is true and, believing it to be true, I think I am entitled to credit for itiy sincerity even if some hon. gentlemen do not agree with my statement. Canada is filled by peoples of all races and creeds and if each chooses to have its own peculiar system, harmony and concerted action are impossible and confusion is inevitable. Unwise concessions have been made resulting in bitterness and strife. Are they to be perpetuated? Are we to perpetuate these unwise concessions? Surely no person is

going to say or to assume that those who undertook to establish the school systems of this country fifty or sixty years ago are to determine the character of our institutions for the millions who live in Canada to-day and the greater number of millions who will live in Canada in years to come? To give you an expression of opinion from another distinguished Canadian, let me quote what Sir John Willison says:
We have had in the educational clause of the British North America Act a source of misunderstanding and confusion which has not made for national solidity and more than once has filled the country with the angry clamour of violent sectarian controversy.
Is that not true? Yet I suppose Sir John Willison is to be charged with bigotry by the hon. gentleman because he gives expression to what is an undoubted fact. He continues :
We have had during the whole period of Confederation a resolute and unceasing effort to read into the Constitution a guarantee of sectarian schools for every province of the Confederation and a steady denunciation of those who insist upon a different interpretation and contend for the right of the provinces to control over education subject to their conception of the constitutional limitations.
We have passed through a great testing time which has shown Canada's greatness and also its weakness. We have-I want to inform the hon. gentleman (Mr. Butts) before he goes


Robert Hamilton Butts: I have paid too much attention to you.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: We have in this, country a divided allegiance the fatal danger of which must have been brought home to every thoughtful man. No country can possess the peace and harmony necessary to stability whose people are not of one mind as to where the sovereign power resides. The fact is we have been trying to get along under two governments, the one at Ottawa and the other a self-constituted authority claiming the right to regulate federal and provincial legislation in regard to education. I have never meddled in my life with the doctrines, dogmas or ceremonies of any church. 1 have never had any desire to do so. I have never had any desire to interfere with any man in his right to worship as his conscience dictates. The last thing that would occur to me would be to interfere with him in the exercise of that right. But surely I am not guilty of intolerance when I assert that the Government should not favour one creed more than another.

Is that intolerance? Is it fanatical to say that public money should not be spent on sectarian education? Is it bigotry to assert that all citizens stand on the same level as regards privileges? Should I be charged with a desire to destroy religion because I believe that a system of national, nonsectarian schools will conduce to harmony and national unity?
We often hear it said that our differences in this country are due to misunderstanding. I dissent from that statement at once. I say our differences are not due to misunderstanding. We understand perfectly. It is because of the thorough understanding that we do have the differences that we have to-day. Do you mean to tell me that a man who resides in a certain section of the country and finds himself in the position that his children cannot attend the only school that there is for them because of certain religious dogmas being taught that he does not agree with, feels a sense of injustice because of misunderstanding? Not at all. He understands that he is not getting a square deal. There is not a man in this House who can argue successfully that he is getting a square deal. It is not a question of theology or of doctrine or religious dogma but it is a question of civil rights and a square deal for every man in this country.
Let me ask this question: Is a Government justified in conferring special privileges on any one section of the people? That is a fair question. If not, if you answer that in the negative, if you say that the Government is not justified in conferring special privileges on one section of the people, then you must agree with me that separate school laws are wrong in principle because they are a violation of the equality^ of civil rights which is the basis of free government.
What do I suggest in regard to this matter? I know that education in so far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned is fixed by the terms of Confederation. I do not wish to be understood as saying that I think this Parliament should take away from these provinces the rights which they have under the constitution. But surely that does not prevent us from discussing the question here as to whether another system would be preferable. We have had over fifty years of Confederation and the idea of the Fathers of Confederation was unquestionably in the main to try and unite the people.
I leave it to any hon. gentleman here who has studied past history and who reads

the press to say if he is satisfied with the conditions which exist in this country at the present time. After over fifty years of confederation have we got unity in this country? Not by any means. We have not got unity, and why have we not? Because, Mr. Speaker, we have had in the public life of this country in times past men who were willing to put party expediency and party exigencies before their duty to Canada; that is why. Because we have had in this country men calling themselves statesmen and posing as being especially broadminded who have been too cowardly to deal with questions such as this on their merits. That is why-at any rate it is my own opinion.
Now, Sir, I would suggest that this matter of education does concern the Federal Government and does concern this Parliament. Surely we have some interest in a democracy in Canada which is_ getting its ideas of Canada and of Britain, and of Canadian and British history, through the medium of half a dozen different foreign languages? Surely some right is vested in the Federal Government as to the, kind of democracy we are creating in this country? Is it not true that under existing conditions to-day we have less efficiency all over the country in regard to educational matters in our primary schools than we would have, had there been only one system of national education? You cannot dispute that for a moment. A short distance from where I live, in a good settlement, there are two schools, one a Roman Catholic separate school and the other, three-quarters of a mile away, a public school. The taxes of the people of that community are going to maintain two schools. It must be manifest to every person that the combined taxes of those people would maintain a far better school if there was only one; that both Roman Catholic and Protestant children would enjoy better educational advantages if there was only one school than they do at present with two schools. There is not only waste of money at present, but what is of more importance still, there is less efficiency in our school systems, because of this division. What choice has the family of a man got who happens to be living in a section of the country where nine-tenths of the people, we will say, happen to be Roman Catholics, and where the only school in the community is a separate school? What choice in the matter of education have the 'two or three Protestant families got who chance to be located there? The children are excluded from
that school unless the parents are willing to allow them to go there and hear religious dogma taught with which they do not agree.
I am not discussing whether that dogma is right or is wrong, but I-do say that the opinions of the minority should be respected and that the Protestant children are excluded from that school. What choice is open to the parents in such case? They must either send their children miles away from home and pay their board, or sell their farms and move to some other part of the country. How in the name of Heaven can you expect to obtain unity in this country when the children from two families-one a Roman Catholic family and the other a Protestant family, are going to different schools-one to this school and the other to that? Why, from the time they emerge from the cradle these children of opposite religious faith are taught to look with hostility and antagonism upon each other. How can you expect when they grow up to manhood that they can work together for the general welfare of this country? It is absolutely impossible; hon. gentlemen in this House, whether they favour separate schools or not, know that it is unfair and unreasonable to expect that they should.
I would favour first of all, Mr. Speaker, the creation of a Dominion bureau of education, because I believe the Dominion Government should have some voice in regard to educational matters. I would favour the holding of a conference in the city of Ottawa of leading educationists from the various provinces of Canada. Surely such men can come together on something which would promote the desired object, and surely they should come together. Surely we are within our rights as members of Parliament in advocating a condition of affairs where there will be some semblance of uniformity in teaching, because that uniformity in our public school teaching is necessary if we are to produce a united people in Canada animated by common national ideals.
This question, Sir, is one which affects, and very seriously, the people in Western Canada. According to the census of 1911 there were in the four Western Provinces 412,995 persons representing five nationalities,-Germans, Austrians, Russians, Poles and Scandinavians. Nearly half a million people of those five nationalities in those Western Provinces in 1911, and there are more than that number there now. We know to what extent we can rely upon those people in a crisis such as the one through which we have just passed. Should we not in the interests of the future welfare

of this country, try and devise some system whereby we will have some hope of Canadianizing these foreigners who come to our shores? But, Mr. Speaker; it is not only in regard to the West that I am speaking. May I call your attention to something very much nearer, something, it seems to me, that we ought to have at least a right to protest about? In 1912 a certain book was authorized for use in the schools in a part of this country. That book referred to Quebec as the capital of Canada, Toronto still figured as York, and Ottawa was not mentioned at all. Winnipeg did not even figure as Fort Garry; it was not even mentioned. The four Western Provinces are referred to in that book as "regions unknown except under the designation of New Caledonia, a wild region of no importance except for its furs." That is only an extract from the book in question. I could give the House other illuminating extracts if it was desired, but fancy a book being used in any province of Canady which issues such stuff as that to the children of this country at as recent a period as 1912. I do not know whether that book is still in use at the present time or not. Mr. Speaker, I believe it can be shown that text books have been used in the schools of this country lauding and praising Germany and Germans to the skies during the last four and a half years, while our boys have been overseas in France and Flanders giving up their lives in the struggle against those very people. Will any person tell me that the Federal Parliament has no right to intervene in a matter of that kind, and at least offer advice? I am perfectly well aware that there are some people in this country- like the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton (Mr. Butts) who interrupted me a while ago-who will not attempt to present any arguments on a question of this kind, who will not attempt to argue the subject on its merits, who *will not advance any reasons at all in support of their views, but will simply shout " bigotry " because they know it is the only expression which is applicable to themselves beyond the slightest doubt.
I do not care, Mr. Speaker, a snap of my fingers for the opinions of such people either in this House or outside of it. I have b':en honest in giving my views on this matter, because, Sir, I am a Canadian, and as a Canadian I would like to see a better state of affairs existing in this Dominion than has existed for many years. I would like to see more unity, more harmony, more peace-I would like to see our people of different races and creeds working shoulder to shoul-
der for the future well-being and upbuilding of this Dominion. It is because I do sincerely wish to see that desirable condition that I have given expression to these view's this afternoon, and I trust that hon. gentlemen either on this side or opposite will not find in anything I have said any attack on their religion. I have never in my life attacked the Roman Catholic faith.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oil.


John Wesley Edwards: Hon. gentlemen are free, of course, to offer the insult of a laugh. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for the last ten or eleven years, and I defy any hon. member to point to one single w'ord, line or sentence of mine uttered in this House reflecting on any man's religion. Now, laugh if you have got a laugh in you.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: If hon. gentlemen opposite instead of laughing possess the quality of courage, let them get busy and present to me any statement of mine in this House or outside reflecting on any man's religion. I have never, Mr. Speaker, had any desire to reflect on any man's faith-never in my life, and I have never done so. But I will say to members of this House that when the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, or the Anglican Church, or the Presbyterian Church, or any other religious denomination through its ecclesiastical dignitaries sticks its nose into public affairs, I, as a public man, am going to hit that nose as I think it ought to be hit. Will any hon. gentleman tell me that on educational matters, on w'hich the Roman Catholic Hierarchy have very distinct views and have given expression to them-and they have a perfect right to do so-will hon. gentlemen tell me that as a public man I have no right to express my views? That is what I would assume from the attitude of at least one hon. gentleman judging by his expression a while ago. I have endeavoured to present this matter- which I repeat again I regard as of very great importance to the Dominion-in a series of statements very deliberately thought out, and again I invite hon. gentlemen to direct their attention and their arguments to some of those statements, which have been delivered with the best of intentions and without any ill-feeling towards any person, class or creed in this country.
Mr. JAMES A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Huntingdon): Mr. Speaker, wrn upon this side of the House did not have notice from my hon. friend that he was going to bring

up the resolution to-day. Indeed, it had been so long on the Order Paper that we had concluded that it might, like the Highways Bill, have fallen by the wayside. With his plea for national unity we upon this side are in common accord. There may be places in some of the provinces where there is not national unity, but I wish at once to assure my hon. friend that in the province of Quebec in which I live we have national unity.
My hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) seemed to be concerned more particularly regarding the school system in the province of Quebec, and for that reason I purpose to devote a few moments to an expression of my experience as a school trustee covering a period of perhaps twenty or
5 p.m. twenty-five years-longer than I care to remember. A few moments ago when my hon. friend was charging that there were schools in the province of Quebec which Protestants could not attend because of the religious training imparted, it brought to my mind a matter that I would rather not speak much about under these conditions, but in justice to my fellow citizens I am going to mention it. My only child for a number of years attended a Roman Catholic convent. As she was without a mother, naturally I watched very closely to see if any influence was brought to bear upon her, and I never was able to observe the slightest attempt to sway her religious feelings.


Samuel Hughes: Might I ask the
hon. member a question? Did not the hon. member for Frontenac make it clear that he was speaking of primary schools?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Alexander Robb: I am dealing with the question generally.. I have no knowledge that primary schools are any different in that respect from other schools. I have in mind places in the province of Quebec where there is perhaps only one school, a Protestant school, or a Catholic school as the case may be, and both Catholic and Protestant children are attending it. I was told not long ago by a prominent public man that all the education he had ever received was in a Roman Catholic school in the province of Quebec. That man is a Protestant and to-day occupies a very high position among the judiciary of the province of Ontario.
I do not want to get away from the main point. As I said, I have had an experience of from twenty to twenty-five years as a school trustee in the province of Quebec. We have at the opening of our
schools in the fall two difficulties: one difficulty is to provide sufficient space for the Roman Catholic French children who want to attend; the other difficulty is to get the newly-arrived Englishman to send his child to school instead of putting him in the local mill. In the town in which I live the local Roman Catholic college has three hundred boys in attendance, and there are many Protestant boys among them,-they go there because they wish to acquire the two languages,-and I have never heard that any attempt ever was made to influence their religious opinions.
But my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) destroys his whole argument. He states that Article 93 of the British North America Act guaranteed separate schools to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Surely after all these years we are not going to reopen this question? If the hon. gentleman is sincere in his desire for peace and harmony throughout this country, I ask him in all fairness: can we accomplish that by reopening the question of religious training in schools? My hon. friend said that there might have been a better condition of things in this province of Ontario if the public	men of
the past had not been so cowardly In making that statement my hon. friend made a very serious attack upon that great statesman of whom he is a follower and admirer, and of whom we all are admirers, the late Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir John A. Macdonald had no such views as those entertained by the member for Frontenac. Listen to these words of that great statesman with regard to this school question, spoken in the House of Commons of Canada:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other; I believe that would be impossible if it were tried and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible. The statement that has been made so often that this is a conquered country is " a propos de rien." Whether it was conquered or ceded, we have a constitution under which all British subjects are in a position of absolute equality, having rights of ever} kind, of language, of religion, of property and of person. There is no paramount race in this country, there is no conquered race in this country, we are all British subjects, and those who are not English are none the less British subjects on that account.
That was the statement of a man who desired unity in this country, and it has the ring of true statesmanship. I submit in all seriousness that no good can be served by bringing this question up from time to time. My hon. friend seems to

think that Protestants in the province of Quebec are suffering. Let me, as a representative Protestant, assure him that we are perfectly satisfied with the system we now enjoy, and that we see great dangers ahead for us if the idea which the hon. gentleman presents to-day should prevail. Let me ask him, should we have national schools? Should we have one school as he suggests? What would be the language in the province of Quebec were his idea adopted? Where would the Protestants in that province stand? We are satisfied now with our school system; how would my hon. friend improve it?


John Wesley Edwards: I do not see any rea=on why the question of language should be brought in or how it affects the matter at all. If you had non-sectarian schools in Quebec, you would get along just as well so far as language is concerned. My idea is that the primary schools should be non-sectarian.


James Alexander Robb: Very well; then the majority will rule. Only two or three years ago my hon. friend argued in this House that the schools in the province of Quebec were inferior, particularly that the Roman Catholic schools were inferior; and. that the Protestant schools in that province were much superior to the Roman Catholic schools. Does he want to put us back to the position he said we were in when he made that argument three years ago? If so, as a Protestant from Quebec, I cannot agree with him. Let me refer my hon. friend, who seems to be somewhat ignorant of the school laws of the province of Quebec, to the Acts upon which our school laws are founded. There is a Council of Public Instruction, composed of Roman Catholic and Protestant members. In the performance of their duties the members are subject to the lawful orders and instructions given to them by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Council of Public Instruction is divided into two committees, one composed of Roman Catholic members and the other of Protestant members. The Protestant Committee may associate with themselves six persons. and the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers may each year at their annual meeting elect one of their members to be also an associate member of the Protestant Committee for the following year. The persons so added shall not form part of the Council of Public Instruction, but shall have in the Protestant Committee the same powers as the members of such Committee. School questions in which the interest of Roman Catholics and Protestants

are collectively concerned are under the jurisdiction of the Council of Public Instruction and shall be decided by it. That is fair; we are satisfied with that.
My hon. friend may think I am advancing a prejudiced idea; that I am making an argument simply because I am on the opposite side of the House. Let me put in evidence here" a statement of the Inspector General of Protestant schools in the province of Quebec. In 1914, in a pamphlet written by Dr. G. W. Parmelee the English or Protestant Secretary of the Council of Public Instruction, and Mr. J. C. Sutherland, Inspector General of Protestant Schools of the province, my hon. friend will find, at page 41, the following:
A perusal of the previous pages has probably made it clear that the Roman Catholic majority and the Protestant minority work harmoniously by dividing the educational regulations and administration into two separate parts in regard to all matters that would give rise to a conflict of opinion between them.
Inasmuch as these regulations include courses of study and provisions for religious instruction, and inasmuch as each committee approves of the textbooks for use in the schools of its own faith, ample guarantee is thus given to the Protestant minority that in vital matters the control of Protestant education will remain in Protestant hands, and at the same time the Roman Catholic Church is assured that religion in accordance with the tenets of the church shall continue to be inculcated as the basis upon which true education rests.
An annual meeting of the Dominion Educational Association was held in Ottawa in February, 1917. Mr. J. C. Sutherland, Inspector General of Protestant schools in the province of Quebec, attended that convention, and met there representatives from various parts of Ontario. At that convention he said:
There has never been a particle of friction in tffe department in this respect since Confederation or before that date	We (the
Protestant minority) have wonderful freedom, and whatever is needed is given. We never
have any trouble	We have a complete
system of reporting for the census, and also for the school attendance	
That is the evidence of a public servant who travels throughout the province of Quebec, covering a territory extending from a point 180 miles north of North Bay away down to the Gulf-Quebec is a big country. I am bound to say, therefore, that he has greater opportunity of learning the true feeling throughout the province of Quebec than has the member for Frontenac, who devotes most of his time to this House. As a Protestant from the province of Quebec, therefore, I certainly am not in favour of the resolution proposed by my hon. friend. Like him, I desire national unity. If

national unity does not prevail-in the other provinces of Canada, we wish to do all we can to bring it about. But in our province we get along very well, and we look with disfavour on any attempt to introduce anything that will change the good feeling now existing between the English-speaking and the French-speaking people, the Roman Catholics and the Protestants of my province.
Let me remind my hon. friend that as the basis of representation for all the provinces, Quebec is entitled to sixty-five members in this Parliament. Has it occurred to'him that almost twenty-four per cent of the representation in Parliament is Englishspeaking? That proves, it seems to me, that we get along fairly well from the school right up to manhood when we get into larger walks of life. So that I ask my hon. friend not to press a resolution which, in my judgment, can do no good and may do much harm.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIETJX (Maison-neuve):: I do not wish to add anything to what has been so well said on this subject by the member for Chateauguay-Hunting-lon (Mr. Robb) except to thank him, on behalf of his French Canadian colleagues in the House of Commons, for the fair statement that he has made. As for the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) I am sorry that he thought it proper, having had his motion on the Order Paper since the beginning of the session, not to give notice to some of us that he would bring it up this afternoon.	, ~
But after all, it is just as well that the question came up as it did, because, while I do not wish to be unjust to my hon. friend, nor would I like to be severe on him, I do not think he has added much to his reputation by bringing, at this particular juncture, this irritating question before the public. It is more academic than anything else, if, indeed, it is anything else. The question of separate schools or nonsectarian schools was settled long ago, and I do not know, unless one has some special motive to serve, why one should start another school agitation at this very trying time in the history of our country.
The facts are, it seems to me, very simple. My hon. friend expresses the wish that we should have in Canada a non-sectarian school system, but the fact stares him in the face that the constitution of Canada, which he should respect as I respect it, settled that question in 1867, and if it may be said without offending my hon. friend, his study of Canadian history should lead
him to know that long before Confederation the question had been settled between fair-minded Canadians of both Taces and creeds. My hon. friend, a moment ago, said that Lord Durham had come to Canada with a very high mission and that he favoured the idea of having one set of laws, one language and one system of schools for Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not mention
schools in connection with Lord Durham.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But my hon. friend, speaking of what was in Lord Durham's mind and what runs through his famous report, said that Lord Durham's idea was that we should have national unity in Canada, and Lord Durham, in his report, speaks of one language and of one law for Canada. My hon. friend added, if I followed him well, that if at that time we had had, pursuant to Lord Durham's mission, one system of schools, we would have had national unity in Canada. Indeed, Lord Durham had a very important mission when he came to Canada and he succeeded but only partly in his mission. One who reads his report must admit that in his now famous report he laid for us Canadians and members of the British Empire, the foundation of responsible government. In -that he succeeded, but when Lord Durham, radical though he was, expressed the opinion that there should be one code of laws and one language for the country, he made a fatal mistake, and that mistake is still very apparent to-day. Under the conditions which made this country British it cannot be expected that we shall ever have in 'Canada one system of laws for all the provinces, because the question was settled by the Act of Quebec in 1774, which Act we of the minority regard as our Magna Gharta. We must expect that as long as there is a French Canadian province in the Dominion there will be a different system of civil laws for French Canadians within their own province. That is an Imperial Statute, and we shall adhere to it. There is no danger that French Canadians will fall short in population; they are increasing yearly, and in so doing they are observing the command of God and of their conscience. As regards their language, let me say this without any boasting: As long as there beats a French heart we shall maintain intact the language which was given to us as a sacred legacy by our forefathers. It is a language of which any civilized man must be proud, because the French language, the language of Joffre, of Foch, of world diplomacy, is too noble a

language to be abandoned by those of us who represent French traditions and ideals in North America. My hon. friend said that if Lord Durham had insisted upon a system of non-sectarian schools-my hon. friend shakes his head-I take my hon. friend's denial in good part, and I say that the inference that I drew from his speech was that if Lord Durham had insisted at that time upon a system of non-sectarian schools we would have had true national unity in Canada. Sir, in 1841 French Canadians were in the majority in Lower Canada, but there was also in Lower Canada, the old French province, a respectable minority of English-speaking Protestants, as there was also in Upper Canada quite a minority of Catholics, both Irish and French. The common sense of the people of those early days settled the question without any statutory enactments. In Upper Canada there was a system of public schools, but the fair sense of the people agreed that there should be a separate school for those who wanted Catholic tuition for their children under Catholic supervision. In Lower Canada, notably in the Eastern Townships, there was, as I said, a Protestant minority, and there again the common sense and fairness of the people, without any special statutory enactment, decided that those Protestants should have their own schools. In 1841 the Union took place. It was not a success. The only thing which Union secured to Canada was responsible government, which had been fought for during and before the rebellion; and after 1841, thanks to the alliance of liberal-minded people from both Upper and Lower Canada, responsible government had to be conceded by, first, the Governor General, and finally by the Imperial authorities. But all those who are familiar with that period of our history know the wranglings that took place -Ee-tween both provinces and both parties during the period which elapsed between 1841 and 1867. Hon. Louis Joseph Papineau was then just back from exile. He had been brought back from Europe by Sir Hippolyte Lafontaine, and it is to his credit that in order to repatriate Hon. Louis Joseph Papineau he went even so far as to lay his resignation in the hands Of the then Governor General of Canada. Mr. Papineau came back again and began at once to agitate in favour of representation by population, because in his opinion the French representation should have been the largest, as the population of Lower Canada was the more numerous of the two.

Mr. Lafontaine, who afterwards became Sir Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine, took issue with Mr. Papineau, on the ground that the flow of British immigration would soon give Upper Canada the majority, and when that happened we could not expect a larger representation for Lower Canada. Later on, events proved that Mr. Lafontaine's attitude was the right one, but in the meantime the school question became very acute. The School Act of 1855 was first passed, and then the Act of 1863, an Act which had been fathered by Mr. Scott, who later became Secretary of State under the Laurier Government, which position he also occupied 18 years before under the Mackenzie Government. The legislation of 1863 enacted practically what was later embodied in the Act of Confederation itself. Mr. Brown was then a member of the legislature, and he tenaciously opposed the separate school system. Long and acrimonious discussions took place, and as my hon. friend said a moment ago the leader of the Conservative party, Sir John Macdonald, himself favoured a system of separate schools for Upper and Lower Canada in order that the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec and the Catholic minority in the province of Ontario might be protected. Later on, when Government under the Union became a failure, because every ministry changed after three or four months in office, Mr. Brown again took up the question of representation by population and advocated Confederation as the only solution compatible with the principles which had been advocated by Mr. Papineau. The English minority had then become the majority. Mr. Brown was so insistent on the question of Confederation that I think I am within the mark when I say that he was really the man who did most to achieve the anactment of 1867, but in order to succeed, Mr. Brown, nobly I must say, accepted a compromise on the vexed school question. In 1863, and in fact all throughout the regime of the Union from 1841 to 1863, Mr. Brown had been the most vigorous opponent of the separate school system and had carried with him the bulk of his party in Upper Canada. But Mr. Brown knew that in order to achieve Confederation he had to make some sacrifice of opinion, some concession, that he must accept a compromise. And what was the nature of that compromise? I would point out to the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards! that at times, especially in a country like this with its two great races, where there are different creeds and languages it is fair, it is well that.there should be com-

promise. Mr. Brown, who was a statesman, understood that. I dare say there has never been a man in Canada who was more insistent on non-sectarian schools than the late Hon. George Brown. Indeed, his paper, the Toronto Globe, and before that the Leader, every day contained articles written by Mr. Brown advocating his view of non-sectarian schools. But in 1867, in order to achieve the higher idea! of Confederation Mr. Brown accepted a compromise. I have here his very words which I shall read, in part, to the House. Speaking on clause 6, which read as follows :
Education, saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools at the time when the union goes into operation.
Mr. Brown said:
I need hardly remind the House that I have always opposed and continue to oppose the system of sectarian education, so far as the public chest is concerned. I have never had any hesitation on that point, I have never been able to see why all the people in the province, to whatever sect they may belong, should not send their children to the same schools to receive the ordinary branches of instruction. I regard the parent and the pastor as the best religious instructors-and so long as the religious faith of the children is not interfered with, and ample opportunity afforded to the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their flocks, I cannot see any sound objection to mixed schools.
Further on he says:
Now, it is known to every hon. member of this House that an Act was passed in 1863 as a final settlement of this sectarian controversy. I was not in Quebec at the time, but if I had been here, I would have voted against that Bill because it extended the facilities for establishing separate schools. It had, however, this good feature, that it was accepted by the Roman Catholic authorities and carried to the Parliament as a final compromise of the question in Upper Canada.


Mr. EDWAKDS:: Does my hon. friend
say thait the conditions now surrounding the separate schools are the same as under the Scott Bill which was incorporated in the Confederation Act of 1867?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Practically the same.
I am citing the opinion of Mr. Brown in order to show how he compromised on the separate school question, in order to achieve the higher ideal of Confederation. He went on:
When, therefore, it was proposed that a provision should be inserted in the confederation scheme to bind that contract of 1863 and declare it a final settlement, so that we should not be compelled, as we have been since 1849,
to stand constantly to our arms, awaiting fresh attacks upon our common school system, the proposition seemed to me one that was not rashly to be rejected. I admit that, from my point of view, this is a blot on the scheme before the House ; it is confessedly, one of the concessions from our side that had to be made to secure this great measure of reform. But assuredly, I, for one, have not the slightest hesitation in accepting it as a necessary condition of the scheme of union, and doubly acceptable must it be in the eyes of hon. gentlemen opposite, who were the authors of the Bill of 1863.
The opinion of Sir John A. Macdonald has already been quoted by my hon. friend, and I have now given 'the opinion of his great antagonist and rival, the Hon. George Brown. The one had already committed himself in favour of separate schools for the sake of national unity, and the other accepted them by force majeure, I must say, but in order to achieve Confederation. I hope my hon. friend will accept these two high authorities in favour of the system which ha3 obtained in Canada since.
But my hon. friend went further, and though I will follow him in his arguments, in doing so I do not intend to re-open the debate on the famous Autonomy Bill. He seemed to make a special appeal on behalf of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Sir, what are the facts of the case? In Manitoba the system of 'separate schools was established when that province entered Confederation. By a judgment of the Privy Council in 1895 the Government of the province was reminded that the legislation which had been passed in the nineties was contrary to the constitution and that remedial legislation was necessary in order to give the minority in Manitoba the rights to which it was entitled. We all remember the agitation which followed., We know that those who represented the minority in Parliament and outside sought to obtain justice for the Catholics of Manitoba. Finally a settlement was arrived at known as the Laurier-Greenway settlement. It was, indeed, a settlement based on the minimum of rights and yet the minority accepted it, some with loud protests .and others in the hope and expectation that the majority would at least live up to the agreement. I regret to say that twenty-three years after, a so-called Liberal Government in Manitoba has thought it wise to wipe out the Laurier-Greenway agreement and to treat the French Canadian minority in that province on a foating of equality with the foreign immigrants who have no such constitutional guarantee as has the minority which joined Confederation with Manitoba.


John Wesley Edwards: Did not the Laurier-Greenway settlement put the foreigner on the same footing as the French?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, hut was it just, was it fair that the Norris Government as they did three years ago should enact legislation wiping out all such moderate terms as' were agreed upon in the Laurier-Greenway agreement? To-day, Sir, the French Canadian Catholics of Manitoba, notwithstanding the terms of Confederation, are treated on a footing of equality with the foreigners who settle in that province, coming as they do from Europe and all parts of the world without the guarantee which had been given to my fellow countrymen at the time when Manitoba joined the Union.
I leave it at that. History will pronounce judgment on the action of the majority. History will say if it was the true British spirit which instigated Mr. Norris, and before him Mr. Roblin and the others, in curtailing every year, until they wiped them out entirely, the minimum rights which had been secured under the Laurier-Greenway agreement. I leave it to history, Mr. Speaker.
As regards the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, my hon. friend knows that in 1905 legislation was passed by this Parliament to implement the legislation of 1875, when the Northwest Territories were created. When those Territories were created, guarantees were again given to the minority. I promised you, Mr. Speaker, that I would not weary the House with any long quotations, and if I refer for a moment ;to a now historic debate it is only to answer with facts and data the assertions made by my hon. friend; I do not wish to be at all controversial, nor carried away on this question.


Samuel Hughes: Was not the issue which was fought out in 1896 by the Liberal leader and the Liberal party in Quebec antagonistic to the demands made by the then Liberal-Conservative government to give what they considered justice to the minority in Manitoba, and did not the great Liberal leader, backed up by his colleagues from the province of Quebec, fight to a finish on that issue?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. In 1896 Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his friends contended that Parliament should not pass any drastic legislation which Manitoba would not accept and would ultimately lead to civil war. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as I have stated already in this House in another debate,
[iMr. Lemieux.]
acted under the inspiration of Mr. Edward Blake, who, with Mr. Ewart, K.C., of Ottawa, had nobly represented the Catholic minority before the Privy Council. Mr. Blake suggested that it would not do to apply remedial legislation to Manitoba, but that through friendly proceedings between both governments the same object might be attained; and it was under that suggestion of Mr. Blake, and with the conciliatory spirit of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that the Laurier-Greenway agreement was arrived at. But I was referring to the condition of things in 1875, when the Northwest Territories were created. In the Bill passed by the Dominion Parliament, during the session of 1875, we have the foundation laid of the rights of the minority in the two later provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Upon the creation of the Territories a system of separate schools was established, and again the eternal question of separate schools came up before the House of Commons and the Senate. There again the powerful voice of the late Hon. George Brown, who throughout his life had been an opponent of the sectarian school system, was raised in favour of the Northwest minority as a matter of compromise. Mr. Brown spoke as follows:
Hon. Mr. Brown said he concurred with what had fallen from his friends on the treasury-benches, and from hon. gentlemen who had spoken on the amendment, with respect to the propriety of allowing separate schools. But the question was not whether those schools were right or wrong, good1 or bad, but as to whether it was wise for this country to deal with this question. He quite admitted the importance of the issue which had been raised'-* whether this matter should be referred to the province interested for settlement, or ba brought to the Dominion Legislature. The moment this Act passed and the Northwest became part of the union, they came under the Union Act, and under the provisions with regard to separate schools.
Mr. Brown therefore admitted that the separate school system had to be established in those Northwest Territories by the -terms of Union. We are aware of what happened when the Autonomy Bills were presented to this House in 1905. They contained the exact status quo which had obtained in those territories since 1875. We remember what an agitation took place in 1905. Amidst such storms, racial or religious, the experience is-and history is a great teacher in these matters-that -the minority has to suffer and has to submit to compromises and accept concessions. Minimum rights were agreed to by clause 16 in those two Bills; and I am happy to say that the legislatures

of Saskatchewan and Alberta have observed those minimum rights. I know that attempts have been made of late to curtail whatever rights were granted under section 16 of the Autonomy Bills; I also know that encroachments have been violently advocated. If they are accepted by the religious authorities of those provinces I have nothing more to say; but I appeal to the sense of honour of imy hon. friends from Alberta and Saskatchewan. Let it not be said by history that their provinces have not lived up to that spirit of British fair play which we are so often called upon, we of the minority, to respect and to revere.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) alluded a moment ago to the minority in the province of Quebec. It is the first time I hear that there are localities in that province where the Protestant minority do not get the means of sending their children to school. I have been myself at various colleges and schools, and have rubbed elbows with young Protestant friends who have remained my dearest friends throughout my career. My hon. friend from Chateau-guay and Huntingdon has referred to the case of his only daughter, who had been educated in a Catholic convent, Sir. I had an only son who as a lad was educated at a Catholic college, but, who during the last three years of his life was a student at Bishop's college, Lennoxville. an Anglican institution. I can say for Bishop's university, as my hon. friend said for the Catholic convent at Valleyfield, that the religious faith of my son was never so well protected as during the happy days he spent at Lennoxville. Mr. Speaker, we have no such bickerings and no such quarrels between Protestants and Catholics in the province of Quebec, and I wish no better brief than the statement made the other day by tin Protestant educational authorities in Quebec with regard to our school system. I have here a statement made by Mr. Sutherland, the Inspector General of the Protestant schools of the province in 1914. Speaking of the regulations in regard to those schools, he made the following statement:
Inasmuch as these regulations include courses of study and provisions for religious instruction, and inasmuch as each committee approves of the textbooks for use in the schools of its own faith, ample guarantee is thus given to the Protestant minority that in vital matters the control of Protestant education will remain in Protestant hands, and at the same time the Roman Catholic Church is assured that religion in accordance with the tenets of the church shall continue to be inculcated as the -basis upon which true education rests.
154i
At the annual meeting of the Dominion Educational Association held at Ottawa in February, 1917, the same Mr. Sutherland made the following statement:
There has never been a particle of friction in the department in this respect since Confederation or before that date	we (the
Protestant minority) have wonderful freedom, and whatever is needed is given. We never-have any trouble.
Dr. Carter, who was present, put -the' question:
You are getting along very harmoniously and you seem very optimistic?
And the answer of Mr. Sutherland was:
We never had any trouble; we are as happy as clams down there.
I wish again to emphasize the statement he had made prior to that:
We (the Protestant minority) have wonderful freedom, and whatever is needed is given.
We never have any trouble	We have a
complete system of reporting for the census, and also for the school attendance	
The other day, Mr. Speaker, the most influential English paper of Canada, the-Montreal Gazette, commented as follows on a letter written by Mr. Howard Murray, who, by the way, had extolled our Quebec school system:
Mr. Howard Murray, a member of the Protestant Committee of the Council of Public Instruction, writes a letter giving his views on some recent propositions having in view the establishment of a federal educational system throughout Canada. He holds that under the system of administration adopted at Confederation the idea is not justified. So -will think the great majority of those who give study to all the factors in the situation. By the constitutional law education is made a matter of provincial duty. The considerations that moved the framers of the British North America Act are as strong to-day as they were in 186-5 and 1866. No wise man would start an agitation to re-open the issue and bring about a change in the federation compact, that would be resented by such a large minority of the people that years would not heal the sore that would be created. And it is not sure that a federal education law would be an improvement on those now in force. Quebec is not the most illiterate of the provinces; and those who have followed the development of its schools know that through the efforts of earnest men, of both languages, the advance in educational status has been steady and notable. The same quiet work that has been effective so far will be effective in the future. The talk about -putting the schools under federal control should cease. It is mischievous; and it is doomed to be ineffective.
I wish to say en passant, and only as a matter of history, that the separate school system was established under the Union Government in 1863 by a majority vote of the representatives of Upper Canada. If I

cared to worry the House I would give names and dates.


Samuel Hughes: What Government
was then in power?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I forget.


Samuel Hughes: The Sandfield Mac-donald-Sicotte Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, you are right. But the majority of the Upper Canada representatives voted in favour of the system of separate schools which was then established.


Mr. HOCKEN:: No, no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have the evidence here, but it is too long to quote and, besides, it is beyond the question. As Sir Richard Cartwright once said in 1896, in answer to Sir George Foster, who had referred on several occasions to the subject then under debate as an accomplished fact: " The hon. gentleman has made a very elaborate and eloquent speech, and has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that an accomplished fact is an accomplished fact." Well, the separate school system is an accomplished fact. Whether or not it was carried by a majority or a minority vote of Upper Canada does not really matter, although I have here with me the evidence to show that it was carried on first and second reading by a majority vote of the representatives of Upper Canada. However, as I said, that is only a matter of history.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think that is very pertinent evidence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, one
word more. My hon. friend says that he advocates a non-sectarian system in order to attain an ideal, that ideal being national unity. I suppose he means Canadian unity. If he means that, we whd belong to the French Canadian minority-I say it with all deference-have no lesson to receive from him. We are Canadians, our ancestors sleep their last sleep in God's acres not only of the province of Quebec, but indeed of all parts of Canada, and our record goes back over more than three hundred years. We are Canadians to the core, aye Canadians first, last and always. But if it is an Imperialistic ideal he is striving to achieve, then we must part company with my hon. friend. We remain Canadians, we remain British -not even Anglo-Saxon, no. I want my English-speaking friends to drop the " Saxon." It has a German flavour. Let

them be British. We are British, and just because we are British we remain Canadians. Mr. Chamberlain on one occasion was speaking at the University of Edinburgh and was extolling before the young students what he called Anglo-Saxon civilization. He was interrupted three times for using the expression "Anglo-Saxon," and was told by the Scottish students, " Drop the word 'Anglo-Saxon' and speak of British civilization." And, Mr. Speaker, he was tactful enough to take their advice, hard-headed as he was.
I am convinced that the separate school system is the only one suitable to our conditions, historically it is the best, and if we value our national existence we should see to it that in every school of Canada, whether Catholic or Protestant, there is religious tuition. I am a layman, I hold no brief for the church, but I tell my hon. friend that in the years to come, if the Bolshevistic wave should reach the shares of Canada-but God forbid that it should-the . strongest bulwark against that wave will be the old province of Quebec, with its system of sectarian schools, wherein religion is taught the children at an early age. Religion is needed in the world, Mr. Speaker. Human agencies alone will not be able to stop the fury of the revolutionary tide that is sweeping Europe to-day. I repeat, religion is needed. Let my hon. friends take that advice from a humble layman.
But one more word before I resume my seat. My hon. friend stated that the P^pal Ablegate told Mr. Rogers at Ottawa, in 1905, that the Manitoba boundaries could be extended if the Roblin Government would agree to a separate school system in the Keewatin Territory. That story is not new; we have heard that old fable and it was denied long ago. A letter was read in Parliament denying the absurd charge made by Mr. Robert Rogers, who was not then a member of the House. My hon. friend apparently has a very short memory. Some in this House think that Roman Catholic diplomacy may err at times, but surely, Sir, not to rthe extent imagined by Mr. Robert Rogers and by my hon. friend from Frontenac. The Papal Ablegate denied that .legend. He should have ignored it, because the wild statement having been made by Mr. Robert Rogers carried its own refutation.
I am through, Mr. Speaker; I regret to have spoken at such length. I hope I have raised no bitter controversy. I wanted simply to state that there are on this vexed

question facts which have to be presented in their true colours.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ROBERT KING ANDERSON (Hal-ton):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution introduced this afternoon by the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) is a very important one. In rising to address the House as its seconder, I realize that many people in this country will consider it as not belonging to the arena of federal politics. They will say that the question of education is entirely provincial, and that the Fedejal Government has nothing whatever to do with it. But the Act passed by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867 can hardly be said to stand for all time with regard to education, when condi-vtions in the country are changing. The Fathers of Confederation scarcely had a glimpse of the great progress which had been made since that time in all affairs, especially in the scientific world. We are living to-day under different conditions; we are not the same people that we were in 1867; consequently, this question of national non-sectarian schools is very appropriate at the present time.
Public opinion must first be educated to accept measures which are vital to a country's growth before popular support will warrant their incorporation in the statutes. There must be a demand, a compelling force behind a movement in order to make it a success. That there is such a demand-a growing demand-all over this country for non-sectarian national schools, no one will deny. That demand has been growing for a number of years; it has become intensified during the period of the war. Great events change the current of the people's thoughts and suddenly illuminate the public mind to popular defects that act as barriers to national progress. The day has gone by when the British North America Act is regarded as unchangeable, like the laws of the Medes and Persians; if it contains clauses which are inimical to our progress and our unity, those clauses should be removed.
The British North America Act passed in 1867 by the Imperial Parliament, is the constitution of the Dominion of Canada. That constitution was brought about by a compromise between the two races living in this country at that time, and who came together on an agreement under which Confederation
was made possible. I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to advocate that that agreement should be dealt with as only a scrap of paper. I believe that it is possible that all the provinces of this Dominion can come together on -a system of national, nonsectarian schools which will be satisfactory to all. Such a consummation of this question is eminently to be desired.
A great national spirit has been born out of the travail of this war and Canada has burst into nationhood. Our sphere has suddenly become larger and we stand before the world to-day as one of the great nations of the future, where yesterday we were unknown. We are no longer a loosely connected system of provinces, largely interested in provincial affairs, jealous of one another, fearful of our special prerogatives, looking to the Federal Government for preferment and acknowledging it as our only tie of union. A great unifying national spirit pervades all the people of the various provinces. A trail of blood crosses this country from ocean to ocean, uniting the many diverse elements in our population with a tie that the lapse of time can only serve to strengthen. The war brought us one of the greatest opportunities in our history, if we but utilize it to the full. What this country needs in the present critical hour is a man, a statesman with a vision, who can give the people a common objective and a lofty ideal of national life. Every nation has a destiny, a destiny which is founded upon the character of its people, guided by the will of God. Every nation that is worthy of the name has a soul. It cannot, properly speaking, be called a nation until it manifests that soul. Canada has a soul; the war revealed it. It is the collective soul of her people, and as the people are, so is the nation. The individual characteristics of a people find expression in their national life and determine the nation's status in world affairs. If Canada is to take a high place among democratic peoples, we must have leadership of a high order to concentrate public sentiment and public service on well-defined lines of national endeavour.
The average man and the average woman should be enabled to visualize our future. This implies education of all the people on broad, national lines; education in everything that goes to make the name "Canadian" mean character. Canada has the nucleus of a national character now. . When our soldiers and nurses appeared on the European battlefields, they were quickly recognized as

representing a distinctly Canadian type. This was not noticeable twenty-five years ago; when we were submerged in the general term "American." Owning the same cosmopolitan parentage as our cousins to the south, we are not like them. That difference is growing more marked year by year. Neither are we like the Europeans, from whom we have sprang. Climate, environment, the blending of nationalities and the natural obstacles with which we cope, have left their impress upon our character and mark us out as a people having a distinct destiny of our own. In the working out of that destiny the elementary schools of our country will take a high place. Our public school is the most vital factor in the formation of Canadian character. It is the crucible into which the polyglot population of this country is thrown, mixed together, ground up and moulded into the finished product of Canadian citizenship. Peoples of all languages, races and creeds go into that crucible and must be subjected to the moulding process in order that Canada may work out her destiny among the nations.
Our public school, then, is a national issue, and should be made a national institution, purely Canadian, and undenominational in its character. Anything that interferes with its efficiency in turning out Canadians imbued with a love for home and country is detrimental to the future of Canada. Any influence that favours segregation, that divides our population into classes on any claim of expediency, of selfinterest, of community interest, or of denominational interest, is dangerous and obnoxious and is bound to re-act to our national dishonour and our national disintegration.
This country has a great future. We have all the elements of a great nation-a vast extent of territory, illimitable resources of a diversified character; millions of acres of arable land stretching from ocean to ocean; a large system of inland waterways of great commercial importance; vast stretches of forest country; great areas of lands containing minerals of all kinds; a climate which is conducive to a hardy, virile race, and a dominating Canadian personality that has placed its hall-mark on our native-born population. This country is in the eye of the world as never before, and an ever increasing stream of immigrants from war-swept Europe will continue to find its way to our shores. These people will come here with pre-con-ceived opinions of freedom of government, and with revolutionary ideals.
[Mr. Anderson.!
They will come here with social and religious opinions as varied as the people themselves. They will come here representing all grades of humanity, the fit, the unfit, and the misfits, asking for an opportunity to live out their allotted span on the virgin soil of Canada. If we admit them-and I submit, Mr. Speaker, we must admit them, by a selective process, if you will-then we must shoulder the responsibility for their education, future protection and support.
The North American continent has been the melting pot for the surplus population of Europe for two centuries. As has been so well said, the nineteenth century belonged to the United States, and the twentieth century will belong to the Dominion of Canada. The words of the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White), that within fifteen years we may have a population of 20,000,000 people, are prophetic. I believe it is within easy distance of this country to attain by a progressive immigration policy. These surplus peoples have been and will be flung promiscuously into the arms of Canada that she may take them to her broad bosom and make them her own. They do not come here by accident, not by any mere chance, but in the fulfilment of a Divine plan. The hand of destiny directs their course, and the finger of destiny points the way for Canada to link her future with theirs.
How best to assimilate them, to transform them into good, law-abiding progressive citizens, is the problem this country must solve; and we expect Union Government to adopt a national policy on this question, to throw down the barriers of race and religion and to unite our people in a common national ideal that will consolidate this country from coast to coast into a permanent Canadian entity. The Dominion Government cannot shirk the issue by delegating it to the provinces, but should co-operate with the provinces in co-ordinating our school system on a national basis, having for its object the assimilation, of the foreigner, the blending of nationalities, and the formation of a permanent Canadian type that will stamp its mentality forever on the Land of the Maple.
Education, then, is the imperative duty of the State. We may as well face the situation that confronts us to-day and prepare for eventualities. Everything points to further disturbances the world over. There is no permanent peace in sight. The world is in a dangerous mood; Europe is seething with revolution, and our foreign element is restless in sympathy with their home coun-

tries. Nothing prevents Bolshevism from raising its ugly head in this country but the scattered condition of its votaries, and the sane attitude of our industrial class, combined with the efforts of the Government to give employment to the masses. I compliment the Government on its progressive policy in this respect. It is worthy of the support of every man who has the welfare of his country at heart. Bolshevism is autocracy in reaction. We have had many examples of it in the world, but the latest one is Russia. A people held under the leash of autocratic restraint for centuries suddenly find their bonds are severed and rush to the opposite extreme of lawlessness, rapine and murder. Every man his own lawmaker; human passions unrestrained, surge and flow in the widest confusion, reducing the immortal soul of man to a depth of degradation beneath the lowest grade of the brute creation. -Russia to-day exhibits to a shuddering world the most beastly spectacle of human depravity that ever stained the pages of history. Nothing remains but to confine them within their own boundaries until their passions recoil in horror from their terrible excesses. Bolshevism is rooted in ignorance. Ignorance is slavery, a slavery that fetters the intellect and stunts the soul. Let this country rise to the occasion and baffle (his mediaeval monster masquerading under the guise of freedom. Education on broad lines of justice and truth is the remedy, Education of all our people without regard to the restraints of race or religion is the only hope of democracy. We often hear the statement made that democracy must be made safe for the people, but, Mr. Speaker, democracy is the people, and the people must be educated in order to be safe for democracy. The greatest guarantee for the security of life and property is education. If you inculcate into the youthful mind a love for the eternal principles of truth and justice, democracy will take care of itself.
There is more illiteracy on the North American continent than most people believe. By illiteracy I mean inability to read or write in any language. According to Secretary Lane, the United States had 700,000 men of draft age who could neither read nor write a military order, while in the whole population of the United States there were 7,700,000 people over ten years of age who could neither read nor write in any language, or 7.7 per cent of the total population. In the Dominion of Canada, according to the census of 1911, there were 663,453
persons over five years of age who could neither read nor write in any language. By provinces, the percentages are as follows, and I am giving these with the lowest percentages first:
Per Cent
Ontario	 6.51
Prince Edward Island	 7.61
Nova Scotia	 10.04
British Columbia	 11.61
Quebec	  12.66
Alberta	y	 12.72
Manitoba	 13.31
Yukon	 13.58
Saskatchewan	 13.70
New Brunswick	 14.05
"According to a census of 1916, there were in the Prairie Provinces 102,425 people who could not speak English, and it was found that when foreigners were allowed to settle en bloc there was the greatest illiteracy and least knowledge of English. It was found by the educationists in those provinces that segregation prevents education and retards assimilation.
According to the census in 1911, we find that of people over five years of age, the following percentages were illiterate:
Per Cent
Canadian-born males	 11.45
Canadian-born females	 9.81
British-born males	 3.78
British-born females	 4.13
Foreign-born males	 16.89
Foreign-born females	 16.97
Hon. members will see from this that those coming from the Mother Country show the least amount of illiteracy; they are better educated than the people in this country, and 11.45 per cent of the total Canadian-born over five years of age is a rather high percentage for the Dominion of Canada. It must, however, be remembered that quite a number of these people had foreign-born parents and that would give a certain reason for their illiteracy, but we should not have such a large percentage of the second generation of our foreign people unable to read or write. The same census shows the following percentage of illiteracy amongst those over twenty-one years of age:
Per Cent.
Canadian-born males	 9.55
British-born males	 3
Foreign-born males	 16.56
That shows that when they grew up to manhood, quite a large number of these illiterates still retained their illiteracy. In other words, of 107,366 men over twenty-one years of age who were illiterate, 37,745 were Canadian born and 57,389 foreign born. This would indicate that we really need

a more progressive policy with regard to the education of the foreign-born people in this country, and especially for the children of the foreign-born who are allowed to grow up in an illiterate state. For the information of the House I will give a few percentages of the illiteracy the world over: Austria, 18.7 per cent; Belgium, 12.7; France, 14.1; Greece, 57.2; Italy, 37; Portugal, 68.9; Rumania, 60.8. Russia, where Bolshevism is at present running riot, is the most illiterate country in Europe, and possibly in the civilized world, with 69 per cent of illiterates.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Has my hon. friend the figures for Sweden?


Robert King Anderson: No.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I ask because it is generally understood that Sweden has no illiterates at all. I do not know whether that is true, and I only ask for information.


Robert King Anderson: Perhaps that is why Sweden is not in the list I saw. Australia's percentage is 1.8; New South Wales, 2 per cent; New Zealand, .9 per cent; Queensland, 2.5 per cent. I believe that these figures will indicate that the countries that have national non-sectarian schools have the least illiteracy. The percentage of illiterates in Australia, which has non-sectarian schools, is 1.8, while North America-the United States and Canada-we have as high as 7.7 and 11.45.
The census of 1911 shows that there was a total population in the Dominion of 7,206,643, of whom 54.08 per cent were British, 28.5 French, and 17.41 foreign horn. There were 752,732 foreign-born in Canada in 1911, and of these 62 per cent were in the four western provinces. Of these foreigners, 45.77 per cent were naturalized, and 54.23 per cent were aliens. The percentage of foreign-born in the leading cities is as follows: Toronto, 8.8; Montreal, 9.2; Hamilton, 9.4; Calgary, 20; Edmonton, 22; Regina, 22.6; Winnipeg, 24.2; Vancouver, 27.6, and Fort William, 28.2. This will demonstrate that the larger part of our foreign element is in the country west of the Great Lakes.
From the same census I find that the people belong to religious denominations as follows: Presbyterians, 1,115,324; Methodists, 1,079,892; Anglicans, 1,043,017; other Protestants, 457,470, making a total of 3,735,703. Roman Catholics, 2,833,041; Greeks, 88,507, a total of 2,921,548. This does not take into consideration the other denominations which can scarcely be classed as Protestants or- Roman Catholics, and

which make up a small part of our population. These various people were divided among 72 religious denominations.
From these figures it will be seen that ihe hula of our foreign-born immigrants are in ihe Western Provinces. Of the naturalized foreigners, 71.85 per cent are in the Western Provinces; that is, more are naturalized in the Western Provinces than in the East; 16.01 per cent in Ontario and 2.19 per cent in the Maritime Provinces. It will also be seen that Canada is overwhelmingly British in its population, and it is likely to remain so on account of the sane immigration legislation introduced by the present Government. I believe it is in the interests of this country that that should be so. The Anglo-Saxon race has placed its mark indelibly on the North American continent. The language, the customs, and the habits are theirs. English is spoken by 110.000,000 people on the North American continent, and by four-fifths of the people in the Dominion of Canada. It is essential to the economic and social welfare of every citizen of this country that he should be able to speak that language; otherwise, he will be under a very serious handicap. This does not mean the exclusion of other languages from our public or private life. I believe that the French language which has a hold in this country should be taught; it is a beautiful language, and I am only sorry that I cannot speak it myself. I do not think any person in this country should be debarred from speaking or studying that language, and there should be no objection to it being taught in our national schools.
A national non-sectarian school is not a question of religion or of race, but a question of what kind of education in the interests of the country as a whole shall the State provide for the children in our public schools, for the maintenance of which all the people are taxed without regard to race or creed. Experience tells us that this education should be of a harmonizing, unifying character, blending the children of our cosmopolitan population together with common aims and common hopes. That being the case, has the State any duty to perform in regard to education in our public schools. That question will be answered in the affirmative by four-fifths of the people in this country.
As we have at least 72 different religious denominations in Canada, it is not in the interests of this country that any one of those denominations should be singled oat for special privilege. Such special privi-

lege is a signal for distrust and attack. Tihe system is vicious in principle, and dangerous in practice. To give concessions to a minority because it' is a minority is entirely wrong. What is good for the majority should be equally good for the minority. It is claimed that the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec have been granted the same privileges as the Roman Catholic minority in the province of Ontario in thqir public schools; I think hon. gentlemen opposite have said so today, and I believe it is correct. I believe that the Protestants have the same privileges in the schools of the province of Quebec as the Roman Catholics have in the province of Ontario. This may appear fair on the surface, but it works out rather to the disadvantage of the Protestants. In Ontario the Roman Catholic children have the privilege of going to the public school if there is no separate school in their parish. There they receive a good common education on secular subjects without any interference whatever with their religion; there is no attempt whatever to give them any religious instruction. But in the province of Quebec, if the Protestant sends his children to the Roman Catholic school, they are always hearing the religion of that faith taught in the school. They are not compelled to study it, but they are young and their minds are impressionable, and when they hear this religion taught repeatedly they gain a certain insight into a faith which their parents are not in sympathy with. Consequently, it works out rather to the disadvantage of the Protestant.
The parochial, or separate, or confessional, schools-call them what you will- are getting some hold in the Canadian West, particularly among the foreign element which have these schools in their own country. These schools are a relic of the past, and it would be a retrograde movement to have them established in this country. The struggle for secular schools has been long and "bitter, and the fruits of that struggle should not be endangered. The parochial school is usually under the control of some particular denomination and is inclined to be narrow in its character. It places too much stress on the teaching of religious subjects without teaching religion, and its main object is to perpetuate ecclesiastical control.
Parochial schools favour segregation and prevent that social intercourse which is productive of friendly relationship. They are
productive of class interests and class hatred. They divide the people on racial apd religious lines and retard assimilation. The parochial school, as we have it in this country, is almost entirely racial and in that sense is unnational. It favours disruption rather than unity. Unless under strict supervision by the education authorities it is a menace to the future peace and progress of this country. This is more clearly seen in relation to the great tide of immigration which is coming to our shores. In the Canadian West there are foreign communities, people coming from foreign lands, from the autocratic countries of Europe, living in communities where they have their own churches, papers, schools, and stores, and speaking their own language to the exclusion of the French and English languages. Democracy can have no chance in a com

munity such as that. These people are the representatives of autocratic countries in Europe and they are propagating the ideas they imbibed there. There is no Cana-dianization going on amongst them, assimilation is at a standstill, and it is not by that means that they can be made into good Canadian citizens. You will find these communities in different parts of the West. Communities of Ruthenians can be found in Manitoba near Gimli, Sifton, Starbuck and Shore Lake; in Saskatchewan near Kenora, Rosthern and Vonda, and in Alberta near Starz and Pakan, northeast of Edmonton.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that it is a difficult matter to prevent these communities from forming. These people want to live together and our own Canadian element is not desirous of living amongst them. But I contend that these people should be compelled to have our public schools in their midst, that they should be taught the English language, and the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship and be made acquainted with our laws. If we ever want to make them citizens of this country we must exact these conditions. We are handing out to these people the vote when they have absolutely no knowledge of what a vote means. They are simply parts of autocratic Europe scattered over our Canadian-West and living in the heart of a democratic country.
The British North America Act, as I said before, was a compromise between the two dominating nationalities inhabiting this country at the time of Confederation. The object of this Act was unity; the intention of the Fathers of Confederation was to effect such a confederation of the provinces

as it was fondly hoped would unite the various parts of British North America on terms of equality and unity. It was hoped that the races would in time amalgamate into common entity and become what they must ultimately become, a distinctly Canadian type. Neither race should dominate the other; in fact, neither race will dominate the other but all races represented in this country must fuse imperceptibly into each other so that Canada may fulfil the great destiny intended for her in the civilization of the world. There is little use to kick against the pricks; an inexorable fate shapes our course. Time and the tide of immigration coming to our shores will ultimately break down all harriers and leaven the whole into one common mould.
That leavening process has gone on and is making considerable progress; so much so in fact that there is a Canadian type easily recognized now. But so far as the two dominating races are concerned, there is no fusion and there is only the semblage of unity. The British North America Act is a failure in this respect. After fifty years trial this must be admitted by any impartial judge. The alignment of this House proves it. The cause of the present cleavage is significant and demands an explanation. Unless the cause is found the remedy cannot be applied. I belifeve it to be in our educational system. Our schools are too narrow in their scope. They are too provincial. They fail to take that broad national character which can visualize Canada as a whole and which is productive of sound Canadian citizenship. The main object of our schools is to produce Canadians worthy of their greatest heritage, Canadians pure and simple, not Englishmen or Frenchmen, not Protestants or Roman Catholics, but Canadians without regard to race or creed. The public school then is a national issue. It is imperative that we have a national policy on education.
In the working out of our school system the personalty of and the equipment of the teacher should not be overlooked. The teacher is the greatest benefactor in the land -the school-mistress and the school-master are the pillars of civilization-without whom this old world would soon revert to barbarism ; and yet there Is no class of public servants so shamefully underpaid. There is very little to tempt them to begin and nothing to induce them to remain.
During this reconstruction period when old superstitions and social fallacies are being swept aside with such astonishing swiftness, something should be done to

raise this important profession to the high financial standard its usefulness deserves, so that our returned soldiers many of whom have already nearly qualified may be tempted to enter the profession. I would respectfully draw the attention of the Government to the importance of giving these men every assistance to induce them to enter the teaching profession. None are so capable to give our public schools and high schools that patriotic atmosphere which is so essential to the production of sound Canadian citizenship.
There will be many monuments erected by a grateful people to the memory of our heroic soldiers. These monuments will be placed in the most prominent positions in every city and town across this broad country. They will represent the local ideas and will be representative of the community characteristics of the people. They will take many forms in accordance with the diversity of opinion in the various sections interested. An effort should be made to make them as beautiful in form and as lasting in material as skill can erect.
Canada is a young country but already rich in inspiring traditions which should be kept well before the notice of our growing population. These monuments will have a great educational value. Their importance in this respect should not be overlooked. The creation of a patriotic national sentiment is inseparable from them. They point to our part played in the great struggle for human liberty which has just been brought to a successful conclusion. They twill inspire future generations to emulate the heroic self-sacrifice and loyalty to the Empire of our young men who so promptly came forward to offer their services in defence of human liberty.
A day should be set apart as a national holiday for the decoration of these monuments. A suitable day for this purpose would be the day on which peace is signed by the great powers. It will come at a time of the year when flowers are available and the weather suitable for outside celebration, a day on which it is fondly hoped the dove of peace on expectant wings will slowly settle down on a blood-stained world. Veterans of the Great War could have reunions, and the public could meet to hear patriotic addresses having for their purpose the intensifying of a national sentiment, in which this country is deficient.
The graves of our heroic dead 3,000 miles away cannot be decked with the flowers which loving hands would fain place on them. These monuments could be decorated

"In Memoriam" of them with flowers, and this would give the occasion that touch of solemnity necessary to deep, abiding sentiment. Canada is commencing a new era of untold possibilities. We can only glimpse our wonderful potentialities by taking a mental vision of the years ahead. A hundred millions of people will inhabit this country in less than a century, and they will be a people which only a northern clime can produce, a people who will sway the civilized world with their wealth and commercial power. The foundation is now being laid, and it is the supreme duty of the hour for all our people to unite in giving up racial and religious differences and in laying the foundation on the rocks of truth, justice and honour.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton East):: In the discussion of this subject I have already been criticised adversely by many friends who say that by national schools we aim a blow at civil and religious liberty; that we seek to increase the influence of the Dominion Government; that we are unconstitutional; and those who know my constituency best say that I am, by speaking on the subject, sealing my political damnation. I do not propose to argue any of the objections made to national schools unless those objections are supported by sound arguments. So far as the unconstitutionality of this question is concerned, the consent of the province will remove all difficulties in the way; and so far as my political damnation is concerned in my own constituency, if to occupy a public position means that a man is going to sacrifice his personal conviction and be a slave to factions moved by personal interest, bias, bigotry or religious narrowness, then somebody else can be the slave, for I prefer not to have the unenviable distinction.
We have heard in this House during the present session a number of men who have been wont to speak of the Society of Nations as though Canada was a nation, when, as a matter of fact it is not, in spite of what may be said by opportunist poli-ticans who seek to foist upon us as realities the dreams of their political and speculative imagination. Granting, however that Canada enjoys the status of a nation, I am going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, 'the following question:	Does it constitute a
nation to have a collection of warring provinces? I am willing to grant you, for the sake of argument, that we have the full status of nationhood. Are we then a nation when you find various provinces viewing important questions of public life
in Canada through different glasses? What then, you may ask, is a nation? It is defined as an agglomeration of men, of people, who have had the same love and the same hatred; who have tasted the same joys, and undergone the same reverses; who revere the same great historical figures; who salute the same flag, and interpret its meaning in the same way, because they have received in the same school the same mentality; in other words, an agglomeration of men whose intellectual, moral and political formation is the same. Sir Martin Conway defines a nation as follows:
What in fact is a nation? It is not merely a number of individuals dwelling within a particular geographical area, nor a population talking a common language, nor is it to be defined by the possession of a common stock or blood-relationship. A nation is the whole population of an area, organized into a single crowd by the possession of a common ideal. It is patriotism that makes a nation, not vice versa. Thus Africanders will be a nation, if they are not so already, when their feeling of unity overpowers and submerges their attachment to their component race-crowds. There is no reason even to desire an individual to forget whether he is of British or Dutch origin. That is an immaterial detail once the passion of the overcrowd is stronger than that of the section. When that has been brought about a nation exists; and the common ideal once created is liable to grow into that kind of passion which, as Mr. Tim Healy informed Mr. Winston Churchill, can be recognized when it shows itself to be ' something that men willingly die for.'
Now, Mr. Speaker, geographical location, language, race, religion, and economic conditions are not essential factors in the formation of a nation. The Jewish nation is as real as any, yet it is scattered all over the world. Switzerland speaks many languages, and no one will deny that Switzerland is a nation. Two religions hold equal sway in Germany without menacing the existence of the German nation. Two absolutely distinct races inhabit Belgium, and yet we salute with respect the Belgian nation. So far as the economic side is concerned, were not the Germans more attached to their own people than to the Poles, with whom they had the most lucrative commercial relations? The essential primordial factor in the formation of a nation is mentality; and no matter what may be the geographical location, religion, race or economic conditions of the Canadians, if they possess the same mentality, then, and then only, will they be a nation. The national school, according to my view, is the instrument with which to accomplish efficiently and successfully this object. How can the people of Ontario, Quebec, the western provinces, and the Maritime

Provinces discuss harmoniously the rights and the duties of the citizen, the family, and the state, df they possess three or four different mentalities; the flag of Canada means a different thing to each group. Let me give you a few examples of this most perplexing question. In 1884, at the time of the Sudan war the flag meant one thing to the French and another thing to the English. In 1889 at the time of the Boer war the same thing occurred. In 1914 the message of the flag was heard for the third time, and you know the results as well as I do. A certain author says:
Narrowness, provincialism, bigotry, describe a personality in which unity of purpose is won at the sacrifice of breadth, outlook and sympathy. The highest type of personality grows out of many far-reaching selves which have been selected and organized into unity by a dominant purpose. It is no easy task to unify often divergent and conflicting impulses, habits, memories and ideals into a harmonious heir-archy of aims. But such singleness of ideal and effort creates power. The ideal personality includes many selves organized by a masterful purpose and unified by a spirit of harmony.
Buskin says:
Education does not mean teaching people to know what they do not know-it means teaching them to behave as they do not behave.
The French are probably more fortunate in the use of language. They have two words for the English " Education In French the word education means the bringing up, the conduct of people in the sense referred to by Buskin, and they use the word " instruction " for the learning which a person may gain. " I will do it," promises a South African. " On the word of an Englishman?" inquires his friend. " Yes, on the word of an Englishman ". That is the finest tribute to the English public school and the English university that the country affords. That emphasizes absolutely what we should have in this nation when I speak of mentality, that people should so conduct themselves that their word is their bond, that it means everything.
Let me ask you candidly this question: Are you going to profit by the triple experience of 1884, 1899 and 1914 and lay the foundation of a school system, the result of which will be that my boy in the western provinces will have the same mentality as the boys of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces; or, far from changing your views with regard to the primordial factor in the formation of a nation, will you continue to invade our western provinces with your retrograde mentalities because they are provincial and so create unfortunate reactions?

I do not agree entirely with previous speakers when they refer to a national non-sectarian school. Why is it that the eye of God to-day, the only sanction of true morality, has been replaced in some of our western schools by the eye of the world,-a Pharisaical sanction; unless it be on account of the machinations of opportunist politicians who seek to place on our children the yoke of their respective religious organizations? Is there in this country a single thinker who would not be willing to make provincial sacrifices in order to endow the whole Dominion with a school system based on knowledge, respect and love of God? All nations that have achieved greatness, which still lives although the nations themselves may have disappeared, and whose thought still en-ohants the world-the Greeks and the Bo-mans,-taught in their schools their children the knowledge, respect and love of God, who punishes the nations and individuals who transgress and rewards those who observe the principles of right and justice. If the non-sectarian school means that you are to ignore these fundamental principles, I could not support it.
Mr. Speaker, some people say that it is a question of the preservation of laws. I say it is not, for laws are merely the expression of facts, and, consequently, are transient. It is not a question of clinging to this or that organized church. We all know in what sect we were born and initiated, but after twenty, thirty or forty years can any man state with certainty to what creed he adheres? To quote the great Newman: "To live is to change; and to be perfect is to have changed often."
One of the previous speakers has given the key-note of what is expected of Canadians so far as the future is concerned, and in that connection I would like to read you what a returned soldier said regarding education. I quote from an article written by Capt. L. H. Lang in The Western Veteran of November 16 last:
That means to say that the real task that lies before Canada to-day is the building up of a free and vigorous national spirit which will bring to her a great position amongst the nations of the world. No greater task has ever faced1 a country before. The days, too, of sectarianism are over and gone. Those of us who have been out to the Front are appalled andl disgusted by the sight of churches whose duty it is to bear witness to a God of Love, dissipating their energy upon their little points of difference rather than presenting a united front against the powers of evil and self-oentredness. The churches exist not for their own advancement or material success, but they exist to show the world at large the

road to a higher, deeper and more beautiful conception of human fellowship.
That is true of men who have been abroad and witnessed for themselves the political organizations which reside within their own churches.
It is said that national schools imply a question of language. I wish not to be misinterpreted in this regard because I state that it is not a question of language. Nature has settled that question in the valley of the St. Lawrence for all time to come with all its political, social and economic consequences. But, of course, it would be imprudent, it would be unpardonably clumsy, yes, it would be 9 p.m. politically suicidal to allow certain affective, mystical and collective illusions to die out in Canada. I stated some time ago in this House that I knew a constituency in Alberta where there are three absolutely distinct national mentalities supplied by three different school systems, thanks to the methodical issue of permits. The member for that constituency has a triple political organization-English, Frendh and Russian. When the fight is on they go forth with three battle cries. When among the English at Boyne Lake and Ashmount it is " Long live the British Empire"; then at Plamond-ville and Lac Labiche it is " Long live Quebec"; and when at Cache Lake and other Ruthenian centres it is " Russia for ever." You can quite understand that^ the member himself does not stoop to these religious .and racial prejudices, but his organization is doing this work. There you see this system in all its crudity, and you appreciate how full of turpitude it is. If the school system in Alberta, for instance, permits this kind of thing, what can you expect of the rising generation? If to-day you have the Ukrainians of Western Canada petitioning the Dominion Government to establish national schools, it is because they were told they could have their separate schools just as the French have their primary course in the schools of the West. It is because the Government of each province has exploited the people for political reasons and has left them to-day under the impression that they are to be deported. When those people ask why they should be deported the answer is, that they have not become assimilated. They are not Canadians. The result is that having been cajoled into this unfortunate position by politicians, they are asking the Dominion Government to take hold of this question and to give them national education so they can become Canadianized.
The Western Provinces differ somewhat from the Eastern Provinces in the matter of education. We have a large number of Americans coming in there, and often those men get permits to teach school the same as men from other provinces receive permits to teach in different languages, sometimes carrying on a French school entirely, sometimes a Russian. If you wish to keep the provinces united, if you wish to keep Confederation intact, it is necessary that something should be done in the way of education for our Western Provinces. We are being Americanized at a rapid rate, as will be admitted by every member from the West. At the present time if you go through the streets of some of our Western cities you will find the boys wearing a button on the lapel of their coats with the words, " We did it." Do you think any Canadian would be allowed to wear such a button on his coat in New York or in any of the other large cities of the United States?
The American would see that the bottom was removed. But out in the Western Provinces we do not pay any attention to these things. We are being Americanized, and it is not necessary that we should have a national school or some sort of schools to replace those of the present day.
I do not know whether all the facts have been given in connection with the literacy of the Western Provinces and of Canada as a whole, but something of interest struck me the other day when I was reading one of the local newspapers. It was the statement that four million American-born children never learned to read and write. The article goes on to say:-
100.000	of our public school teachers are only 19 years old.
50.000	of them are without high school education.
The salary of a graduate teacher is no more than that of a milliner's apprentice while she is learning her trade.
An article by H. Addington Bruce deals with the American situation so far as teachers are concerned. I venture to say that what is true of the United States is true also of Canada, and more particularly of Western Canada. Young girls receive from $60 to $80 a month to teach in a school which is 150 or 200 miles from any large centre. Probably she is from sixteen to nineteen years of age, possessing only a permit, or sometimes the requisite diploma. How can children of this age-because they are children in reality-impart Canadian mentality to the younger men and women of the country? A girl of sixteen or eighteen

has to teach boys, Russians and Ruthenians, of twenty-two and twenty-three. These young people require more than the attention of a girl of sixteen to nineteen.
Again, how can you expect education in the Western Provinces to be properly carried out by teachers who do not intend to make teaching a profession? It is a fact that most young men and women who teach do not intend to make teaching a profession. With the man, it is a stepping-stone to the study of medicine or of some other profession; with the girl, it is only an interim occupation which she is prepared to give up at any time for a suitable marriage. In my opinion, the Government of Canada has as much to do with the education of its people as it has to do with its national defence. If the State is the fountain of all rights, on that principle I would say that it is the source of all duties, and it is the duty of the Government to make some arrangement with the provinces whereby the teaching profession shall be made one of permanency, whereby an inducement shall be given to men and women to remain in the teaching profession and whereby such remuneration shall be given to teachers that they may be anabled to travel and themselves acquire that education which they have not been able to acquire and can never acquire except by travelling.
I ask you, Sir, if the suggestions made in this House by hon. members do not constitute the proper way of building up a nation? One thing that disgusts me every time I hear it is the question which is often put by a French-Canadian or an English-Canadian whenever there is a disturbance of any consequence in the political, social or economical life of Canada: "Why should we not become part of the United- States?'' In 1775 Franklin offered us that national status, and we refused it -because' we knew what it meant. At the rate we are going now, it would appear that Canada can never be all English, nor yet all French, and if the motive is ever to perpetuate affective, mystical and collective illusions, then let them be French in Quebec and English in Ontario. That is the last resource of our patriots. Let us not forget that both the English and the French lost America through political and religious narrowness. The former withheld freedom from the thirteen colonies; the latter withheld refuge from the Huguenots. To-morrow the Wes-t will predominate. Is it not imperative to solve the problem of the school and to base our educational system on lines essentially

Canadian and religious? We all -want the system to be democratic. Let us take the first step in that direction by making it uniform.
Mr. H. C. HOCKE-N (Toronto West): Mr. Speaker, the very -deep interest that has been Taken in the question of national schools in Western Canada has made it inevitable that the subject should at some time be discussed in this House, and it seems to me that this is the most appropriate time for its discussion.
I learn that in August next there is to take place in the city of Winnipeg the largest educational convention ever held in Canada. -His Excellency the Governor General is to preside, and educationalists will be gathered together from all over the continent of North America. That being the case, it is interesting, as I think it is opportune, that some expressions of opinion should be given in this House upon the principal points that will be raised at that conference.
I compliment the mover of the amendment (Mr. Edwards) upon, the courage that he displays in bringing before the House a question of this kind. I knew before he started that he would be charged with bigotry and intolerance. I do not think that he was animated by any such sentiment as that; I -am quite certain that I am not when, following in his footsteps, I advocate the establishment in this country as soon as possible of a national nonsectarian school system.
We are indebted to the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) for information and quotations which show that the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) was in good company in bringing this question before Parliament. The member for Maisonneuve told us that the most outstanding advocate of non-sectarian schools in Canada was the late Hon. George Brown, the man who founded the party which hon. gentlemen opposite represent, the man who in the early days made a great fight for Liberal principles. Every Liberal since Hon. George Brown's time who has lead the party represented on -the other side of the House has been his follower. He was an out-and-out, convinced and vigorous opponent of separate schools, and the attitude that he took in hi-s day is practically the attitude that is taken to-day by the member for Frontenac on the floor of this House. He argued then, as we argue now, that two sets of schools tend to disunion and disintegration rather than to national unity, and mutual understanding. The

member for Maisonneuve stated the case exactly when he told us that the late Hon. George Brown accepted forcibly the principle of separate schools being drafted into our Act of Confederation. It was not because. he was brought to believe that it was the right thing to do; he found it to be impossible to effect the Confederation without making this concession to the advocates of the dual school system. He was disposed to sink the lesser in the greater. That is the explanation of his acceptance of the principle of a dual school system of the two provinces of Canada. But the separate schools and the separate school law that we have in Ontario to-day are very different from the statute which was assented to by the late Hon. George Brown. His biographer has told us that when he returned from Ottawa to his home city and was criticised for surrendering his views on the school question, he stated that what had been conceded was innocuous and that, in his judgment, the concession was so small that it could never be profitably worked. I do not know whether he was right or not, but I am inclined to think he was. But this is what happened: No sooner was that particular concession made than the advocates of separate schools proceeded to work on the provincial government and particularly upon the then Prime Minister, the late Sir Oliver Mowat, and during nearly the whole term of his premiership which lasted about thirty years, one concession after another was given to separate schools until, although that is a special privilege to one sect in Ontario, the schools, which they desired and which had been given to them as a special privilege, are almost on a parity with the public school system. That never was in the mind of the late hon. George Brown, because he believed, as my hon. friend said, that what was adopted in 1867, and which was practically the law of 1863, was to be a final settlement. But it is stated in Mr. Hodgins' book upon the Separate School Act of Ontario, in which he quotes all the correspondence of the late Edgerton Ryerson, that while Bishop Charbonnell and Bishop Macdonald agreed that this should be a final settlement, the ink was scarcely dry on the Act of 1863 before additional concessions were demanded. The story that is told in that book is a very interesting one. The writer, Dr. Edgerton Ryerson tells this story that he had a conference with the two bishops and he put this question to them: Is this to be a final settlement of the separate school question in
Ontario? Neither of the bishops said a word, but both of them bowed their assent to his proposition, and he accepted that as a statement from them that it was to be a final settlement. As I say, it was only a few months afterwards before those same ecclesiastics were back in the city of Ottawa demanding further extensions of the separate school principle. This is laid down very clearly in Mr. Hodgins' book.
I wish to correct the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) on another point. In the course of his address to-day, he stated that Separate schools were adopted by the United Parliament of Upper and Lower Canada, with the consent of a majority given by the representatives of Ontario. That was not the case. There was an understanding in the Parliament of the United Canadas that no question affecting one province should be made into law unless there was a majority from that province favourable to it. That undertaking was observed on the part of the representatives of Ontario with the utmost faithfulness, but it was departed from on the part of the representatives of Quebec when the late Hon. R. W. Scott introduced his Separate School Act, and when it came to a vote on that question, it will be found recorded that the vote from Ontario was 26 against and 10 for, with a solid delegation lacking one from Quebec supporting the 10 who voted in favour of Separate schools for Ontario. Therefore, the Separate school system was forced upon Ontario against the will of the majority of its representatives and by a solid phalanx from Quebec.
I think every true Canadian will approach this question of national schools with the desire to see all classes of the population living in harmony and co-operating to realize the great potentialities of our country. As I understand the situation in Canada, it is only by educating our children to be Canadians and by introducing a system that will develop their initiative and cultivate their native talents that we can hope to create a citizenship equal to the great tasks that lie before us. National unity is something that we all profess to regard as essential to our progress, prosperity and happiness as a people. To bring this about, we must understand each other. This does not involve a surrender of our cherished convictions, but it requires an effort on our part to find a way of getting closer together than we are to-day and one that will lead our children to higher levels of service where they may be able to work more harmoniously while main-

24.34

coming together on the football or the baseball field, they show intolerance one of another, and that is directly attributable to the instruction that goes out from these separate schools.
I have a very striking quotation here which I would like to read to the House, because it seems to me to indicate, not only as I interpret it but as an important and influential newspaper of my own province interprets it, that this condition is the result of the teaching in the separate schools of Ontario. I quote from the Christian Guardian, published in Toronto. The writer begins by saying:
Do Roman Catholics feel tlhe same loyalty to the state that Protestants do? Without hesitation we would answer that some of them do; hut it is certain that some of them do not, and this is explained in a recent issue of the Catholic Record.
The Catholic Record, of London, is, in my judgment, the most ably edited and the best-written Roman Catholic paper published in the Dominion of Canada. The men who conduct that weekly newspaper are capable journalists, and theirs is the most creditable journalistic representative of the cause for which it speaks. The article in the Christian Guardian goes on to quote this paragraph from the Record:
We cannot understand the abnormal enthusiasm that the sight of the flag evokes among our intelligent non-Oatholic fellow citizens. They are an enigma to us, and we perhaps are just as much of an enigma to them. Their enthusiastic display of loyalty seems to us puerile and even idiotic. This is because we do not realize that there is nothing that holds a higher place in the affections of the majorit'7 of our non-Catholic Britishers than the flag. In a word, their mentality is different from ours because, if we may use the expression, our household gods are not theirs.
This paper represents the advocates of separate schools in the province of Ontario, and declares in cold type, and after deliberation, that the enthusiasm of the Englishspeaking Protestants of Ontario for the flag is "puerile and even idiotic." I submit that it must be clear to this House that'if we have a system of schools in Ontario that turns out graduates who regard enthusiasm for the flag of the country as puerile and idiotic there is something wrong with the system, and the sooner it is corrected the better it will be for the cause of national unity. I can see no reason why the children of Canada cannot receive their secular instruction together and their religious teaching separately. That is the way the Hebrews in Toronto inculcate their religion. Special classes are held by the

Rabbis, or their assistants, after the regular school hours, and the Jewish children attend for instruction in religion. There is no reason why that plan should not be followed tiiy the Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and all other denominations. Then we would have a guarantee that the hours in school would be devoted to preparing the next generation for the secular duties of citizenship. If the churches as a whole would undertake the religious education, I am sure the results to the children would be better than those obtained by mixing secular and sacred as at the present time.
What must impress the members of this House as a significant circumstance is the fact that the question of establishing a national school system was first introduced by a representative from the province of Quebec. He introduced this question into the Senate. That his resolution represents the views of a considerable minority in that province seems to be established by several incidents that have transpired during the past year. The province of Quebec for reasons that are within the knowledge of hon. members, is perhaps the last place in Canada from which we might expect such n proposal to emanate. And yet a vigorous propaganda is being carried on there for educational reform. Not much has been accomplished as yet hut experience and history teach us that once a question of this kind is presented by earnest men it gains in strength with great rapidity. Already some concessions, such as uniform text books, have been secured and a compulsory attendance law is bound to follow before long because it has proved to be a wise measure in every country where it has been tried. When it is advocated by men like Lord Shaughnessy and Senator Dandurand and scores of the most prominent lay leaders in the province, it cannot be long resisted. The opposition given to the agitation made by Mr. Bouchard, of St. Hyacinthe, has had the effect of making most of the people do some thinking on that important question. As a consequence of the study given to it we find the Trades and Labour Council of Montreal-two-thirds of the members being French Canadians-passing a resolution in favour of a national school system. These men constitute ithe parliament of labour in the largest industrial centre of the Dominion. They speak for the workers, whose children are the ones most vitally affected by any inefficiency of the school system.

They are men who have come up through the existing schools. They know by personal experience the shortcomings of the schools and with deliberation and earnestness they discuss this question, and by advocating a national school system condemn that which is in vogue. If there is any class of citizens whose voices should be heard with respect on an issue of this kind it is that class who must depend upon the state schools to educate their children.
But it is not only the working classes that are dissatisfied. When men like Mr. nouchard, Senator Beaubien, and many other French Canadian leadens, feel constrained to utter their protest against the inefficiency of the system it becomes apparent that the public sentiment in favour of the motion is widespread and that it includes many different circles.
The press of the province as a whole gives no support to the demand for national schools. Perhaps it is too much to expect that at this stage of the movement. The influences against it are too powerful and apt to resent any attempt to press it forward. Still, ithere are some papers published in Quebec which speak for the movement and do so with the greatest frankness. Among these is L'Autorite, of Montreal, which in September, 1918. said:
Give us less of the stories of Jonah inside or outside the whale, and more of arithmetic. We will even go farther than that and ask that the control of education be transferred from the provincial to the federal domain. Nothing, in fact, is more logical than this, for the reason that where the greatness and the unity of our country are concerned we should have national schools.
That is not the only paper which talks in that way. I have also a clipping from Le Pays, of Montreal, which in an issue of March of this year, declared:
If the men of age to carry arms had been raised in national schools the voluntary recruitment would have given much better results and this province would have received more benefit, for the reason that it was Quebec which suffered most in her reputation.
While I do not offer the opinions of these papers as an expression of the general sentiment of the people of Quebec, they represent a minority which, in my judgment, are thinking along right lines and furthering a movement which meets with the sympathy of the majority in every one of the other provinces.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to try and demonstrate the necessity for some Federal supervision or action, to such limited degree as may be thought wise in connection with their educational system. I submit
I55i
that it is well within the province of this Parliament, and of the Dominion authorities, to see that a national sentiment of the right kind is created in Canada. In this connection I want to enlighten the House as to the kind of school books that are being used in the English-speaking public schools of Quebec, which books, I may say, I have examined personally. I find that in the third reader there are three lessons which are complimentary to Britain, and six lessons which are laudatory of Germany; and that book, Mr. Speaker, was reprinted in the year 19X7, three years after the war had started. If that is the kind of stuff that is being taught in schools anywhere in this Dominion, I *think it is only right and proper for the Federal power to endeavour to rectify it. In another reader used in the same class of schools I find the same thing to exist: Two of the lessons are favourable to Britain, and seven are complimentary to Germany. If this had happened ten or fifteen years ago, when we had a different idea of Germany from that which we entertain today, one might not have been surprised; but when such books as these are reprinted in the year 1917, there must be exceeding carelessness somewhere on the part of the authorities, and I submit, some effort should be made to rectify the condition. Certainly a national sentiment, whether it be French or British, cannot be developed by teaching lessons of such a nature.
Now I desire to refer for a moment to the textbooks that are used in the French schools of Quebec. A careful examination of these discloses nothing at all in their contents that would teach a child that it is going to grow up to be a British citizen;
' the sentiment inculcated throughout is purely French. I have no objection to the school books in the province of Quebec favouring the very romantic and interesting features of the early French discoveries and developments; I have no objection to the maintenance of French sentiment in Quebec; but I do say that at the very least there should be lessons in those books such as would teach the children of that province that they are British and are destined to take a part in the government of a British dominion when they attain to manhood. Although I have had a good deal of the contents of these books translated, I will not detain the House by reading at any great length, but I find within their covers such paragraphs as these:
When the United States threw off the yoke England was taught at last that her interests


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is not one school in the whole of the province of Quebec in which the history of the pioneers of Canada is not taught.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I quite believe that that particular side of our history is taught in the province of Quebec, but I wonder if the other side of our history has been taught.


Thomas Vien: Another side of our history which is also taught in the schools of Que-
\

bee is the fact that in 1776 our bishops *kept this country for the British Empire.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is an old tradition that does not rest on a very stable foundation. I am prepared to agree that the bishops kept Canada from joining in the revolution, but they did it as a bargain, and they got their price. If the hon. gentleman would have us understand that they did that out of pure love of the mother country, he is absolutely and entirely mistaken. They did it because they used that opportunity to get concessions for their hierarchy and for their institutions that they never could have got otherwise.


Thomas Vien: Is that the kind of history that the hon. gentleman would advocate iiv the uniform books which he would circulate in our schools? If it is, we are sufficiently enlightened.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would not put that into them; a highly controversial point of that kind might well be left out of any history. But there are many other things about the development of British power in this country that the people of Quebec do not understand, because they have never learned about them. Due prominence and due space is given to that portion of history upon which the people of that province place so much stress; due prominence should be given also to the development of British power in this country. The people should be made to understand what it is to be a citizen of the British Empire and a subject of the King.
Mr, POWER: Does the hon'. member know as many men on his side of the House *who can speak both languages as there are on this side?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would like the hon. gentleman to understand that every member on this side of the House has studied French. , But that they are as fluent in the use of French as the French members are in the use of English


Charles Gavan Power: Pardon me; I am not a French Canadian. Born and bred in the province of Quebec, I am an Irishman, and proud of being a Quebecker.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, I still want to make my point. I quite understand that the people of the province of Quebec are more proficient in the use of English than the people of Ontario are in the use of French. Every child in Ontario who passes into the secondary system of schools studies French-my children studied French. All children who pass through more than four

or five grades of the public schools study French, and some of them become quite proficient in that language-at least sufficiently so to pass somewhat difficulty examinations, both in the high school and in the colleges and universities. But after they do learn the language they have no opportunity of keeping it up in our province. My friends of the French race on the other side have ample opportunity of keeping up their English; they speak French in their homes and English in their business.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no, they speak French in their business.
MA HOCKEN: In every large "urban centre they certainly need to speak English to get along properly.


Charles Gavan Power: Je parle le francais et l'anglais, et je suis fier de parler les deux langues.	1


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There is nothing to get excited about. I am trying to explain that there are men sitting all around me who have taken exhaustive courses in French and who cannot follow a French debate today, for the very reason that I have stated. If my hon. friends were in the same position with regard to the English language as we are with regard to the French, they would not know English any better than we know French. But I do not see why -we could not have books of history that would give due place and prominence to all phases of Canadian history; I do not see why we should not have readers containing stories that would tend to develop our British citizenship. I am not entirely satisfied with the school books used in Ontario. I do not think the province has done enough in this connection. I should like to pay tribute to a brother of the member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), Dr. James L. Hughes, who during the time that he was Chief Inspector of Schools for Toronto, taught patriotism in the schools of that city. One of the reasons why there was such a remarkable recruitment in Toronto was because of the work that had been done 'by Dr. Hughes over a period of twenty years.


Samuel Hughes: Forty years.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There is a collegiate institute in Toronto, round the corner from where I live. I took the trouble to ask the principal of that institute last Sunday night how many of his boys went overseas. Five hundred boys went to the front from that school. The bodies of sixty-eight lie in

France. This collegiate institute is presided over by Col. Hagarty, one of the good loyalists of our city. All these boys went through the public schools of our city and came under the hands of Chief Inspector Dr. James L. Hughes; and if the school books had done their part as well as the inspector did his, there would be nothing to complain of in Ontario.
I believe that this Government intends to give some assistance to technical education. That is a side of education that might be gone into much more thoroughly than it has yet been gone into by the Government. Toronto spent over $2,000,000 on a technical school, and it has not received a cent by way of assistance from this Government or from the Provincial Government. It should have had assistance from this Government; any city should which puts up a high-class technical institution for the perfection of the trades and industries of the country. That is a phase of the work of the proposed Bureau of Education that, I think, would be very valuable.
I have another suggestion to make. The Government, under the direction of such a Bureau of Education as I have briefly mentioned, might appropriate a million dollars a year for scholarships to be given to children, not in the high schools, but in the primary schools. Two or three thousand of these children-those "who win the scholarships-could be taken every year on a two-months' trip over the country. If you took two hundred children from the province of Quebec on a trip through Ontario and the Prairie Provinces to the Pacific coast and back, they would return much better fitted to go on with their studies than they were before they started on the journey.
They would know a good deal more about Ontario and the western provinces than they ever will without isome such visit, and to have them visit those provinces in that way involves an expenditure which the parents are in most cases unable to meet. I would take the Ontario children and send them to Quebec, to the Maritime Provinces, to western Canada, and so I would take the children of every province in this country and send them out through other provinces, at the rate of two or three thousand every year. Thus in the course of ten or fifteen years we would be getting to the point when it would not be easy to say that one province did not understand another. We often hear the statement made that the people of Ontario do not understand Quebec. I fancy that the people of
Ontario understand Quebec a great deal better than the people of Quebec understand Ontario.


Thomas Vien: We tried something of that kind with grown up citizens in the Bon Entente movement, and it resulted in the Unionist Publicity Committee and the Citizens' Publicity Committee in Toronto.


Jacques Bureau: That was a political dodge.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The war put an end to the Bon Entente. I do not care to elaborate that. The men who initiated the movement in Ontario before the war did not endeavour to carry it on after the war got rightly started.


Thomas Vien: I beg pardon-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Thomas Vien: I will make the remark-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must remind the hon. gentleman that the House is not in committee and that it is only with the permission of the hon. member that he may ask a question. He may not interject a Temark.


Thomas Vien: I was proceeding to ask the hon. gentleman a question, and it is to correct him on this point that the Bon Entente movement-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. That is not a question. The hon. gentleman is not in order.


Thomas Vien: I will put it in the form of a question. Does the hon. gentleman know that the Bon Entente movement was organized in 1915, one year after the war had been declared?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It did not last very long, did it? The reasons the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do, and I do not think it is necessary for me to state them. What I propose will, I am sure, be one of the best things for Canada if there is any desire to bring about national unity in this country. I am satisfied, as I said last session, that the French Canadian is potentially as fine a citizen as we have. Many of them are not only so potentially, but are so in fact, and those who are only potentially among our finest citizens are so rather because of the fact that they have not had the broadening education which is all that is lacking to make them good citizens. I am one of those who would rather like to assist in that very laudable object.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that in a democracy such as Canada a liberal educa-

tion should be placed within the reach of every ambitious boy and girl. The stability of our institutions depends upon the literacy of our people. They rule the country. The Government will be such as they make it. Therefore, it is of the highest importance that every one shouiu receive an education. An illiterate population is the greatest danger to democracy. Unless the people who by their ballots determine the kind of Government we are to have are able to read and write, unless they have their reasoning powers developed by education, they become an easy prey for demagogues and designing manipulators. They must be able to read in order to form their own judgments upon public questions and the more thorough their training is the better qualified will they be to perform their duties as citizens. We have been endowed by Providence with marvellous material resources. It is ours to cultivate the mentality of the common people, to make them ambitious and enterprising by setting before them a high purpose and a goal worth striving to attain. If we fail in this we fail in everything, for it is as true to-day as when Goldsmith wrote:-
111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey Where wealth accumulates and men decay. Princes and lords may flourish or may fade ;
A breath can make them as a breath has made.
But a hold peasantry, a country's pride
When once destroyed can never be supplied.



[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
John Dowsley Reid: We shall take up the Supplementary Estimates for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1919, and if the Committee will let them pass to-night, any of the items may be discussed on the Main Estimates. We would like to get these through so that we can have the Governor General give his assent to them.
Charges of management-printing Dominion notes-further amount required	 $30,000
Clerical assistance in connection with transfer and registration of war loan bonds, etc	 170,000
Total	$200,000


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister explain the second item?


John Dowsley Reid: That is a matter which the Minister o! Finance (Sir Thomas WhiteV has charge of, and he has gone home. He will give the explanation oil some other item.

Civil Government-Department of Justice, including penitentiary grant, contingencies, $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: While I do not wish to delay the progress of the Estimates, I purpose bringing to the attention of the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) a question which was brought to the notice of the public during last summer by the press in connection with the administration of justice. On the 8th of June last, the Toronto Globe published on page 13 of its issue the following startling news with big headlines:
Young girl posed as man. Outrageous sentence upon her rouses a storm of indignation. Two years in prison! Trying to help country, she contravenes some old statute.
And then follows the despatch:
Kingston, June 7.-Because she posed as a man, had her hair cut in military style and went so far as donning a man's attire in order to do her bit in a log-driving bee for the Chaleur Bay Pulp Company, at Restigouche, " Venus " Cot6, Rimouski, Quebec, aged 23, is now a prisoner in the Women's Ward at the penitentiary here having been sentenced to two years for this awful crime. The girl was brought here in male attire, and the authorities at the big prison-	'


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I am very sorry, but I shall have to call the hon. member to order for two reasons, first, because his remarks are not relevant to the item under consideration which is merely for a sum of $5,000 for contingencies for penitentiaries, and second, that he is anticipating the discussion of a motion which is already upon the Order Paper.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I bow to your ruling,
Mr. Chairman, but would just point out that the motion I have on the Order Paper has no chance of coming up this session, and I thought this was the proper time to bring the matter to the attention of the Acting Minister of Justice.


John Dowsley Reid: The Acting Minister of Justice is not in the House at present. I would suggest that when we come to the main Estimates of -the Justice Department, with the consent of the House, the hon. member might bring the matter up then.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That will be satisfactory.
Department of Immigration and Colonization-To provide for the sum of $1,000 for Deputy Minister of the Interior, to cover additional salary while acting as "Deputy Minister of Immigration and Colonization during the fiscal year 1918-19, $1,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Would the minister explain wtha-t this item is for?


Mr. CALDER:: When the Department of Immigration and Colonization was created in, I think, October, 1917, Mr. Cory, the Deputy Minister of the Interior, was appointed acting deputy of the new department. When the Estimates were brought down for the year 1918-19 a vote of $5,000 was taken for a deputy minister, but he has never been appointed. I am sure the Committee will realize the position we were in so far as immigration was concerned during the past year, and instead of appointing a new deputy for the department,
I thought it as well to continue Mr. Cory as acting deputy, and he has consequently acted in that capacity from October, 1917, down to the end of the last fiscal year, and is still so acting.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is to put him on a footing of equality with the other deputy ministers, I suppose?


James Alexander Calder: No, because during that period other deputy ministers were receiving only $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But this year they receive $6,000.


James Alexander Calder: Yes. While the department was not active last year in so far as actual immigration was concerned, we have done a great deal of work in reorganizing the department, particularly in Canada and the United States. The entire service in Canada has been reorganized, and Mr. Cory has given a great deal of his time and attention to the work that has been done during the past year. When the Main Estimates of the department are before the Committee, I shall be able to give a fuller explanation of what has actually been done the way of reorganization. I thought it but fair that as Mr. Cory had been appointed acting deputy and has given a great deal of his time and attention to the department during the year he should receive some remuneration for it.


William Stevens Fielding: The gentleman referred to is a most excellent officer, and if I make any reference to this item it is simply because of the principle involved, and not because I have any objection to Mr. Cory. He is a deputy minister. Other deputy ministers last year with one or two exceptions, received $5,000. Is it contemplated by this item to pay Mr. Cory $6,000 for the last year?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: The principle of paying a deputy minister for extra work is a bad principle, and I would certainly ask the
minister to consider it very carefully. A deputy minister is supposed to give all his time to the service of the country, and if he gives a portion of his time from one department to another, is that a reason why he should be paid extra? I have acted as minister for a dozen departments at different times, and every one of the ministers on the front benches to-day is acting for some other department, but are they to be paid an extra salary because they are acting in the absence of somebody else? I think the principle involved is a bad and dangerous one. I have no objection to any salary that may be given to Mr. Cory as a deputy. I am very glad that the deputy ministers are to receive a salary of $6,000; that has my support. But the idea of paying any official in the public service for extra duties is to me a bad and dangerous principle. I think the example of this case will lead the minister into trouble. I repeat, I have no objection to Mr. Cory. He is an excellent officer and I should be glad to see him get the best terms given to deputies of equal rank; it is the principle I object to.


James Alexander Calder: I quite agree with what,
my hon. friend has said as to the principle involved. It is one that should be used with very great discretion. Under the circumstances in this particular case I submit to the Committee that there is justification for the vote. I hesitated a good deal for the very reason advanced by the hon. member, to suggest to the Government that this sum should be placed in the Estimates, but the position was briefly this:	Had I taken advantage of the vote
of $5,000 that was passed in the Estimates last year for a deputy minister, and appointed a deputy, I suppose there would not be the slightest objection at all. Instead of doing that, I have tried to save money for the country. I hoped to save by this method some $4,000. It is quite true that the services of any official of any department should be available when required, but under the circumstances that existed I do not think it would be fair to ask a deputy who has his own work to do, and who should have some time at his disposal to come to my department and my house night after night and spend hours and hours upon work that really was not his own. Now, because I did not take advantage of the vote passed last year, but thought it advisable under the circumstances to try and save $4,000. I am severely criticised. I quite agree that the principle is one which should be safe-

guarded in every way, but at the same time occasions may arise where the circumstances would justify the Government in doing just what it is proposed to do in this case.
iMr. -FIELDING: I think that in the case of minor officials who are receiving but small salaries, allowance should be made for circumstances under which something additional may be paid to them, but even in that case I would rather have it in the shape of a direct plain vote for the salary. But those officials who are receiving a generous salary, whether it be a judge or any other official-and I should like to see all the high officials generously paid-owe their whole working time to the public service, and any service that they can render to the public they have already been paid for and they should not receive any extra allowance for it. There are many illustrations we may have to give as the Estimates come up, because Of think the principle of paying a man in two or three different places is a bad one. I lay down the principle, and I think the minister will agree with me, that the man who receives $4,000 or $5,000, which is a fair salary, not too large-I am not advocating small salaries-owes his whole time to the public service, and any time he may give to the public service is time for which he has already been paid, and he is not entitled to extra pay for such extra work.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. member
think for a moment that this official is obliged to go to the minister's house night after night and work for hours without receiving anything extra?


William Stevens Fielding: 
James Alexander Calder: I am afraid the hon. gentleman (Mr. M. Clark) did not catch the drift of my remarks. He thinks that instead of saving money we are spending additional money here. As a matter of fact, as I stated to the Committee, last year we took a vote of $5,000 for a deputy minister. I had authority to appoint a deputy minister at a salary of $5,000, and if I had done so, this matter, I suppose, would not have been mentioned. I had some concern for the growing expenditures of the country by trying to save $4,000. Now I am severely criticised because of that. I quite agree with, the position taken by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens, the principle is not a good one, and if the practice is to be followed at all it should only be where there are very special circumstances. I have stated these circumstances to the Committee. I cannot say anything further about it. The Committee may agree or not. Under the circumstances that existed in connection with the creation of this department, I feel that I was justified in not appointing a deputy. The department had been created in the regular way, a minister was put in charge, and I had a full right to appoint a deputy. But, in the interest of economy I did not do so. With the statement made that the time of every officer of the Government should be at the disposal of the Government, I quite agree, but it does not appear to me as fair that you should take a man who happens to be in another department and call upon him to give a great deal of his time to work that does not belong to the department of which he is in charge.


Edmond Proulx: This department is only a branch of the Interior Department.


James Alexander Calder: No.


Edmond Proulx: The work done by the Immigration and Colonization was formerly done by the Department of the Interior.


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: There was very little work done, I understand. There has been no immigration during the war. I do not think that there was much more work to do than this officer had been doing before the department was created.


James Alexander Calder: During the last year Mr. Cory, the acting deputy minister, gave more of his time to the work of the department than he had done in any year during the last eight or nine years when immigration was active. Early in the year I undertook the reorganization of this department in the United States, in Canada, and to some extent in Great Britain. This required a good deal of thought and study, and Mr. Cory's services were used for that purpose. He gave more time to that department when it was not very active than he did before when it was very active.


Thomas Vien: It is probably due to overpressure of work that the deputy minister overlooked some of the accounts for the Department of Immigration and did not .check up all the details when they came in. It is probably in that way that a $32 waste basket came to be purchased. If the appointment of this acting deputy minister of the Department of the Interior to the Department of Immigration has saved $4,000 by way of salary, much of it has leaked away owing to overpressure in work which has prevented him from closely checking the accounts that came in.


James Alexander Calder: I am not so certain of that. Probably we will have an opportunity of discussing that account when we come to our Estimates. I shall have an opportunity later to have something to say regarding that.


William Stevens Fielding: If Mr. Cory gave so much of his time to the duties of the deputy minister of Immigration, what happened to the duties of the deputy minister of the Interior?


Samuel William Jacobs: As I understand it, the Deputy Minister of Immigration last year was also Acting Deputy Minister of the Interior. Was there not an estimate of $5,000 passed this year for the Deputy Minister of Immigration? In the Immigration Act provision is made for the appointment
of a deputy minister, and I assume that in the Estimates there will be $5,000 for his services for the coming year.


James Alexander Calder: It is $6,000.


Samuel William Jacobs: This work was done last year by Mr. Cory at the same time as other work was done in the Department of the Interior, at a cost to the Government of $6,000-$5,000 plus $1,000. He assisted the minister, working night after night with the minister in the creation of this new department.


James Alexander Calder: That is right.


Samuel William Jacobs: I consider Mr. Cory should have $5,000 instead of $1,000.


Mr. McCREA:: I understand that the minister is proposing that his deputy should have an increase of salary. If you have a good staff of men who are reliable, trustworthy, honest and industrious, it is poor policy to underpay them. I think this Government are possibly spending a good deal of money in dther directions that might well be spent in paying the employees good, fair, liberal salaries. If the minister of a department comes to this House and makes a statement to the effect, as the minister has done, that he has a good, reliable, trustworthy man on his staff, a man who has been doing not only his own work but the work of another department, and he asks for some compensation for that man, I think we should trust the minister sufficiently to accept this statement and grant the request.


James Alexander Calder: I want to be perfectly frank with the Committee. This is not a question of increasing salaries. The point raised by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens is a very important one. I had a good deal of hesitation in doing this on account of the precedent that is likely to be established and which will probably give the Government trouble in other directions. But it seems to me, taking all the circumstances into consideration, that we will not be establishing a troublesome precedent in this case. I had a good deal of hesitation in suggesting this should be done but at the same time I think it is only fair it should be done.


Edmond Proulx: Who is the deputy minister of Immigration?


James Alexander Calder: Mr. Cory is still acting. I have nobody in sight at the present time but somebody will be appointed shortly.

Department of Railways and Canals, Salaries -$2,250.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Civil Service Commission passed on each of these appointments?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. What happened was this: We have a Purchasing Branch under Mr. Lavoie. A number of the men who belong to that staff and who were employed in the Outside Service have gone to Toronto. Those that are left belong to the Canals Branch and will be paid out of the vote for canals.
Department of Customs and Inland Revenue [DOT]-To provide for a clerkship in the First Division, Subdivision B, Private Secretary-$2,100.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is the private secretary referred to here?


John Dowsley Reid: The private secretary to Mr. Sifton, Minister of Customs, who is overseas with his chief at the present time.
Post Office Department-Contingencies, clerical and other assistance, further amount required-$10,(MM).


Rodolphe Lemieux: We would like an explanation of this item.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The vote is required to pay certain temporary employees who were engaged to take the places of civil servants who had enlisted and were serving overseas.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are the temporary employees who are engaged during the rush season appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The appointments are all passed upon by the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. COPP:: What amount appears in the regular Estimates with respect to this item?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not that information. That refers to last year's vote, and this |s a special appropriation to cover the pay of twenty-three temporary employees who were brought in to take the places of employees who had enlisted and gone overseas.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is this amount intended to supplement the salaries of the twenty-three temporary employees?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, these persons have not been employed for the whole of the war period. As various permanent employees enlisted, or were called up under the Military Service Act, other men were engaged to take their places and the vote asked for here covers various periods during the year.
[iM>r. Calder.]


Rodolphe Lemieux: I received a letter some time ago from a captain attached to the Canadian forces now in Germany, who belongs to an outside branch of the Post Office Department. He has received his salary and military pay, but desires to know if the bonus granted to the civil servants in Canada will apply to those serving overseas as well?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: No, he will not get the bonus.
Civil Service Commission-to provide for the* promotion of one clerk, and contingencies, $20,225.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When a vacancy occurs, in a country post office is it necessary that the Civil Service Commission should advertise and send out circulars inviting candidates to compete for the poorly-paid position of postmaster?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would not think so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the practice in that regard? I have received circulars drawing my attention, for example, to the fact that there is a vacancy in a post office in British Columbia, or that an engineer is to be appointed in a certain province at a salary of *1,000 or $2,000. I have no interest in such appointments, and it seems to me that those circulars should be sent only to the district affected, thus avoiding a waste of money.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think my hon. friend's remarks are quite proper in so far as a certain, class of positions is concerned, such as in the Post Office. There is, however, another class of positions which I think should be advertised throughout the whole country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Technical positions.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. Some discrimination should be exercised, of course. I shall be very glad to call the attention of the Commission to the remarks of my hon. friend.
Legislation-Senate-To provide an amount for the Speaker of the Senate of $3,000 for the fiscal year 1918-19 in lieu of residence and attendants-Further amount required, $1,845.
House of Commons-To provide an amount for the Speaker of the House of Commons of $3,000 for the fiscal year 1918-19 in lieu of residence and attendants-Further amount required, $750.


Edmond Proulx: How much was voted before?


John Dowsley Reid: The difference between $1,845 and $3,000.


Edmond Proulx: Is not $3,000 a large amount?


John Dowsley Reid: Not when you take into account that the Speaker has to rent a house, engage servants, and so on. He had all that accommodation in the House of Commons.


Edmond Proulx: The Speakers get $4,000 besides their sessional indemnity. I do not see why they should have to rent a house; they could board at a hotel like ordinary members.


John Dowsley Reid: Before the destruction of the Parliament Buildings it had always been the custom for the Speaker to have a residence inside the buildings, together with attendants, fuel, and other things. This is merely to replace the loss that he is under on account of living outside.


Edmond Proulx: But I do not see why it should take $3,000 to pay for the rent of a house or of rooms at the hotel. So far as attendance is concerned, I do not see why he needs any. He has a private secretary who is paid by salary. I think there is too much extravagance in that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Edmond Proulx: It looks to me, Mr. Chairman, as if this were an attempt in an indirect way to increase the salary of the Speaker. I would much prefer that the country pay the actual cost of renting rooms or a house. I understand that the Government is now furnishing a house for the Speaker. ^.Last session I believe he was rooming at a hotel.


Mr. CARVELL:: The Speaker is paying
rent to the Government for the house he occupies.


Edmond Proulx: But this money was for
last year; it does not cover this year when

he is occupying the house, I understand. If he files a Bill of what he has to pay for rooms I think it would be much more satisfactory than asking for a lump sum, when we do not know whether it is costing that amount or not.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, might I
ask if there is a proposal on foot to house the Speaker in the new buildings when they are completed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is not the intention.


Samuel William Jacobs: We are departing then
from an old and traditional custom?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.
.General-To pay for Provincial Voters' Lists supplied after the passing of the War Times Election Act, 1917, $7,000.


Thomas Vien: Explain.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is that, Mr. Chairman?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Under the law as it stood before 1917 the legal custodians of the voter's lists in the various provinces made up their accounts and sent them to the Clerk in Common Chancery. The WarTimes Election Act, as you will remember, was passed in September of 1917. Most of these lists are made up in the autiynn, and a number of them were forwarded to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. I believe the contention was that those officials were not acquainted with the fact that it was not necessary to prepare those lists, and after a good deal of consideration a compromise was effected, by which those officials who had actually made up their lists and forwarded them were paid a portion of the amount, and in very many cases the whole.
Those, of course, who had not made them up-a notice was sent out as soon as the clerk found they were coming in-did not receive anything. This $7,000 is required to pay those who actually did send lists in.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The money is paid to some provincial official, I assume?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Under the old law the legal custodian of the voters' list was to make up annually and file with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a list as found in his office. The Dominion Government paid that official so much per hundred words for furnishing that list.


Thomas Vien: There was something more than that. The new Elections Act provided not that the electoral list should be

made, as formerly, by the various secretary-treasurers of the municipalities, sent to the registrar in the county and by that official forwarded to the Clerk of the Crowm in Chancery, but that enumerators should be appointed and Federal lists specially prepared for the purposes of the coming election. The Clerk of the Crowrn in Chancery, probably overlooking the machinery provided by the new Elections Act, sent the usual formal notices to the registrars in the various counties to provide him with the electoral lists as in the ordinary course. That was an error on the part of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery which is now costing the country $7,000. I agree that the registrars of the various counties should be paid for work that they did at the request of an official of the Crown, but the attention of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery should be directed to the fact that he made an error which involves an expenditure of $7,000 on the part of the country.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I assure my hon. friend that the fact has been brought to his attention on more than one occasion.
For purchase of seed grains-Governor General's Warrant, Octo<l>er 7, 1918, $3,000,000.


Thomas Vien: Is this for seed grain for 1919?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Thomas Vien: This seed grain will be distributed now and paid for when it is distributed?


John Dowsley Reid: It is sold to the farmers on certain terms-probably the cash is not paid until the crop is harvested.


Thomas Vien: But the amounts are to be repaid? The Government is not to lose anything?


John Dowsley Reid: The Government will not lose anything.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Where is this seed grain distributed?


John Dowsley Reid: There was a crop failure last year in several parts of Western Canada, chiefly, I think, in Southern Al-belta and Saskatchewan; and this grain was secured to provide the farmers in those districts with the necessary seed grain.
For purchase of cotton seed meal-Governor General's Warrant, November 19, 1918, $150,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is it the policy of the Government to buy feed and to furnish it to anyone who is short of that commodity, extending to him the credit of the country until the price is paid?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: During the latter part of 1918 it was very difficult to secure cotton seed meal and farmers throughout the provinces were very anxious to get it. The Department of Agriculture accordingly purchased cotton seed meal and distributed it among the dealers, and the treasury was recouped.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Last fall it was impossible for the farmers of our part of the country to get hay and grain for their cattle, and they had to sell their stock at a great sacrifice. If the Government was assisting the farmers in other parts of the country, I cannot see why they should not assist the farmers in the Maritime Provinces.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: During the war the Government made a great many purchases on behalf of certain of the people of Canada; it was absolutely necessary that they should do so. For instance, all the wool that was imported into Canada during the last year was imported and paid for by the Government, and, through some Governmental agency, distributed to manufacturers in Canada who desired wool. Tinplate was also purchased by the Government and re-sold to dealers-to their advantage, because it was purchased by the Government at a favourable rate. Cotton seed meal was purchased for the same reason. It was practically impossible for private dealers to make the purchases, so *the Department of Agriculture did it, and distributed the cotton seed meal among dealers in the various provinces. The treasury was immediately recouped.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Did any of this cotton seed meal go to the Maritime Provinces?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think so.
For purchase of stock feed-Governor General's warrant July 2, 1918, $300,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What feed is that?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Government controlled the price of by-products of elevators and flour mills during the war period, particularly during the ' past year. They purchased from the mills bran and shorts, and through some agency or other, they were sold to the public.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What agency?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Some department of Government or some Government agency carried out the details of the work.
Contribution towards the cost of the monument to Louis Hebert at Quebec, $1,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In connection with public monuments, may I remind my hon. friend that the Royal Society of Canada last year recommended that a monument be erected in the city of Ottawa to the memory of Edith Cavell, and I understand, that subscriptions have been solicited and a certain amount of money collected. Mr. Benjamin Suite, our well known writer and historian, has taken the lead in the matter and has enlisted the sympathies of many citizens in and around Ottawa. I have been asked by the society, of which I am a member, to request the Government to do its share in connection with the erection of this monument. I hope I shall be able to convey to the Royal Society which meets next week in Ottawa the glad tidings that the Government of Canada will do its share towards the erection of this memorial.
Another point about art-because this item is under the heading of "Arts and Agriculture." I noticed in the Montreal Star last night that two paintings were, amongst others, to be sold at auction in Montreal. As hon. gentlemen are aware, the famous Kreigoff paintings represent Canadian scenery. I have seen a few of those Kreigoff paintings in Senator Edwards' residence in Ottawa and some too in that of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy). They are very rare and highly appreciated, and I think our museum should have those paintings on its walls. I also noticed in a paper yesterday that the collection of the late Sir George Drummond, containing some of the great masterpieces in the world, was to be sold in London, England. As hon. gentlemen know, there is a law in Italy which prevents any foreigner from taking masterpieces out of Italy to another country. We should have a similar law here. It is known that there are in the residence of at least three or four wealthy Canadians masterpieces of immense value-if they can be valued in money. The collection of the late Sir George Drummond is known not only in Canada but in Europe, and the Art Commission which was appointed some years ago ought not to let this opportunity pass and should see that this collection is retained in Canada for the National museum in Ottawa. I call the attention of the Government to this fact.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think the matter of the Edith Cavell monument has come be-

fore the Government, but it will be taken into consideration.
Pensions-European war-Further amount required, $3,500,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Minister of Militia (Mr. Mewburn) knows that a committee is at present investigating the question of pensions generally, and I suppose he will make a statement to the House some time during the session. Many people are advocating a revision of pensions. I mentioned to the minister the other day some cases of hardship, and I have a promise from him that he will consider the question and later on make a statement to the House.
Major-General MEWBURN: The question of pensions does not come under the Department of Militia and Defence; it is entirely under another department. I am familiar with the cases which the hon. gentleman has mentioned and which I have already referred to the Committee. I have not the privilege of being a member of that Committee. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), who is chairman of the Committee, will, I understand, make a statement to the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The statement of the minister is quite correct with regard to the general quesition of pensions, but under the old law, widows of generals were entitled to small pensions, and I think that Act was administered by the Minister of Militia and Defence.
Major-General MEWBURN:	My hon.
friend is quite right. I thought he referred to this item of general pensions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.
Major-General MEWBURN: I hope to bring in a Bill amending the Militia Pension Act. There are one or two cases of hardship. I know the case of the widow of a general who served thirty years in the Canadian service, who lost three sons and ene son-in-law in this war, and who lost one son in South Africa. Under those old regulations she draws a pension of only $500 a year. I hope to bring that up on an amendment to the Pension Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Another case is that of a widow of a man who served in the Militia Department as general for many years. Since his death she has received a pittance of $500 a year. She has lost her only support in the war, and she naturally expects that the Government will do the fair thing by her.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Just for information, as I was absent last year, I should like to

know the total amount voted to meet the exigencies of the Pension Board in this regard.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amount voted last year was $15,000,000. This is to meet the excess expenditure for the year. It is due, first of all, to there being a larger number of pensioners that was anticipated when the estimate was originally provided; secondly, to meet the increased allowance for children which was provided during the course of the year, particularly orphan children; thirdly, instead of paying the pensions in advance they are now paid at the end of the month, which means a double payment.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The amount paid last year for pensions was $18,500,000?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Approximately.
Pensions-salaries and contingent expenses of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada-further amount required, $500,000.


William Stevens Fielding: We understand that the item of pensions must be large, but here is half a million dollars for the salaries and contingent expenses of the board. Is the item correctly worded? It looks a very large amount for salaries and contingent expenses.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is quite true that the item is a large one, and the explanation is this: The Board of Pension Commissioners, when they presented their estimate to the Government of the cost of administering, estimated some $250,000 in excess of what the Government actually allowed. The Government, in the hope of keeping down the expenditure, cut down the estimate which the Board of Pension Commissioners had presented. As the end of the year approached the board reported that not only could they not keep within the appropriation, but for reasons which they explained to the Government it was necessary that they should exceed even their own estimate by the sum of $250,000. This additional sum was required principally, as I recall it now, for three reasons: First, the working out of their organization in administering the pensions throughout the country had involved a substantial increase in their staff over what they estimated a year ago; secondly, owing to the conditions which prevailed, they have had to pay larger salaries in many cases than they contemplated a year ago; and, thirdly, the expenses incidental to the office and management here in Ottawa at headquarters and at the various centres throughout the country where the board has its branches in each military district have also increased.


William Stevens Fielding: Taking this $500,000 and the former estimate, what will be the expenditure on salaries and contingent expenses?


Newton Wesley Rowell: A total of $1,250,000, the former appropriation being. I think, $750,000.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not complaining.
I take for granted that there is an explanation. But what is the organization of the Board of Pension 'Commissioners which involves an expenditure of $1,250,000 on salaries and contingent expenses? I am not objecting to the amount, but simply-asking for information. The amount seems very large.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amount does seem large, and that was the reason the Government a year ago cut down the estimate.
I have not the details here, as I did not expect the item would be up, but when the main estimate is before the Committee I will have full details as to the numbers employed and expenses.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the resignation of Commander Ross been accepted?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who succeeds him?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No appointment has been made yet.
Department of Militia and Defence-gratuities, $7,950.39.


Thomas Vien: Will the minister explain what these gratuities are for?
Major-General MEWBURN: I have the particulars of each one. William Taylor served for 13 years and 13 days as caretaker at headquarters in military district No. 2 at $1.50 per diem. The basis on which the gratuity is calculated is one year's pay for each twenty years of service. N. Ville-neuve was caretaker at the Quebec drill hall for 22 years and 124 days. All these gratuities are calculated on the same basis*
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital -Quebec and iSaguenay Railway-construction -further amount required, $250,000.
(Mr. J. D. REID:	The work is nearly
completed. This balance is required to carry on the work until the end of the fiscal year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Gan my hon. friend
state positively when the trains will run into Murray Bay?


John Dowsley Reid: The chief engineer
assures me that the regular passenger trains
will be running into Murray Bay not later than the first of July. The work trains will be going into Murray Bay before that, and you could get into Murray Bay on them about the middle of June.


Mr. OASGRAIN:: Will there be a daily service?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, after the first of July, during the season.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There is in the county of Charlevoix, along the line of this railway near St. Urbain, a great deposit of a certain kind of iron or ore which was largely used during the war by the General Electric Company of the United States in the manufacturing of war material. I know this company owns a mine there. There is also another company interested in these deposits known as the American 'Titanic Ore Company. The name is American, but the capital stock is owned by Canadian people in Quebec and other parts of the province. This company owns a big mine, but they are unable to operate it at present. During the war they did not have working capital enough. The ore has to be hauled by wagon and horses from St. Urbain to Baie St. Paul, and the haul is too expensive. I noticed one day near Baie St. Paul as many as ten or fifteen cars of ore that had been taken from the mine, and it cost five or six dollars a load. The General Electric Company of the United States are able to exploit their mine, because they h^e a large amount of capital available. I was asked by the people who are interested in this Canadian enterprise to see if it would not be possible, now that the railway is operating to Baie St. Paul, to have a branch line constructed to the mine from Baie St. Paul. This would not only open up the mine, but would give employment to the people of the county, and would alsc facilitate the transportation of farm products. The distance would bo about nine miles. There is also in the county of Charlevoix near St. Urbain, but in another direction, the National Park which belongs to the province of Quebec. Here the Provincial Government keeps magnificent herds of moose and caribou, and other wild animals.
I have no brief for the provincial government but I invite the minister to come down to that part of the country and make one of a shooting party. It would be in the interest of the country if a branch line were constructed there as soon as possible. Would the minister be able to make a statement upon that work?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I give my earnest support to the request made by my hon. friend from Charlevoix (Mr. Casgrain), as I happen .to know that part of the country just as well as I know Ottawa or Montreal. The question of the Saguenay railway has been so many times before the House that I need not repeat the arguments pro and con but the Government has a chance to meet its expenditure in that district by constructing a line to St. Urbain. It is only a matter of 9 miles. There is a large capital invested for the exploitation of that mine, and I am quite sure that if my hon. friend would build a branch line nine miles only in length he would recoup himself for the losses on other sections of the line. This is an industry which ought to be developed. We are very modest in our demands. Whilst my hon^ friend is giving forty-four lines to the people of the West .surely he will not refuse us this little branch line from Baie St. Paul to St. Ur-, bain. My hon. friend has promised me to pay a visit next summer to that district, and I shall make it my duty to accompany him.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) will agree that we have about all the railway building on our programme that we can undertake this year. If we complete the Quebec and Saguenay to Murray Bay I think that is about all we can do this year. But I will have the engineer look over the other and make a report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend send an engineer there?


John Dowsley Reid: I will tell Mr. Grant to have the suggestion looked into and a report made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend do that this year?


John Dowsley Reid: I will instruct him at once.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to income

miscellaneous-surveys and inspections-railways-further amount required, $10,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What survey is that?


John Dowsley Reid: This refers to the inspection of railways and surveys. We have men inspecting railways. Different items are paid out of this account. It is an annual vote. Last year we reduced it by $10,000 and then we found that we had to put it in again. Some of the expenses were paid in connection with the investigation of the Canadian Northern railway and

there was a small balance of that which is included in this item.
Labour-Conciliation and1 Labour Act, including publication, printing, binding and distribution of the Labour Gazette, and allowance to correspondence, and for clerical assistance in preparing tables of statistics-further amount required, $10,000. ,


Henri Sévérin Béland: What did the Labour Gazette cost beside the $10,000?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot tell my hon. friend at the moment what the amount was last year. It fell to the Department of Labour during the last year or two to do a great deal more than its ordinary work. There was the Cost of Living Commission which involved the collection and preparation of statistical information.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It did not reduce the cost of living.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It increased the expenditure of the department. That is true also of the vote for industrial disputes investigations; there have been more industrial disputes and consequently additional expenditures have been made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Disputes in the Government or outside of it?
Administration - Employment Office.-Coordination Act. - Further amount required, $10,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Please explain.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under an Act passed by Parliament, I think at its last session, employment offices have been established in all the provinces, and the work of the Federal and provincial Governments in connection therewith is co-ordinated. Grants have been made by the Federal Government in connection with these offices, I understand.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Parliament passed an Act last session authorizing the creation of labour bureaux in the various provinces. I know there is such a bureau in Montreal, and there are others in the WTest. I would like to get from the minister some statistics concerning the work done by the officers at these bureaux. Have these offices been of real service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can the minister state approximately the number of men who have been given employment through these bureaux?


Air.  A. K. AIACLEAN@: The employment offices have done excellent work, and have

been instrumental in securing work for many thousands of persons. I did not expect that the Supplementary Estimates for the Labour Department would be reached this evening, and therefore I am not able to give the data asked for. When the main Estimates of that department are before the House, I shall be in a position to give exact information in connection with this work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall be pleased to have it. because, according to the reports of the meetings of returned soldiers which I read in the press, there is great dissatisfaction among them as regards the operation of these bureaux. The returned soldiers generally say that they have not experienced any satisfaction from them. I do not know whether the statement is true or not, and I would like definite information.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Where is the employment office located in Montreal, and who is in charge of it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I could not say,
but I will be prepared to give him full information on the main Estimates. I think very probably that the selection of the employment office in Montreal rested with the Provincial Government.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I would like to know
who is in charge of the office, who the staff are, and what salary is paid to each officer?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is a Provincial Government office, but the Dominion contributes to the cost of administering it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would the minister
object to letting the item stand until the information which I have asked for is forthcoming?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There will be opportunity for discussion on the vote in the Main Estimates.


Mr. CAHILL:: What amount has been
paid to each province under this vote?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The amount
varies. For instance, in the Maritime Provinces I think the Provincial Government pay for the buildings and the furniture and the 'Federal Department of Labour defrays the entire cost of administration. In the case of these provinces the cost of administration is probably not a very large amount.


Frank S. Cahill: What amount does Prince Edward Island, for instance, get out of this -mte?
156$


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it would be a very small sum, but I could not at present give the exact figure. Even if the office in Prince Edward Island has been opened as to which I am not sure, the administration cost to the Federal Government would be very small indeed.


Frank S. Cahill: We should have information as to the amount paid to each province. Last year an appropriation of something like $50,000 was made, and now we are confronted by a Supplementary Estimate.-


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think my hon. friend was present when the Estimates now under consideration were taken up. These are Supplementary Estimates covering the twelve months up to March 31 last. We are now passing these items so as to get a Bill through and obtain the Royal consent when His Excellency the Governor General attends for that purpose in a day or two. We have not as much information concerning these Estimates to-night as we would have had had we known, that they were coming up, but when the Main Estimates are under consideration the fullest information will be given.


Frank S. Cahill: When this item was discussed previously I asked the minister what amount would be apportioned to the different provinces in connection with these employment offices, and I was told that the information would be forthcoming later. Now we have the Supplementary Estimates and still the desired information is lacking. I think the minister who administers the Labour Department ought to be able to tell us how much each province receives.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was only about the time of the signing of the armistice that the Dominion Government came forward to assist these bureaus which had already been organized and were in operation under the auspices of the Provincial Governments. My impression is that $10,000 is the amount which has been expended upon them up to the close of the last fiscal year. The expenditure for the current fiscal year will, of course, be very much in excess of this vote.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: The minister states that the amount expended for this purpose since the armistice was signed is only $10,000?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There was an amount voted last year, but after the signing of the armistice the expenditure on this account would increase very rapidly because the problem of unemployment be-

came quite severe about that time. Many new offices were established by the Provincial Governments, and in some instances by the Federal authorities, and last year's vote was found to be short by the amount asked for here.
Mr. DuTEEMBLAY:	I understood that
the Government intended to render substantial assistance to these labour bureaux and that quite a large amount would be needed. If the Government is really in earnest in its desire to co-operate with the provinces in this matter, my opinion is that the sum of $10,000 would only be sufficient to meet the necessities of the office in Montreal.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The amount that will be needed for the current fiscal year will be very much in excess of last year's Expenditure, as the Federal and the Provincial Governments have all been obliged by the necessities of the unemployment prevailing throughout the country to expend considerably more money.


James Alexander Calder: If I am not mistaken a vote of $50,000 was taken last session, and I think no portion of that money, or at least, only a very small amount, was used until the armistice was signed. Then we had a meeting here of representatives from all the provinces, and it was decided to establish these bureaus without delay, either immediately after or immediately prior to the armistice. Since then somewhere in the neighbourhood of seventy-five bureaus have been established. So that the expenditure has been largely since last November.


Thomas Vien: In all the provinces?


James Alexander Calder: In practically all the provinces. If I am not mistaken the total expenditure will amount, with this $10,000 to something like $60,000. You will find in the Estimates I think for this year a sum of $200,000 to cover the same class of work.


Frank S. Cahill: The Minister of Immigration and Colonization last year had this Bill in charge.


James Alexander Calder: No, the Minister of
Labour.


Frank S. Cahill: At least, he explained it to me. He explained at that time that it would ease the labour situation, and if I remember rightly, that it was very urgent. I think before we pass this item we should have an explanation of what has been done with the $50,000 and the $10,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If we are called upon to vote $10,000 in addition to what was formerly voted, there must have been lots of additional work that was not foreseen. I think we should receive this information.
Soldiers' Land Settlement - 'Salaries of Board of Commissioners-Further amount required, $199.01.
Advances to soldiers settling upon the land, and cost of administering The Soldier .Settlement Act, 1917, including clerical assistance, and amount payable to W. F. O'Connor, K.C., as1 special Counsel to the Board, at the rate of $2,000 per annum, from December 1, 1918- Further amount required, $66'6.66.


William Stevens Fielding: This item is a small sinner, but the principle is the same. I have no objection to any liberal salary that may be given to Mr. O'Connor, but I wish to suggest to the minister 'that in the Main or Supplementary Estimates next year Mr. O'Connor's salary whatever it may be, be voted straight and square and not scattered over two or three places.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Who comprises the Board of Commissioners and what are their salaries?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the information here. If the hon. member will let it stand until the Main Estimates are brought down we will give the information then.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Let it stand.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think we ought to have the information. I would like to know where this money is going to, and how many individuals are to receive it. I think it is only fair that the information should be furnished.


James Alexander Calder: There are three members composing the 'board. Dr. Black is chairman and gets a salary, I think, of $6,000-[DOT] no, I think he gets the same salary as a deputy minister, $5,000; but he will get $6,000 under our Estimates for this year. He was formerly principal of the Provincial Agricultural College, at Winnipeg. Major Ashton is the second member of the board, and gets a salary of either $4,000 or $5,000, I am not sure which. Then Mr. Maber, who was one of the chief officers in the Interior Department, is the third member, and gets the same salary as Major Ashton. If I am not mistaken their salaries are fixed binder the legislation which created the board.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am very grateful for the very lucid information the minister has given. I asked for the members of the board and their salaries. I am given the names, and I am told that one gets $5,000 or $6,000, the minister does not know which; the second

member gets $4,000 or $5,000, the minister does not know which; and the other member gets the same as the second one. That is the sort, of information the Government is giving in answer to what I think is a fair question.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of the Interior is not here this evening.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then the Government should not ask that the item be passed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This item only refers to salary payable to Mr. O'Gonnor. He receives $2,000 per annum as counsel to the board, and this item is to provide his salary from the date of his appointment to the end of the fiscal year; it has nothing whatever to do with the members of the board.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The item begins with "Salaries of Board of Commissioners-further amount required, $199.01."


Edmond Proulx: What is Mr. O'Connor's salary as an officer of the Justice Department?


John Dowsley Reid: It is $5,000.


Edmond Proulx: I understand that he works for the Soldiers' Settlement Board. It is a bad principle to divide the services of an official and pay him more than one salary. There is too much camouflage in this.


Mr. PARENT:: What are Mr. O'Connor's duties in the Justice Department?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. O'Connor did work for both the Labour and Justice Departments; his salary was $2,000 with the Labour Department and $5,000 with the Justice Department.


Thomas Vien: In what capacity does he serve in the Justice Department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The drafting of Bills and special work.


Georges Parent: Did he draft Bill 91, about the defaulters?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think so. That Bill was drafted in the Justice Department, but not by Mr. O'Connor. With regard to the statement made by the hon. member (Mr. Fielding), I merely wish to remark that the criticism is not without some substance, and the matter should be corrected in some way. However, the amount which the Committee is asked to vote is for services rendered last year. Mr. O'Connor has been assigned to special work. During the Parliamentary sessions he has had a great deal to do with legislation.
Previously he had a great deal to do with the Labour Department, in connection with the Cost of Living Commission. He has drafted, and is now drafting, legislation which is coming before Parliament at the present session. During the last Dominion election he was assistant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery; he was engaged during several months in concluding that work. It can never be said of Mr. O'Connor that he wastes his time, because he is an exceedingly industrious man and really does give to the State full value for anything that he is paid.


Georges Parent: I give the minister the instance of Bill No. 91.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know what Bill No. 91 is.


Georges Parent: We know on this side. It is the Bill against defaulters.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That does not affect this item.


Thomas Vien: It is a surprising thing that when we on this side speak of a question of principle ministers nearly always admit that the principle is sound, but that there is an exception here, an exception there, an exception somewhere else. Mr. O'Connor should have definite duties to perform and he should be paid a definite salary. We should not be called upon to pay him $5,000 as an official of one branch, and $2,000 as an official of another. If Air. O'Connor's services are retained in the Justice Department they must be required there, and if they are required there we should get some one else to perform those services if he goes to another department. If Mr. O'Connor has time to spare in the Justice Department he should be called upon to fill the office of some other official of that department. If there are too many employees in the Justice Department let us reduce the number. Civil servants should have definite duties to perform and should not have the right to supplement their salaries by performing other duties in their spare time.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have asked for certain information, which I have not yet received. I again ask that some member of the Government furnish that information.


James Alexander Calder: I am sure that the hon. gentleman wants to be fair.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Absolutely.


James Alexander Calder: It is not that the Government has no desire to give the information; it is simply that the minister of the department concerned does not happen to be in

the chamber. I endeavoured to give such information as I could, and the hon. member calls me to task because I do not carry all this information in my head. If he insists that- the information be given to-night the only thing to do is to send for it.


Mr. OOPP:: X do not take my'hon. friend to task at all;-he gave all the information he had. If it is not his duty to pilot this item through the Committee I have no fault to find with him.


James Alexander Calder: The minister is not here.


Albert James Smith Copp: My hon. friend attempted to give some information, but he gave none that I did not have myself. He said that there was an item of $6,000 or $5,000 for Dr. Black, $4,000 or $5,000 for somebody else, and a like amount for somebody else.


James Alexander Calder: I think the hon. member will find they are statutory salaries.


Albert James Smith Copp: I asked the question simply to get information, and I think it is information that should be given to the Committee.
Mr. OAiHILlL: Can the minister in charge of the Estimates mention any Bill which Mr. O'Connor had had in charge or prepared?


Newton Wesley Rowell: He drafted the Soldiers' Land Settlement Bill which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) introduced the other day. He has had to do with the drafting of the Bankruptcy Bill, and he has worked on some other very important Bills.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The Franchise Bill?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think he has had something to do with that. Mr. O'Connor has spent weeks of his time working on some of the largest Bills which the Government has introduced this session.


Thomas Vien: Why should he receive a
higher salary than deputy heads of various departments? As counsel to the Board he has a salary of $2,000 per annum. Why should he not be paid about the same salary as a deputy head, say in the Justice Department, and be called upon to render some legal assistance in his capacity as an employee in the Justice Department?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member is possibly not aware of the fact that the deputy head of the Justice Department is paid a salary of $10,000 per annum.
Mr. LE1MIEUX:	And more; he receives
fees besides.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I believe the Government have to pay that salary to Mr. O'Connor if they desire to retain his services. The reason of his being on the Soldier Settlement Board is this: The Soldier Settlement Board need a solicitor to advise them in connection with the many important agreements and forms which they have to draft in carrying out their work. Mr. O'Connor was in the Justice Department rendering a certain service. He was also rendering certain service as Cost of Living Commissioner. He was no longer required for the latter, and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), the head of the Soldier Settlement Board, found that the Board could avail itself of Mr. O'Connor's services without engaging a new solicitor at a substantial salary. He, therefore, arranged to secure part of Mr. O'Cbnnor's time for the work of the Soldier Settlement Board, and to continue paying him the salary which he had hitherto been drawing. He had been drawing $5,000 from the Justice Department and $2,000 as Cost of Living Commissioner, and the same amount is paid to him in a different form. I appreciate what the hon. member (Mr. Vien) and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) have said about paying two salaries. That is open to criticism, and the explanation in this case is that this particular official is rendering services to each of two distinct departments and the salary is divided.
Mr, CASGRAIN: Is that the same Mr. O'Connor who is going to be appointed official returning officer in place of the late clerk of the Crown in Chancery?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not heard of any such appointment.


William Stevens Fielding: The requests for information on all these points are reasonable, and if they are passed, the ministers could fairly be asked to hold the items over. On the other hand, I can appreciate the desire of the ministers to get though with these items so that they may wind up the accounts of the last fiscal year, and I think hon. gentlemen may be content to accept the assurance that information on all these matters will be brought down at another stage. With that statement, I would urge that the ministers be allowed to get through with these Estimates to-night.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There has been no obstruction that I know of, and I think that what has been passed so far has been passed pretty rapidly.

Miscellaneous' - Canada Gazette - further amount required,-$'6.(100.


Frank S. Cahill: What is this additional amount for?


John Dowsley Reid: Increased cost of labour.
Distribution of Parliamentary documents and other Government publications-further amount required, $8,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What are the "other" Government publications?


John Dowsley Reid: This is printing ordered by the House. The increased cost of this is for the same reason as in the other case, namely increased cost of labour and materials in connection with printing.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That seems to be the answer for the first part-distribution of parliamentary -documents. But there is the other item "Other Government publications." What does that mean? Does that include the Daily Record and other papers published by the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: A list of parliamentary documents is always printed in the Canada Gazette.


Georges Parent: Who gets the printing of the documents?


John Dowsley Reid: The Printing Bureau. This is simply a cross entry.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is an amount included for the Daily Record?


John Dowsley Reid: No, that is a separate item.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the cost of -that publication?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Some question was asked early in the session and I brought down the exact figures at the time. I think the cost was approximately $50,000 a year.


James Alexander Calder: I find on turning up the Soldiers' Settlement Act that the Chief Commissioner gets $6,000 a year and each of the other commissioners $5,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Since the minister has gone back to that item, that is not all the information. Are there any other expenses in connection with the Soldiers' Settlement Board than the salaries of the commissioners?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I should like to have the information regarding that.


John Dowsley Reid: We shall get that for the hon. member.
To provide an amount to meet expenses in connection with the visit of Prince Fushimi of Japan, $16,374.01.


Edmond Proulx: When did this prince come here?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Last autumn. Prince
Fushimi of Japan was returning a visit paid by Prince Arthur and was the guest of Canada while travelling through this country. The Government provided the necessary special car for the prince and his party and also necessary travelling expenses through the country.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How long was his stay in Canada?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The total stay would not exceed a month. He travelled through Canada from the Pacific to 'the Atlantic and visited various centres in this country.


Georges Parent: Does the minister say that a prince cannot travel in Canada without his expenses being paid by the Canadian people?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I feel quite sure I am within the judgment of the Committee when I say that having regard to the fact that Japan was one of our Allies in this war it was but fitting, when the representative of J apan, the son of the ruling sovereign, was passing through Canada on his way to visit His Majesty in Great Britain, that every respect should be paid him because of the high position which he held, and the Government acted accordingly.


Henri Sévérin Béland: But Canada can hardly afford to pay the expenses of foreign princes travelling through this country.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He was going as the official representative of the Government of Japan to visit the Government ;n Great Britain, and he was the guest of Canada while passing through this country. He became our guest as he landed, and remained our guest until he left. It was exactly the same courtesy that we paid to General Pau and his party-exactly the same respect that Japan paid to Prince Arthur, the representative of Great Britain in Japan. We treated the representative of the Government of Japan and the representative of the Government of France exactly the same in every respect.


Georges Parent: Is there an item in the Estimates about General Pau?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The money has been paid. I presume an Item will be in the Estimates

for this year unless the money comes out of the War Vote. General Pau was the guest of Canada, and we were very glad indeed to have the honour of entertaining him.
Excise-travelling expenses, rent, fuel, stationery, etc.-further amount required, $10,000.


Frank S. Cahill: What is this item?


John Dowsley Reid: Last year the amount was $90,000, to cover the travelling expenses of the officers, rent of buildings, fuel, stationery, etc. The officers state that the estimate was $10,000 short of the amount required, due no doubt to the increased cost of transportation and of fuel.


Frank S. Cahill: Where do the officers use fuel?
* Mr. J. D. REID: For heating the buildings in which they are housed. In my home town, for instance, the Excise Department has ten offices, and used from twenty to twenty-five tons of coal last winter. The cost of fuel is very much higher than it was a year ago.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to collection of revenue-Canadian Government Railways-working expenses-further amount required, $6,000,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This is to make up the loss in the operation of the Government Railway System during the fiscal year ended March 31.


Thomas Vien: Is $6,000,000 the total deficit?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The total working expenses of the Canadian Government Railway system during the year were $42,981,603.98, and the earnings $37,493,802.11, which leaves a deficit of about $6,000,000. The deficit is made up as follows: Intercolonial Railway, eastern lines, working expenses for the twelve months, $27,361,349.39, earnings, $25,770,345.70, deficit about a million and three-quarters. Prince Edward Island Railway, working expenses $1,534,846.69, earnings $765,936.52, deficit about $750,000.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the estimated cost of the Prince Edward Island railway?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the figures here. This item is for the operation. The working expenses of the International Railway for the year were $532,834.63 and the earnings $198,827, deficit about $300,000. Transcontinental, eastern lines, working expenses $4,088,325.30, earnings $2,904,101.29, deficit about $1,100,000.


Frank S. Cahill: What does the minister mean by the eastern lines?


John Dowsley Reid: From Quebec to Moncton. Transcontinental, western lines- between Quebec and Winnipeg-working expenses i$9,176,663.71, earnings $7,745,835, deficit about $1,600,000.
* Mr. VIEN: Will the minister explain how the Government system could not make ends meet while the Canadian Pacific Railway made a good profit? I can understand a deficit on the Transcontinental, but why does not the Intercolonial pay its way?


John Dowsley Reid: One reason is that since the McAdoo award, in April of lust year I think, we have been paying very much higher wages. Coal also cost us very much more, probably $3 or $4 a ton more. The increased freight rates did not come into effect until about September, and in the meantime we were put to the extra expense of increased wages, as well as paying more for coal and other materials. The loss on the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern, and, in fact, all the railways, was heavy during that period. The Canadian Pacific also lost very heavily during that period. Of course, that road has earnings from other sources. Its steamship lines, for instance, were making a lot of money, and some even of its railway lines were paying. The Transcontinental and the Intercolonial, of course, have not got the feeders that the Canadian Pacific has.


Georges Parent: Has the minister a statement showing the earnings between Quebec and Cochrane?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think they keep a record of the revenues earned on different parts of the line in that way, although they keep a record of the revenues earned on the branch lines. They would keep a statement of the revenues between Quebec and Winnipeg, bu't not between Quebec and Cochrane. If we had a small line, as we have in New Brunswick, they would keep a record of the earnings in their books.


Georges Parent: I believe that if an answer-had been, given to my question it would have shown that the line between Quebec and Cochrane would have been a paying proposition, although the Government have not spent any money there. On the contrary, it has done everything possible to destroy whatever benefit the country might have derived from the construction of a line from Quebec to Cochrane or Quebec to Moncton. That particular part of the Trans-

continental was neglected for certain reasons by the Government from 1911 to 1917, I shall not speak of the Government from 1017 up to the present time. All the harm that has been done to the city of Quebec has been done by the Government since 1911. If there is a city that has been particularly neglected so far as railways are concerned it is Quebec. On the south shore of the St. Lawrence, at Levis, you find the most disgusting situation that any one could imagine.
I believe there is no city in Canada with a population of 10,000 or 15,000 where a more intolerable situation exists than that at Levis to-day, where, for the last ten or twelve years, the station having been burned down, it has not been replaced. The reason for the course which has been pursued nobody can understand except it be that this city happens to be in the province of Quebec. Although the Quebec bridge has been completed, we have not seen a Transcontinental or Intercolonial train passing over it. Why? There is a city of 125,000 people with the Transcontinental and Intercolonial coming to its door, and yet the Government has not found a way to have a station of its own in that city. What it did was to make an arrangement with the -Canadian -Pacific, which at that time was quite friendly to the -Government. By that arrangement all the trains of the Transcontinental railway will go to the Canadian Pacific station, with the result that all the Canadian National railway business will pass through the terminals of the Canadian Pacific railway. Nothing is done at Quebec and the Government is doing its best to reduce to nothing the $13,000,000 spent on the Quebec bridge. I believe the minister means well, and I would urge upon him that something shall be done. If something is done as -a result of the representations which I have made to the minister the few words which I have uttered will not be spoken in vain.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are the freight rates on the Intercolonial and the -Government railways the same as on the other railways in Canada?
Mr. J. D. REIDr There may have been some differences in some of -the items but I think they were pretty nearly the same.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will they be the same in the future?


John Dowsley Reid: The Railway Commission will have to decide whether they should be the same or not.
Mr. -LEMIEUX:	Does the Transcontinental operate a daily train between Quebec and Amos?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say offhand.
I understand from the officials that they are making more use of the Transcontinental railway system between Moncton and Quebec and they are getting it in good shape so that they will be -able to handle more traffic than in the past. In addition to that they have been running a train between Quebec and Winnipeg three times a week. It is two or three months ago since I discussed the matter with the officials, and they told ine that they were going to put more trains on both divisions of the Transcontinental.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very glad to hear that, because the Abitibi region where there is a splendid colonization movement going on is going to become more and more the hinterland of Quebec. I read not long ago a lecture delivered in Montreal by a young man named Mr. Authier, the Quebec Colonization agent at Amos. He was describing that district and deploring the fact that the railway facilities were not adequate to the movement of population there. I would ask my hon. friend to look into that question and meet the wishes of the people of that district. The Quebec Government intends to settle returned soldiers there. They have offered lands to them and I think we will see in that district within a very few years another province of Quebec.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon.
member. I was talking it over with Mr. Brady last year. The traffic is increasing very rapidly. In fact, the statement I have just read shows that to be the case. And they must provide for it. We have been short of equipment of all kinds on account of carrying soldiers. All the passenger cars we could get were required. It is probable that they will be putting the service on that road in the condition in which it should be.


Mr. DECHENE:: The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) has spoken about the situation at Levis. We, who travel on the south shore, pass there very often, and I regret to say that people have to wait on the platform of the station. They refuse to go into the station. It is practically impossible to go in there and see anything.


John Dowsley Reid: That very question has been brought to our attention.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was raised in the Senate the other day.


John Dowsley Reid: The estimates submitted by the departmental officials for consideration some time ago, before we brought down the Main Estimates, contained an item for a new station at Levis. That item now appears in the Estimates presented to the House, and the station is to be proceeded with this year. I was discussing the matter only a few days ago with the officials, and I can say that the erection of a new station will be undertaken in the near future. I was also discussing the proposed new station at Levis with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien), and the hon. gentleman will confirm my statement that the officials intend at once to proceed with the work. I realize that a new station should have been built before this. The former structure was destroyed by fire, but by reason of war conditions it has not been replaced at an earlier date. However, the question will not be raised at the next session, because the new station will have been built by that time.


Thomas Vien: The work was started, but unfortunately it was badly started. The intention of the officials was to put the passenger station on the south side of the tracks, and the freight station on the north side, whereas everybody who is conversant with the conditions there, knows that ninety per cent of the travelling public using the Government railway go from Quebec to the Intercolonial, or from the Intercolonial to Quebec. Yet it was proposed to put the passenger station on the south side of the railway so that all the travelling public would have to cross four or five tracks in order to get to the ferry to cross to Quebec. Furthermore, eighty per cent of the freight that goes into Levis station is for the benefit of the population at Levis and the vicinity. Despite that fact, it was proposed to erect the freight station on the north side of the tracks so that the people of Levis or the neighbourhood would have to cross those tracks to get at their freight.
I brought the matter to the attention of the minister whilst Mr. McLeod was in the city, and the minister kindly promised that he would give it his most earnest attention.
I hope it will be more than official attention which such promises ordinarily mean; also that the passenger station will be erected on the site of the former structure, and that the freight station will be placed on the other side of the tracks. This question was fully threshed out ten years ago when the first station was erected, but the officials, through some misunderstanding, wished to transpose the new freight and 
passenger stations in the way I have described, which is contrary to common sense.


Mr. FOURNIER:: What is the revenue
at Levis station?


John Dowsley Reid: I will get the information and either give lit when we are considering the Estimates later, or send it to my hon. friend.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: I can furnish the minister with the desired information, and I am able to tell him that the Levis station pays well.


John Dowsley Reid: I know that.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: I am able to tell my
hon. friend that the tickets taken out there are all local tickets. The revenue of the Intercolonial at that point is about $300,000 a year, the revenue of the Quebec Central about $75,000, and that of the Grand Trunk $25,000, whilst the average number of persons using that station is about sixteen hundred a day. I venture to say these figures represent a traffic that ought to be taken into account. There is no question as to the desirability of building a modem station there, because the present Levis station is about one of the filthiest structures owned by the Canadian Government.


John Dowsley Reid: I know it is a bad
place.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: Notwithstanding the
poor accommodation a very handsome revenue has been collected at Levis. That fact should be taken into account and a modern station built there without further, delay.


Frank S. Cahill: Does the Government purpose taking into account the capital cost of these railways in estimating the loss to the country? There has been a loss of $6,000,000 on operating expenses, and in view of the public ownership proposition now resolved upon, I want to know df the Government at the present time, or in the future, intends taking into account the cost of the undertaking, and the interest on it, as a part of the carrying cost of the railway?
Mr. J. D. RE'ID:	We have never up to
the present time taken into consideration the cost of construction in the case of either the Intercolonial or the Transcontinental railway. The statement annually brought down merely showed the earnings and the cost of operation. In future the statement will disclose the total earnings and the cost of operation as in the past, and in addition the amount paid out as intetrest on any

liabilities in connection with any of the railways comprised in the Canadian National Railway system. Then hon. gentlemen will know, and the public will understand, the amount invested in the Intercolonial, and if there is any surplus over and above the cost of operation, after all liabilities have been met, that would be set against the capital outlay on the Intercolonial or the Transcontinental. My own impression is that there will not be any surplus for some time; I do not think the public look forward to any surplus from either the Intercolonial or the Transcontinental. On the contrary it has always been supposed, at least in connection with the Intercolonial, that as the construction of that railway was one of the terms of the agreement at Confederation, there would not be any great profit made on the capital investment.


Mr.   CABELL@: That is not .quite an answer to my question. There is no indebtedness, as I understand, on either the Intercolonial or the Transcontinental Railway, but there is an investment on the part of the Government of something in the neighbourhood of $400,000,000 in the case of these two railways, and Canada is paying five and a half per cent for the money, free of taxation. Now the two railroads represent an investment on the country's part, and in order to get at the merits and demerits of the nationalization of these systems, which has been resolved upon, we must determine their value. In order to ascertain what we are actually doing by reason of their nationalization, we must know what the interest charge is as well as the operating deficit. I therefore wish to know if it is the policy of the Government in future, not only in regard to the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways, but in regard to all the Government railways, to take into account the actual value of these roads and figure the interest charges together with the operating deficits, so that we can get some idea as to where we stand.	.
Mr. ,1. D. REID: We will bring down at the end of the fiscal year a statement showing the total amount of earnings and of operating expenses and the total cost of all the different railways comprised in the Canadian National Railway system. So the House will have a statement showing what the loss or profit may be on the whole system.


Thomas Vien: Does not the Government think it would be possible, with efficient
management, to make these railways at least pay their expenses?


John Dowsley Reid: The estimate made at the first of the year for the operation of what is now the Canadian National Railway system, if my memory serves me right, shows a deficit of about $7,000,000, that is after paying all fixed charges in connection with operation, interest on bonds, and so on; but that would not take into consideration anything for interest on the Intercolonial or the Transcontinental. The impression conveyed to me by the manage-'ment is that each year that deficit will decrease. But, you see, we are met with other conditions; for instance, at the present time there are demands for increased wages from all of the employees, and the Cost of fuel has gone up, while to offset that there is not any increase in freight rates.


Frank S. Cahill: I hate to delay the Committee, but the minister has repeated a statement now which he has made twice before, when I have asked him for information. He states that the loss will be $7,000,000 and that the surplus of earnings over operating expenses will amount to $3,000,-
000.	Whereas the interest on the Canadian Northern investment alone would amount to $18,000,000, which would mean a loss in the neighbourhood of $15,000,000.


John Dowsley Reid: When you take the total interest charge of $20,000,000 the loss last year would be $15,000,000 or $16,000,000. But as I explained the freight rates were not increased until September, whereas the increased wages of the employees and the higher cost of fuel ran from practically the first of the "year. The management estimate that if they had operated during 1918 with the increased freight rates starting at the same time as the increased operating charges, the loss would have been brought down to about $7,000,000.


Frank S. Cahill: So that according to
the minister's statement the loss on operation with the interest on the in-
1 a.m. vestment in the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental would be $22,000,000, while with the $15,000,000 on the Canadian Northern undertaking the total deficit would be about $37,000,000. That would be for 1918.


John Dowsley Reid: Let me put it my way, which I think is practically the same. The Canadian Northern system, we will say, lost $15,000,000 after paying .all interest and


Frank S. Cahill: There is just one other matter I would like to draw to the min-, ister's attention. At Amos on the Transcontinental there is a very poor station-in fact, it is only a shack. Amos is one of the points at which most of the business on the Transcontinental is done between Cochrane and Quebec, and the people of the district have asked me repeatedly to try to get a better station for them. I have brought the matter to the attention of the Railway Department, but have had very little satisfaction. The settlers also claim that they have great difficulty in getting cars for their pulp wood, and pulp wood is t'heir crop. If they cannot get cars they cannot sell their wood at its proper value, but have to take a ruinous price offered by scalpers. I have known instances where wood that should sell for $6 a cord has had to be sold for $3, or less than the cost of taking it out. The result is that settlers are discouraged and get out of the country as quick as they can.
The road has cost a great deal of money. It is a first class road, running through a good territory. The soil is good and all conditions are conducive to settlement if adequate railway facilities are provided. 1 hope the Government will take into consideration the necessity of getting people into that part of the country in order to get traffic for the road and make it pay. The passenger service is very bad, and I have been told by people in that district that there is no mail service on that railway; in sending money from one place to another they have to take a chance with the baggage. There is a bank at Amos, which takes in large sums to pay for pulp-wood and other commodities. The man in charge of that bank told me that he was worried every day of his life lest something might happen to the large sums of money that were being taken into that country, and asked me to try to get a better mail service in that district.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Brady told me last fall that they had cleaned up every bit of

pulpwood along the Transcontinental. Since we got the new cars I have not heard any complaint about getting cars for the pulpwood. As to the train service, I took that up with Mr. Brady and it is the intention to put a better service on that line. I will bring to the attention of the management the question of a new station at Amos. I assure the hon. member there will be no more delays for the want of cars. We had many complaints about a year ago, but during the last few months there have been practically none.


Georges Parent: Last fall a flood on the line of the Canadian Northern railway caused the destruction of part of the line at Cap Rouge and since then it has not been in use. Will the repairs be made at once?


John Dowsley Reid: I took that up with the general manager a few days ago, and he assured me they were going to make those repairs at once.
Mail service-further amount required, $475.-
000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Does this provide for increases of salaries to rural postmasters or mail carriers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It includes increases to
rural mail carriers and increases for railway transportation due to a larger service. Many trains that were taken off in 1916, were restored in 1918 at the same rate and that involved an additional expenditure of $130,000. Where new contracts for land conveyance have to be made the prices have been so much higher that an additional charge of $345,000 is involved.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is it the intention of the Government to increase the salaries of rural postmasters? t On account of the high cost of living these people can hardly make both ends meet. It is hard to get a man to take a rural post office; it is not a paying proposition. We have been voting increases to deputy ministers, judges and others; there is even talk of increasing the indemnity to members of Parliament. These postmasters ought to be given an increase.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This item does not deal with that matter. I stated when the subject was discussed on the Main Estimates that certain representations had been made to the Government, that about the midsummer of 1918 an increase had been granted, and that the view of the department was that we should see what the effect of that would be, and probably take

action next year. The matter, however, is still before the department for consideration.
To cover unprovided items, 1917-18, as per Auditor General's Report, part b, page 3, 191718, $83,296.75.	.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What is the explanation of
this item?


William Stevens Fielding: This is not an appropriation; it is a book-keeping entry which the Auditor General asks for at the close of the year to meet a lot of small items amounting in the aggregate to the sum stated.
Mr. iOOPP :	I have looked up the Auditor General's Report and I find that in every case the grant has not been all expended. In the case of Pensions, for instance, the amount of the grant not used was $2,764,136.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not looked at
the items; I was only explaining the custom of the Auditor General in 'putting in such an item as this.


Arthur Bliss Copp: At page B-3 of the Auditor General's Report there are columns for the grant in respect of each service, the expenditure, the grant not used and the grant exceeded. In the ease of pensions, the amount of the grant not used was over $2,764,000, and the amount of the grant exceeded is stated to be $62,000.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That relates to the Public Accounts for 1917-18 whereas the vote we are making to-night is for 1918-19.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This seems a very improper way of voting money-" to cover unprovided items, 1917-18." We are entitled to get the details as we have them for the other items.	*


Arthur Bliss Copp: What are the tmprovided items?


John Dowsley Reid: The items are all given in part 3, page 3. The Auditor General says that in the item " adulteration of food," for instance, there is an excess over the grant of $191.36, then charges of management, an excess over grant of $2,359.75, and so on. He gives the items in detail, amounting to $83,296.75..


Albert James Smith Copp: What is the grant not used, Trade and Commerce, $1,023,276.22, when the same item shows, grant exceeded, $2,989.04?
' Mr. LEMIEUX: It is very unsatisfactory, and when this item comes up the Auditor General should not be exempt from the responsibility of giving the nature of the items on which the grants were exceeded, so that we may know what the money went for.


John Dowsley Reid: If lion, members want this item to stand we can strike it out and pass the Bill without it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not seen the page of the Auditor General's Report, but is not this the explanation? I presume, where an appropriation is for a particular item, even although it may not he all expended, the Auditor General has no authority to pay excess expenditure on any item out of an item on which there is an excess. I should presume the items represent the aggregate of the item in which the expenditure was in excess of the estimate.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It does not say so; it says just the reverse.


Frank S. Cahill: What harm is there in letting this item stand?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We cannot introduce the Bill to give effect to this estimate until all the items are through, and we want, when His Excellency the Governor General comes down within the next two or three days to assent, to have this Bill ready for assent.


Thomas Vien: Will there be any possibility of coming back to the item at a later date if we pass it?


John Dowsley Reid: We can get from the Auditor General the whole details of this and a letter explaining the matter, and put it in Hansard to-morrow.


Frank S. Cahill: We shall have to pass it first.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have just had an opportunity of glancing at this, but the explanation appears on the face of the statement. It gives the different items in which the grant is exceeded.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will the minister look at the item pensions-grant exceeded, $62,475.31; grant not used, $2,764,135.97? The amount voted was $10,000,000, the amount expended $7,000,000, part of the grant not used, and then the Auditor General wants $62,475.31 more.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There appears to be some mistake there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think we have done very well this evening, and we shall get the report to-morrow and then pass the item.


John Dowsley Reid: I would let this item stand and pass the others and introduce the

Bill without this one. I would like to pass the Bill, because we may not go into Supply again to-morrow as we were going on with Bills.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the minister will bring an explanation from the Auditor General to-morrow, that is necessary.


John Dowsley Reid: I will put the whole details on Hansard to-morrow.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That may be all right, but I cannot understand what this means.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit it requires explanation.
Resolutions reported, and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.	_
Hon. J. D. Reid moved:
Resolved that towards making good the Supply granted to Hiis Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1919, the sum of $1S,827,098.72 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada,
Resolution agreed to.-

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. Reid thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 113, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public services for the financial year ending March 31, 1919.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and the second time, considered in Committee, and reported.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid the 'House adjourned.
Thursday, May 15, 1919.