Hon.  G. P.@: Graham, member elect for the electoral district of South Renfrew was introduced by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Duncan Ross.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 125) to incorporate the Western Dominion Railway Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 126) to incorporate the Universal Eyesight Insurance Company.-Mr. McLean (Queens).
Bill (No. 127) to incorporate the Canadian Public Health Association. - Mr. Schaffner.
Bill (No. 128) to incorporate the Montreal Transcontinental Railway Company.- Mr. Coderre.
Bill (No. 129) respecting the Aliberta, Peace River and Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Chabot.
Bill (No. 130) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Currie.
Bill (No. 131) for the relief of Isobell Isaac.-Mr. MacNutt.
Bill (No. 132) respecting Mexican Interurban Electric Traction Company, Limited, Mr. OLIVER.
and to change its name to ' Mexican Interurban Electric Railway Company, Limited.' -Mr. Macdonell.

Mr. MURPHY.: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to direct the attention of the Secretary of State, and that of also the Postmaster General, to a number of returns that are in arrears.
I would like pai'ticularly to have a return relating to the Po-st Office Department brought down, the order for which was passed on the 12th of February. It stood" in the name of the hon. member for Miss-isquoi (Mr. Kay), relating to .certain contracts and orders given out by the Post Office Department, and asked for the names of companies, firms and individuals to whom payments had been made.


Mr. PELLETIER.: I will make a note of it.



EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Third reading of Bill (No.
115) to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba.- Mr. Borden.
Mr.   H.@: My hon. friend the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), when the Bill was in committee the other day, pointed out to me what he understood to be an uncertainty about the description of the boundaries in one respect. I brought the matter to the attention of the Dominion geographer and also to the attention of the Dominion astronomer. They looked into the matter very carefully, and while they are inclined to think that the description as at present contained in the Bill is free from ambiguity, they have nevertheless suggested an alteration which, I think, will remove any possible doubt. For that reason I propose to send the Bill back to the committee for the purpose of making that correction. I desire to have it sent back for the purpose also of striking out section 7, which, after looking at the matter somewhat carefully, I believe to be unnecessary I will explain my reasons when we are in committee. I move:
That the order for the third reading of Bill (No. 115) be discharged and that the said Bill be referred back to Committee of the AVhole House with power to amend the description of the boundaries set forth in the third section and with power to strike out the seventh section.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went again into committee on the Bill.
Mr. BORDEN.: If my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) will direct his attention to section 3 and lines 19 and 20, he
4R37

will observe the words to which he alluded the other day ' to a certain monument thereon.' The hon. gentleman made the suggestion, to which I attached importance, that the monument was not in any way described. I find on consultation with the Dominion astronomer that the boundary at that point may be changed somewhat by the commission of which Dr. King is a member, to the advantage and convenience of both countries. My hon. friend will observe from the map I have sent him, that the boundary runs north, but it is not by any means in a straight line through the lake. I do not know for what reason that is, but I understand from the Dominion astronomer that the monument to which allusion has been made in the description may eventually, after the commission has reported, be placed at another point. Therefore, I move that the words to a certain monument thereon,' in the 19th and 20th lines be struck out and the words ' to the most northerly point thereof,' be substituted. With that amendment, according1 to the written report I have from the Dominion astronomer, the Section will not be capable of misinterpretation.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: If I understand the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) this would make that point the most northerly point of the boundary line?


Robert Laird Borden: The international boundary-yes.


William Pugsley: Yes, I think that will be sufficient.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: We all underfed what is meant by the language of the Bill which is to make the international boundary line the boundary of Manitoba. After having conferred with my right hon. friend and reading the Bill, it seems to me that it would have been quite easy to fix the point by a certain monument placed by a certain authority. But we agree upon mea,bt and I think the language is sufficient.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the words shout disappear, because that monument may b changed and located in another place o; . account of the slight rectification of th boundary line which, if it is made, I undei stand, will be of advantage and conveni enoe to both countries. The map I hande, to my hon. friend from St. John, indicate how the international boundary line rum The point referred to is the most norther! point on the international boundary line It seems to me that by continuing the lim due north that is the western boundary o Ontario and the eastern boundary of Mani toba we cannot possibly have any con fusion or misinterpretation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
1 p	>
On section 7:
7. Nothing in this Aot ehaJU in any way prejudice or affect the rights or properties of the Hudson's Bay Company as contained in the conditions under which that company surrendered Rupert's Land to the Crown.
Robert Laird Borden: I beg to move that section 7 be struck out. The reason is that there is already included in the Manitoba Act, section 34, exactly the same words. I have looked into the question very carefully, and I find that on the three occasions on which the boundaries of a province have been extended, this section has never been introduced. In the Manitoba Act of 1877, which slightly extended the boundaries of the province, in the Manitoba Act of 1881 which extended the boundaries of the province, and in the Act of 1898, which extended the boundaries of the province of Quebec, no such provision was introduced; doubtless for the reason that I have already alluded to. Therefore, I move that the section be struck out.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the amendment is well designed. There was no necessity to include that section at all, because, I believe the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company are reserved by Imperial statute. Therefore, this is surplusage. My right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) is not anxious to load his Bill with surplusage, and especially in view of certain other amendments to come later on.


Robert Laird Borden: Nothing unnecessary should be introduced in the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.
Mr. BORDEN moved third reading of the Bill.	B
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, Prince Edward Island).: Some days ago, when we were in committee, I drew the attention of the government to the case of Prince Edward Island, as regards this Bill, and I did so, relying on the business judgment and good sense of the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) and I hope also of the Prime Minister, that my representations would be heeded. But I have not yet received any assurance to that effect, and therefore, I beg to present my case again. Manitoba, under this Bill, is getting a large sum of money in lieu of her public lands, because she has no public lands, that amount is based upon the population of Manitoba, and will be increased from time to time as her population increases. Now Prince Edward Island stands on exactly the same basis in regard to that matter. That province has no public lands, and never had. This statement can be proved by referring to the statutes of 1873, and to the agreement under which that province came into con-



federation. Because s'he had no public lands, she was given a subsidy of $45,000 a year, which is less than 50 cents per head of the population of that province, while Manitoba is to get about $1.25 per head of her population. Therefore, I say in all fairness, the province of Prince Edward Island should be treated in the same way as any other province in the Dominion of Canada., which has no public lands. She stands on exactly the same basis as the three prairie provinces. It seems to me the case is so clear that it only needs to be stated to receive the consideration of the government and of parliament. If Prince Edward Island were treated on the same basis as Manitoba, instead of $45,000, she should receive $120,000. And inasmuch as Manitoba's subsidy is dated back to 1908, I claim in all fairness that the same treatment should be accorded to Prince Edward Island, and that she be given a subsidy dating back to 1908, in which case she would receive in arrears about $300,000. Now I would like to ask the government if they will deal with the case of Prince Edward Island during the present session. There is no reason in the world why her case should be postponed, and why it should not be dealt with at the same time as that of Manitoba. The fact that Manitoba is some 3,000 .miles distant affords no reason why she should be dealt with immediately, and the case of Prince Edward Island should be postponed. I should be pleased indeed if the Prime Minister would give me an assurance that he will deal with the case of Prince Edward Island this session, and give her the same treatment that
he is giving to Manitoba._And if not, why
not?


Mr. MONDOU.: I beg to move the following amendment, of which notice has been given:
That Bill (No. 115) be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House in order that the following olause be inserted therein, after clause 7 of the said Bill:-
7a. Section 22 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, 33 Vic., chapter 3, shall apply to the territory added to the province under the provisions of this Act, with the substitution for paragraph 1 of said section 22, of the following paragraph:-	. .
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational or separate schools, which any class or persons have, at the date of the passing of this Act, by law or practice, in the territory added to the province under the provisions of this Act.


Mr. ETHIER.: I ask that the amendment be read in French.
(The assistant clerk read the amendment in French).	.


James Joseph Hughes: 


Albéric Archie Mondou: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, in moving this amendment, I don't intend to address the House at any length. The other evening I had the occasion in Committee of the Whole to make such remarks as in my opinion would justify this amendment. I now deem it preferable to allow a free discussion and to await the verdict of the House upon the amendment which it is my privilege to offer, hoping that the hon. members will acknowledge its importance and give it their approval.


Mr. P. E. LAMARCHE (Nicolet).: (Translation.) Mr. .Speaker, there is a principle as to which I think every member of the House must agree; that is that we are in duty bound to see that the constitution of Manitoba shall apply not only to Manitoba as it is now, but to the whole province, including the new territory which is to be annexed.
The amendment which the hon. member from Yamaska has just moved proposes to render operative clause 22 of the constitution of Manitoba respecting the protection of educational rights.
The first objection in the part of some hon. members of this House will probably be that the constitution of Manitoba, as a whole, would be operative even in the absence of any clause to that effect.
As a principle, I grant that the very fact of annexing this new territory to Manitoba should put it under the constitution of 1870, and that all constitutional clauses applying to Manitoba should apply as well to the new territory to be added.
But, in this case, the operation of this principle becomes completely inefficient for the protection of educational rights, because subsection 1 of section 22 safeguarding the minority's rights acknowledges only those rights which existed at the time cf confederation and within the proper limits of Manitoba. That section reads as follows:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any dlass of persons have by law or practice in the province at the union.
Consequently, there is in that section two restrictions which render it impossible to enforce this statute in an efficient manner in the new territory which is to be added to the province.
The amendment offered by my hon. friend the member from Yamaska alters that section without changing its nature or meaning, so as to remedy those _ deficiencies, thus permitting the constitution of Manitoba to become operative in the new territory. Were it not for that necessary change, a resident of that part of Kee-watin annexed to Manitoba would later on

come here and ask for the schools of that district the protection afforded by subsection 1 of section 22, and we would answer him: Section 22 affords you 'protection, because you had no rights at the time of the union nor in the former territory of Manitoba.
I may be asked whether the government of Canada is authorized to change or alter the constitution of Manitoba. Section 6 of the British North America Act, 1871, reads as follows:
Except as provided iby the third section of this Act, it Shall not be competent for the parliament of Canada to alter the pro-visions of the last mentioned Act of the said parliament of Canada, in so far as it relates to the province of Manitoba, or of any other Act hereafter establishing new provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of the legislature of the province of Manitoba to alter from time to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualification of electors and member of the Legislative Assembly, and to make laws respecting elections in the said province.
There is no doubt that by that section the federal government is debarred from altering in any way the constitution of Manitoba. However, there is a restriction provided by the words ' except as provided by the third section of this Act.' Now the third section exactly covers the case with which we are dealing to-day, that is the increase in the area of a province and the operation of any such increase. -Section 3-reads as follows:
3. The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature o-f any province o-f the said Dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed bo by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase, diminution or alteration o-f territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
S-o we have, Mr. Speaker, in section 3 which restricts section 6, the authority residing in the federal government of adding such a saving clause as my hon. friend from Yamaska suggests in his amendment; subject, however to the subsequent acceptation of the whole thing by the legislature of Manitoba.
It may be said that such a provision would be inconsistent with section 92 of the British North America Act, whose purpose is to determine the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures.
That objection would be well founded if what the present motion proposes was inconsistent with any provision of section 92 of the British North America Act. But there is nothing inconsistent with the powers of the province of Manitoba in the
154J
amendment of my hon. friend from Yamaska. The amendment embodies no new legislation. It merely renders legally operative a section of the constitution of Manitoba safeguarding the right to separate schools. Moreover, the right is acknowledged in the same manner and to the same extent by section 10 of the Northwest Territories Act which is now in force in the district of Keewatin.
The Canadian constitution itself, the British North America Act, also acknowledges the same principle by section 93. Consequently, there is no invasion upon the powers of the province of Manitoba. The laws of Manitoba are merely made operative to the furthest limits of its new territory.
The amendment of my hon. friend from Yamaska is only the legal chain necessary in order that those who live in the present territory of Keewatin shall not, at the same moment, be deprived of the protection given in section 10 of the Northwest Territories Act, which will no more exist when the annexation takes place, and shall not be deprived either of the protection mentioned in section 22 of the Manitoba Act. We must not place the population of this new territory between two legislations, one which is disappearing and the other which, without this amendment will be absolutely ineffective and useless.
It is claimed also that the federal law which governs recently the territories, will exist up to the time when a provincial law will be enacted in its place, and then, if the legislature of Manitoba, in this new legislation, does not respect section 22 of the constitution of the province, recourse might be had to the remedial bill.
To begin with, I do not admit that the present laws of Keewatin could contihue to exist after the annexation. This principle is true according to the international law, when we deal with a conquered country; then the existing laws remain in force up to the time the new legislator enacts a positive law. But in the present case we must look at the constitutional theory. The laws that we have just discussed, the Keewatin laws, just as the Manitoba laws, are all territorial laws; and if we annex a portion of one territory to another, we at the same time free that portion from the legislative authority under which it was before to put it, without reservation, under the laws of the territory to which we annex it and which becomes thus the competent authority ' ratione loci.'
If it is true that this annexed portion of territory should continue to have the same laws as before the annexation, there would be thus two legislations in force in the same country; it would be a legal anomaly.

But even supposing that this theory is true, and that provincial legislation would be necessary to change the existing law, this provincial legislation would not in any way permit the remedial bill to apply to the annexed portion, for the good reason that without the present amendment, the constitution of Manitoba does not protect any minority rights in the new country, as already mentioned; and the Manitoba government would not be bound to protect the educational rights of the minorities in the Keewatin, because they are not included in the rights mention in section 22, as we find it presently in the statute.
The principle which is contained in the amendment of my hon. friend is not a new one. It has always been respected and protected 'by restrictive enactments since the confederation inclusively, up to the present time, when new territories were created or annexed. Let us read the first subsection of section 93 of the British North America Act:
(I) Nothing in any such laws shall prejudicially effect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.
We find the same principle in section 22 of the Manitoba Act, when this province was created. It reads thus:
(I) Nothing in any such laws shall prejudicially effect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.
We find the same principle in section 17 of the constitution of Alberta:
(17) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially effect any right or privilege with Te-spect to separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act, under the terms of chapters 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.
The same enactment is found also in article 17 of the constitution of the Saskatchewan:
(17) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially effect 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 chapters 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.
The same principle is also enacted, though the terms differ in section 14 of the Yukon Act:


Paul-Émile Lamarche: 
Mr. MACDONALD.: 
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Speaker, replying first to the question put to me by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), I think I may say that I quite concur in his suggestion that the amendment moved
is superfluous. Of course, if there do not to-day exist rights in the annexed territory susceptible of being protected by article 22 of the Manitoba Act, then the amendment can serve no practical purpose. If, on the other hand, there be rights in existence in the territory sought to be added to the province of Manitoba at the time of the coming into force of this Act, as described in article 22 of the Manitoba Act, for myself I would have no doubt that these rights would be protected by section 22 of the Manitoba Act. It is quite true that section 22 of the Manitoba Act, when it spoke of the time of the union, necessarily had in view the territory that constituted the province of Manitoba as then formed, and in speaking of the date of the union it was necessarily speaking of the day at which that new province of Manitoba as then formed became a member of the confederation. I do not think that it is susceptible of doubt that the Manitoba Act, the Act that creates and governs Manitoba to-day, will govern the Manitoba that shall he composed of the old territory, and of the added territory just as it governed the original territory. I do not think there can be any doubt that it will have application in the new territory as it had in the old and1, that being so, you could only apply it, so far as the new territory is concerned, as the facts permit of its application. It manifestly is applied to this additional territory as from the passing of the Act for section 22 could have no possible application at the period of the original union, except to the originally constituted province to the territory comprised in it, at the original entry of the province into the Dominion. It, therefore, must either have no application throughout the territory of the extended province, the territory added to the province by its becoming extended, or it must apply to it as from the date when the extended or enlarged province comes into the union. The Bill which is submitted hereafter defining the limits of the extended territory of the province, adds:
AH the land embraced by the said description not now within the province of Manitoba, shall, from and after the commencement of this Act, be added thereto and the whole shall, from and after the said commencement, form and be the province of Manitoba.
So that we have a starting point from which this increased territory embodied in the province of Manitoba first comes into the union, and, that being so, if there be rights in that portion of the territory such as are contemplated by section 22 of the statute-and it is only such rights that can be preserved! as I understand it-those rights would 'be protected under section 22 just as fully and effectively as they

possibly could be protected under the amendment which is proposed. I think this fully answers the question of the hon. member for Pictou. It, moreover, affords in my judgment sufficient reason why the amendment of the hon. member for Yamaska should be rejected.
It is perhaps, however, proper that I should deal	more fully	with the	questionwhich that	amendment	raises.I shall not weary the House by going over statutes that have already been cited. After all the question that presents itself in connection with this amendment and with the measure as a whole, so far as the existence of school rights are concerned in	it, is purely and	simplya question	of law.	Personally,	I am
in full and entire sympathy with the sentiment that stands behind the action of the gentlemen who have felt it their duty to move this amendment and to express themselves in connection with the school matter as opposed to the action of the government. Eights are very sacred things; they are sacred1 things when they are the rights of a majority, they are sacred things when they are the rights of a minority, they are sacred things when they are the rights of an individual. My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) the other evening in a more or less sneering way attributed the action of my hon. friend the member for Nicolet, to some extent to promises which he suggested I had made that gentleman. I have made no promises to that gentleman or to anybody else, but with or without promises I would feel it just as much my duty to stand up here to speak in defence of rights of any class, be it large or small, of the people of this country as if I had pledged myself in the most emphatic way. The action of the government in this matter is not taken because the government does not recognize as incumbent on it the duty of protecting the constitutional rights of every class of people in this country. It is not a wise policy on the part of any class of people to raise an outcry for the protection of rights which they represent to be attacked without first ascertaining whether there are such rights and whether in consequence it is possible that there be such an attack, to be repelled. I know that many men in dealing with this subject have not been chary of expressing their most unqualified judgments on the motives of other men by reason of the course they took with regard to this particular question. I do not judge the motives of any man, I recognize the absolute sincerity of men who take very strong ground that there is a duty upon this government in this regard. I recognize their absolute sincerity even when I cannot admire the violence of their language. My own experience is that strong cases do not Mr. DOHERTY.
need strong language to support them and that weak cases never gather strength from it.	.
I have said that it is not good policy for any class in the community to start an outcry against an alleged attack on rights without first verifying the existence of the rights and the fact of their being attacked and put in danger. I have said that whether there are or are not rights to be protected in this territory is a pure question of law, because I quite understand that nobody is contending that unless there be constitutional rights vested by law in some portion of these territories, there is anything to be discussed. We are not here to discuss what may be our respective views with regard to the rights of people as an abstract question concerning the education of their children. If we were, I have no disguise to make of what my views are. I believe it is the natural, absolute right of every man to have his children educated in the method his conscience prescribes to him as the right method, and I have no doubt in my mind that there is a violation of natural right every time any man is hindered in the exercise of that right. I entertain the very strongest belief that wherever a man is taxed to support schools which his conscience forbids him to use, a grave injustice is done. But I am not here to discuss that, I do not want to open any discussion as to whether I am right or wrong in that regard. I know there are people who entertain the opinion that it is better that the state itself should establish one system of schools and that all children should follow that system of instruction. But that question does not arise in this connection in the slightest degree. The question that does arise, which has been the source of a very great deal of strong feeling and which has given to many of us who have a sense of responsibility much matter for careful thought is the question whether in this territory that is going to be annexed to Manitoba there are existing rights established by law and which would require for their protection the inclusion of some special provision in this legislation. To my mind there is an absolute misapprehension on the part of those who censure the course that this government has taken because of its failure to act in connection with the alleged constitutional rights existing in that territory as to the real effect of the statute, upon the dispositions of which they base their claim. Now, when one feels called upon to do a duty to the whole people of this country, or a duty to any particular class of the people who may have special claims upon him for in connection with their rights-[DOT]



THE EOYAL ASSENT.

[Stage Direction]
A message was received from His Honour the Deputy of His Eoyal Highness the Governor General by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:-
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of your hon. House in the Chamber of the hon. the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to the Senate Chamber.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that His Honour the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:-
An Act to amend the Quebec Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1899.
An Act to correct certain clerical errors in the French Version of the Revised Statutes, 1906.
An Act respecting the British Colonial Fire Insurance Company.
An Act to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1908.
An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
An Act respecting the Erie, London and Tilsonburg Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Cape de la Madeleine Railway Company.
An Act respecting La Compagnie du Chemin de fer de Colonisation du Nord.
An Act respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.
An Act respecting the West Ontario Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Alberta Electric Railway Company, and to change its name to * The Alberta Interurban Railway Company.'
An Act respecting the Algoma Eastern Rail-wav Company.
An Act respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Liverpool-Mani-toba Assurance Company.
An Act to incorporate the Vancouver Life Insurance Company of Vancouver, B.C.
An Act to incorporate the Saskatchewan Life Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Birkbeck Investment and Savings Company, and to change its name to the Canadian Mortgage Investment Company.
An Act respecting the Union Bank of Canada.
An Aot respecting the Public Archives.
An Act respecting patents of Edmund F. Piper.
An Act respecting a patent of the Spirella Company of Canada, Limited.
An Aot respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Kootenay and Alberta Railway Company.
An Act respecting the National Transcontinental Railway.
An Act for the relief of Edna Wells.
An Act respecting the Dominion Guarantee Company, Limited, and to change its name to ' The Dominion Gresham Guarantee and Casualty Company.'	.	.
An Act to incorporate the Premier Life Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate the Sterling Life Assurance Company of Canada.
An Act to incorporate the Bank of Saskatchewan.
An Act to amend the Post Office Act.
An Act respecting Patents of Thomas Wadge.
An Act respecting certain patents of Thos. D. Rambaut.
An Act respecting The Trust and Loan Company of Canada,
An Aot to -amend the National Transcontinental Railway Aot.
An Aot to amend the Government Works Tolls Aot.
An Act to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.
An Act -to -authorize the payment of a subsidy to the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited.
An Act respecting the Security Life Insurance Company of Canada.	[DOT]
An Act respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Northern Territorial Railway Company.
An Act respecting -the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited.
An Act respecting -the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.
An Aot to incorporate the High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Aot respecting the Vancouver Island and Eastern Railway Company.
An Act for the relief of Herbert Horsfall.
An Act for the relief of Kenneth Molson.
An Act for the relief of James Denny.
An Act to change the name of Ezra Butler Eddy Bessey.
An Act to amend the Inquiries Aot.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed on motion for third reading -of Bill (No. 115) to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I was about to say when I was interrupted by the summons of a higher authority, that when one is called upon, or is expected and feels it his duty, to especially interest himself in the protection of the rights or the interests of any particular class of his fellow

countrymen, or feels a special call to protect some special general interest possibly of all his countrymen, he owes to them more than zeal and more than readiness to devote himself to those rights or interests, and more than willingness to make sacrifices if it be necessary. He owes to those fellow countrymen also the exercise of his very best judgment as to what is the best course to be pursued for the protection of the rights or the interests that may have been entrusted or confided to him. He owes to them likewise- whenever it may have happened that his own particular training may have put him in a position where he ought at all events to be able to form a sound judgment upon any particular question, by reason of its nature being such as to make the training he has received of some use perhaps in aiding a man to arrive at a just conclusion-that he should not shirk his duty, and should not draw back in the face of the conclusions that the exercise of that best judgment of his, aided by the training I have referred to, may lead him to upon that particular question. And he is not doing his duty to those who look to him to specially protect their rights or interests, if he thinks first of saying the thing that will please them, of saying the thing that he would be glad and happy if he were able to truthfully say. He owes it to those people to honestly tell them the result of his inquiries as to the nature or existence of the rights to which they lay claim, and he owes it to them, whether it pleases them at the moment or not, to adopt the course that his judgment tells him, in view of the conclusions that he has so reached, is the best and the wisest for the ultimate protection of those rights. I have endeavoured, Mr. Speaker, to remember those things in my dealing with this particular question. As I have said this is a question of law: Whether there are, or are not, the rights that are claimed to exist. We have the answer to that question to seek, not in the inspiration of our sentiments, but in the pages of our statute-books, and we have' got to guard ourselves, in interpreting what those statute-books tell us, against allowing the wish to be father to the thought. I am afraid there are too many men expounding the law in the newspapers, and upon the public platforms of this country, to whom I have no greater reproach to make than that they have allowed their wish to be father to their thought. I have said that I would not worry this House by quoting all	the statutes that	bear upon
this question. Most of them have been already dealt with, and dealt with in a manner that I think, to any fair-minded Mr. DOHERTY.
person, would justify the conclusion that they So not establish the existence of the legal rights which are claimed to exist. I cannot, however, refrain from making some mention of them. I will ask this House, and I will ask those who may do me the honour of reading what I have to say, to trust me in that 1 am not going to misrepresent them, and I am quite willing that any one, who feels sufficient interest, should verify whether I have or have not done so. We are told that there are rights in this particular territory, because by a statute of 1875 in an Act regarding the Northwest Territories, it was provided' that when a system of taxation should be established in the Territories a3 governed by that Act, that then an officer to whom the government of that territory was committed, could, acting with a council, which the Governor in Council here might give to him, and which council, it was provided, should gradually, as the country grew, come to be an elective legislative assembly, make laws regarding education, and that in all of those laws it should in substance be provided that there should be recognized to any religious minority the right to establish a system of schools of its own, and that when it did so it should not be liable to be taxed for any general system. I am not pretending to give the precise words of the statute-I have no hesitation in saying I am giving the sense-but we are told in the first place that because of that provision there are rights to-day to separate schools in the territory that is about to be annexed. With regard to that I have nothing to say except that as concerns by far the larger portion of the territory to be annexed-some 128,000 square miles, I think, out of a total of 178,000 square miles -that statute never had any application. I am speaking now of that statute as originally enacted. Before that statute came into force another Act was passed providing for and setting aside ' as a separate district what was called the District of Keewatin. This Act refrained from enacting, as regards that district, any of the provisions of the Act applicable to the Northwest Territories generally, the Act of 1875, which contemplated there ever coming into existence representative institutions or contained any enactment regarding schools. This second Act, so far as this large portion of the territory to be annexed is concerned, remained in force without doubt and without possible question until 1905. I have no doubt that it remained in force until the 1st January, 1907, but I do not want to enter into discussion about debatable things; it is not necessary. To my mind the conclusion which I have not sought to reach but which has been forced upon me, is too clear to make it worth while to stop for possible debatable points

on the way-this Aet so remaining in effect.
The statute of 1875, as I have said, never was in force in this portion of the territory. It certainly is not susceptible of being suggested that any portion of it had any force therein before the summer of 1905; and for my part, as I say, I have no doubt that no portion of it had any force therein at any time. I say that for this reason: That statute, save so much of it as was left in chap. 62 of the Revised Statutes of 1906, was repealed by the Act concerning the Revised Statutes of 1906, precisely in the same manner as stated by my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche)-was repealed by the other Act I have mentioned, the Keewatin Act. He is quite right in that respect. That Act did repeal the Keewatin Act; and from the coming into force of the Revised Statutes in 1907, neither the Keewatin Act nor the Northwest Territories Act, as originally enacted in 1875, had the force of law anywhere.
But it is contended-and, I understand some weight ought to be attached to it as making some difference in the purpose of this amendment-that an order in council of July, 1905, annexed this territory of Keewatin to the Northwest Territories and thereby brought into force in Keewatin all the laws that were in force in the Northwest Territories at that time, this statute of 1875, so far as the law was concerned, and the ordinances enacted in the Northwest Territories under that law of 1875. Now, I quite agree with what was pointed out the other evening by the hon. iMinister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), that that order was on its face ultra vires. If you read it, you will see that it sets forth that whereas by a proviso in this Keewatin Act permission was given to the Governor in Council to detach a portion of Keewatin and annex it to the Northwest .Territories, therefore the Governor in Council annexes the whole of Keewatin to the Northwest Territories. Now, I have seen it said since, as a triumphant answer on this point, that when the Governor in Council said he annexed the whole of Keewatin, it was entirely a mistake,-he was only annexing a portion * of it. And the triumphant answer is this, -that the Governor in Council first, in 1886, under that power, did detach a portion of Keewatin and annexed it to the Northwest Territory; and therefore it is said, when he came in 1905 to annex- not to detach; you cannot detach a thing from itself-to annex the whole of Keewatin, he was only annexing a portion of Keewatin; it was annexed in two portions, and this was the second and remaining portion. 6o, we are told, the thing that the Governor in Council could not have done if he had done it at one
stroke, was perfectly valid,-because he had made two bites of the cherry; he had annexed this territory bit by bit. To state that is a sufficient answer. But there is more. When this first portion was cut off the balance was the whole of Keewatin. In statutes afterwards enacted we have the Keewatin Act reproduced, still containing this proviso, that portions of the existing Keewatin might be cut off. But you will not find anywhere in any of these statutes authority by order in council to destroy Keewatin. So that, to my mind, it is perfectly clear that the only portion of this Northwest Territories Act which ever came into force in Keewatin, is the portion that remains to us in chapter 62 of the revised statutes of 1906. Because Keewatin, and what remained of the Northwest Territories were no doubt grouped together by that chapter, as constituting the Northwest Territories.
But by that time there hadi come a great change in this Act of 1875, a moist noteworthy change, and particularly in this section about education. The original provision was that when there should be established a system of taxation in the Northwest Territories, then the Commissioner in Council, or the commissioner with the advice of the legislative assembly (when it grew to be a legislative assembly), might make these laws with regard to education, and these should be subject to the restriction provided. By 1880 that system of taxation had been established; and consequently, by the statute of 1885, parliament amended that section 11 by striking out the portion which said * when a system of taxation shall be established,'-because that had been accomplished. And, because it had been accomplished already in 1880, parliament made that amendment take effect back in 1880. So that the law as it then stood was that the commissioner or the Lieutenant Governor, as it was then-the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or with the advice of the legislative assembly, could make these laws, or should make these laws, and they should be subject to the restriction I have referred to. That condition of affairs remained in the Northwest Territories practically until 1905, when out of the Northwest Territories were carved the two provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. That left the residue of what had formerly been the territories and left standing Keewatin. In 1905, after the two new provinces had been carved out of the territory, then parliament did enact a law amending the Northwest Territories Act, and in that statute it altered the provisions with regard to education and altered them so as to limit the power of the commissioner to make laws about education at all to the case where he should be authorized to do it, that authorization to come from

the Governor in Council here. That provision was reproduced in the Northwest Territories Act, as it was reproduced in the revised statutes of 1906. And in 1906 Kee-watin was taken into what constituted, under the statute of 1906, the Northwest Territories and was subject to that law which contained that provision. And that is the whole law-subject to the amendment of 1907, which is not material to the purpose of this question,-that is the whole law in which one can find what is called the constitution of what is to-day the Northwest Territories, including Keewatin, and including the entire territory which is to be annexed to Manitoba.
Now what is that law? There is one substantive, operative clause in that law, and only one-I wish to be understood as regards the method of government of the Northwest Territories; there are other dispositions that produce their effect, but we are concerned with the method of government and the laws to be made in the Northwest Territories. This is found in section 4, and that was amended by the statute of 1907:
The executive powers vested by the Northwest Territories Act and amendments thereto in the [Lieutenant Governor of the Northwest Territories, or in the Lieutenant Governor of the Northwest Territories in Council, on the 31st day of August 1905, shall be exercised by the commisionser, and the commissioner shall administer the government of the territories under instructions from time to time given him by the Governor in Council, or by the minister.
There are a number of other provisions, among them the provision to which I have already referred. All those provisions deal with powers which may be exercised by this commissioner who is to be named, with his council, when the Governor in Council shall have deemed it advisable to give him a council. Those powers extend to legislation with regard to such matters, roughly speaking, as are covered by provincial powers, and as may be designated to him by the Governor in Council; and there is the power to deal with this question of education when authorized so to do by the Governor in Council. Now I do not think that it requires any elaboration of argument to show that until the Governor in Council exercised that power of giving a council to this commissioner and authorizing him to legislate, there was no governing body with legislative power in existence in the territories. The commissioner was there, and he is there still; he was there with the executive powers which the original Northwest Territories Act had vested in the Lieutenant Governor, and that power, if one goes back to the Northwest Territories Act, was practically to act under instruc-1 Mr. DOHERTY.
tions of the Governor in Council. Now no council was ever given to this commissioner, no authority was ever given to him to legislate about education or about anything else; and where there was no legislative power to legislate about education, there could not be a restriction of that power. The amendment to be found in chapter 32 of the statutes of 1907, does not refer to any practical question here concerned. Now, there is the whole of the operative constitution of these territories. The Governor in Council could have created a constitution, not a constitution providing for representative institutions, but a constitution under which these territories would have been legislated for and governed. The Governor in Council at^ no time did it. I am not saying that as criticising the action of past governments. If parliament contented itself by giving power to the Governor in Council to do this, and did not do it directly, it must have been simply because parliament felt that the time had not come to put that into operation; or whatever its reason was, it judged it wise not to put it into operation itself but simply to create this power in the Governor in Council.
If one looks back to the things that were said at the very beginning when the Act of 1875 and the Act of 1876 were enacted, I think one finds the explanation. We were referred the other evening to some remarks of the Hon. Edward Blake explanatory of what this legislation of 1875 was going to do, for the purpose of basing a claim that this was legislation to be of a perpetual character, and once for all settled' the school question. Now, if one goes back to the debates on the Act of 1875, and the debates on the Act of 1876, he will find, I think, the explanation why parliament, in 1906, acted the way it did. It is to be found in the reasons given for the enactment of the Keewatin Act. The Hon. Edward Blake, in dealing with that Act, and explaining the differences between it and the Northwest Territories Act, pointed out-and' this is important-that this educational clause in the Northwest Territories Act never could be effective until there was a system of taxation established. He went on to say that that of course implies a system of representative institutions, and that, therefore, they had given to the Northwest Territories a rudimentary system of representative institutions. As explaining the Keewatin Act, he went on to say that for the few people outside of these territories they did not deem it necessary to provide a constitution at present; and he added that the purpose of this legislation with regard to Keewatin was to preserve the status quo till she should come to have provincial rights. Now, there is 1 no doubt tlhat at that time it was believed

that in a very short time this very annexation would take place. That appears to be evident from the discussion which took place at that time. But I refer to that because I think there was the reason in 1905 or 1906, after the provinces had been carved out of the territories, not to consider that there was a necessity for putting into operation a system of government there, that is to say, for the few people that were living in this little section cut off from Saskatchewan and Alberta, and made one with Keewatin proper; there was no occasion to create a system of government or any legislative body. It remained simply with the commissioner, acting under the direction of the Governor in Council, or the Minister of the Interior.
Now, in that state of affairs mis section about making laws with respect to education was not operative. If a constitution had ever been given to them, that would have been in it, but a constitution never was given to them. The time never came when the Governor in Council judged it necessary to give them a constitution- and as I said before, I am not criticising the actions of past governments in that respect. So far as I can ascertain, from the census of 1911, the actual total white population in the territory in question is in the neighbourhood of 600 people, scattered over this immense area.
I do not think that anybody could reasonably find fault with the government, because it did not con^jder it was desirable or necessary to establish a legislative body to make laws for a few people in that territory. The very same reasons that were given as regards Keewatin in 1876, existed equally for not putting into force and operation the provisions of this Act of 1006 and they never have been put into force. So that I can reach no other conclusion than that there is no constitution, no system of government in the Territories, except the government of the commissioner under instructions of the Governor in Council or of the Minister of the Interior. In so far as I have been able to find that statement seems to correspond with what has actually happened there. There are one or two orders in council, that I am not going to deal with at the present moment, but these do not deal with matters of this kind. So, I feel bound to say to people who, like myself, feel that, if there was a constitution in force in these Territories that gave a right to any minority for the establishment of a system of separate schools, that right ought to be protected. I have no recourse but to say that I, at all events, cannot find where that constitution exists. I have read much about a principle that was laid down. The principle that was laid down
has my most hearty support. There is a principle involved dm the section which provides for the making of laws as to education. But that section never came into operation, and the mere enunciation of a principle does not generate legal rights. If it were not for the very great respect I have for many, I may say all of the people who have fallen into this, in my judgment, error, I would say it is only living in a fool's paradise to flatter yourself with the contention that you can find in this Act the establishment of those rights.


Mr. PROULX.: Is the minister aware of the opinion expressed by Mr. Cahan, the eminent lawyer of Montreal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am very glad to join with my hon. friend (Mr. Proulx) in describing Mr. Cahan as an eminent lawyer of Montreal, but, lawyers' opinions, in the opinion of other lawyers, have been at times quite misaken. They say that doctors differ. The very condition of the existence of lawyers is that they should differ. Of course, I do not set myself up to . be more competent to speak than another, but I do say that my duty is to act according to my judgment and with a realization of my share of the responsibility of those upon whom the people have laid the burden of governing this country. I shall not be frightened away from the doing of that duty even by the opinions of lawyers as eminent as my hon. friend recognizes Mr. Cahan to be, and still less shall I be frightened away from doing my duty by the lawyers who edit daily papers, the lawyers who write from the press gallery and the lawyers who talk from the public platform. Here, in this House, we should have, and I believe we all have, a realization of the fact that we are dealing with this question with the responsibility of the men who have to act and we are not afraid to live up to that responsibility. To my mind that is the common duty of this parliament. The governing system of those Territories was that they were governed by a commissioner under the direction of the Minister of the Interior. If a great many other things had happened there would have been a legislative power in these Territories, that legislative power could have made education laws and. if it had, these education laws would have had to contain the restriction I speak of.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: Although separate schools have not been established in these territories, is it not a fact that they have the right to separate schools-call it an inchoate right, if you like?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there had ever come to be a body answering the description here of the Commissioner in Council, then it would have had the power of. making laws in regard to education, and everybody within the territories would have had the right to have a law providing for separate schools. But, I cannot myself see that anybody in -the territories has the right to compel the putting into operation of that constitution. In other words, in my judgment, all those provisions which are described as a _ constitution are an unrealized project. The Keewatin Act, I must say, gave no such power at all, and we were told that it was introduced for the purpose of maintaining the status quo until that territory should become entitled to provincial rights. The purpose was not the establishment of a school system before Keewatin went into the territories, and1 I think it is pretty fairly conceded that there never were, up to the time of the alleged annexation, any rights in existence. That leaves me to deal with the situation which was created by this annexation or the joining of Keewatin, and the balance of the Northwest Territories. Whether by order in council, or whether under the revised statutes, it is laid down as not admitting of doubt that the effect of the bringing together of Keewatin and the balance of the territories was to bring into effective operation throughout both those territories, not only this Act that I have just referred to, but the ordinances that had been enacted in those territories before the provinces were carved out of them. I would like to believe that if I could. I see it stated as a quotation from the statute, I see it stated that the statute of 1906 said that every ordinance that ever had been passed by the legislative power of the territories was in force in the new Northwest Territories. That is cited in big type as the text of the statute. Now, what was the text of the statute? Section 13 reads:
All laws and ordinances in force in the territories, and not inconsistent with this Act, or repealed -by the operation of the Act -passed in the -third year of H-is Majesty's reign, chapter sixty-one, and intituled, An Act respecting the Revised -Statutes of Canada, shall remain in force until it is otherwise provided or ordered by the parliament of Canada, or by the Governor in Council or the Commissioner in Council.
It is claimed that under that section the Did ordinances in the Northwest Territories in regard to education remained in force in that portion of the territories that was cut off and, being so in force in -that portion of those territories, came into force in Keewatin. In regard to the annexation of Keewatin, if you could say that the order in council was valid, then I would be disposed to admit that in so far as this Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
ordinance was in force in the balance of the territories after 1905, it is now in force in Keewatin. But, I do not think that order in council was valid.
By the statue of 1906 -all that is declared is that those ordinances which are in force in the territories remained in force. Where they -were not in force they could not remain in force, so that to my mind it is absolutely unquestionable that the ordinances -were never in force in the territory called Keewatin. But I do not want to insist on that overmuch, because under that section of the Act, the education ordinances were -manifestly not in force in the balance of the territories and even if yon say that Keewatin was under the -same ordinances as the balance of the territory the educational ordinance was not in force. And why? The reason is on the face of it, it was not consistent with the Act. Those ordinances were enacted by a legislative council which subsequently became a legislative assembly. They were and could be enacted only when there came to be in force in the territories a system of taxation; and as Mr. Blake said: That cannot be, until you have a system of representative institutions.
The ordinances enacted by the legislative council o-r assembly could only be oarri-ed out by -a regularly constituted government. The department of instruction was to be administered by one of the ministers of the-Territories-, and his consent and intervention was necessary |pr the carrying out of these education ordinances. Then too, funds foar the upkeep of such schools could only be provided by taxation levied by a legislative assembly and council. The Act, to which I have referred, _ abolished the-assembly and council, in the Territories, and provided for the appointment of an executive officer in the Territories to be under the instructions of the Governor General in Council. The Act contains a clause to the effect that ordinances not inconsistent with it, shall remain in force. How can it be said under the circumstances which I have just explained that the school ordinances are not inconsistent with that Act? I have seen some references to people wtho had distorted statutes in order that they might hold portfolios. I am afraid there are some people who utterly misapprehend statutes because they are bound to find in them what they are looking for; and I do not blame them over much, because I am going to be honest and say that I started -to look into these statutes looking for what they were looking for, hut I did no-t find it. -So I say there is your constitution in these Territories, there are your laws in force in these Territories, there are your -rights by not protecting which we are said to have failed in our duty. We have failed in no duty in

not striving to safeguard what did not exist. All we have failed to do is to allow ourselves in a vain effort to protect what was not there to be protected, to be led to doing what it was a fact known to everybody would generate opposition and contention and strife. I am not afraid of opposition, contention or strife, when there is right at stake, which I can do something to protect. I shall be ready to take my share of it, but I am not of those who believe that, when your judgment tells you that you are asked to fight for -something which has no real existence, you have the right to take the risk of creating turmoil and opposition and divergence of opinion among the people of this country. I say that from the point of view of the country as a whole, and from the point of view of the minority who are being persuaded that their rights are being taken from them under this legislation, and I say to them as one of them, as a man who sympathizes with their sentiments as profoundly as any man can: ' My friends, it is not wise to be crying wolf, wolf, all the time before you are sure the wolf is there. There is an old fable that tells the fate of the children who were given to that diversion. I would' commend it to the consideration of those who, great as is my respect for their sincerity, I cannot help feeling have allowed themselves to be carried away by their -sentiment, some of them perhaps, by if I would permit myself to say, an over-weening confidence in their own capacity to determine all questions that may affect the minority in this country. And to the gentlemen who sit in this House, and who share my feelings and share my sentiments I would appeal in the face of the possibility of their being called cowards and traitors to have the courage to stand up for the sake of -the minority in this country, and not join in a movement that can only produce the result of placing that minority before their fellow countrymen in the position of having started a struggle and a contest and' strife with no better basis than a mistaken notion of what the law of this country was.
I have said that if the view can be entertained that because there is a principle enacted in the provisions of that unrealized project of a constitution which recognizes the principle of the separate school, that constitutes a right in these territories, then I am prepared to say, and to say particularly to the mover and seconder of this resolution, and to all those with whom I stand in sympathy upon this question, that they have in the provision of the statutes of Manitoba, under whose control this new territory is going to pass, an absolute, an ample, a perfect protection for any right that actually exists within that territory,
and I say that while we have a right to expect, and we do expect, from every man in this country that he shall recognize the constitutional rights of those from whom he differs, we have no right to ask, we have at least no right -to demand more than recognition of our constitutional rights. And inasmuch as the constitution of Manitoba gives protection to such rights as may exist and are susceptible of constitutional protection I do not believe it is right that we should ask from those who differ from us with regard to what is desirable with reference to a system of schools, that they should join with us in adding something more than the constitution calls for. If, as-1 am convinced, the amendment sought to be made to this Bill means nothing more than the constitution of Manitoba means, then it is an absolutely useless procedure, and we all know that it is in human nature that every effort to impose express restrictions by one man on another is irritating, and provocative of discussion and retaliation and difficulties. That is not the way to induce a man to do the thing that you have no power to compel him to do, to make a vain effort to tell him that he must do it.
Prom that point of view I would ask my hon. friend who has proposed this amendment, and such hon. gentlemen as may feel disposed, because of their sharing the sentiments which I share, to support. it, to withhold that support. And now I have nothing else to add. We who feel this way on this question may claim at all events that while we have striven to do and while we believe we have done our whole duty to those who share our feelings and our views on this educational question, we have -also striven to make it clear to our friends in Manitoba that we have no desire to impose upon them any restriction that the constitution of this country does not impose upon them. I may perhaps venture to say to my friends from Manitoba that it would be a not unfitting recognition on their part if on some not distant day, giving thought to the situation in that province, they came to realize that those with whom those who have acted as we have acted especially sympathize, are not enjoying the full liberty which they are entitled to or to which they aspire, (not -that we ask for any promise or any guarantee from them), they should, in dealing with that question, so act as to show themselves not less generous in recognizing the rights, or the claims, if you do not choose to carl them rights, of the class of people with whom we .are particularly in sympathy, than I think we may claim to have proved ourselves, in our present action in their regard.


Mr.   D.@: 0. LESPERANCE (Montmagny). Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at length on the subject now before this House, but I feel it my duty to say a few words in explanation of the vote I am to give in favour of the adoption of the Bill providing for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba.
I shall not dwell on the financial terms that have been agreed upon between the government of Manitoba and the federal government. These questions have been fully discussed by more experienced men than myself, on both sides of the House. I shall, therefore,- confine my remarks to the clause, or rather, to the absence of the clause that, in the opinion of some of my esteemed colleagues on this side of the House, would safeguard the rights of the minority.
We have been told, Sir, because Manitoba had not lived up to the constitution granted to her in 1870 as regards the rights of the minority, in matters of education, that the time has come for us when we should be, in duty and honour bound to vote against the present Bill, unless some amendment is inserted therein, protecting these rights.
I wish to say right here, Sir, that if the province of Manitoba had at its head today the men who are responsible for the abolition of the separate schools in that province, I would hesitate to vote for the present Bill, if only as a protest, unless some guarantee were included therein providing for the future protection of the school rights of the minority in that territory to be annexed.
But what is the present situation? We have to-day in the men who govern Manitoba, and the men who form part of the federal administration, the very men, or the successors of them, who stood for the rights of the minority, who fought bravely and went down to defeat for those rights, while the hon. the leader of the opposition resorted to the famous tactics that gave him power, it is true, but at the expense of the rights and privileges of the minority in the province of Manitoba. In passing,
I wish to say to the right hon. the leader of the opposition, with all due respect to his great personality, that history will pass a very different judgment on the result attained by the great English general and the result attained by the hon. the leader of the opposition. In fighting behind the lines of Torres Vedras the great- Wellington was fighting for the very life of his country, while the right hon. gentleman was fighting to prevent the execution of a judgment rendered by the highest tribunal in the empire. Still 15 years after, we hear the hon. the leader of the opposition tell this Bouse and the whole country, while the rights of minorities are being discussed 1


Charles Joseph Doherty: in this parliament, that he is still sitting comfortably behind the lines of Torres Vedras. I wish to assure the right hon. gentleman that so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, he and his party may stay there for 15 years longer and more, if they so desire. But these tactics shall never again win them over the confidence of the people of Canada.
While voting with the government on this question, I do not wish my vote to 'be construed as a vote against the sacred rights of minorities in all that pertains to the education of the child. It is claimed bygreat constitutional lawyers that in the territory of Keewatin, now to be annexed to Manitoba, the minority has no established or vested rights. This may be true, from a legal standpoint. But, speaking here, as a British subject and a free citizen of this country, I trust, Sir, that I will be allowed to say that, text or no text, statutes or no statutes, there should not be in this broad Dominion of ours, where flies the flag of that empire we are so proud of, a single portion of territory, where the majority may justly ignore the fundamental spirit that prevailed in the building of this -confederation. I shall never forget, Mr. Speaker, that the education I received was in one of these modest country separate schools, and, although unfortunate circumstances compelled me to enter this life's battle at the tender age of thirteen, the principles of honesty, integrity and honor which I was taught in that modest school, have been the chief instrument of whatever success I have since attained in business and politics.
I heard last week the very eloquent remarks of the right hon. the leader of the government, and the earnest appeal he made to all men of good will in this House and outside of this House, to live and let live. I wish to say here to the right hon. leader of the government that my mind was well made up even before I listened to his eloquent speech. But his utterances have further convinced me that my decision to vote in support of this Bill is in the best interest of every one concerned.
During the last election, pamphlets were issued by the anti-reciprocity league appealing to the citizens of Quebec to vote against reciprocity, not only on account of the pernicious effect such a measure would have had on the economical conditions of this country, but also pointing to the danger of annexation; in the advent of which, the pamphlet went on, the citizens of Quebec would lose the rights and privileges they were now enjoying under the British Crown. What effect, Mr. Speaker, would such appeals have, should the day ever come when the majority in this country would tread upon the rights and privileges of the minority? Let us not forget that we have to the south of us a very

powerful and ambitious neighbour. The question of reciprocity may be dead for the time being; but some day in the future it will loom up again in some form or other. The greatest safeguard against annexation will always reside in the just treatment accorded to all the citizens of this country whatever may be their race or creed or whatever may be the province or territory they inhabit.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I share entirely the right hon. leader of the government's views that the Roman Catholics of Manitoba, who form a large proportion of the whole population of that province, have in their own hands the only constitutional remedy which can be exercised today for the redress of the grievances they may have. It is admitted on all sides that, so far as the old province of Manitoba is concerned, interference by the federal authorities is to-day out of the question. I said at the beginning of these remarks that I had entire confidence in the men who govern Manitoba to-day; and in the men who represent that province in the federal cabinet. Imbued as they are with the principles of the founders of this confederation, they will make it a point, I have no doubt, to settle satisfactorily the just grievances of the minority in their province. By so doing, they will not only' have accomplished a great act of justice and fair play, Jout they will have put an end to>an agitation that can do no good to Manitoba or to the country as a whole.


Mr. J. H. RAINVILLE (Chambly and Vercheres).: In rising to say a few words on the amendment, I cannot forget that up to 1908 I was a good Liberal. I fought with the Liberals and enjoyed the fights in which I participated, and I have no apologies to offer for my course up to that time. Before I conclude these remarks I shall have something to say on really the only speech, on this subject, which has been contributed by our friends on the other side of the House, that of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) who did touch somewhat, I must admit, on the school question. In the year 1896 the Conservative party introduced the Remedial Bill, dealing with the grievances of the minority as regards separate schools in Manitoba. I have no reason to believe that that party has to-day changed its mind on that question, or that they are not as ready to grant justice to the minority as Sir Charles Tupper was prepared to do in 1896. In the elections of that year that distinguished statesman was defeated, especially in the province of Quebec, yet upon taking his place in the new House as leader of the opposition, the right hon. gentleman magnanimously spoke as follows:
Now, Sir, I do not intend to say more upon that subject upon the present occasion, but I will say this: that in the future as in the past the cardinal principle with the great party to which I have the honour to belong will be equal justice to all without respect to race or creed. I am glad to know that the responsibility of this question-an important question, although not so gravely important as I had supposed-I am glad to know that the responsibility rests no longer upon my shoulders, but upon those of the hon. gentleman who is now the first Minister of the Crown. I can only say that I trust and sincerely hope, that he will be most successful in obtaining such a settlement of this question as will do justice and give satisfaction to all parties. I can assure the hon. gentleman not only that he has my most cordial wishes for a happy, and early, and fair settlement of this important question, hut that anything that I can contribute to that end will be at all times most cheerfully done.-
Another statesman, defeated in the way Sir Charles Tupper had been, would not have been prepared to pay such a tribute nor to vouchsafe such encouragement to his political opponents, as the right hon. leader of the opposition did on that occasion. He would have remained silent and refrained from proffering assistance to his victorious opponents, but he did not do so. Of Sir Charles Tupper, Victor Hugo might well have said:
' There are moments when the best way of loving humanity is for one to love one's country.'
The Bill which we are now discussing contains a business proposition, but some of the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, doubtless very sincerely, find fault with it because it contains no mention of the school question. Let me endeavour briefly to deal with that question and for that purpose I find it necessary to refer to the legislation of the past. In that legislation the: principle has been laid down, that the rights of minorities, whether they be Catholic or whether they be Protestant, shall be protected and safeguarded. I take first the Union Act of 1840, to go back no further, the Confederation Act of 1867, the Manitoba Act of 1870, and the Northwest Territories Act of 1875. The Union Act of 1840, of course, had to do with Upper and Lower Canada, although the principle to which I refer, and which is contained in all the other Acts referred to, is irrevocably set forth there. Now, Sir, is the district of Kee-watin e'ntitled to come under the terms of the British North America Act of 1867?
The statute bringing Keewatin into existence was passed only in 1875, and that district was organized in 1876. We must then

look to some other legislation than the British North America Act of 1867 to apply to Keewatin. Does the legislation of 1875 relating to the Northwest Territories apply to Keewatin ? Keewatin was formed as a separate district on the same day as that on which the law regarding the Northwest Territories came into effect. No provision whatever for schools was made in the law relating to Keewatin, but such a provision was made in the law relating to the Northwest Territories. If we consult the report of the discussion upon these laws as they were in course of enactment in this parliament, we find that the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie himself admitted that the reason why no such reference was made in the law relating to Keewatin was that it was the intention to annex Keewatin to some other territory or even to the province of Manitoba, such territory or such province of Manitoba having its own constitution in which the provision for schools was clearly made. But, we could not say that the law of the Northwest Territories would apply to Keewatin until 1906 at any rate, but undoubtedly Keewatin automatically fell into the Northwest Territories, and I claim that since that date Keewatin was governed by the law of the Northwest Territories. And section 62 of the law of the Northwest Territories has already been so well explained in this House that I do not feel called upon to deal at any length with these two articles of the law. They are clear enough, because everybody admits that no step was taken either by the late government or by this government to put in force this law in the Northwest Territories as they are formed to-day. But we are called upon to-day to create a new province, as was the case in 1905 for Alberta and Saskatchewan, or to annex Keewatin to a province already organized and having a constitution of*its own, the province of Manitoba, and what is the law in such a case?
I will give the two -sections of the Imperial Act, 1871, under which this parliament is authorized to create new provinces or to extend the boundaries of a province:
2.	The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and admission of any such province and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said parliament.
3.	The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
It is very clear that we are dealing with this last paragraph of the law, and we have no constitution to give Manitoba, who has such constitution of her own under Imperial legislation and we have no power to place constitutional limitations upon Manitoba or any other province under section 3 of the law. But, Sir, if we do annex Keewatin to Manitoba what will be the law in reference to the schools ? To understand this let us consult article 22 of the Manitoba Act. I will quote the first paragraph only, to show that the schools are well protected by the laws of Manitoba:
Nothing in such law shall _ prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law or practice in the province at the union.
What is the law of the British North America Act, article 93:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affeot any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the Union.
The two articles are practically the same, and what they mean is protection for minorities and protection for the schools. I do not see how even the amendment which has been put before the House will strengthen this law. It is contended that, without this amendment, Keewatin would be between the law of 1875 and the Manitoba Act, and none would apply to it. I do not think, for my part, that this would be the ease; and I do not think that any of us in this House would try to apply the law in such a way. The expression ' at the union,' of which some complain, I am sure would not be held by any judge to mean that it applied only to schools that were in existence at the time of the union in 1840 and that none others would have rights under this section. This was a principle for the future, and not a principle for 1840. The Fathers of Confederation, as well as those who passed this law of 1875, never had such an idea, and no judge would uphold such an interpretation of the law.
Now, if that was the case when Ontario and Quebec were formed into provinces and were given a constitution, do we not find in it the same words ' as at the union?' And can it be pretended that an addition of territory to Quebec would not fall under the general constitution of Quebec, even if there is in the constitution of Quebec the words ' as at the union?' Now, that is considered all over the province of

Quebec a well defined principle. For my part I do not feel compelled to vote for the amendment, because I am satisfied that the rights of the minority will be just as well protected under the law of Manitoba as they would be if that territory remained a part of the Dominion.
This also is to be remembered, that the last government had drafted a Bill for the annexation of Keewatin to Manitoba, and they drafted a Bill just like the Bill drafted by the present government. No one, I think, will contend that if the school question was not mentioned, and if the words * at the union 1 had been fraught with danger to the future of any class of people in Keewatin, the right hon. leader of the opposition would not have taken care to safeguard the rights of the minority in Keewatin. But he knew as well as we know to-day .that the Manitoba Act is going to remain in force in Keewatin, and that the settlement of 1897 is not changing the constitution of Manitoba. In my opinion it means simply this, that the Federal government says to Manitoba: We can resort to a remedial order, but if you pass provincial legislation of a certain character we will not intervene. This is the real meaning of the arrangement. Can it be pretended for a moment that, even with the authorization of the Privy Council to intervene, we could change the constitution of Manitoba in any way? No; it was a temporary arrangement,' made I believe in the interest of peace in this country.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. NICKLE moved the third reading of Bill (No. 68) respecting the Queen's College at Kingston and to change its name to Queen's University at Kingston. He said:	Mr. Speaker, I am instructed by
those interested in these measures, namely, Bills (No. 68) and (No. 69), to say that they adopt the amendments of the House as passed yesterday.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.
Mr. NICKLE moved that the Bill be now passed and that the title De Queen's University at Kingston.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 69) to incorporate Queen's Theological College.-Mr. Nickle.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Borden for the second reading of Bill (No. 115) to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba and the proposed motion of Mr. Mondou in amendment thereto.	.
Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Mr. Speaker, I believe that five years ago our friends the Liberals had no intention whatever of bringing in the school question in connection with the Bill that was presented by them to annex Keewatin to Manitoba. But Sir, in the legislation that I have cited, there is a principle which comes out very clearly and it is the principle of protection to minorities. I do not need to cite the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie or the Hon. George Brown who said very emphatically that if you establish separate schools m this country you establish them forever. Would it be of any use to look for an opinion on this subject from members of the Privy Council in England? I could quote the opinion, for instance, of Lord Carnarvon who, in proposing the second reading of the British North America Act on the 19th of February, 1867, and speaking with particular reference to section 93, of British North America Act, said:
The object of the clause is to secure to the religious minority of one province the same rights, privileges and protection which the religious minority of another province may enjoy. The Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada, the Protestant minority of LovveT Canada and the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime provinces will thus stand on a footing of entire equality.
But is Manitoba in a similar law as the British North America Act and will Keewatin be deprived of any rights on being annexed to Manitoba? I do not think so because an interpretation of article 22 of the Manitoba Act was given by Lord Herschell, who gave an opinion similar to that given by Lord Carnarvon with regard to the British North America Act. Lord Herschell in answer to the Attorney General of Manitoba who wanted to plead a difference between the two laws in favour of Manitoba's autonomy said:
Before leaving this part of the ease it may he well to notice -the arguments urged by the respondent, that the construction which their lordships have put upon the second and third subsections of section 22 of the Manitoba Act is inconsistent with the power conferred upon the legislature of the province to exclusively make laws in relation to education. The argument is fallacious. The power conferred is not absolute, hut limited. It is exercisable only subject and according to the



following provisions:	The subsections which
follow therefore, whatever be their true construction, define the conditions under which alone provincial legislatures may legislate in relation to education, and indicate the limitations imposed on, and the exceptions from, their power of exclusive legislation. Their right to legislate is not indeed, properly speaking, exclusive, for in the case specified in subsection 3 the parliament of Canada is authorized to legislate on the same subject. There is, therefore, no inconsistency as was suggested.
I could quote Lord Watson and Lord Morris on the very same subject, but the point is clear enough to me and it shows that the spirit of our laws is well understood and protected in England. What would the difference be, if we annex Kee-watin to Manitoba with or without the clause proposed t y my hon. friend from Nicolet? None at all in my humble opinion.
But from a legal point of view, Manitoba having been formed into a province on the 12th May, 1870, about one month before the Northwest Territories were acquired by Canada, the Act admitting Manitoba receiving the Imperial sanction on the 29th June, 1871, the Federal government were prevented from acting, and I really cannot see why the minority or the people in Keewatin about to be annexed to Manitoba, could not obtain justice according to article 22 of the Manitoba Act as already interpreted by the Lords of the Privy Council. For my part, convinced as I am that Manitoba deserves money and land, this territory having been kept for her for over 35 years, I would not propose to perpetrate another injustice because injustice was done to a part of the population by the right hon. the leader of the opposition. Sir, take the point of view of Manitoba. Would Ontario accept an addition to her territory if coupled to that addition were a restriction of her constitution? Would Quebec accept Ungava with a condition forbidding the use of the code Napoleon or that she must establish in it non-sectarian schools? My answer to those questions is no. We should treat Manitoba in the same way as we would treat Quebec and Ontario. As to the people of Keewatin and the minority of Manitoba I hope justice will soon be given to them as was guaranteed ijn the name of the Crown many years ago. I have all -confidence in the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Roblin, who has fought for separate schools during 25 years of his life.
Furthermore on my own behalf, as a Liberal until 1908, I will not say to the Conservative party: If you do not remedy the injustice of the alleged settlement made by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), myself Mr. RAINVILLE.
and the whole Liberal party, I will attempt to bring about your downfall. Such a course would be an injustice to them, an injustice to the Conservative party of the past, an injustice to the old statesman, Sir Charles Tupper, an injustice to the victims of 1896, an injustice to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) who had the true conception of the constitutional aspect of the school question in 1905. I am glad to give this testimony in the name of the province of Quebec because the province of Quebec realizes this to-day.
The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) is not in his seat at the moment, but I have told him that I intended to speak and he should be present. That hon. member will allow me a few words in reply to the speech he made last Wednesday. I hope he will take my remarks in good part as coming from a friend. I know he is an admirer of Lacordaire, and I shall tell him with Lacordaire: We say the truth only to the ones we love. I will try to tell a few truths that will interest the House, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and even Lacordaire. The hon. member talked of the school, not of Manitoba but of the school of Montalembert, and compared such a school with the English Liberal school to which he claims to belong. I want to tell him that I find a slight difference between, not the schools, but between his conduct and the conduct if Montalembert, because Montalembert, Liberal all his life, had principle a" his life, and I find that the hon. member for Rouville has principle only when he is in opposition, where I hope he will long remain.
The hon. member for Rouville talked about the sincerity of my good friend the member for Nicolet, and I agree with him but I may not be able to return him the compliment, because on many occasions, and even to-day, it would need a strong magnifying glass to find an atom of sincerity in his utterances. He spoke pointedly of the ' young ' member for Nicolet. Does the hon. member for Rouville want to say to all new members of the House that sincerity belongs only to young men, and that it is sacrificed later to political needs? Was he trying to defend his speeches and lectures on the independence of Canada not very long ago, because he was young at the time? He found fault with the consistency of the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) who, he said, had not always been a Tory and was with the Nationalists in 1885. Where was the hon. member for Rouville at that time and where was he a little later on? I can quote by heart one of his speeches in Quebec in favour of the leader of the Nationalist party at that time:

They will apply to him (Mercier) the poet's word about Papineau: ' He filled a whole epoch of our history and for a long time his voice was his people's only sword and his body their only armour.'
I think if the Postmaster General was associated at that time with a man who deserved such a eulogy from the hon. member for Rouville, he was not, after all, in such bad company. If it is so reprehensible to change in politics I am surprised that my hon. friend forgot to mention the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) who looks just as happy to-day as he looked when he was with the Liberals.
He has not referred to the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lavallee), who cannot complain as yet, and for my part I think the country is safe enough with the present government. I think some examples could be cited under the Liberal regime. To mention only one, we all remember that the Hon. Mr. Tarte, Minister of Public Works in the Liberal government for whom I had great admiration, would not swear that he was anything else than a Tory. Now, Sir, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) is scandalized because the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), 'the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), and the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel), do not give up their portfolios. My hon. friend will admit with me that with none of them is it a question of money, for they are all well off, and they do not need to think of their cheque at the end of each month. Of course, they have some bad examples before them, and I hope they will resist the temptation. They know that certain members of the last administration came into office poor and went out with the reputation of having many millions. I do not mean to accuse anyone in particular, but I can tell them that a great portion of the people of Canada thought that something was going wrong at the time and made it clear on the 21st of September last. The hon. member for Rouville paid a great compliment to the right hon. leader of the opposition in saying that in 1896 he had prevented a civil war; hut to-day hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to be afraid of war. This is why I suppose they are so quiet on the other side of the House on the school question. But, Sir, they have not always been as quiet as they are to-day. The hon. Postmaster General has accused the Liberal party of having played football with all the big questions that came before the parliament of Canada in order to obtain power. For my part, having known what was going on when I was with the Liberal party, I feel like pleading guilty. But what did the hon. member for Rouville answer? He read a letter from the Rev. Father Lacombe, and the answer of the 1554
right hon. leader of the opposition. The Massey hall speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition has already been referred to, so that I need not repeat it. But, Sir, how did my right hon. friend conduct himself in 1896? I was with him. Will you allow me to quote from * Hansard ' debates of the session of 1897, where I find that an hon. gentleman, before accepting the nomination for the county, I think, wihich the hon. Postmaster General represents, signed the following:-
Being sincerely disposed to put aside all party spirit and all questions of men, in order to secure the triumph of the Catholic cause in Manitoba, I, the undersigned, promise, if elected, to conform myself to the Bishops' mandement in all points and to vote for a measure according the Catholics of Manitoba that justice to which they have a right by virtue of the judgment of the Privy Council, provided that the measure be approved of by my bishop. If Mr. Laurier reaches power, and does not settle the question at the first session, in accordance with the terms of the mandement, I promise either to withdraw my support or resign.
I withhold the name of this gentleman, for particular reasons. But there were some others who did the same thing whose names I can give. What did the hon. member for Rouville sign in 1896 on accepting the nomination for Gaspe?
I, the undersigned candidate in the county of Gaspe solemnly promise to vote in parliament in conformity with the desires of the R'ght Reverend Bishops as expressed in their last pastoral letter.
Many other candidates signed this in order to beat the Hon. Mr. Angers and others; and this is why the Conservatives were beaten in 1896.
A settlement, was made, but there were a great many people who were not satisfied with that settlement. The right hon, leader of the opposition has been pleased to say on many occasions that Canada is a nation. What steps has the right hon. gentleman taken to give effect to that statement? Immediately after 1896 he organized a system of diplomacy which was intended to extend as far as Rome, to prevent those who were not satisfied with the settlement of 1897 from expressing their views freely on that important question. Here again we see the game of football. But that is not all. In 1905 the leader of the opposition came forward with the famous clause 16, but on the second reading of the Autonomy Bills for Alberta and Saskatchewan, that clause was withdrawn. When that took place we heard talk of possible resignations, by members of the cabinet. Sir, I ask those hon. gentlemen on the other side who were members of the ministry at that time, did any one of the French Canadian ministers

.resign? That question must be answered most emphatically in the negative. In 1910, what happened? We saw another football game played. A navy was created to please the Imperialists, and a policy of reciprocity with the United States adopted to please the west, where a -good many immigrants had been introduced at $5 per head, and who are now ready to fight against the east, if we are to judge by the speeches of the ex-Minister of the Interior. But, Sir, what is transpiring to-day? Another game_of football, this time with the Manitoba question as its object. Why, Mr. Speaker, there are some hon. gentlemen [DOT]on the other side who are preparing to go to the province of Quebec and say, that if they vote against the amendment of my hon. friend from Nicolet, it is because the subject is already covered by the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition. That, Sir, is an actual fact, a statement to that effect has been made to me in the corridors of this House. Are we not justified therefore, in the conclusion that this is another game of football? I am perhaps too young to tell hon. gentlemen on that side to be on their guard, but I do warn them to maintain a strict lookout, because if you leave two open doors, one for the east and the other for the west, one for the Protestants, and the other for the Catholics, one for the Imperialists and the other for the Autonomists, it is going to be bad for somebody. The gale will p-ass, but it may hurt the young chickens and the old cocks too. Before I take my seat, I want to make it clear to my compatriots and to my province, that I am not voting as I do through any influence whatever, or through any promise of any kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: But because I am convinced that the people of Keewatin, whether it be the majority or whether it be the minority will be protected to the fullest extent under article 22 of the present constitution of Manitoba.


Mr. LOUIS CODERRE (Hochelaga).: I would like, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words in explanation of the vote I am about to give, not only on the amendment of my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), but also on the motion for the third reading of this Bill. My remarks will only bear upon one feature of this measure, that is on the omission by the government of a clause that will protect the rights and privileges in educational matters of the Roman Catholic population of Keewatin. My vote to-night will not differ from the one I have already given on the motion for the second reading of this Bill. It will not differ, Mr. Speaker, from the vote Mr. RAINVILLE.
I would have given on Tuesday afternoon on the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition had I been here. Sir, I will vote with the government. As my absence from the Capital when the question was put to the House may be misrepresented later on, and in hostile quarters, I -beg of you, though it be a personal matter, to allow me to explain. When I left Ottawa for Montreal on Friday afternoon on the first day of this month, I could not even suspect that the House would reach that phase in the progress of this Bill befope Thursday last. As a matter of fact, we all know that was the general belief; and confident that I would be here in time to take, by my vote, my full share of responsibility in the rejection of the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition, I spent four or five days of this month in Montreal, where my presence was called for by very urgent private and legal business. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I was very disagreeably surprised when I reached Ottawa on Tuesday evening to hear that the vote had been taken. If anything could have alleviated my disappointment, it would have been that my determination to vote against the amendment of the leader of the opposition was very generally known. I approached this very important and troublesome problem with the earnest purpose that it should be solved in what I honestly believe to be the very best interests of all concerned. Sir, I have studied it with the greatest care in all its various aspects, taking into consideration all the circumstances and trying, as far as humanly possible, to put aside all influences of any kind whatever that could bias my judgment; and to-day, Sir, I have pleasure in realizing that I am in the best frame of mind and state of heart when I declare that I will stand by the government of the right hon. Mr. Borden. I truly believe this Bill to be the best measure that could be introduced here, under the actual circumstances, whether we look at it generally or from the special point of view of which I have mentioned. Though the question be much controverted as to whether the minority, in that part of Keewatin to be added to Manitoba, enjoys special rights and privileges in respect to educational matters, it seems to me to be now generally admitted that the provisions which apply are those of the Northwest Territories Act, chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, which came into force on the 31st of July, 1907. The article X of chapter 62 of the above-mentioned statutes, reads as follows:
X. The -Commissioner in Council, if authorized to make ordinances respecting education, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect thereto; but in the laws or ordinances relating to education it shall always be provided

that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor; and also that the minority of ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholics, may establish separate schools therein, and in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall he liable only to assessment of snch rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
Before that legislation could become operative, three conditions had to be reckoned with:
1st-That the government of this country should appoint a council of four members to assist the commissioner of the Territories.
2nd-That this Commissioner in Council should be authorized to make ordinances respecting education.
3rd-That this Commissioner in Council should make such ordinances.
Sir, we all know that up to the 10th of October, 1911, the very day this government came into power, none of these three conditions had been complied with. We all know that, as far as this government is concerned, the only demand ever received from the interested parties that the two first conditions above mentioned should materialize, reached the Governor in Council only on or about the 1st of December, 1911. In that respect, I fully concur with the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Borden):
I ask any honourable gentleman in this House whether or not it would have been a reasonable thing for that government, after that matter hod stood for nearly four years without the appointment of any council, without the authority of the commissioner to put into force these provisions respecting education. I would ask whether or not it would have been a reasonable thing for us to undertake to do that without which these Northwest Territories had got on very well for three and a half years at least. And, to do that, remember, on the very eve of carrying out a proposal to which parliament had given :ts unanimous acceptance on the 13th of July, 1908. Why, Mr. Speaker, I think it would have been the very worst thing we could do in the interests of all concerned if the government had seen fit on the eve of enlarging the boundaries of Manitoba, to take any such step as that which has been suggested.
But in view of the stand I am taking in this matter, the question whether or not separate schools are now in operation in Keewatin, according to article X of said chapter 62, has no importance whatever. I will even go farther and I will admit, for argument's sake, that these separate schools do exist to-day in Keewatin, according to that law. Have we the constitutional authority to force them to-day upon Manitoba? This question, Sir, has already been according to me, victoriously answered in the negative, by the right hon. leader of the government, one of the greatest legal minds we have to-day in Canada, and I do not know that this opinion of his has been yet contradicted, whether inside or outside of this House. I beg of you, Mr. Speaker, that I should be allowed to quote the right hon. gentleman's own words in that respect, as I humbly submit that I could not do as well as he has done himself:
I do not think it is constitutionally possible.
I would like to point out to hon. members, to whose attention this may not have been brought, that the provisions of the British North America Act of 1871, with regard to the constitution of the province in the first instance, are veTy different from those contained in the clause of the same Act, providing for the alteration of the boundaries of a province. Section 2 of that Act-the one which provided for the constitution of a province, carved out of the Northwest Territories, for instance, Alberta-reads as follows:-
The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution end administration of any suoli province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province end for its representation in the said parliament.
But when we come to the third section of that statute-the one in virtue of which this Bill is brought before this House- we find that the language with regard to increasing the area of a province is in very different terms. It is as follows:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions a9 may he agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any snch increase or diminution or alteration of territory in .relation to any province affected thereby.
We have in the one section the direct authority of this parliament to deal with the constitution of a province. In the other section we have not any such thing, and it seemed, to me absolutely impossible to conceive that you can have a province in Canada, such as Manitoba would be after this Bill had passed, which would be governed as to one part of it by one constitutional provision in respect of education, and in another part of it, by another constitutional provision in respect of education. I do not believe that the British North America Act of 1871 contemplated any such thing. To my mind it is inconceivable, and I do not find warrant for it in the statute. It is inconceivable that yon could have one constitutional limitation in Manitoba and another constitutional limits-

tion in the part of Manitoba which we now propose to add.
Now, the right hon. leader of the government says that ' a proposal to place any such restriction upon Manitoba is politically impossible because,' he does * believe that Manitoba would not accept the extension of her boundaries coupled with any such restrictions.'
And later on the right hon. the Prime Minister adds that he is ' absolutely certain that it is politically impracticable.'
Well, Sir, I do not know of any other means by which this Bill could be amended so as to embody in it a clause safeguarding the rights and privileges mentioned in said clause X, whether this clause has been or not, to-day, taken advantage of. We have not the constitutional authority to insert that clause in this Bill without Manitoba's consent. And that consent, Manitoba is unwilling to give. We have the word of the right hon. gentleman to this effect. I am proud to say that I rely with the greatest confidence upon that affirmation. The right hon. gentleman who makes it is the man who, whilst he was touring the western provinces on the eve of the last federal election, said to the farmers who wanted him, as the leader of a great political party, to promise them reciprocity with the United States in natural products:
Gentlemen, I am against the reciprocity, and I would not make the promise you ask for, even if I knew that by doing it I would become the Prime Minister of this Dominion of ours.
Sir, the man who has the moral courage to speak in that way, in such circumstances, is not a Talleyrand, of such a man one cannot say that language has been given to him so that he might hide his thought.
And this is the reason why I say to-day that I believe the right hon. the Prime Minister, when he says that Manitoba is unwilling to ' accept the extension of her boundaries coupled with any such restrictions.' What are we to do then, Sir? Are we to say to Manitoba: All right, we shall keep Keewatin?
Where is the man that would dare to give such an advice to this government? We must not forget Mr. Speaker, that the honour of this House has been pledged to * a proposal to which parliament has given its unanimous acceptance on the 13th of July, 1908. We all know Sir, that, on the 12th of April, 1876, the district of Keewatin was made a distinct and separate district by chapter 21 of the statute of 1876, which statute came into force by proclamation of the Governor in Council on the 7th of October, 1876, and the reason given for that legislation by the legislator at the time was that Keewatin was to be made part of the province of Manitoba.
Mr. CODEBEE
Perusing lately the debates on this question in this House, I could not help noticing that a certain member took exception to that law being passed without a clause similar to clause X of chapter 49 of the Statutes of 1875, which chapter 49 is in force yet to-day, and gives a constitution to the Northwest Territories. That clause X of said chapter 49 of the law of 1875 is almost identically in the same terms as clause X of chapter 62 of the revised statutes of Canada:, 1906, which gives to the population of Keewatin the right to separate schools. I found then in the debates that the predecessors of the right hon. leader of the opposition, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, and the Hon. Edward Blake, then at the head of the Liberal party of the time and sitting in this House on the Treasury benches met that objection by saying that that omission of said clause X in the law of 1876 had been made purposely because in the course of time Keewatin or at least part of it, was to be added to Manitoba, and that the annexation would naturally and legally bring Keewatin in respect to educational matiers, under the law of the province of Manitoba.
What is the law one can find to-day in the province of Manitoba?
The law of 1890, passed by a Liberal government, and against the passing of which all the Conservative members of the legislative assembly, Protestants as well as Catholics, fought to the bitter end, a law which has deprived the minority in Manitoba of certain rights and privileges in respect to education according to a judgment of the highest tribunal of the empire. We know that that law of 1890 has been amended by the legislative assembly after the general election of 1896, which brought to power the right hon. the leader of the o position; but we know too, Sir, that this amendment, accepted by the right hon. leader of the opposition of to-day, then Prime Minister, does not give to the minority the full plenitude of their rights and privileges as admitted by that judgment of the Judicial Privy Council of the King. As a matter of fact, it is generally conceded, by all men of good faith at least, that was it not for the very generous and liberal interpretation given to that law of 1890 and its amendment by the Hon. Mr. Roblin, Conservative Premier of Manitoba, the position of the Roman Catholic minority in Manitoba to-day, though far from being what it should be, would be simply outrageous in the estimation of all broadminded and law-abiding men. What is the population in Keewatin to-day, Sir? In the territory there are at the present time not -more than 165 white people 400 or 500 half-breeds, and the balance of the population are Indians. The Roman Catholics, we are told, are in the minority. All rights and privileges are sacred to me,

Sir, but the rights and privileges of the few weak should be considered more sacred yet.
But, Sir, if by adopting that very dangerous and unwise device suggested to us that we should refuse to consent to the annexation of Keewatin to the province of Manitoba unless the representatives of( that province accept the incorporation in this Bill of a clause apt to safeguard and protect the rights and privileges of the few Roman Catholics of Keewatin, is it not to be feared that without bettering at all the actual position in educational matters of those Keewatin people, we would hurt the interests in that respect of the 250,000 Roman Catholics of Manitoba? Whai more human, Sir? The political agitation that would manifestly follow such a course in Manitoba in the whole of this Dominion, agitation influenced by the religious passion, the most dangerous of all in a mixed population like ours, would very naturally bring the people of Manitoba, who have been described to us by the right hon. leader of the government as * imbued with a big, broad, generous spirit, as inclined to deal with their fellow-countrymen who may be of a different faith in the same broad-minded and generous spirit as that which has been evinced in other provinces of Canada where no constitutional provisions of this kind exist,' such an agitation, I say, would very naturally bring them to retaliate on our Roman Catholic brothers in Manitoba, whose hopes for betterment in a near future and gain made in the past in respect to education, would then be lost.
Sir, this is my conviction, and1 that conviction is founded not only on human nature, but also on the experience gained during the years 1890 to 1897, on the very same matter, in the very same province. A great Canadian has said once: ' Let the country perish rather than a principle.' Sir, I do not belong to that school, and I refuse to-day to be coerced in saying: ' Let the 250,000 Roman Catholics in Manitoba perish if, to avoid that calamity it is necessary that the few hundreds of Roman Catholics in Keewatin should be placed not under the law passed in respect to education by the Liberal party of Manitoba in 1890, as amended in 1897 according to the poor settlement made that year by Messrs. Laurier and Greenway, a settlement which has been approved in this House by the hon. the member for Rou-ville to-day, then member for Gaspd, and by Mr. Henri Bourassa, then member for Labelle; no, sir, not under that law so miserably amended, but, Sir, under that law and its amendment as interpreted1 by the ' big, broad, generous spirit ' of the Hon. Mr. Roblin.
There is an agitation in my own native province, says the right hon. leader of
the opposition. We know it, Sir, and we know too that the right hon. gentleman in this House, is folding his arms, and is refusing to take any positive stand one way or the other in respect to this matter of school rights. He keeps cool and quiet, and he contents himself with putting before the House a double-faced amendment which will permit, on account of its vagueness and ambiguity, his political friends in the province of Quebec to say:	We are against that Bill because
there cannot be found in it a clause protecting the rights and privileges of the minority in Keewatin in respect of education and which will allow his partisan followers in the other provinces to say: We are against that Bill because some friends of the government wanted to coerce the province of Manitoba. We know too that the political organs of the right hon. gentleman in the province of Quebec are doing their best to bring that agitation to its greatest intensity. With respect to the agitation which is threatened to-day I would say to my hon. friends: Remember what we lost in 1896 in Manitoba through the agitation which' was aroused as far back as 1890, especially by the Liberal press and the Liberal politicians of that day; bear in mind what we have gained in the same province since the agitation has cooled down; do not forget what the right hon. leader of the government said lately as to the very refreshing state of things which exists in the province of Nova Scotia to-day because our Roman Catholic brethren there have never used that very dangerous weapon. See what the hon. member for Kent, N.B., (Mr. Robidoux) said yesterday to a reporter of the * Gazette,' a well known newspaper in Montreal, in respect to the happv lot in education matters of the Roman Catholics of New Brunswick who have always been careful not to agitate. Mr. Sneaker, I m'ght as well read this interview to the House:



NEW BRUNSWICK SCHOOLS.

[Stage Direction]
Conditions are Satisfactory, Says Mr. Robidoux, M.P.
Mr. Robidoux, M.P. for the county of Kent, N. B., who was in the city on Saturday, made the statement that the general policy of the Borden government was giving satisfaction in the maritime provinces, and to the Acadian population in particular.	.
Mr. Robidoux is particularly well pleased wh' the immigration 'policy of the present government, as far as the province of New Brunswick is concerned. The hon. Mr. Rogers, he says, has just appointed Rev. Father Legace, of Legaceville, N.B., as immigration and repatriment agent for the county of Northumberland, where a goodly number of Aeadians are located and a good many more are expected to return from the States and other countries, having left New Bruns-
[Stage Direction]
wick in past years in the hope of bettering their condition.
Three years ago Father Legace founded Legaceville, and today there are a hundred families residing there, and with the help the Department of the Interior is giving them, the movement from the United States and other places to get back on the land will result in the addition, so Mr. Robidoux hopes, of three hundred families during next year.
Speaking of the school question in New Brunswick, Mr. Robidoux, a.flter referring to the troubles some years ago when Mgr. Sweeny was bishop of St. John, stated that the compromise arrived at between the then head of the church in New Brunswick and the Hon. John Boyd, an eminent citizen of [DOT]that city, and a strong friend of the late Sir Leonard Tilley, resulted in making peaoe between the warring factions of that province.
Resolutions in parliament year after year had been unavailing, but goodwill did the work, and although Mr. Robidoux declares that the system is not perfect from a Catholic point of view, he has reason to be pleased with the situation, as it now exists. In virtue of this compromise religious instruction is permitted in the schools under certain conditions. In the Acadian centres the teaching of French prevails, although the compromise made no mention of the fact.
' We have a series of French books,' he added, ' prepared by a commission composed of Father Bourgeois, of St. Joseph's College, Memramoook; Abbe Dagnaud, at one time Superior of St. Ann's College, Nova Scotia, and Mr. Charles Hebert, one of the New Brunswick school inspectors, and others. Thanks to the intelligent co-operation of our friends, we now have a French department at the Normal school in New Brunswick, which is under the direction of Professor Beliveau, of that province also. Under the administration of the Hon. Mr. Hazen, now Minister of Marine and Fisheries, we had adopted by the Council of Public Instruction, a history of Canada, written in French by Father Bourgeois, and destined for the French schools of the province of New Brunswick, which will permit the young Acadian children to learn in their own tongue the history of this country. In several centres, like Moncton, Buetouche, Memramcook, Shediac and elsewhere, nuns who hold provincial licenses to teach in the schools, and although we do not have separate schools in name, we have them in practice. Obligatory instruction i9 discretional according to the will of the ratepayers, and only exists in populous centres, such as St. John, Fredericton and other places, while the price of school books was diminished by half, a year following the advent of the hon. Mr. Hazen to power.
Sir, the hon. member for Kent, N.B., a Canadian of French extraction and a Catholic, has added, whilst speaking to us on the same lines since the beginning of that agitation in Quebec:
Friends of Quebec, we belong to your race and creed; you are the strongest member of the French family on this continent; we certainly need your help and your sympathies, but do not proceed by means of violent Mr. CODERRE.
agitation, have rather recourse to quiet ways and sunny smiles. In the past, according to my own experience, instead of helping us out of our difficulties by agitating, you nave added to those difficulties.
This is and has been my policy:	This
is the policy of my church, as enunciated in an encyclical of the Holy Father, Pope Leo XIII, addressed on the 8th September, 1897, to the archbishops, bishops and other ordinaries of the Dominion of Canada, in relation to the settlement of the Manitoba school question made that year by the right hon. the leader of the opposition of to-day, then Prime Minister of Canada, and the Hon. Mr. Greenway, then Premier of Manitoba. This document can be found in ' Hansard ' of 1898, vol. 2, page 5338:
We are not unaware that something has been done to amend that law. The men who are at the head of the Federal government, and of the province of Manitoba, have already taken certain measures with a view to decreasing the difficulties of which the Catholics of Manitoba complain, and against which they rightly continue to protest. We have no reason to doubt that these measures were taken - from a love of justice and from a laudable motive. We cannot, however dissimulate the truth, the law which they had passed to repair the injury is defective unsuitable, insufficient. The Catholics ask' and no one can deny that they justly ask for much more. Moreover, in the remedial measures that have been proposed there is this defect, that by reason of changed local circumstances they may easily become valueless. In a word, the rights of Catholics and the education of their children have not been sufficiently provided for in Manitoba. Everything in this question demands'-and it is conformable to justice-that they should be thoroughly provided for, that is, by placing in security and surrounding with due safeguards those unchangeable and sacred principles of which we have spoken above. This should be the aim, this the end to be zealously and prudently sought for. Nothing can be more injurious to the attainment of this end than discord. Unity of spirit and harmony of action are most necessary. Nevertheless, since, as frequently happens in things of th's nature, there is not one fixed and determined, but various ways of arriving at the end which is proposed and which should be obtained, it follows that there may be various opinions equally good and advantageous. Therefore, let each and all be mindful of the rules of moderation, gentleness and mutual Charity, let no one fail in the respect that is due to another, but let all resolve in fraternal unanimity, and not without your advice, ito do that which the circumstances require, and which appears best to be done.
In a pastoral of His Grace, the Archbishop of Quebec, of that time, Mgr. Tas-chereau, ' To the clergy and Catholic people of Canada,' commenting upon the abovequoted encyclical, we read, page 5342, of ' Hansard ' of 1898, volume II:

Nothing remains to ns now hut to appeal to that spirit of faith and submission with which we know you to be animated towards the Hoiy See. We are desirous to proclaim it aloud. We are above all political parties. We have no intention to be bound to any. What we desire is the triumph of a sacred cause and not the triumph of a party. And this triumph, we hope that all men of heart, all friends of justice and liberty will help us to obtain it. There is no question of coming back upon an unfortunate fact; this is the hour for a complete, entire reparation that we expect, and that hour, all sympathies, every noible courage, every generous kindness must strive to hasten. Let publio men, therefore, unite together and have recourse to the means that wisdom and patriotism shall inspire them with to put an end to the violent state of things we are all enduring, p. 5343. In the name of justice, in the name of that harmony that should reign among all the citizens of the same country, we invite Protestants-whom this diversity of belief does not prevent from being our brothers-to give us their help and to work with us.
This was also the policy of Mr. Henri Bourassa, then member for Labelle. In a speech he made in relation to the said settlement of the Manitoba School Question.
' Hansard ' of 1898, volume II, page 5437, we find:
I do not want to enter again upon the quarrels of the past. 1 think we have already had too many divisions between the two parties on this question.
Mr. Bourassa at page 5431, says:
I believe firmly that this school question will be settled, and settled on account of the position taken by this government, a position which has been met by the goodwill of the Greenway government, which has given more since this government come into power than during the whole time when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office. I hope this is the last we shall hear of this question, not because we are afraid of it or afraid of the position that we and this government have taken.
All I can add is this: By advocating the policy adhered to in 1897 and since, a policy which commends itself to-day even more than in 1897 to all wise and patriotic men, I sincerely believe I am doing my duty, all my duty, to the Roman Catholic population.
If I err in that respect,-and I do not think I do,-I err in very good company, with men who have never for a moment believed that they acted as traitors in 1896 and after.
Sir, before resuming my chair, though I am still a young member in this House, without much experience, I shall take the liberty of expressing to the right hon. leader of the opposition what I think of his attitude on this question. It is the duty of any member in this House, who does not approve of this Bill, to say so. This duty cannot be deemed to have been
fulfilled by criticising the provisions which the Bill embodies. A Bill may be defective, not only by what it contains, but also by what it does not contain. In this case, some members have protested that the Bill does not embody a clause safeguarding and protecting the rights and principles of the minority in respect to education. When the right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) spoke on his amendment, he alluded very vaguely to that question by affirming that a certain agitation was going on in the province of Quebec on account of that omission, but he personally took no stand whatever on that matter; he contented himself by saying that he would wait until some member on this side of the House had given his own view on the point at issue. The right hon. gentleman said, to use his own words, he was waiting within ' the lines of Torres Vedras.' What do we know of Torres Vedras ?
Torres Vedras, a town of Portugal, in the district of Lisbon. Here were the noted fortifications known as the ' lines of Torres Vedras/ constructed by Wellington in 1810, during the Peninsular war.
These elaborate works, history tells us, had been constructed in the course of a year by thousands of Portuguese labourers, directed by Colonel Fletcher, of the Royal Engineers, upon a plan carefu>lly_ thought out and laid down by Wellington himself.
When Massena had oarefully inspected the stupendous barrier reared in front of him, his welldrained eye recognized it as impregnable; he paused for some weeks under semblance of blockading the British forces, while he was really scouring the country for the means of feeding his own; but in November he began to retreat upon Santarem, Almeida and Ciudad Rodrigo, with a half-starved and dis-spirited army, greatly reduced in numbers during the campaign.
I would humbly beg the right hon. gentleman not to desecrate the glorious souvenir which has come to us through those words, ' the lines of Torres Vedras.' Do you believe, Sir, that the brave French general Massena did not know whom he would encounter by attacking this * stupendous barrier.' He knew, Sir, that Wellington and his valiant troops were behind these liues; he knew that those British soldiers had an ideal: the defence of the freedom of the Spanish and Portugese peoples, which freedom the ambitious Napoleon the First was willing to take away from them; he knew that they would fight for that principle till death. And, Sir, that knowledge had much to do towards the decision of Massena to pass by without attacking. There was, Sir, on that ' stupendous barrier,' a glorious flag, the Union Jack, the symbol of liberty the world over, within and without the empire, with one exception, however, as far as the province of Manitoba is concerned: the liberty of
[Stage Direction]
the Roman Catholic population in respect to education.
But what do we see here? The spectacle we have before us does not justify at all the right hon. genleman in comparing his own attitude and the attitude of his party, on this very important question with the attitude of Wellington and his soldiers at Torres Vedras in 1810. That great political party has no policy to offer the House; if these politicians, Sir, have such a policy, they have not the courage to stand openly by it. We see no flag, Sir, flying bravely on top of their lines of battle. I know they have two, though; but their political cunning advises them that those flags should remain in the dark till the day of the election comes. And then, Sir, those who do not know the hon. gentleman will be surprised to find one of those two flags in the province of Quebec, bearing the motto, ' Separate schools for Keewatin,' and the other one flying in the other province-with in its folds the slogan, ' Hands off Manitoba.'
Sir, if there were lions within the lines of Torres Vedras, there are political foxes on those opposition seats. These tactics have succeeded once in 1896; but I really believe that this country will not consent to be deceived once more.
Sir, I really hope that this message of good-will, of harmony and of concord, that we, on this side of the House, are just sending to the people of Manitoba, will bring them to give, in their plenitude, to my Roman Catholic compatriots in Manitoba the rights and privileges in respect to education which a judgment of the highest tribunal of the empire in the Brophy case has decided that they were entitled to. Knowing the past of the Conservative partv in Manitoba, that the Hon, Mr. Roblin had been defending, against Greenway, Martin and Sifton, the separate schools attacked by the law of 1890, that he was by the side of Sir Charles Tup-per in 1896 to obtain that the rights and privileges of the minority, as embodied in a remedial law, presented in compliance with the judgment rendered in the Brophy case, and which gave complete satisfaction to the interested parties, should become the law of the province of Manitoba;-knowing moreover^ that since he has obtained power -and, Sir, history will tell us that the Conservatives could not get into power in Manitoba, only after the great agitation raised by the_ Liberals against them on that school question had cooled down-he did all that he could to alleviate the harm the law of 1890 and its amendment have done to the cause of the Roman Catholics of Manitoba, I really believe that the Hon. Mr. Roblin, whose already very high reputation as a statesman will be greatly increased by this success of his policy, will take advantage of the feelings of joy and Mr. CODEREE.
enthusiasm brought to his own people by the passing of this measure, to at last give fair justice to my compatriots of Manitoba. Sir, I have the greatest and sincerest admiration and love for the British flag. It is on account of that admiration and that love that I most deeply desire that that dark spot put on that flag by the Liberal Chieftain Greenway in 1890 would at last disappear. We are told tnat the Hon. Mr. Roblin has had the very patriotic idea to order that the Union Jack should fly over and above each and every public school in Manitoba. It will be a day of universal contentment and joy, all over the land, when the Roman Catholic children, frequenting these schools, will feel that that great flag shelters and protects all their rights, privileges and liberty, and that they are on a footing of equality with their young comrades of other extraction. Sir, thanks to the policy of the present government, I feel that we will soon see that day.
I feel confident, Sir, that taking the course I am taking, I have done my duty, not only to the Roman Catholic population of Manitoba and Keewatin, but to the whole population of our country.
Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, much as I believe that the province of Manitoba is entitled to the extension of boundaries which it is to receive under the Bill which we are now considering, I have felt it my duty to oppose the passage of this Bill for reasons which I have already stated to the House, and1 which were set forth in the amendment which I proposed, namely, that the terms granted to Manitoba were at once unfair to that province and to the rest of the Dominion as well. My right hon. friend opposite, speaking some time afterwards, characterized that amendment as a piece of political strategy to avoid an impending political difficulty in connection with this Bill. Let me say to my right hon. friend that if I thought it advisable in this matter to resort to political strategy, I would1 think it best to play the game as well as I could. But there. are occasions when it is not advisable to resort to political strategy, when me question before the House has to be squarely met, and this is. the position I intend to take now. There are two considerations which, for me, dominate the present situation, Manitoba is entitled to an extension of its boundaries, not only for the welfare of Manitoba itself, but for the welfare of' the whole Dominion. The territory which it is now proposed to give to Manitoba has been, up to the present time, a sealed book as far as the white man is concerned. The white man has never penetrated into tfhik territory except as a hunter. He is now going in as a permanent settler. A railway is actually in course of construction from

the wheat fields of the western provinces to the waters of Hudson bay, and, therefore, it follows as a necessity that this territory must be given provincial organization. Municipal institutions have to be established, civil institutions have to be established likewise, towns will grow, and all the other accompaniments of civilized life will have to be attended to. Therefore, as a matter of necessity, this territory must be either organized as a province or annexed to another province. Nobody can contend that it would be advisable, opportune, or politic, for reasons well known to everybody, that a new province should be constituted out of that territory. It must be annexed to another province, and1 the only province to which it can be annexed is the province of Manitoba. Then, Manitoba, from the fact of this annexation, is entitled to receive, for the purpose of revenue, either the lands of the territory or an equivalent in money. Beyond this, everything that is contained in this Bill, and there is much contained in it, is in violation of the Tights of the other provinces.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Manitoba has been for forty years in this Dominion. It has been on a footing of equality, in so far as provincial subsidies are concerned, with the other provinces, and now you take it from that condition of equality and give it favoured treatment. It seems to me that my hon. friend opposite has not measured the length to which this concession is going to lead him. He has raised problems which, evidently, he never dreamed of in his philosophy. But already, from all sides, troubles have arisen for him and for the country. I can say fairly that the troubles which will face him do not disturb me very much-that is his own con-cern

But I cannot be indifferent to the condition of the country; and it does seem to me manifest that the other provinces will not be satisfied unless there is a reorganization of the whole of the provincial subsidies which we thought we had secured for all time in the amendment to the constitution, which was passed by the Imperial parliament in 1907. Now, whilst Manitoba is given extravagant terms, for which there can 'be no justification whatever, on the other hand that province is treated in a manner which cannot be defended by any man who values the rights of the province. Manitoba had the right to expect from the men who form the present government, when they were in opposition, that she would receive her lands, but instead of her being given her lands, a portion of her lands have been given to another province. Here again the government is introducing a new principle which is
fraught with dire consequences. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, stated some days ago in this debate, that if Manitoba was not given the extension of her territory during the regime of the preceding administration, it was because I wanted to penalize that province the government of which was not composed of friends of my own.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Nobody at this moment, or indeed at any moment, can quote a word or a syllable of mine which could justify such an imputation. I would like to ask anybody who has seen me in opposition or in office for more than thirty years in this House, if any imputation of that kind could be based on anything I ever said or anything I ever did. Sir, it is useless to refute such a statement as that. When Manitoba came to ask for the extension of her boundaries, I thought it advisable before considering her application, that her neighbour to the east and her neighbour to the west should be consulted. Can anybody in this Hause say that it was not the first of all things to be done? I had a conference summoned, composed of members representing Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario. Manitoba was not represented by friends of mine, Ontario was not represented by friends of mine, but Saskatchewan was represented by friends of mine. Saskatchewan made application there and then for the territory which is now given to Manitoba, and I said tb my friend from Saskatchewan, Mr. Walter Scott, the premier of the province, that in my humble judgment, ,in all fairness and equity that territory should go to Manitoba, and I reported accordingly to my colleagues, and to the House. * Now the province of Saskatchewan is coming forward with a new request. It is asking that since it could not have ihe territory, it should have access to the waters of Hudson bay in the same manner that Ontario has access to that bay. If, Sir, it is right to give to Ontario 800,000 acres, or thereabouts of the lands of Manitoba, together with access to Hudson bay, is there any reason in the world, why the same measure of treatment should not be given to Saskatchewan as well?


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but with reference to a Bill which was before the House last night motions were made to refer it back to the Committee of the Whole, and I was obliged to rule that those who were speaking should confine themselves to the amendments that were proposed to the Bill, as I regarded that to be the proper ruling of the Chair. To-night the amendment has been moved that this Bill be

referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend the measure by inserting a clause in reference to the educational rights of the minority. Following the same rule, I would be obliged, of course, to decide that the right hon. gentleman is not speaking strifctly to !the question. But if it is the desire of the House that the debate should be of an unrestricted character, covering the whole scope of the Bill, I certainly have no objection; but I do not wish it to be understood that I desire to rule one way one night and rule to give a reverse ruling another.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would bow most respectfully to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I am all the more grateful to you since I was not in order that you did not interrupt me sooner because I have about finished what I have to say on that particular point. I might perhaps be allowed, without trespassing on the time of the House, and on your ruling, Sir, to finish what I intended to say. In my humble judgment Saskatchewan had as much claim as Ontario to the same treatment, and with that statement I will close this part of my argument. I now come, Sir, to another matter, the matter which is involved in the amendment that is now before the House. My young and hon. friend who has just addressed the House and also the hon. member from Vercheres (Mr. Rainville), I understand, though I was not here at the time, commented somewhat adversely upon the fact that I had stated at a former stage of the debate that I was within the lines of Torres Vedras.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I was
within the lines of Torres Vedras it was not with any intention of remaining there permanently. My hon. friend who has just addressed the House stated that the Duke of Wellington was within the lines of Torres Vedras. That is true, but as everybody knows the Duke of Wellington came out from the lines of Torres Vedras, and came out with some effect upon the army of the enemy. If I have taken that position, Sir, it was with no intention whatever of shirking an expression of my opinion, in which I am very proud to see hon. gentlemen on the other side seem to take some interest, but it was because I did not think that it was advisable for me to enter so early in the debate when so far, the debate was not within the two sides of the House, but altogether within the government side of the House.
If the question has been brought before the House-this family question-in con-Mr. SPEAKER.
nection with the boundaries of Manitoba, the debate was not raised from this side but from the other side of the House. I think it would have been rather imprudent in me to interfere in that family quarrel. I think it was my part to keep out of it and see what position was taken by hon. gentlemen opposite. I have a word to say to hon. gentlemen on the other side. But before I proceed further, I must say that, for my part, I approach this question at the moment, not in my capacity as leader of a party, but as an individual, I do not want to bind anybody to my own opinion on a question of this kind; I leave it to the judgment and conscience of every one of those who have honoured me in the past, or to-day honour me, with their confidence. But I never meant anybody to be in doubt as to what my attitude would be on this question. My attitude upon this question is well known; it has been well known for the last sixteen years. I stand, in this year 1912 on the same platform on which I stood in 1896. I would not then interfere with the autonomy of Manitoba; I will not now when in opposition interfere with the autonomy of Manitoba.
As regards this amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Yamaska (Mr. Mon-dou), to my mind, it is beyond doubt, and I think ought to be beyond doubt to himself, that if his object was to maintain in the new territory of Manitoba the legislation upon which he has based his amendment, the legislation of 1875, he could not have taken-I hope he will allow me to say so without offense-a more ineffective way of doing it. I think it has been demonstrated to him that the amendment which he has proposed even if it had been adopted by this House, would not in any way add to the rights or privileges of the minority in the new territory accorded1 to them in the Manitoba Act. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), has argued, and my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), also has argued, that this whole question is a question of law. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has been particularly emphatic upon that point, This is indeed a question of law, and, so far as this amendment is concerned, it is nothing but a question of law. But, though this is a question of law, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, who comes from the province of Quebec, is well aware that it is as a political question that we must look at it at this moment. My hon. friend is well aware that for the last fifteen years it has been stated by all the forces of the party to which he belongs in that province that the settlement we made of the actual question in 1896, was no settlement at all, and that if the party to which he belongs were returned to office, the first thing they

would do would be to tear that settlement to pieces and restore to the minority in Manitoba the full system of separate schools they had prior to 1890. That is the battle we have had to fight at every election since 1896. In 1900, in 1904, in 1908, the same question was always discussed. It was declared that I, in particular, as leader of the party then in office, had betrayed my fellow-religionists, that the settlement we had made was in violation of the clear injunction of the Privy Council, that we were in default, that the settlement was invalid, and that as soon as the Conservative administration was returned to office, all this would be set aside, and' the minority in Manitoba would be put back into the position they held in 1890. Everybody within the sound of my voice who comes from the province of Quebec knows that I am not in any way exaggerating the case, but that I have stated it as it was stated over and over again by the party to which my hon. friend belongs, in every election we have had since 1896.
Let us look at this question. I agree with something that was said by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice this afternoon. We are a people of many origins and man.y creeds; but there is no class in this country which, by reason of creed, race or any other consideration, can claim to have rights indefeasible and superior to the rights of any other class. All the classes have Tights, and all these rights are limited by the rights of the other classes. And whenever there is a clash of interests, as unfortunately there have been too many in the past, it behooves the minority to be moderate in its claims, it behooves the majority to be generous in its treatment of the minoritv. But, if any class in this community insists upon its pound of flesh according as it may be written in the bond, and if all the other classes meet such pretensions in a similar manner, the result must be a condition of affairs not far removed from anarchy. The policy I have advocated ever since I have entered public life, the policy upon which I fought the elections of 1896, is that all such clashing of interests, whenever and wherever they occur, must be settled and can be settled only through compromise, through conciliation, and through anneal to all interested parties to make some sacrifices of opinion, and even pretensions, yes, and even of rights, in order to come to an understanding of peace, wood-will and harmony in this land. I was elected on that platform, and upon that platform I stood so long as I was in office, not only upon this question of education, which came to the front on more than one occasion, during the term of office of the late administration, but even on all similar matters in which their was a clashing of interests. May I recall to the recollection of the House, for
instance, our method of dealing with the problem which has been agitating the province of British Columbia for many years, the problem of Asiatic .immigration.
There is in British Columbia constant cause of trouble arising out of Asiatic immigration. This is not due to any prejudice of colour, this is not due to any ill-will, but it is the result of economic conditions which prevail in British Columbia. It has been shown that whenever ' Asiatic labour ' comes into competition in the labour market with white labour, there is an immediate cause of disturbance. The reason is obvious, it is that the standard of Oriental civilization as compared with our own civilization is very different, and the Asiatic labourer is able, on a lower wage than the white man, to live in comparative comfort, whereas it is not possible for a white man to accept such a wage. The consequence is that we had in British Columbia a constant source of trouble. When we came into office in 1896 we were approached by a majority of the members of the government of British Columbia, who were then in sympathy with the government, with [DOT] a request to increase the capitalization tax upon Chinese immigrants which had been put on the statute-book by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1885, and to which we had no objection. We were asked at the same time to impose a similar tax upon the subjects of His Majesty the Japanese Emperor. To that we would not agree, and why? Why did we think it advisable to put a capitation tax upon Chinamen and not upon Japanese? The reason was that there had been recently signed between the King of England and the Emperor of Japan a treaty of alliance, to a large extent offensive and defensive, and it would have been an indignity to put such a stigma upon the subjects of our ally. So, instead of putting that indignity upon the subjects of the Emperor of Japan, we sent to Japan one of our colleagues, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) to settle that question; and by pursuing a policy of conciliation between the two countries we were able to obtain from the Japanese Emperor an engament that he himself would restrict Japanese immigration within a certain limit, and the result has been that since then we have had peace in British Columbia. True it is that the course then followed was not satisfactory to the people of British Columbia; but I believe that I am within the judgment of the House in saying that the policy was not only a strong one, but was eminently wise.
In the same manner we settled the school question that had been a source of trouble in Manitoba previous to 1896; in the same manner we settled the school question in

Saskatchewan and Alberta by the Autonomy Bills of 1905. Ail these questions, burning as they were, we settled by a policy of compromise, of conciliation, by an appeal to the good sense, and better judgment, and better heart of all the parties interested. But Sir, that policy of conciliation and of compromise was denounced with the greatest possible severity in the province of Quebec, by all the forces of the Conservative party, and by none with greater bitterness and severity than the hon. gentlemen whom I now see before me on the treasury benches, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) and my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel). These hon. gentlemen and their friends, in the press and on the platform, denounced compromise as humiliating, denounced conciliation as weak, and this they preached in season and out of season, in public prints, in the press, and everywhere they could get a hearing. Wherever they could find a stump for their two feet they preached the policy of no concession. Their plea was:	We want the plentitude of the
rights of the minority in the province of Manitoba restored to them, and if the Conservative party is returned to power we will give them tlhat plenitude of rights. Now Sir, am I exaggerating? Everybody knows that this has been the policy of hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. Everybody knows that they have maintained that policy from 1895-6 up to the 5th of March. 1912, when, within our hearing, and to the dismay of their followers, they declared that the settlement which was made in 1897, whether good or bad, was binding, and that there was nothing more to be done for the minority in the province of Manitoba. Sir, there is no doubt whatever that if the speeches that we heard on the 5th of March, a week ago, to-morrow, from the mouth of the Minister of Public Works, and from the mouth of the Postmaster General, had been heard during the last election in the province of Quebec, the result would have been somewhat different from what it was. The general result would have been different, as to the individual result, I daresay the Minister of Public Works might have squeezed into his seat by the skin of his teeth, but even of that I am not very sure. But as to my hon. friend the Postmaster General, he would never have come within 1,000 votes of obtaining the seat of the county of Quebec.
Heaven, Sir, is my witness, that so far as I am personally concerned, the defeat of the 21st September last never caused me a moment of pain, I certainly regretted it for the party, and I still more regretted it for the country. But I repeat, that it: Sir WILFRID LAURIER,
never affected me personally in the least. I do not know but that I am rather glad than otherwise, for this reason, that the defeat of the Liberal party gives us the measure of the men who have replaced us, and the people of Quebec will understand now that all these loud professions and promises of restoring the rights of the minority in Manitoba were simply snares and shams made to reach office, and to be disavowed as soon as office was reached. The people of Quebec will now understand that I and my friends did not deceive them when we told them that the school question had been settled in 1897, and that these gentlemen who boasted that they would re-open it, never could re-open it at all, because it was settled for all time. The country has gained this much, that we shall have no more agitation upon this subject; the country has gained this much, that we shall know where we are, and that forever this question is removed from the field of agitation.
My hon. friend the Postmaster General and my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, in order to cover their retreat, went very far back upon the record and threshed the old straw over and over again threshed before. They said, in order to cover their retreat, that the settlement which I made with the government of Manitoba of the school question in 1897, had gone behind the judgment of the Privy Council, and had been at variance with its dispositions. I have to take issue with my hon. friends upon that point. I say that the settlement which we made in 1897 in no way contravened the dispositions of the judgment of the Privy Council. I say that the Privy Council never ordered the restoration of separate schools in Manitoba.
I say more; I say that the minority in Manitoba, before the Privy Council, never asked for a complete restoration of separate schools as they existed before 1890. This is a broad statement on my part. I say that the minority in Manitoba, before the Privy Council, never asked for the full restoration of the school system which existed nrior to the legislation of 1890. For what I say now I will give book and verse. I will quote from the argument of the counsel of the minority, Mr. Ewart. This is the thoughtful argument with which he summed up the case. I beg hon. gentlemen to give me their attention while I read the argument presented then by Mr. Ewart as to what were the conditions of the minority in Manitoba. This is the language that was used by Mr. Ewart:
Before closing I would like to say a word or two as to what we are seeking. As it has been already remarked, we are not asking for any declaration as to the extent of the relief to be given by the Governor General. We

merely ask that it should be held that he has jurisdiction to hear our prayer, and to grant us some relief if he thinks proper to do so. It may be that the Dominion authorities may not choose to re-establish us in all the rights and privileges which we enjoyed prior to this Act of 1890, although that was acquiesced in by everybody, and it remained as a good working Act for a period of nineteen years, and although I may say also that that is the system, or almost the system, which has existed in the province of Quebec for more than a quarter of a century, it may be that the Dominion authorities may prefer the Ontario system, under which there is a closer governmental control-a system under which government control is very complete, under which books are chosen by the government inspectors appointed by government, and all school regulations are made by government. Or it may he that some other system may be devised which will enable the Roman Catholics to teach in schools to which no Protestant child now goes, the religion of its parents under limited circumstances, without thereby being penalized by ostracism from the public school provisions. We cannot tell, nor have I come here instructed to state what the measure of relief will he which will be asked if it be held that the Governor General has jurisdiction to deal with this matter, hut this much I think I may properly say that we have no desire to withdraw from the operation of state statutory control. That position we never did possess under the Manitoba statutes, and we do not see-nor, indeed, can we ask-to be placed in any better position than the position which we occupied prior to the Act of 1890.
Is there in these words of the counsel of the minority any statement that they asked for the fall restoration of the system which was abolished in 1890? They simply asked that it be decided that the Governor in Council had the right to hear their request, that he had power to interfere, leaving it to the Governor in Council to provide such relief as he might think proper after having looked into the circumstances. That judgment, so clear in itself, has been represented for fifteen years by the gentlemen who now sit on the treasury benches as an order from the Privy Council to the government of Canada, to the government of Manitoba and to every person else concerned, to restore Catholic schools as they existed prior to 1890. All they asked was in the very words of counsel, some relief, leaving it to the discretion of the government according to the circumstances, to give it in larger or smaller measure, as it might be decided. This is the order which was made by the lords of the Privy Council. I would also_ ask the indulgence of the House if I cite at some length from the judgment of the Privy Council. Their lordships say:
As a matter of fact the objection of Roman Catholics to schools such as alone receive state
aid under the Act of 1890 is conscientious and deeply rooted. If this had not been so, if there had been a system of public education acceptable to Catholics and Protestants alike, the elaborate enactments which have been the subject of so much controversy and consideration would have been unnecessary.
And then it goes on to the concluding part:
For the reasons which have been given, their lordships are of opinion that the 2nd subsection of section 22 of ' The Manitoba Act' is the governing enactment and that appeal to the Governor General in Council was admissible by virtue of that enactment, on the grounds set forth in the memorials and petitions, inasmuch as the Acts of 1890 affected rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic minority in relation to education within the meaning of that subsection. The further question is submitted whether the Governor in Council has power to make the declarations or remedial orders asked for in the memorials or petitions or has any other jurisdiction in the premises. Their lordships have decided that the Governor General in Council has jurisdiction and that the appeal is well founded, but the particular course to he pursued must be determined by the authorities to whom it has been committed by the statute. It is not for this tribunal to intimate the precise steps to he taken. Their general character is sufficiently defined by the 3rd subsection of section 22 of ' The Manitoba Act.
It is certainly not essential that the statutes repealed by the Act of 1890 should be re-enacted or that the preoise provisions of these statutes should again be made law. The system of education embodied in the Acts of 1890 no doubt commends itself to and adequately supplies the wants of the great majority of the inhabitants of the province. All legitimate ground of complaint would be removed if that system were supplemented by provisions which would remove the grievance upon which the appeal is founded and wer.e modified as far as might he necessary to give effect to these provisions.
Mark my words. No order here to restore the Catholic schools as they existed previous to 1890! Their lordships on the contrary are clear to state that there would be no necessity of repealing the Act of 1890 which was satisfactory to the majority but in order to remove the grievance of the minority they suggested that it should be supplemented by some such legislation or some such mode as would allow them to bring up their children in their own faith in so far as the schools were concerned. Upon this there was a remedial order issued, an (order which, was issued certainly very imprudently, without sufficient information, without taking into consideration what clashing of interests there might be in Manitoba and that order simply instructed the province of Manitoba to restore effectively and actually the system of separate schools

which had been in existence prior to 1890. Three things are necessary to constitute separate schools; first of all separate organization; second, exemption from taxation for public schools, and in the third place an adequate share of the provincial funds allotted to education.
These things were ordered in the Remedial Order of the previous government. The government of Manitoba was ordered to enact a law which would give back to the minority
(a) The right to build, maintain, equip, manage conduct and support Roman Catholic schools in the manner provided by the said statutes which were repealed by the two Acts of 1890 aforesaid.
(h) The right to share proportionately in any grant made out of the public funds for the purposes of education.
(c) The right of exemption of such Roman Catholics as contribute to Roman Catholic schools from all payment or contribution to the support of any other schools.
The great mistake which was made by the government of Sir Mackenzie Bowell in that Remedial Order was that they were ordering the province of Manitboa to do more than they who had passed the Order could enforce. If the province of Manitoba refused to comply with the Order, they could very well have passed a Bill which would exempt the minority from paying taxes to the public schools, they could very well have passed an Act giving the right to the minority to organize their own schools, but they could not by any Act of legislation or by order in council, or in any manner whatever, give away the funds of the province of Manitoba to the separate schools. And in this they made a fatal mistake; they introduced a Bill and, just as we had anticipated, while the Bill authorized the legislature to pass a Separate School Act, to exempt from taxation the supporters of separate schools, they could not give to the schools any share in the public moneys and therefore, if the Remedial Bill had become law, the schools which might have b'een organized could not have received any funds out of the public treasury; they would have been at once placed in a position of inferiority and therefore the settlement could not be satisfactory to the minority.
We came into office upon that issue. We made a settlement with the province of Manitoba. I do not pretend that the settlement we made with Manitoba was perfect, but I affirm it was the best thing that could be done for the minority in Manitoba; I never pretended that it was, but I say, without any hesitation, that it was far better than the provisions which were made in the Remedial Bill. It was as^ good as coulld be obtained under existing circumstances, after this Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
question had been for six years the battleground of factions in Manitoba. My hon. friend the Postmaster Genera], in his speech the other day, said that the settlement which had been made had not been efficient. I take complete issue with him upon that point, and I think I might call witnesses to this, but it will be sufficient if I state here what the settlement was and how it was worked. The settlement that we made with the government of Mr. Greenw.ay at that time was that wheTe-ever in any school in a town or city there was an average attendance of 40 children of the Roman Catholic faith, they would have a right to have a teacher of their own persuasion. In rural districts where there was an average attendance of 25 children, they would have the right to obtain from the trustees a teacher of their own persuasion, and a right, at certain times and under certain conditions to be determined by the trustees, to have religious education in the schools. Children speaking the French language would have the right to receive their instruction in French. That was the' tenor of the settlement we made with Manitoba.
My hon. friend tells me, and told tile House the other day, that that settlement was inefficient. I tell him, and I think I will not be contradicted by anybody here, that that agreement has been put into operation in at least 200 schools in the province of Manitoba, and1 it has given complete satisfaction. The only places in which it has not given any satisfaction are Brandon and Winnipeg, and the reason for that, as I understand, and I speak subject to correction, is that the settlement was not put in operation in These cities. For reasons which I do not know, or rather which I know too well, this settlement was not put in operation in those cities, but everywhere else it was put in operation, and I repeat that wherever it has been put in operation outside of these two cities it has given fairly general satisfaction. That is the position to-day, that is the position which was denounced in the province of Quebec for no other reason that I can see except the desire of obtaining power at all costs.
I now come to the question oi the existing condition of things in the territory to be annexed und'er this Bill to Manitoba. There is no doubt whatever that the law of 1875 is in operation to-day in those territories, and were that territory organized to-day, as was stated by the Minister of Justice this afternoon, the minority would have the right to all its provisions. But that is not a constitutional right, it is simply a legislative enactment of this parliament under the control of this parliament so long as that territory remains

under its jurisdiction, but no further than that. If this were a constitutional agreement or right, there would be no necessity to put it in any law, because it would carry itself as a constitutional right wherever the territories might be placed. But there is this objection. The young members who have followed their leaders so far now believe that the grievances of Manitoba would be relieved as they want them to be relieved. There is this objection to the incorporation of the law of 1875 in the present Bill, which would give full separate school rights to that part of the country, that such an enactment would not be worth the paper on which it was printed because we cannot impose it on Manitoba. Unless Manitoba agrees to this law this parliament has no authority to. force it upon Manitoba. This would have been a case for compromise, a case for conciliation, but my non. friends who sit on the treasury benches from the province of Quebec despise conciliation, and have contempt for compromise. Their policy was everything or nothing, and' the result is nothing.
My hon. friend, the Postmaster General, the other day stated three or four times that he was fully assured1 that Mr. Eoblin was well disposed towards the minority, that he was disposed to give to the minority as much as or more than was given in the law of 1875. If, Sir, Mr. Eoblin is so well disposed, it would have been an excellent occasion to make the compromise or settlement proposed. Indeed there might have been no necessity for a compromise.
If Mr. Eoblin is so well disposed, perhaps he v/ould have given everything on the asking. My hon. friend told us with great positiveness that he was assured of the disposition of Mr Eoblin. We could not understand where his assurance came from, because he told us that he had no understanding with Mr. Eoblin. But he was sure of his facts. How did lie know5 Was it a case of telepathy, or did a little bird come from Winnipeg and whisper in his ear that, it would be all right? I have to point out to my hon. friend that if the law of 1875, giving the full right to separate schools to the minority, has not been incorporated in this Bill, it is because there are men beside him and men behind him who would not have this disposition incorporated in this Bill. I have no doubt that my hon. friend the Postmaster General, and also my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, made a pretty ardent request to their colleagues to save them from the humiliating position in which they would be placed, if the school rights were not restored to the minority. At least, I give them that credit. I suppose my hon. friend the Postmaster General, made the request to his colleagues, not from the love he may bear to the min156
ority, but for the good name he wants to give to the Postmaster General. But he could not obtain his request. Mr. Eoblin, I am prepared to believe, is well disposed, but Mr. Eoblin has some men behind him also, who may not allow that fair disposition to materialize, as my hon. friend expects it to materialize. Sir, the public opinion which in 1890 forced the legislature of Manitoba to remove the separate schools as they existed then, was the result of conflicts and passions which I have reason to believe are now passed away. But, Sir, as it happens, very often, those passions have left behind them an aftermath which has not yet passed away, which has still a good deal of force and potentiality. It is with the human race as it is with the elements. When the elements are thrown out of gear by some cataclysm, it takes a long time before they are restored to their normal condition. When the storms have been raging on the ocean, when the waves have been roused to fury, if all of a sudden the winds ceased to blow, the clouds vanish from the horizon, and the sun shines again warm and bright. But though peace now reigns above, peace is not yet restored to the waters below. For a long time the billows continue to be tossed by the internal fury imparted to them by the storm. Though the storm itself has abated, it is a long time before the serenity of the heavens is reflected on the placid bosom of the deep.
Sir, we know only too well from the teaching of history, and from our own experience in this new country, that the passions which rage in the human heart far exceed the violence of winds and waves and storms. We know from our own experience, as well as from the experience of other countries, and from the whole teaching of history, that when in any community popular passions have been driven to wrath, even though the causes of their anger may be removed, still for a long time the community continues to be torn by their violence, and it is only by slow degrees, by mutual forbearance, that peace and harmony again recover their blessed sway. It is in the light of this experience that I have endeavoured to guide the destinies of the party to which I belong since that party entrusted me with its fortunes. I have learned from history, especially from the history of this country, that the best method of vindicating even the most sacred causes, is by moderation and the respect of others as well as the respect of ourselves. I have learned to apply this doctrine even to the settlement of the school question of Manitoba. On that occasion I appealed to the best elements of all parties, of all creeds, of all races, and I think I have succeeded fairly well except with one class the class now sitting on



the treasury benches. Whatever njay have been the reward of my efforts in that direction, the policy which I maintained in office I shall maintain in opposition. Never shall I raise my hand in any way so that discord shall come in this land, and for these considerations I shall vote against the amendment.


Hon. F. D. MONK (Minister of Public Works).: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to detain the House at this late hour; and indeed, it seemed to me, after the full expression of my views which I gave the other day, that I would not be called upon to speak again on this subject. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow the statement of my right hon. friend this evening to go unchallenged. I knew, when my right hon. friend stated the other day, with studied caution, that he had retired within the lines of Torres Vedras, that he would be chased out of those lines. I must confess that I was somewhat curious to see how he would manoeuvre. I did not for a single moment doubt that he would not, as the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Coderre) has so eloquently portrayed, follow the example of the noble duke whose name is associated with Torres Vedras, but that his issuing from those lines would be coupled with a great deal of gliding and sliding. My right hon. friend, he will pardon me for saying, is getting old; we are all getting old; and he has acquired the habit of self-laudation coupled with the laudation of past times. For quite a while I have noticed that my right hon. friend, with whom my relations have always been most cordial, 'has been given to self-laudation. He is a ' laudator temporis aeti.' He has been singularly faithful to that motto. But ' pride goeth before destruction and haughty snirit before a fall,' and he has fallen into the pit this even ire.
I remember that my rjght hon. friend boasted from his place in the House that he would have a transcontinental line that would1 cost some $13,000,000 or $15,000,000, and that


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr. MONK-he said it would be paid out of the surplus of one year. We know what came of that assertion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That was one of those occasions. Another occasion arose when my right hon. friend, at the time which he referred to a moment ago, when we were discussing the Autonomy Bills, said that he stood upon the rock of the constitution, and invited us to come up there with him. Some one on this side of the House beckoned to him, and with the alacrity of a panther he jumped down from the rock, and he bears us illwill because we would Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
not follow him upon that occasion. Let me point out to my right i\on. friend that he has either not followed my humble arid modest career during the past 15 years, or else I must accuse him of having intentionally deceived both the House and the country upon the real attitude which I, and those around me, from 1896 took upon this very question which we are discussing this evening. A few days ago I mentioned in this very debate that before the settlement -in which my right hon. friend appears to be so proud, but to which I will refer in a moment-where he sacrificed shamelessly the rights of those he was bound to protect, I declared that with respect to remedial legislation, the verdict of the people in 1896 was conclusive, that that mode of remedying the grievances of the minority in Manitoba was vetoed by the people. And1 when my right hon. friend, without even consulting the complainants-the minority interested-concluded with the government of Manitoba, which had deprived them of their rights, and alone and ex parte made that settlement; when he brought down Mr. Greenway to Montreal, gave him a triumph, tendered him a banquet, and invited1 all his friends to celebrate that settlement; when we knew the terms of that settlement; when my right hon. friend brought it down and laid it on the table of the House, but was so much ashamed of himself that he failed to put upon the agreement his signature, and that of the man who had concluded it with him-I found, Sir, that that agreement was not a fair one, and that after all his boasts, after all his representations, after all his conciliation, he had finally sacrificed the very people whom it was his duty to protect. That was what we found', that was what I declared, and on no occasion since 1897 have I discussed that question in our province. I have never discussed it, never raised it, never made it an issue


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
An hon. MEMBER.: What about yourself?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no apology to make for myself. Now, in closing, I wish to say this: My right hon. friend has imagined a picture, in comical vein, of my colleagues from the province of Quebec and myself as endeavouring to obtain, by entreaty and prayer and persuasion, from our colleagues in the government, the introduction of some guarantee clause in this Bill. Well, that may have been the mode of proceeding at the time when my right hon. friend was the leader of the government; we have not that habit as yet. I know that there has been-I myself have been the object of considerable obloquy in reference to our position in this matter. It has not put me in a resigning mood.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very glad to keep the House in good humour. I must say that to me it is absolutely inconceivable-and I think the same remark no doubt applies to my colleagues from the province of Quebec who are very much in the same position as myself-it is absolutely inconceivable, I say, that a man who has the cares and labours and responsibility of the office which I have the honour to hold, should have, past a certain age, any real desire to keep that office if he could decently get out of it. But the obloquy to which I have referred, has not, as I have said, brought me into a resigning mood. On the contrary, I must say that I feel riveted, bolted and barred to the ofiice more than ever before. I should have to

borrow from the language that I learned at my good mother's knee, expressions strong enough to convey how little these insults and invectives have led me in the direction of resignation.
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) went deeply into the legal question this afternoon. I cannot claim to have his competency, but I may say that I have looked as deeply as time allowed into what has been called, and is still called among certain people, the vested rights existing in these territories. I find none,-could not find any of any kind. There was a restriction placed upon an administrative officer in case he was surrounded by a clause, in case he was authorized to legislate. He never had the clause without which he could not legislate; he never was authorized to legislate; he never did legislate. Laws were not passed; schools were not established. 1 cannot anywhere find the slightest trace of vested rights. Then you fall, as I said previously in this debate, into the region of policy. There are no vested rights. But, as was said this evening by speakers -and, I believe, very properly said-what rights there may be, are protected by the constitution of the province. I say you fall into the region of policy. And, as a Roman Catholic, as one who has had some experience of public life and knows something of this country, I say that, as a matter of policy at the present juncture I cannot conceive of anything more unwise, more unpatriotic, more calculated to injure the very interests we are called upon to protect here than to insist upon impossible conditions. Summum jus, summa injuria: to exact things impossible is to prejudice the very interests which it is our duty to protect. There has been upon the point under discussion, no divergence, no suing, no praying, but absolute accord amongst all the members of this cabinet. And I trust we shall soon see the end of this controversy.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright).: I had hoped to be able to approach this subject with all the dignity that a question affecting the position of religious colleagues of the minority in this country should demand.
But after hearing the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Public Works, after hearing the profession of the hon. Minister of Public Works, I think, Mr. Speaker, you will pardon me if I say to that hon. gentleman that any dispassionate listener this evening to this debate, hearing the language used by the right hon. leader of the opposition and the language used by the Minister of Public Works, will ask himself where the senility rests. I am surprised that the Minister of Public Works, who generally uses polite language in debate, *who is a professor of constitutional law in Mr. MONK.
one of the great universities of this country, and is charged to instruct the youth of our land, should so far debase the language of debate, in order to bolster up what he would like to make out as an argument, by insulting the man who is recognized on both sides of this House, and by all classes of our community, as the greatest citizen of Canada. In listening to such language as that, I, as a young man, having up to the present moment the greatest possible respect for the Minister of Public Works, in listening to the words used by him to-night when he says that since 1897 he and his colleagues, and his followers, from the province of Quebec, have not used the Manitoba school question against the leader of the opposition, am reminded of the words of Shakespeare:
' You make such a sinner of your memory as to believe your own lie.' Mr. Speaker,
I have under my hand the political programme of a gentleman occupying the high nost in this country of Minister of Public Works. At the time this programme was written he was plain Mr. F. D. Monk, and I find in this programme the following language :-
Respecting tlie federal pact of 1867, as regards the protection of all minorities, in order to ensure contentment amongst all classes, a policy of protection which will ensure the full development of Canadian resources

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what was the Minister of Public Works referring to then if he was not trying to make an appeal against the right hon. the leader of the opposition because of his treatment of minorities in this country. We who come from the province of Quebec, who have had to do with elections during the last fifteen vears or more, have heard the Minister of Public Works upon public platforms, as I myself have heard him at St. Eustache and other places, making appeals against the right hon. the leader of the opposition, putting up candidates, publishing newspapers such as the one I have in my hand, called ' L'Ami du Peuple,' in the interest of the hon. gentlemen who were denouncing the leader of the opposition. Will the Minister of Public Works deny that he supported the Conservative-Nationalist or Independent, candidate in the county of Wright at the last election? Will he deny that, in the interest of that candidate, there was a paper published, either by the Conservative or bv the Nationalist party, called ' L'Ami du Peunle,' in which I find *hese words, and which, knowing. Mr. Sneaker, that you now possess a considerable knowledge of the French language, I will read as I find them written:
The misdeeds of the 1896 regime caused us to league against him. We agreed with them at that time. With Laurier we used to say: 'Down with the culprits!' Heaven knows whether Laurier was sincere or not; bnt we

know rthat we were sincere. Shall we prove less honest to-day, or have we been so corrupted by Laurier that we have come to the point of tamely submitting to the rule of fraud and robbery.
Why should one vote against Laurier?
Why, because he has proven false to the constitution and to the traditions of ail political parties.
Because, when imparting constitutional life to western Canada, he should have protected all such rights as were guaranteed by the constitution; because, although his prestige and his majority would have enabled 1 im to do so, he did shrink from duty; because, having to choose between right and fanaticism, he did. place his power at the disposal of sectarian hatred against right and justice.
Mr. Speaker, you understand these words, you understand why they were directed against the Liberal party, and more especially against the right hon. the leader of the opposition. But when you hear men who professed Nationalist principles in 1897 and since, w>ho to-day, like the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel), whom I also heard in the good old county of Terrebonne denouncing the right hon. the leader of the opposition, and denouncing the sacrifice of the rights of the minority, you must indeed blush for the language that has been used by these same gentlemen t-o-night, who are ready to sacrifice every right that the minority in Manitoba ever had-according to the arguments that were used by them prior to 1912. But. Sir, you have heard that we have in the province of Quebec a very able gentleman, a splendid speaker, in the person of Mr Henri Bonrassa.
Mr. Henri Bourassa, whom I always refused to follow, and whose principles I always refused to adopt, was, up to within the last two days, the leader of the hon. gentlemen who form the Nationalist wing of the Cabinet, and1 of the hon. gentlemen behind who followed, up to within the last few days, the Nationalist wing of the Cabinet. Mr. Bourassa, addressing a very large-audience in the city of Montreal the other day, insinuated, if he did not say, that the right hon. leader of the opposition had betrayed the rights of the minority in Manitoba. Mr. Bourassa was right then when he said that, and was wrong when he spoke in 1898, or he was right in 1898, and1 he was wrong the other night. I will leave you to judge of the matter. In 1898 Mr. Bourassa, speaking upon the Manitoba school question, said this-his words will be found in ' Hansard ' of 1898, vol. 2, page 5426:
When we consider -that such a question as the Manitoba school question had been treated on most unsound principles for five years, had been so handled as to develop racial and religious passions, we could not expect it to he settled altogether satisfactorily in the first
instance. The government coming into power had to settle the question as to do substantial justice to everybody, and not deceive anybody, and this has been achieved.
Again, speaking on the same subject, he went on to say-I am sorry to weary the House by quoting his words, but in view of the circumstances surrounding this question I believe it is well to refresh even Mr. Bourassa's memory:
I do not wish to boast about my religious principles or my national attachment in this House or on the platform, but I say to the hon. member for Beauharnois that when the Roman Catholic Church is not satisfied with what has been given to her, she will be able to speak for herself and be heard as well as that hon. member. I am a firm believer in the Catholic church and in the destiny of my race, because I know that in America under our British rule there is freedom for every creed and freedom for every race. I am a believer in the rule of my church, and if 1 am a firm believer in the future of my race it is because the politics and policy affirmed by the hon. member for Beauharnois and the hon. member for West York are not the policies and politics that are going to prevail in this country. I believe firmly that this school question will be settled, and settled on account of the position taken by this government, a position which has been met by the goodwill of the Greenway government, which has given more since this government came into power than during the whole time when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office. I hope this is the last we shall hear of this question, not because we are afraid of it or afraid of the position that we and this government have taken. I trust that so long as this party is in power questions of this kind will be met in the same way.
With that language I am heartily in accord and the position I am going to take to-night is the position which has been taken in this House and in this country ever since my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), has ldd the Liberal party, and I believe it to be the only wise policy that could be followed' by any government in this country. The hon. member for Yamaska wants to insert in the Bill a clause which will in a measure, according to his own reasoning, protect the rights of the minority. I am not particularly concerned for the purposes of the argument that I make whether by statute or not there are rights belonging to the minority in Keewatin. I believe there may be certain legislative rights given to them. I believe that it was the intention of the legislators in 1875, that the minority should have certain rights, and that they intended that these rights should be lived up to. I am also of the opinion after studying thef statutes, after reading the law of 1875, the law of 1876, and the law of 1906, which have been cited in this House, and which

it would be useless for me at this late hour to repeat, that the particular laws guaranteeing to the minority in Keewatin these rights, have been embodied in subsequent statutes. But, whether they have rights or whether they have not rights, would the amendment of the hon. member for Yamaska, protect those rights? I do not believe that it would. I believe that the only policy to be followed in controversial questions, in religious questions, is the policy which has been adopted by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and that is the policy of conciliation, the policy of meeting the, majority in goodwill, representing to them the rights which the minority have, and asking them to give the minority the rights which have originally been guaranteed to them or which, in accordance with the spirit of the constitution of our country, they should have. I want to make my position perfectly clear, and1 if for one moment I thought that the amendment of the hon. member for Yamaska would give to the minority m the province of Manitoba greater rights than they have to-day, then, Sir, I would be ready to support that amendment because I believe in the system of separate schools. I have had occasion to go to separate schools. I do not want to have any class of people in Canada believe that I would be opposed to the system of separate schools. I have had occasion to go to denominational schools, and also to non-ae-nominational schools. I believe in religious liberty for all classes of our citizens. I believe that we should not differentiate against any class of citizens or against any religious sect, or against any religious persuasion, but between believing that, and trying to coerce a province into giving rights which they have refused to adopt in the Bill which is now before the House there is a large difference. It seems to me that it would be ridiculous to imagine for one moment that we could put a clause in that Bill against the present constitution of the old province of Manitoba, and go before the people of that province, and ask them to adopt it. Let me refer for one moment to section 3, of 34-35 Victoria, chapter 28, which has already been read to this House, but which I make the base of my argument this evening. What does it say?
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits *of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the efEect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
Do you suppose in virtue of that clause, Mr. DEVLIN.
that we can go to the province of Manitoba and say:	Here are a few miles of territory that we want to give you to annex to your province, but before you annex it you must obey a condition which we lay down. That would be taking Manitoba by the throat and Manitoba would say: YVe will not accept your territory, or else: We will not accept the condition which is tantamount to saying that we will not accept your territory, If we were creating out of Keewatin a new province and annexing Manitoba to Keewatin, I can readily understand it would be reasonable for us to include a clause in the Bill which would guarantee separate schools; but we are not doing that, we are annexing new territory to an old province, with a set system of school law, with a set form of government. I for one, no matter what may be the consequence of the vote which I give to-night, no matter how my views may be received in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, believe that when questions such as this one come up,it is by approaching the majority in a spirit of conciliation, as the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has done, that Catholics, if they are in the minority, or Protestants, if they are in the minority, will obtain from the majority the rights to which they are entitled. In this, I thoroughly agree with the arguments of the Minister of Justice this afternoon. I might cite the clauses of the different statutes which he cited, but I think when he represented the law, he represented it as it stands to-day, and while there may he a divergence of opinion, while there may be references to the courts, I agree that the law that was laid down to-day by the Minister of Justice, is the real law on the subject and that if we approached the question of rights in Keewatin in any other spirit, we would be doing graver injustice to the Catholics of Keewatin and Manitoba than we could in any other way.
In concluding, I simply want to say that I shall vote against the amendment. I would vote for any amendment which would tend to approach the majority in Manitoba in a spirit of conciliation, but to approach them in the spirit in which the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou) asks us to approach them, is unsound in law and unwise in fact and, therefore, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the amendment.


Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe):: (translation). Mr. Speaker, in order to obey the decision which you have just rendered, that to be in order we must only discuss the amendment of the hon. member from Yamaska, I shall presently come to the remarks which I intended to make and which will be very

short on account of the late stage of this debate.
The hon. members sitting at your left being driven into a corner because they remember their past promises and they must face the present conditions turn towards the hon. members , of the opposition and say:	' Tell us what is your policy.'
They forget, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition is not bound to manage the affairs of the country, but to criticise the measures submitted to us by that government. And I state that as long as we are within the legitimate bounds of reasonable criticism, we fulfill our duties and the government can expect nothing more from us ,
When the government, in submitting their measures and their reasons so as to enlighten their followers, shall have utterly failed in the accomplishment of the task which it is incumbent upon_ them to accomplish of demonstrating to the hon. members around them the fairness of the proposed measure; when within the ministerial ranks those who remember their promises and then pledges shall have exhausted all the available means in order to find a way out, to seek an amendment which will satisfy their conscience and their constituents, and shall also have failed, then it will be time for the Opposition to come forward and to move an amendment which will prove once more to the whole population of this country that the management of public affairs in Canada is only possible by following the policy of the Liberal party and by observing the principles which we have always recommended. We shall prove, Mr Speaker, that this country cannot be governed by coercion, intimidation nor threats, but that upon every troublesome question the government in power must have recourse to conciliation in order to have friendship between all nationalities and to maintain everlasting peace throughout this country.
As a member of His Majesty's loyal Opposition I am in duty bound to take a definite stand upon the question which is submitted to us and I have deemed it preferable, Mr. Speaker, to use my mother tongue so as to state exactly what I 'intend to do. When I remember that last week the hon. member from Yamaska made use of the English language, that at half past five in the afternoon he stated that he was not ready to vote and that at midnight that very evening, having heard the remarks of the hon. Minister of Public Works, his former professor of constitutional law at the Laval University, he declared, being cheered by the hon. members on the other side that he had formed his opinion and that he would vote in favour of the Bill, and specially, Mr. Speaker, when one remembers that two days later the hon. member complained that the English reporters had misunderstood him and that himself
had not understood what-he said because he had spoken English, it is the part of wisdom upon such a solemn occasion as this to use the language which is more familiar to us, and it is why I speak my mother tongue.
Now coming directly to the question, I declare, Mr. Speaker, that I am opposed to the Bill because it is incomplete, unfair, and that far from solving the question presented to us it tends to future litigation which is only liable to throw this country into a useless and even harmful agitation.
The amendment offered by the hon. member from Yamaska ib nothing but a bluff resorted to by the government members in order to make the population of Quebec believe that some French Canadian members propose to keep their pledges and to fulfill the promises they made to the electorate. According to me, Mr. Speaker, the amendment is but a useless duplicate in so far as it puts into the Manitoba Boundaries Act a section which is already found in our statutes and which shall govern the annexed territory as soon as it will be part of the province of Manitoba. No rights are given to the minority; no rights of the minority are sanctioned and I say that such an amendment cannot have the assent nor the approval of a member wishing to do complete and integral justice to all the interested parties.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: Has the hon. member himself a better amendment to offer?


Louis Joseph Gauthier: Before he left the Chair, the Speaker of the House-probably on account of his perfect knowledge of the French language-has settled a "point of order; he has stated that in this debate we must not wander away from the amendment offered by my hon. friend from Yamaska and if I understand the rules, the hon. member from Nicolet is not in order. We are now discussing the motion of the hon. member from Nicolet and as soon as the House will have settled the question, we shall be at liberty to submit a new one and I may be able then to enlighten my hon. friend from Nicolet.
When the hon. Minister of Public Works did reply to the right hon. leader of the Opposition, ne spoke quite forcibly; he even addressed bitter words to my right hon. friend. I would like to remind the House and the country that the hon. Minister of Public Works, although he tried to belittle his opponent hoping no doubt to raise himself, has forgotten to tell us whether he was or not in favour of the amendment which we are now discussing.
Mr. Speaker, if I intended to lie malicious I would say that it is strange that the hon. Minister of Public Works has not been called to order.
The remarks of the hon. Minister of Public Works, if they were not in order, were

nevertheless intended to justify his present stand in the opinion of his new friend, who is now his protector and who may be his tormentor to-morrow. The hon. minister knew quite well that in order to justify himself in the opinion of his nationalist leader he had to heap abuse upon the right lion, leader of the Opposition, being sure that if he abused Laurier, the hatred of Bourassa would be so well served that he would absolve the hon. Minister of Public Works of the surrender of his opinions which he had lately made.
For the last sixteen years, Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to meet the hon. Minister of Public Works upon the hustings; I have crossed swords with him in over fifty meetings. When I remember his impassioned appeals for the defence of the rights Of the minority, his burning sentences against the then prime minister who had betrayed the confidence of his fellow-countrymen and surrendered the rights of the minority in Canada and when I hear him to-night state upon the floor of the House that he never was guilty of what we charge him with, I am at a loss to understand how the hon. minister can have forgotten so soon his speeches, his promises and his pledges.
I understand that hon. minister of Public Works does not caTe much about the opinion I may entertain about him from a political point of view. But I was surprised to hear his statement as to the Catholic point of view. This defensor of the altar, this protector of the hierarchy, this uncompxomised champion of the Catholic religion said, last week, in his speech, that the Greenway-Sifton settlement, in 1897, was a final settlement. Has not Mr. Speaker, the Encyclical "affarivos" declared that the question of the Manitoba schools . was not finally settled. That it would be settled only when the Catholic minority would have received their integral rights? Now the hon. minister of Public Works, contrary to the dictations of the. Church, asserts that this question has been settled fifteen years ago. If the toon. Minister of Public Works is not excommunicated toy the young men of the "Association de la Jeunesse Catholique," and in every conclave of the Sacred Heart League toe will be lucky.
Before explaining the vote I will give in a moment, I would like to allude to some statements made by tihe hon. member for Chambly-Veroheres. The hon. member, stated that he was now a faithful follower of the government, and he speaks with disdain of his whole political acquaintances. I would like the hon. members to know that during the last electoral campaign, which was dosed on the 21st of September last, the hon. member for Chambly-Veroheres paid me a visit in the parish of Ste. Madeleine Mr. GAUTHIER (St. Hyaointhe).
and in the middle of the meeting, when he was speaking, he declared emphatically that he had kept in their integrity the true principles of the liberal party. Any one who heard the honourable member would have thought that he was really liberal, but that we of the liberal party toad abandoned all the principles of our party. We were nothing else but ministerialists and were fattened at the party manger.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have I well understood the hon. member When toe said that he was a liberal? This surprises me, because I think I met him at the Clsub Lafontaine.


Mir. LEMIEUX.: It was after a good supper, I .suppose.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: It was perhaps before going to bed.
When the hon. member for Chambly-Ver-chereS who is a ministerialist asserts, as he did to-night, that he has remained honest and that he has kept all his political virtue of the old times I feel it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to bow very low before him and tell him that I do not need myself his declaration (I know him too well), but he would do well to repeat it often, if he wants the public to believe it. If the hon. member desires to know all my mind, I will tell him that I doubt very much if he can keep his virtue in the surroundings in which he lives now.
The hon. member for Chambly-Veroheres has declared that on the ramparts of the opposition there was no flag. The hon. member, since he has gone to the ministerial' ranks, seems to have lost the sense oF sight. Let him look to this .side of the House and he will see that on our ramparts, to-day as yesterday and to-morrow as to-day flies and will fly the two flags of liberty and justice. Equal justice for all the classes, equal justice for all races and religions, liberty for every one; equal rights for all the provinces that is the programme of the Liberal party, that is the platform of our party. Following the prescriptions of my political leaders, and remaining faithful to the doctrine which I have always defended, I will vote against the bill and against the amendment.


Mr.   H.@: BOULAY (Rimouski) (translation.) Mr. Speaker, the county which I have the honour to represent has a population of 52,000 souls, of which 90 per cent are French-Canaldians. Bom and raised in a parish of the county of Rimouski, I need not say that I am truly Catholic and French. I came to this House to take part in the general business of any country, and also to vindicate the rights of the oppressed, and claimed justice for whom justice is due. I came here to tell to my compatriots of another origin that the fact of being French does not deprive us of the sense of justice

ail'd prevent us to resent injustice and insult from what ever side it comes. My first act in this House was to put right in the teeth of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) a flagrant injustice which he had made me in 1904 when he occupied a seat in this House as Minister of Railways and Canals, and I think I nobly fulfil my duty.
The French are polite, said to me yesterday in very good French the hon. member from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). Yes Frenchmen are polite tout just as much as they are polite, just as much they resent deeply any insult or injustice, and we consider that it is a crying injustice on the part of the province of Manitoba to try to oppress the Catholics and the French of that province because they are the minority.
We have a minority in the county of Ri-mouski, a Protestant and English minority who support two dissentient schools. We would never think of molesting them. On the contrary if any one would ever make that suggestion, 95 per cent of the French Canadian would rise to a man to protect them. Why would we not find the same spirit of equity amongst our English compatriots? Let us better know and respect each other. Let the English provinces do for the study of the French language what we have been' doing for the study of the English language in the province of Quebec, and we will very soon know and appreciate each other better. Let all men of good will put their efforts together to bring to an end this useless and nefarious campaign against - French schools and French teaching in cer tain parts of this country, and you will see very soon the most perfect harmony established between the different races' which compose our population.
Is there any reason in this war against the French language in Canada, when the sons of the mother country themselves, who desire to become business men and distinguished men, take pride and glory to learn French? For the last twenty years and more, our compatriots of Manitoba suffer from unjust laws, and their sufferings seem to be felt more by the province of Quebec than by those living in Manitoba. But I stop on these considerations.
I do not intend to waste the time of the House; but as the agitation upon this question is somewhat strong, I think I should explain the vote which I have given. First, if we vote with the hon. gentlemen opposite, will we have a better guarantee that the minority rights will be protected than if we vote with this side of the House? Secondly, will any amendment made to this Bill have any practical effect? That is the question which I will explain in a few words. If I look back in the history of this country, if I read all the debates of the House of Commons in March and April, 1896,
I find previous information as to the feelings of both parties engaged at that time in the discussion of the famous Manitoba question, this province having been always like a cannon ball tied to the Confederation ear.
What a delight to Tead the speeches of the valiant and generous heroes, such as Sir Hibbert Tupper who, on the 17th March, 1896, made in this House this memourable speech in which he shows Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier and the grand master of the Orange Order at that time, joining hands with this man of evil omen, Dalton McCarthy, in the unjust spoliation of the Catholic rights in Manitoba. Lashing in a masterly way the infamous conduct of these two fire brands, he said:
It is not, as has been truly remarked, a question of government and opposition, ' nor of Protestant or Catholic. It is one of constitutional action and equal rights. But members of the government and their supporters in this country claim great credit for the government's action in passing the order in council. The governments have, however, done only what they were bound to do under the constitution, and in obedience to the command of the highest judicial authority in the realm.
It is not, as has been rightly remarked, a question which interests more the government than the opposition, or the Protestant more than the Catholic, it is a question of constitutional law, and of general interest. That was the opinion of Sir Wilfrid Lauxier before he let himself to be fooled and seduced by the thirst of power, because I find the following words in a speech which he made in Winnipeg in 1894:
' Give me the proof that the grievances of the Roman Catholic minority are well founded, that their rights are violated; that instead of being able to send their children to schools where no religious teaching is given, they are forced to attend a school where the religious teaching is contrary to their beliefs, and I will be ready to go before the people of Manitoba to tell them that a school law which authorizes that state of things should not be kept on the statute-book.' And continuing his speech in quoting the words used by Her-schell in his judgment he said:
Let us compare the position which the Reman Catholic minority occupied before 1690, with the one they occupied since that act to which appeal is taken.
In making that comparison it does not seem ' possible to contend that the rights and privileges of the Catholic minority as to education. which existed before 1890, have not been affected.
As a matter of fact, the objections of the Roman Catholic minority to the schools which are alone aided by the state, in conformity with the law of 1890, lies in their conscience and are deep rooted. It is well

known that before 1870, acute differences of opinion about education existed between Catholic and Protestant. This fact is admitted in almost every line of the school laws enacted at that time. There is no doubt either about the nature of these opposed views, and it is in that- light that section 22 of the Manitoba Act of 1870, which was in reality a parliamentary pact must be interpreted.
As showing that the right hon. gentleman who 'leads the Opposition held at the time the same views as the government in 1896, I may 'quote an affidavit embodying an extract from a speech he delivered at Grande Rivi&re, county of Gaspe, on August 24, 1895:
Canada,
Province of Quebec,
County -and district of Gaspe.
We, the undersigned, citizens and electors for the Dominion Parliament, residing in the county of Gaspe aforesaid, solemnly declare :
That we were present at the meeting held by the electors of Gaspe at Grand River, on August 24, 1895, at which meeting the ho.n. Wilfrid Laurier, M.P., delivered a speech on the political issues of the day.
That such meeting comprised four or five hundred people, 90 per cent of whom were Roman Catholics, and among them a large number of Roman Catholic priest who were on a visit to Grand River. That in the course of his speech the hon. Mr. Laurier said among other things, why his hearers should not have faith in the then Dominion Government. He Claimed that the government would never submit to parliament a bill for the relief of the Catholic minority of Manitoba.
* That the hon. Mr. Laurier in support of his -plea for an enquiry into the facts connected with the Manitoba school difficulty, stated that as regards himself he did not need an enquiry, being satisfied in advance that the demands of the Catholic minority were legitimate and fair; but that such an enquiry would induce others who were not as yet so convinced that, in the school act of 1890 and amendments thereto, an injustice had been committed in regard to' the Catholic minority of Manitoba.
Following on so many statements of his views, how comes it that Sir Wilfrid Laurier so suddenly changed his mind? He gave in that instance the greatest exhibition of political inconsistency that ever was given by any man, and Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper brought it home to him in the following terms:
How could I expect-even if my experience of public life had been unexceptional-that a Roman Catholic leader would to-day be found lagging behind a Protestant leader in this House when it oome to vindicating the Tights of a minority and of a race which this Catholic leader had formerly defended, as I stated previously.
A little further on, speaking of the French Canadian race in this land of Can-


Mr. BOULAY.: ada, he exclaimed: ' I would be happy, he said, to see that million and a half of French Canadians increase three-fo'ld. I would be happy to see them increase to any extent, for I know what they are worth to the country. What I now say, I say it as a Protestant and a Canadian.' Such utterances are very different from those which were dealt out by the McCarthys end the O'Briens and the Sproules, utterances which were assented to by the hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and confirmed subsequently many a time by his own statements and dealings in 1905. It is only in the Conservative party that there is to he found feelings of loyalty, a spirit of toleration and fairness, noble sentiments, which Sir Wilfrid Laurier endeavoured so strenuously to defeat, and which he succeeded in defeating through the sinister obstruction he led against the carrying of the remedial bill, together with his allies, a number of Orangemen. However, it is after listening to these fine sentiments uttered by a Protestant that twenty-five of our compatriots of the province of Quebec, among whom I notice the name of Bourassa, had the heart to approve the Laurier amendment for the hoisting of the remedial bill on March 20, 1896. At that same sitting of March 17, McCarthy exclaimed,-repeating the words of Sifton, another persecutor of separate schools, another close friend of our great fellow-citizen, whom he will seek later on and make a cabinet minister as a reward for having inflicted such ill-treatment on our coinpatroits,-McCarthy exclaimed that . separate schools managed as they were in 1890 were utterly indefensible as regards the instruction they imparted, an unjustifiable reflection, for our schools compare advantageously with any others. And farther on, referring to the stand taken by the province of Quebec in regard to Protestant schools, he added:
The non-Catholics of Quebec have nothing to fear for themselves, in case Manitoba should maintain its stand in favour of public schools, for to apeak of reprisals on the part of the majority is absurd.
We are requested from every quarter to protect the rights of the minority in connection with the annexation of the territory of Keewatin. We are told that we should not follow in the footsteps of the traitors and wretches who did away with these rights in 1896 and 1905. It is all very well to -lay down principles; it is al'l very well to vindicate these courageously, vigorously, and better still to reap encomiums after falling on the battlefield, in the midst of the fray. But to distinguish one's self by such brilliant achievements, by such heroic deeds which lead to immortality, one must at least have the hope that they will ensure some practical result which will be of

actual advantage if not to the hero who sacrifices himself, at any rate to those who will come afterwards. Leonidas defending with his stalwarts the Thermop.ylae knew that he was courting certain death; but his country would be delivered thereby. Salaberry a.nd his men at Chateauguay were fighting under great disadvantages, and might well have been crushed by a much larger force, however, they retained some hope of winning the day. Cambronne at Waterloo answered back to the general who called on him to surrender, those historic words which are characteristic of that chivalrous French race of old, whose spirit still animates us, we the proud descendants of that gallant stock: ' Guardsmen may die, but surrender never.' Why should the French guardsmen who occupy seats in this House, why should that small phalanx of twenty Canadians be expected to accomplish what another French Canadian, with the support of fifty others, refused to do when the time had come to play the hero, and make sacrifices, and assert existing rights which had been confirmed by the highest court in the empire? Why should we be expected to do what a great Canadian supported by fifty others refused to do in 1905, while fortune was smiling upon him, and glory followed his flag and made the earth quake wherever it passed? Why should we be called upon to make such a sacrifice, when for fifteen consecutive years in the province of Quebec there has been a continuous round of applause for the great hero who was digging the grave wherein were buried all our fellow countrymen's rights to separate schools, and to the use of that French language which we learnt on our mother's lap and which has produced the finest literature known to the world?
Why should we be expected to protect rights which legal authorities declare to be non-existent, and which in any case are not interfered with by this Bill of they do exist?
In 1890, while Laurier was working hand in hand with McCarthy and other fanatics cf the same stripe, on this side of the House the Tuppers, the Northrups, the Hazens, the Fosters, the Haggarts and many others were defending the rights which it was still time to defend and safeguard.
But no, the French race will survive in spite of its oppressors; it has successfully pulled through the disasters of 1760 and the persecutions which have been its lot in the meantime, and the miserable dealings of Greenway will come to an end.
In 1896, I had faith in Laurier, a French Canadian and Catholic; I was confident at any rate that he would support by his vote and his eloquence the rights defended even by Protestants.
But no, his mongrel alliance with the twenty-four fanatics who still formed part of the conservative party, resulted in miserable obstructive tactics which prevented sanction being given to the remedial Bill, in spite of a message from His Grace Archbishop Langevin which read as follows: Bill workable, effective and satisfactory; I approve of it. All bishops and true Catholics should do the same. It means salvation. (Signed) Archbishop Langevin.
I shall now quote the following from the letter written by Rev. Father Lacomhe to Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
At this critioal period in connection with the Manitoba school question, allow an aged missionary, representing to-day the bishops of our country in this cause which interests all of us, to appeal to your faith, to your patriotism and to your spirit of fairness and to beg of you to comply with our request. It is in the name of our bishops, of the hierarchy and of the French Canadian Catholics, that we beg of your party, whose worthy leader you are, to help ns in obtaining a settlement [DOT]of this vexed question, and to settle it by voting with the government in favour of the remedial Bill. We are not asking yon to vote for the government, hut in favour of the measure which will restore to us our rights, and which will he submitted to the House in a few days, etc.
(Signed): A. LACOMBE,
OjM.I.
What shall we say of the stand taken by the leader of the opposition who refused to comply, who continued his agitation, the outcome of which was the defeat of the conservatives in 1896, but also the wiping out of the rights of our compatriots in the province of Manitoba?
With a political record such as the one I have described, should any reliance be put in the promises and policy of the liberal party? And are they making any promises? No, their party organs are making an onslaught, that is all. That is why I have' riot supported the Laurier amendment, and rightly so, as it was not serious.
^ Times have changed since the days when the two governments who are responsible for the passing and sanctioning of that unjust legislation of 1890 were holding the reins of power; both of them are now in their political grave. The distinguished gentleman who is now at the head of the Manitoba government is very well disposed, and we have every reason to depend on his faithfulness for which his record is sufficient pledge, while Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to deal with a fanatical government made up of his allies, and very badly inspired. Under such conditions failure was inevitable. Todhy, having dealt justly with Manitoba, having enlarged its frontiers, having granted the amounts request-

ed as subsidies, we expect from that province, not favours, but full and entire justice for our compatriots, and we shall be greatly disappointed if we fail in obtaining that.
I lay down as a principle that it is but fair that we should add that territory to this little province. After all, Keewatin is made a part of Manitoba with all her rights to the very act by which this province has been constituted, rights which have been trodden upon by Greenway's liberal government, but which still exist, having been ratified by the judgment of the Privy Council, and shall not cease to be claimed until they have been acknowledged'. Those same Tights exist for Keewatin and nothing but a new and nefarious legislation such as was adopted in 1890, could paralyse them if not absorb them and make them disappear. If this should happen, the same recourse to the federal parliament still exists as in 1896, for this territory, as it did exist for Manitoba, and were w<e even to add1 clauses after clauses in order to guarantee the rights to separate schools we would be doing no more than to pour ink upon paper, than to deliver a great many useless speeches if we are dealing with intransigent and unjust people.
But no. We expect something better on the part of Manitoba. The wave of intolerance that has dashed upon that province in 1890, stirred up as it was. by the friends of the leader of the opposition, is lulling from day to day. The example of justice and equity whicn is set constantly by the province of Quebec impassible though she has to face this profligacy of fanatism shall, at last, make our compatriots of a different language and creed understand that the time ot moral and religious slavery must be over;, that the Catholics and the French must be granted the full measure of liberty to which they are entitled in this land of Canada. Shall we, the sons of those valiant knigihts who have discovered' the plains of the West; shall we, the brothers of tnose missionaries who have shed their blood on this territory of Canada, keep waiting in vam for a glimpse of liberty? Loudly do we beseech the province of Manitoba to open her doors wide open and make us Dreathe, at last, that liberty, a glorious attribute of the British flag.
From that day only shau we have peace in our country. One may check, one may restrain the exercise of a right for a time, for a long time even, but one cannot make it perish when it rests upon the Eolid basis of justice and of equity. I would ask my English-speaking compatriots who represent all parts of Canada, to repeat these words Mr. BOULAY.
to their electors: The day when the French language would cease to be written and spoken in this part of America which is called Canada, that day would mark the destruction and the ruin of the British flag, for, as somebody has so well said it before me, the last shot that shall be fired for the preservation of this country in behalf of the British crown shall be, fired by a French Canadian.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Mondou.
YEAS:
Messieurs
Barrette,
Belaud,
Bellemare,
Boyer,
Delisle,
Demers,
Ethier,
Guilbault,
Lamarche,
Lapointe (Kamouraska)., Lapointe (Montreal, St. James),
McCoig,
Ma rci 1 (Bona venture), Michaud,
Molloy,
Mondou,
Murphy,
Papineau,
Paquet,
Power,
Proulx,
Seguin,
Sevigny and Tobin,-24.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Achim,
Alguire,
Ames,
Armstrong (Lamfot Armstrong (York, Arthurs,
Ball,
Barker,
Barnard,
Beattie,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Boivin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bourassa,
Bowman,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Brouillard,
Brown,
Buchanan,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Cardin,
Carroll,
Carvell,
Chabot,
Champagne,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Clare,
Clark (Bruce),
Clark (Red Deer),
Law,
Lemieux,
Lennox,
i),Lesperance,
'.), Lewis,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Macdonell,
Maclean (Halifax), Maclean (York, 0.), MacNutt,
McCraney,
McCrea,
McCurdy,
McKay,
McKenzie,
McLean (Queen's, P.E.I.),
McLean (Sunbury), Marcile (Bagot), M'artin (Montreal, Ste. Mary's), Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Morphy,
Munson,
Nantel,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Paul,
Pelletier,
Perley,

Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Coder re,
Crocket,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Ci uise,
Currie,
Davidson,
Devlin, t oherty,
Donnelly,
Douglas,
Elliot.
Elson,
Emmerson,
Fisher.
Fortier,
Foster (King's, N.S.), Foster (Toronto, N.), Fiipp,
Gauthier (Gaspe), Gauthier (St. Hyacinthe), Gauvreau,
Girard.
Goodeve,
Graham,
Hartt,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Hughes (King'6, P.E.I.),
Hughes (Victoria, 0.) Jameson,
Kemp,
Kidd,
Knowles.
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) LavalMe,
Porter,
Pugsley,
Rainville,
Reid (Grenville),
Reid (Restigouohe), Rhodes,
Robb,
Robidoux,
Roche,
Rogers,
Ross,
Schafiner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Sinclair,
Smith,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thompson (Yukon), Thomson (Qu'Appelle), 'Thornton,
Tremain,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Walker,
W allace,
Warnock,
W ebster,
Weichel,
White (Renfrew), White (Victoria,
Alta.),
Wilcox,
Wilson
(Wentworth) and Wright.-160.
Amendment (Mr. Mondou) negatived.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the question of extending the Manitoba boundaries is a very important one, and there is nothing strange in the fact that the measure now under consideration has given rise to a most interesting debate.
There could be and there is, in fact, no serious objection to extending the territory of Manitoba itself as far as the shores of Hudson bay. It is admitted by the whole population of this country that it is only fair and just that the territory of Manitoba should be extended; both political parties have given their entire adhesion to this project.
' Of course, the building of a railway up to Hudson's Bay, which has been resorted to as a new element for the solution of the transportation problem shall be of great help towards developing that region through industrial, agricultural and commercial channels. But while the proposition itself of annexing Keewatin to 'Manitoba meets
with no opposition, quite the reverse can be said of the conditions attached to the cession. Protests have been made in all parts of the country against the exorbitant advantages which Manitoba was granted from a financial point of view. The people of this country will hardly understand and will surely blame the decision arrived at by the cabinet as regards the payment of certain arrears. In fact, how is it possible to explain that a certain sum of $2,178,000 is paid to Manitoba as arrears? True it is that negotiations have been carried on more or less assiduously for a few years past, but they have been pushed to an end only of late, when Mr. Roblin, after a conference with his friends of the Borden government, left again for Winnipeg, crying out victory. And he had good reasons for crying out victory, owing to the guilty compliance and to the excessive generosity of the government, he had just been granted, besides Keewatin, a yearly increase of subsidy of about $516,000. Nay more-and this seems to be beyond all limits-the federal ministers count that subsidy from four years back, and at once, they pay over to Manitoba $2,178,000. Is it strange that protests are made and.they grow louder everywhere?
We claim that such preference, if it brings Mr. Roblin super-abundant joy, is unjust towards all the other provinces of the Dominion and that they will soon ask ito share in that god-send with the Manitoba lion.
On the other hand, astonishment and then indignation have seized upon groups which, up to this day had shown themselves in close sympathy with the cabinet, and particularly with the French Canadian ministers. In the province of Quebec a good many spheres of society are pervaded with astonishment and indignation. It is found strange that there is not in the Bill before the House about the Manitoba boundaries a clause regulating education in the territory which is being annexed. They feel indignant when thinking that the so-called knights without fear or reproach who they were formerly, even up to yesterday, the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel), would have flinched, would have failed to their word, would have been so weak, in short, as to violate their solemn pledges of last election.
For my part, having been for fifteen years the constant witness of all the plots and denunciations of those ministers, I readily understand if I do not share entirely the indignation of the sincere and honest people who, in certain quarters, raised their admiration to the point of adulation. Yes, I understand it especially well when I con-

sider the admission of importance which they have just made to the House with so oratorical precautions and endless quotations of statutes more or less contradictory. I understand it and I explain it to myself when I remember the appeals made to prejudice by the Conservative party, especially at the time the Manitoba school question was settled, in 1896. We remember that in 1896 and in 1898, the party under the direction of the right, hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads the opposition to-day was exposed to the attacks of those who, to-day hold portfolios in the Borden administration, and of Mr. Bergeron who, at that time, occupied an eminent position in his party.
What did those devoted champions of integral right in educational matters then pretend? They said that the rights of Catholics in school matters had been sacrificed by the Laurier government in the Manitoba school settlement. It was then that Mr. Bergeron discovered that sir Wilfrid Laurier was not Catholic enough and that there had been no Manitoba school settlement. Strange to say, Mr. Bourassa, far from approving of the stand thus taken, thought that Mr. Bergeron was too Catholic and when naming Mr. Bergeron, I also include those who were then his followers in the federal arena, Messrs. Monk, Pelletier and Nantel.
Would the House kindly accompany me for a moment while I go through the parliamentary debates of 1908? At a certain moment, Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Bourassa join issue on the school settlement and in order not to trespass upon the indulgence of this House by dwelling too long on a worn out topic, let me quote the very words uttered by the member for Labelle, such as reported in ' Hansard ' of that year. About the Laurier-Greenway school settlement, Mr. Bourassa said:
' When they came into power, the Laurier government had to deal with that ticklish question so as to give substantial justice to all parties, without deceiving anybody, and that is what they did. I do not wish to stir up past quarrels.'
Let me tell you here, Mr. Speaker, how all friends of peace and harmony in this country admired those words in 1898. Air Bourassa was brought to book by the very men who now seem to be slumbering in the delights of power. The hon. the Postmaster General above all, then stormed in the Province of Quebec against what he called Sir Wilfrid's shameful capitulation.
Is it to be wondered at if the hon. the Minister of Public Works, the Postmaster General and the Minister of Inland Revenue should reap the storm in the verv province where they have sown the wind of prejudices and passions?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not want to take up to no purpose the time of this House by going into all the details of the charges and accusations and denunciations piled up on the head of the venerable leader of the Liberal party during the elections of 1900 and 1904, in connection with this same Manitoba school question.
But it was in 1905; when the two provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were created that the rage of the gentlemen who now occupy the treasury branches reached its paroxysm. Language, creed, race, everything was offered up in sacrifice to the ogre of Orangeism. The hon. gentlemen who then occupied seats in this House still have a vivid recollection of the phillipics delivered by the conservative members a" well as of the nebulous harangue of the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Alonk). What is most to be wondered at is that the hon. gentleman denounced the government because they had yielded on clause 16 No. 1, and yet, he confessed, during the debate, that the text substituted to that clause was clearer more explicit and therefore more favourable to the minority.
On the 23rd Alarch, 1905, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is reported (page 3193 'Hansard') as follows:
So, I do not see in the last enactment that there is any concession-very far from it. I think the last amendment goes perhaps ft little farther than the original enactment which caused so much excitement, because it defines more clearly what the privileges of the separate schools are. They were not defined at all in the original enactment. It defines them by the reference to the chapters of the Northwest Ordinances where they are fully explained, so that it defines more clearly these privileges, and it may he argued that it secures to the separate schools the right of religious instruction.
Here we have the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) giving the preference to the substituted text over the former clause. And yet he contrives to denounce the Laurier govern, ment, because the measure of school privileges dealt out to the two new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan was not deemed adequate. As a result there was a wide-spread agitation throughout the province of Quebec and Mr. Monk was everywhere acclaimed as the champion of Catholic rights. Let us pass over the elections of 1908 in order to reach those of 1910 and 1911.
Twice in 1910 and quite recently in 1911, at the beginning of this session, did the hon. the Minister of Public Works charge the right hon. the leader of the opposition with having sacrificed the rights of his coreligionists during the last fifteen years. He has upon each occasion, maintained

that on account of his so-called weaknesses, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had forfeited the confidence of his co-religionists.
Now what is the present situation?
Hardly have six months elapsed and events have just sided with the right hon. gentleman so bitterly denounced by the hon. minister. The system of compromise and conciliation so bitterly denounced has become the watch-word of the new minister.
Formerly, in imitation of the American patriot, Patrick Henry, the hon. gentleman and his French Canadian colleagues used to exclaim while appealing to us:
' You may accept fetters, if you like, as for us, we say: Freedom or Death! ' But they have somewhat altered the libretto; and now they sing in chorus, 'ddlcissimo''; 'O school freedom, thou art but a name!' Let us confine ourselves to the sweets of office".
If that is what the ministers say ' sotto voce ', in a whisper, what do they say, when speaking aloud before parliament?
As a matter of fact, the question before the House provides for the annexation of Keewatin to Manitoba and in that Bill you cannot find a single clause defining the privileges of the minority in educational matters. Every one is wondering and asking how the hon. the Minister of Public Works and his three Catholdc colleagues in the Borden cabinet could explain away the absence of that clause.
However amazing it may appear, the hon. the Minister of Public Works, says that there is no school rights in Keewatin and I shall by and by give a few extracts from his speech.
As to the hon. the Postmaster General, in a great display of oratory, he has found out that practically there are no Catholics in Keewatin, a handful at most; that, should there happen to be any Catholics there, they have no vested educational rights, and finally supposing that they had rights they have never asserted those rights.
As will be seen, he dismisses quite un-cermoniously the claims of their friends who so faithfully supported them at the last election.
The hon. the Minister of Justice thinks that he would be very foolish, were he to jeopardize the fat important portfolio which he is now holding, and the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue, (Mr. Nantel), not unlike the fourth officer in the famous burial of Malborough, simply keeps mum.
Would you like to know what has resulted from the painful partition of the hon. Minister of Public Works, in connection with school matters, on this Manitoba Boundaries Extension Act?
In the first place, a denial of all the rights of the minority.
Let us listen to the Minister of Public Works, (page 4630, unrevised ' Hansard '):
The provision is reproduced in the statutes of 1896, hut it never was in any way enforced in the district of Keewatin. This Act of 1875 never applied to the district of Keewatin in any way.
And further on (page 4638)
I have said to the House that in my estimation there are, in this territory, no vested rights, no substantial rights acquired under any legislation.
And further on again, page 4641, answering a question which he had been asked by the hon. gentleman from Two-Mountains fiMr. Ethier), with regard to the vested rights

The difference is this, that the rights of the Hudson Bay Company are purely proprietary rights, os to which there is no doubt whatever, and in transferring this territory, we are obliged to provide for those proprietary rights. I do not think there are any vested educational rights, but if there were any, the only way in which they could be protected, if the transfer is to take place, is under the educational clause 22 of the Manitoba Act, which we cannot change or vary in any way.
Again, page 4632 replying to this question of the right hon. the leader of the opposition! Sir Wilfrid' Laurier): Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that there are no such rights?"


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am certainly of opinion, and have endeavoured to show, that there are no rights of any kind existing.
At last, page 4637:
Then, there were no vested rights of any kind in Keewatin territory, and there are at present no vested rights, nothing substantial in the way of legal or acquired rights in the territory with which we are dealing.
At all events, in the course of his remarks, the hon. Minister of Public Works intimates that the minority would have a shadow of vested rights had ordinances been passed with respect to education. It is true that no ordinance was passed by the commissioned: in council, and on the ground that if there is a commissioner, there is no council.
But the hon. minister informs us that an application from a Catholic bishop had been forwarded to this government with a view to obtaining the appointment of a council which would be authorized, with the commissioner, to pass the ordinances asked for by that bishop and his flock. That demand was not granted and the consequence was that, in the opinion of the hon. minister, the minority has no vested rights.

But who is responsible for this application being denied? The hon. Minister of Public Works, the hon, Postmaster General and the government. It would be of no avail to plead extenuating circumstances.
In this connection the hon. Postmaster General has taken a stand for which he will be severely blamed. He said :
As far as we are concerned I may say that we received a similar request sometime in December last. Those who made that demand were not desirous enough that it should he granted to take the trouble of speaking about it for even five minutes with any of the four Catholic members of this government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how can the hon. the Postmaster General reasonably expect that Mgr. Charlebois or the petitioners will travel 1,600 miles to confer with him? The venerable, bishop sent in his petition -or that of his flock and I am convinced that he did not consider it necessary to undertake a 1,600 mile journey to make the acquaintance of the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) however interesting he may be.
The main point is that the Catholics' petition was ignored.
Whatever may be the opinion expressed by Catholic ministers in the cabinet, whether or not a study of the statutes reveals the clear and undeniable rights of minorities in Keewatin to separate schools, whether or not ordinances were enacted, it none the less remains to be considered whether or not it is opportunte to insert in this Bill a clause defining the status of minorities in annexed territories in educational matters.
In my humble opinion, any provision of that nature, if not accepted beforehand by the government of Manitoba, will be of no effect.
We would probably in any case obtain no better result than that of 1896, at which time the minority obtained recognition of their grievances as against the spoliation measure of 1890, at which time Sir Wilfrid Laurier solved the Manitoba schools difficulty in the only possible and reasonable manner, as admitted by Mr. Bourassa himself.
Have we not in this incident of 1870 the absolute proof that a federal statute however clear may be set at nought by a province? The Manitoba Act (art. 22) secured to Catholics the right to separate schools. The provincial government utterly neglecting this explicit provision, enacted legislation abolishing the separate school system in Manitoba and that law was declared to be constitutional by the highest court of the empire.
Of what value, therefore, is the contention that the only way of securing the school privileges of the minority is to in-Mr. BELAND
sert in the Bill an imperative provision to that effect. For my part, I can perceive but one way of meeting the difficulty now facing us. That means is entirely at the disposal of the government.
Let us first of all take up the British North America Act of 1871, section 3, and then place face to face the two governments concerned in the annexation of Keewatin to Manitoba, and it will be possible to settle the difficulty without firing the train. Let us first of all read clause 3 of the Constitutional Act of 1871:
3. The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
The annexation of any territory to a province is the result of an agreement between the federal government and that of the province interested.
In that agreement are to be found the terms and conditions as finally accepted and stipulated by both parties.
On examining the conditions of the agreement between the governments of Canada and Manitoba with respect to the annexation of Keewatin, I find that the limits of the territory have been defined and that this definition has apparently been accepted by both parties.
It has, I see, been stipulated that certain sums of money shall be paid as arrears and afterwards annually by the federal government to Manitoba, which arrangement also seems to have been agreeable to both parties.
I note also that the vested rights of the Hudson's Bay Company are to be respected, and many other things besides. All of these matters have been arranged by means of conferences.
The Roblin government is friendly towards the Borden government. Would it not have been possible had they taken the trouble for the Catholic ministers in the cabinet to obtain by agreement and with the consent of both parties, the insertion of a clause securing the privileges required by the minority?
This has been done, and I submit to the House that it is the great mistake made by the government. Every attempt to insert any such clause against the will of Manitoba must fail.
The other day my hon. friend from Pie-tou (Mr. Macdonald) put the following question to the Minister of Public Works:
' Has the hon. Minister (Mr. Monk) any

assurance or promise that anything will be done?'
This was with reference to school privileges.
And the minister answered: ' Absolutely none.'
It was clearly the duty of the ministers to insist upon the acceptance of such conditions as appeared essential to the protection of minorities. It [DOT] is not yet too late to do so. Delay the third reading of the Bill and re-open negotiations with Manitoba. You will secure these conditions, you will insert them in the Bill and we shall enact the law containing them. This difficult question can be settled by conciliation only. It may be settled in a satisfactory manner if the Catholic ministers will but display the courage, energy and determination which the people have a right to expect from them.
The Liberal party has always favoured methods of conciliation. Liberals have always refused to resort to coercion measures, because although these may appear more brilliant and in some cases appeal to certain classes, they cannot fail in the end to lead to serious difficulties and even to disastrous results.
But extremists of all shades, who in the absence of a text in support of their contentions, never fail to appeal to the constitution; what are these men doing with the constitution to-day?
They set it aside and they remain in hiding behind a rampart of some twenty statutes; a very fragile one for ail are more or less contradictory, and the fabric, therefore, may easily be overthrown by the slightest wind of public indignation.
In the name of the Catholic population of Keewatin, of Manitoba, and of other provinces of the Canadian confederation; in the interest of peace and harmony between the citizens of this country, I call upon the government not to insist to-day upon the third reading of the Bill. I call upon them to delay it for some time, for one month perhaps, to take up once more negotiations with the government of Manitoba for the purpose of prevailing upon that province to accept of their own volition, as a condition of the annexation of Keewatin, such educational privileges as shall be acceptable to the minorities and concerning which the effect of existing laws may be doubtful.
I have no doubt whatever that such a move would give excellent results, nay I will go further and say that by a step of this kind alone can minority privileges be recognized and protected, because their recognition will be based upon conciliation and an agreement freely consented to by both parties.
Should the government refuse to meet this just demand, should they persist in 157
using their majority to force through the third reading, then they implicitly admit that they hold as of no account the wishes of the majority of citizens in this great country and that they are ready to trample under foot the solemn promises made before the electoral body.
I have the honour to propose that this Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be resolved:
' That this House is of opinion that negotiations should be re-opened with the government of Manitoba in order to define by amicable conferences the status of minorities, either Protestant or Catholic, with regard io education in the light of existing laws in the annexed territory.'


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of the Interior).: I could well understand my hon. friend from Yamaska (Mr. Mondou) and my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) approaching the discussion of this delicate question from the point of view of their own conscientious conviction and therefore I am only too pleased to consider the views of those hon. gentlemen with feelings of the most profound respect and consideration. But, Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend (Mr. Beland) moves that the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to committee, and that we hold a further conference with the government of Manitoba, I say that we cannot even consider the acceptance of this amendment, and I am surprised that my hon. friend who was a member of the late administration during its last days should suggest any such course. The late government on the 22nd of February, 1909, transmitted for the consideration of the government of Manitoba a Bill by which the right hon. gentleman proposed to settle the question which this parliament is now being asked to settle, by giving the present Bill a third reading to-night. In connection with the measure presented to the government of Manitoba, the leader of the opposition did not invite then, and I do not believe he will invite now, any such conference as that proposed by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. Let me read the Bill to which I refer and the letter from the right hon. gentleman which accompanied it. The letter is as follows:
Ottawa, 26th Feb., 1909.
Dear Mr. RobJin,-
I have the honour to enclose the draft of a Bill for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. This Bill is on the line of the resolutions adopted by the House of Commons at its last session. The amount of the allowance to be paid to the province in lieu of lands, has been left in *blank. According to the aforesaid reeolu-



tion of the House of Commons, this amount should he fixed iby negotiation between tho Dominion government and the government of the province.
We will be happy to confer with you at any time that may be convenient to yourself and your government.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) WILFRID LAHRIER,
Now I will read the draft of the Bill referred to:
An Act to provide for an increase of the limits of the province of Manitoba.
Whereas a petition has been presented to the House of Commons on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Manitoba praying, amongst other things for an extension of the boundaries of that province northward and eastward and for an additional subsidy to the province in lieu of the ownership of the public lands in the territory to be added to the province by such extension, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of such petition to the extent and in the manner provided in the enactments hereinafter contained; therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	Upon the legislature of the province of Manitoba consenting thereto, the limits of the said province shall be increased so that the northern boundary of the province shall be the sixtieth parallel of north latitude; the western boundary shall be the present eastern boundary of the province of Saskatchewan; the eastern boundary shall be the present eastern boundary of the province to the northeast corner thereof, thence in a straight line to the most easterly point of Island lake and thence in -a straight line to the point where the eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the shore line of Hudson bay, thence following the said shore line 'to its intersection with the sixtieth parallel;
2.	And whereas in accordance, with the provisions of the Act establishing the province of Manitoba ithe ungranbed lands of the Crown in the territory so to be added to the said province will continue to be administered by the government of Canada foT the purposes of Canada and the province will not have such lands as a source of revenue, it is further enacted that there shall be paid by Canada to the province an increased allowance by money payment to an amount of
The amendment was left blank.
3.	This Act shall come into force upon a date to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon. mover of the amendment if he can find one syllable in this Bill that would justify this amendment. Not only was this Bill forwarded to the Premier of Manitoba, but immediately on its receipt a delegation was appointed by the government of the province to come to Ottawa and take up the question of the conference as suggested in Mr. ROGERS.
the letter of the leader of the opposition, and I was honoured by being invited to become one of that delegation. We came to Ottawa and sat in conference for several hours, upon the second and third of the following month, I think, and we discussed everything connected with the settlement of this question, save and except the matter which my hon. friend (Mr. Beland) has brought to the attention of the House tonight. If hon. gentlemen opposite had any idea of asking Manitoba to take any such action as they are suggesting to-night by this amendment, that was the time and that was the place to have made the rerequest. But they did not do so, and therefore, I claim they have no right to urge any such proposition now, because the record of the government of Manitoba does not warrant that course. The government and the people of Manitoba are naturally very sensitive with respect to their position upon this question, because for many long years, they have suffered, as no province in Canada lias suffered, owing to outside interference, and especially the interference of the right hon. gentleman, who leads the opposition. That hon. gentleman told us to-night that he had undertaken to effect a settlement with Manitoba in the year 1907 of which he was proud and satisfied. I want to tell him that that settlement has not satisfied any citizen within the borders of Manitoba, be he Protestant or be he Roman Catholic. That settlement has kept this question as a live and a burning issue before the people of the province. Is the Manitoba government which came into power two years after the so-called settlement had been enacted, entitled to be asked to come down and confer upon the question as suggested in this amendment? I say that the actions of that government have not been such as would justify this House in passing this amendment. I will say further, that during the ten or eleven years that I occupied a position in the Manitoba government we never failed in our duty to endeavour to carry out in the most generous, the most fair, and the most liberal manner, the Act complained of, which was placed on our statute book through the interference of the leader of the opposition, and which is doing an injustice to the people of Manitoba.
During the last eight or nine years, the leader of the government in Manitoba and the members of that administration have been accused time and time again by their opponents of being too generous in their interpretation of the law in regard to the minority of that province. And never upon any occasion, to my knowledge, did that government apologize for that generosity or for the broad spirit in which they administered that law to the advantage and comfort, so far as they possibly could, of the

minority of the province of Manitoba. And, so long as I occupy a position in the public life of this country, I do not propose to be either afraid or ashamed to acknowledge my spirit of fairness and justice in all respects to the minority. And in making this statement I feel I represent the views, the broad spirit and generosity, which exists in the province of Manitoba alike with Roman Catholics and Protestants of all classes. My right hon. friend the leader of the government (Mr. Borden) the other night, told us _ about the splendid spirit that existed in the province of Nova Scotia. I wish to tell my right hon. friend and the members of this House that in no province of Canada can you find a better spirit existing as between the two great races of our country than exists to-day in the province of Manitoba. And I say that it would be a sad day when that good feeling now existing there should be interfered with by such an amendment as the one proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Beland). In that province the people are desirous of going on as they have gome on in the past, in harmony and good fellowship one with the other. And if this parliament takes no action such as that suggested by my hon. friend, I have every confidence in the generosity and in the fair-mindedness of the people in that, province, irrespective of race, creed or nationality, and I am sure that they will do everything in their power to settle the affairs of their province on the lines best calculated to promote good feeling. They will follow a course that will be acceptable to all. And I am sure that if Manitoba is left free to take its own course, the result will be just, fair and reasonable, and will carry satisfaction to all who are interested in the maintenance of harmony and in the settlement of this great question.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the final act of the farce which the government has just played, and having for its subject the Manitoba boundaries question.
Before it is all over, before the voice of the Ontario Tories has drowned the protests of the minority, sacrificed by those who had sworn to protect it, before the French-speaking ministers have been for the last time sat upon by their Ontario colleagues, before the Nationalist majority in this House repudiate once more their leaders, Armand Lavergne and Henri Bourassa, I deem it my duty to define the stand which I propose to take on this question and to give my opinion regarding the men who were entrusted with the duty of defending the minority previously referred to by me.
I wish to point out the manner in which they have deported themselves in regard to this question. I shall not discuss the prin-,1574
ciple of the Bill, which I approve as regards the location of the proposed boundaries. The financial question in connection with the money grants has been discussed by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and particularly in the shape of amendments which have been negatived by the government supporters.
I cannot imagine what has induced the government to increase the grant to the province of Manitoba, contrarily to the principles embodied in the constitution, thereby ignoring the just claims of the maritime provinces, particularly of the provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, in respect to the Dominion subsidies. Why grant to Manitoba an amount of subsidies out of proportion with her population, as compared wtih the other provinces of the Dominion? Moreover, why grant over two millions to Manitoba in the shape of so-called arrears dating back to 1908, though in the meantime the province of Manitoba did not spend a single cent of her own moneys in the interest of the district of Keewatin and for its benefit, said district having always been up to this day administered at the expense of the Dominion parliament?
Should we consider it as a gift which this government is making to- Mr. Roblin, in view of the Manitoba local elections which, it is rumoured, are to take place shortly? Or should we consider it as a leaven to entice the electors into voting for the Roblin government, in the hope that thereby the minority might be granted some special favours in connection with the school difficulties, as suggested by the Postmaster General in his last speech?
But enough has been said in regard to this financial question which, to my mind, is of secondary importance; I wish to deal more particularly with that aspect of the question in which we are most interested, not only we of the province of Quebec, but all members of the minority in this gTeat Dominion, I mean the school question in the territory of Keewatin, which is to be annexed to the old province of Manitoba.
After listening to the explanations given by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) and the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), and even the hon. Minister of Justice, all representing the rights of the minority, I had reason to believe that the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel) would rise in his seat to protest against the stand taken by his colleagues, comparing his present stand with his past utterances. I was anxious to know what his views were since he accepted the portfolio of Minister of Inland Revenue. But I see that he has not as yet opened his mouth, and will not do so; to express the feelings of indignation which should fill his heart

under these circumstances. His views remain ' inland ' in the same way as his portfolio. Silence characterises him since he lias become a minister. However, he was able to speak out previous to September 21, previous to his having a taste of office, of its delights and advantages.
He was still able to speak out when, at St. SchoJastique, on June 24 last (1911), in company with the leader of the hon. Postmaster General and his own Mr. Ar-mand Lavergne, together with Jules Fournier and Jean Prevost, he applauded Mr. Lavergne's spech, and especially the following words uttered before the electors of Two Mountains and Terrebonne: ' See what is going on in our midst, in Manitoba, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, our religious and national franchises have been sacrificed while we were dozing.'-I imagine it was the hon. Minister of Public Works who was dozing-and, allowing the Lauriers and the Brodeurs to secure honours while losing honour. On this (feast of St. John Baptist, reflect that we have been guilty of such remissness.
On that occasion he applauded the above statements made by Mr. Lavergne, his leader, adding that, if he was elected, and the Conservative party returned to power, he would restore the Separate schools as they were previous to 1890. I know it for a fact, being present at the meeting. The same statement was made at St. Therese de Blainville, in the county of Terrebonne, on September 18th last, three days before polling day'. Mr. Nantel applauded at the time and opened his mouth to exclaim:
' Shame, shame on these traitors! ' But since September 21, he as well as his colleagues, and his colleagues as well as himself, even the hon. Minister of Justice- who, between us, is not content with his salary of Minister of Justice, but retains his pension as former judge-suddenly changed their minds, and like the hon. Minister of Public Works, they said to themselves:
' We are here and you are there,' which means: 'We are in the manger, let us gorge ourselves.'
Subsequent to 1896, the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue stated in the county of Terrebonne and throughout the district, on every public platform, that the Manitoba school question was not settled. In this regard, he is contradicted by the hon. Minister of Public Works, who has just stated, what he had already stated in his former speech, that he had never raised the Manitoba question in public or in this House, in the course of the last fifteen years, as he considered it finally disposed of. At the public meeting of St. Eustache, on July 17, 1910, the Minister of Public Works, while denouncing what he .thought fit to designate as the damnable Navy Act, pledged himself at the same time to re-Mr. ETHIER.-
store the Manitoba schools, and that, with the support of his colleague the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue and of the Nationalist candidate in Two Mountains, Mr. Andre Fauteaux. Such are the pledges given in the province of Quebec.
The hon. Minister of Public Works has certainly not forgotten the statements he made in this House on March 29, 1897, when giving his appreciation of the then Laurier-Greenway agreement, he said: ' I contend that the so-called concessions referred to are worthless.' I consider that the concessions made by the Manitoba government to the Dominion government are paltry and stingy. They are far from being generous. That settlement is a bluff, a gold brick, which will not satisfy any one.
And I affirm that from that date up to the 21st of last September, the hon. Minister of Public Works had the same language during the elections of 1900, 1903, during the by-elections that took place in Two Mountains and Terrebonne; in 1904, 1908 and 1911. He has changed his opinion, but from the day he has become the holder of a minister's portfolio. In order to please the Tory majority of Ontario he has disavowed his past and his programme, he was ashamed of them. And he comes and tells us, with a shocking impudence: The settlement of the school question I have condemned, blamed and censured for fifteen years, but I now approve of it and it is the most effective which could be thought of, under the circumstances.
Those good, faithful and patriotic ministers think of nothing else but drawing their salary, and I have no doubt that the first people to put up an appearance at the accountant's office and to ask for their cheque every month muist be those ministers, those three hirelings who follow in the wake of the Ontario Tory tribe.
The hon. Minister of Public Works has told us that he had not the mania of resignation. That is obvious. He prefers to cling to power in spite of all justice, even in spite of all political decorum.
But let us walk into the Post Office Department. Who is the leader of that department? The hon. L. P. Pelletier. The position he has taken in this debate could be no surprise to any one who knows him; it does not astonish those who have followed his political career for the last twenty-five years. The hon. member for Rouville has portrayed the hon. minister by quoting an extract of his biography which appeared in ' La Croix,' a Catholic newspaper of Montreal and a Conservative newspaper at the. same time. _ What did that paper say about the ministers coming from the province of Quebec, in its edition of the second day of last March? I quote textually. Speaking of the Kee-

watin schools and of the Bill now before us, ' La Croix ' said:
As to the rights of the Catholics of that ter ritor.y to their schools, not a word, not even an allusion.	,
The Borden government ignores them. To his mind they amount to nothing, they do not exist. However, he did not forget to consecrate toy a special clause all the privileges now enjoyed by the Hudson's Bay Company.
If this is not an iniquity perpetrated intentionally, there is no such thing as iniquity.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to interrupt my quotation at .this point and to make a digression about the clause benefiting the Hudson's Bay Company in this Bill. If you remember, Mr. Speaker, upon the second reading of the Bill enacting by clause 7 that the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company should be protected, I asked the hon. Minister of Public Works why the government protected especially the rights of the company and ignored those of the minority, and the hon. Minister of Public Works answered me that clause 7 protected _ the proprietary rights onlly and those rights must be mentioned in the Bill. Now, from the very opening of the present sitting, the right hon. Prime Minister has given notice and has had the said clause 7 crossed out, alleging that it was useless, and this, notwithstanding the opinion of a professor of constitutional law at a certain university of Montreal, the Hon. Mr. Monk, who, in answer to my question, had said the contrary.
In face of this official denial by the Prime Minister as to the opinion of his colleague the Minister of Public Works on a legal question like this, I am not surprised to see that his pupil, the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou), has changed his own opinion of the value and merit of the hon. minister's knowledge as far as constitutional law is concerned.	.
And if his opinion as to the existence of the rights of the minority in the Keewatin district is as doubtful as that which he expressed with respect to the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company and to the necessity of protecting them in this Bill, it is not worth more in the one case than in the other, and I am surprised that his own pupils, even the member for Yamaska, do desert him.
But I shall leave this aside, and come hack to the hon. Postmaster General, and I shall go on making the House acquainted with the sayings of ' La Oroix,' which I was quoting.	[DOT]
Speaking of the present government, this newspaper says further:
They are in power, they have authority, they also have strength; nothing prevents them from acting, their is no obstacle in their way, and still what are they doing?
Impassive like a hangman who has lost all human sentiments, they abandon the Catholics of Keewatin to the torture of neutral schools.
What shall the ministers: Mr. Monk, Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Nantel do?
Shall they throw their portfolios on the table of their chief if he persists in leaving ont of this Bill a clause to the effect of acknowledging the rights of the Catholics of Keewatin to their schools? Have they even insisted on that point, so far? We know nothing of it as yet. The events which are going to occur at the Commons will tell ns.
But from a Pelletier especially, we expect nothing good, nothing manly.
That soul of a politician bent under the yoke of personal interest is nothing good in our estimation.
To resist the craft and the hatred of the lodges, one must not be but a cunning lawyer, he must have a will inclined to do good, a soul which has stood the test of sacrifice, a generous heart, fixed principles; and Mr. Pelletier is devoid of all that.
Oh, I know that the Postmaster General has declared this newspaper to be unworthy of respect. However, when it sang the oraises of these gentlemen previous to the 21st day of last September, and when it abused the right hon. leader of the opposition, it was read with satisfaction. But if this newspaper has ever struck the right note it has certainly done so when speaking of the Postmaster General as it did.
I say that the French ministers follow in the wake of the Tory majority-of Ontario; that it is the voice of Ontario which commands, and I shall quote as ground for such assertion, an impudent article of the * Citizen,' a government organ published in this city. That article appeared this morning, March 12, and here is an extract of it which is very expressive :
Hon. Mr. Borden's government was not affected either by Quebec as a province or by Mr. Bourassa, and possibly the sooner this basic fact is emphasized, the sooner the people of Canada will cease to have their parliamentary business unnecessarily meddled with. In the days of the Laurier government, which lived and moved and had its being by leave of Quebec province, as that province was then represented in parliament, necessarily everything that Quebec thought or felt or said had to receive that attention which is due to a force which can make or unmake a premier. Times have changed. The people of Canada, as a whole, have elected the Borden government with a working majority quite irrespective of the province of Quebec.
And the French ministers keep silent, they swallow this insult without wincing. Did not the Prime Minister himseH say at Toronto, the day after the election which took place on the 21st of September fast, that Ontario haid made heT powerful voice heard? The rights of the minority are being trodden upon, and the hon. Minister of Public Works comes and tells ns that this minority has no rights. It is not strange.

for the hon. Prime Minister himself stated on the very first reading of the Bill, that there were doubts as to the existence or the non-existence of rights in behalf of the minority in Keewatin. If there is a doubt, why then refuse the benefit of it to the minority? Twenty-four members have declared, by their vote, that they claimed the benefit of that doubt in favour of the minority by means of an amendment which was proposed and rejected.
But I bow down to this denial on the part of the majority, because it consecrates for ever the legal right of such majority. They have taken away from us the right which we believed, in good faith, we should claim.	j
Why now does the House refuse to hold out to the minority a sheet-anchor, the last of all, in order to protect their rights, or at least a scrap of those rights, by rejecting the amendment which has been proooscd by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Be-land)?
Why is it that the government and the Prime Minister, who has some doubts, should not agree to submit this question to some expert and disinterested parties, to some distinguished lawyers, to the Supreme Court, for instance, and to the Privy Council if need be?
By the amendment which the hon. member for Beauce has proposed, the government could secure an honourable arrangement with respect to this question. But no, an important question like this breeds hesitation. If some poor employees must be beheaded though not guilty of anything else than being Liberals, then there is no hesitation and the guillotine works regularly.
Now, let us proceed by an analogy. Has the government shown any energy at ail in the case of the Bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) concerning the Ne Temere decree on marriages in the province of Quebec? If the government has deemed it proper to refer this question to the Supreme Court and even to the Privy Council if need be and this notwithstanding the opinion of the honourable Minister of Justice and of the Prime Minister himself-which opinion has been corroborated by the exMinister of Justice and by Sir Wilfrid-why, on such an important question as the rights of the minority of Keewatin, why not accede to a request of that kind and submit the question to the same judicial authorities, so as to make it a test case? No, Mr. Speaker, the voice of Quebec rules no more, the Tory voice of Ontario is the one which now rules, and as Mr. Bourassa, their past chief, would say, our ministers from Quebec follow those who take them to pasture like sheep. I believe that this latter is sincere because he maintains the posi-Mr. ETHIER.
tion lie has taken with the five other Nationalists whom he got elected, and w-ho have voted in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition on the second reading of the Bill.
I shall not address the House any longer on that question. May I be permitted, however, to add that, in my humble opinion, the idea which has always prevailed with the fathers of confederation from the first, and with the Canadian statesmen who have succeeded one another from Sir John Macdonald up to the present time was: Protection to the mindrity and equal justice to all minorities in the different provinces which compose this vast Dominion? One has only to study the British North America Act of 1867, the laws concerning the admission of the Northwest Territories and of Rupert's Land into confederation, the Territories Act of 1875, the Keewatin Act of 1876, and last, chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes of Canada (1906), to convince one's self that my pretension is well founded in law, whatever the hon. Minister of Public Works may say or think contrarywise.
It is the same as to the Acts concerning Alberta and Saskatchewan and1 has induced me to vote for the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Yamaska.
It may be pointed out that this is in contradiction with my vote on the settlement of the Manitoba sohool question in 1897, but the situation to-day is very different. What I did in 1897, I should" do again under the same circumstances, even as I would be ready to renew my vote in favour of the Mondou resolution without feeling that I had in any way contradicted my past record.
The difference is that in 1897 the question had been pending since six years, going from court to court and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. When we were returned to power in 1896 the question was exhausted, the life had been taken out of it by the contradictions of the Conservative party who, to use the expression employed by the hon. the Post Master General, had played football with it.
It was the 'Conservative party who, from 1890 to 1896, fostering race and religious prejudice carried us to the verge of civil war. This was by good luck avoided thanks to the diplomacy and the energy of the then Prime Minister, to his policy of peace and conciliation. This indeed was the only practical manner of fettling the question, as onljjtlater admitted by the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), and in 1897 by Mr. Bourassa, as stated by him in reply to the hon. member for Beauharnois, Mr. Bergeron.
To-day the situation is not the same; the matter is just beginning. The opposi-

tion are not responsible for the deeds of the government who act as they deem expedient. Shall this farce which lasted from >1890 to 1896 be repeated?
In a word, and on account of the considerations I have just recalled, I will vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Beauce, because, wanting a better, it is the last and supreme chance offered to the Keewatin minority.
By following the policy of conciliation, concord and peace inaugurated by the hon. leader of the opposition the question may be disposed of for ever and I hope that the five Nationalists who have shown their sincerity so far will vote in favour of the amendment now submitted.


Mr. SEVIGNY. (Dorchester).: (Translation). Will the hon. member allow me to put a question?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) Certainly.


Albert Sévigny: (Translation.) If no amendment is added to the Bill as brought down, is the hon. member of opinion that the Keewatin minority will be subject to the conditions of the Laurier-Greenway settlement?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) I am not in a position to answer that positively and the conference suggested by the amendment might throw light upon the matter.


Albert Sévigny: (Translation.) Has the hon. member voted for the Laurier-Greenway settlement?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) I certainly did, and I do not regret having done so. The interruption by my hon.friend the member for Dorchester reminds me of a fact which I might have forgotten to communicate to the House concerning the confidence expressed by the hon. the Minister of Public Works, and the hon. the Postmaster General in Mr. Roblin, when those two hon. gentlemen declared that they had Mr. Roblin's assurance that the situation of the Manitoba Catholics would be improved. I have just read in * Le Devoir * of March 12, 1912, the following article:



POSITIVE DECLARATIONS OF ' LES CLOCHES' OF ST. BONIFACE.

[Stage Direction]
The organ of His Grace Mgr Langevin says that the Manitoba school question was never settled, that the rights recognized by the Privy Council were never re-establish and that the double tax has not been accepted by the Catholics of Winnipeg and Brandon. A worse proposal from hon. Mr. Caldwell.
(Special despatch.)
Winnipeg, 12.-[DOT]' Les Cloches de St. Boniface/' organ of the archbishop of St. Boniface, in the number of March 15 now under press declares notwithstanding the statements of the hon. Mr. Monk, that the Manitoba school question was never finally settled; that the constitutional rights recognized by the Privy Council were never re-establish by the so-called final Laurier-Greenway settlement and that the suffering minority has never accepted the arrangement obliging the
Catholics of Winnipeg and Brandon to pay double taxes.	.
The organ of His Grace Archbishop Langevin also says that he cannot accept the negation of the constitutional rights of Keewatin, and that he regrets that a new breach has been made in the wall of the constitution.
A bill submitted by Mr. Caldwell makes the situation worse.
(Special despatch.)
The hon. Mr. Caldwell, Provincial Minister of Education, had introduced a seven page Bill amending the School Act. The amendments make the situation worse from the French and Catholic point of view.
The word ' school' is restricted to the meaning of ' class.' The parish priest will no longer be allowed to say a word in schools without the formal and express consent of the commissioners.
Two special articles are framed with a view to school concentration, &c. Nothing therein can justify the gleams of hope >to be gathered from the ministerial speeches.
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: (Translation.) Is that the organ of the hon. member?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) It is the organ of Mgr. Langevin, your chief on the school question from 1896 to the 21st September last.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: (Translation.) What paper are you quoting from?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) From " Les Cloches de St. Boniface," reproduced by ' Le Devoir.' You have already forgotten your ' devoir ' (duty).
Mr. PELLETIER (Translation.) The member from Two Mountains will never be able to teach anyone his duty.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.)No, I might not be able to teach some persons how to do their duty. Does that satisfy the hon. member for Dorchester in case the Keewatin minority should 'be governed by the Laurier-Greenway agreement? So much for the promises, made by the Hon. Mr. Roblin to the hon. the Postmaster General.
Mr. PELLETIER (Translation.) That is not what I stated. I declared that I had no promises and the hon. member has no right to misquote me.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) However, you have faith in those who come forward with a bill such as that submitted by Mr. Caldwell, provincial minister of education and Mr. Roblin's colleague. We may judge by that what your 'hopes are worth.
As for the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue, it would be difficult for him to make any statement; he is mute.
I will vote for the amendment brought down by the hon. member for Beauce.


Mr. MACLEAN (South York).: The amendment of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) is based on the same capital error as all the otbes amendments are, it fails to recognize that this proposal, like

the other proposals, is an interference with the sovereignty of the province of Manitoba. We have settled once for all that Manitoba is. sovereign -within her own territory, and any proposal in this House to enter into negotiations with Manitoba over this question would raise the issue that she was not sovereign over this question at the present time. No other province in this country would for a moment entertain a proposal to reconsider her constitutional rights.


Henri Sévérin Béland: You can confer with a sovereign.


William Findlay Maclean: You may, but this nroposed conference implies that Manitoba is called into court to have her rights readjusted. It is a proposal to reopen a question that has been settled for all time; and if it had not already been settled, I think we must admit that the majority in this House to-night of 136 against the amendment of the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou) has effectually settled it. I remember fifteen years ago when I was in this House and this question first came up, there were eight men in the House who decided to take their political lives in their hands and to say that there should be no coercion of .Manitoba, or any questioning of her rights. I think this majority of 136 votes to-night is a still dearer declaration that there must be no interference with the free action of Manitoba on matters falling within her jurisdiction, and no questioning even of her rights, no invitation to Manitoba to inquire into her rights. I say that the question has been settled once for all, and all we can do now is to write over it ' requiescat in pace.' If this amendment were adopted, some one would then get up in this House and ask Ontario to come into a conference. Would Quebec for one moment consider a proposal that she should go into a conference to have her constitutional rights made the subject of inquiry? Would Ontario do it? Would little Prince Edward Island do it? Certainly not. We must respect the rights of all the provinces in this House, we must leave off discussing them for no good can come of it. For sixteen years now we have had more or less discussion of this question in this House, and to no good purpose. There are other and more important questions before the people that ought to command our attention. If there is to be a conference where should that conference be held? That conference should be held in Manitoba, and it should be held between the minority in Manitoba and the provincial government. If such a conference were held now, and if there are any grievances, I believe they would be Mr. MACLEAN (S. York.)
adjusted. But that is a matter with which we have nothing to do in this House. Every speaker on this question to-day has acknowledged that Manitoba is seized with jurisdiction in this matter, her sovereignty is acknowledged, and no good can come of prolonging this discussion any further. Therefore, I shall have to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Beauce. because I hold that there should be no coercion of Manitoba, either under the guise of a conference, or by way of direct legislation.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska).: 
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They were fine and good words.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes., they were fine words. I am convinced that today Mr. Lavergne would consider three feet of snow at least necessary to cover the mis-deeds of the government he hailed with such delight.
* I do not desire to give any more quotations; I cannot however pass over the statement made a moment ago by the hon. Minister of Public Works that never since 1897, in this House or out of it, he spoke of the Manitoba school question. The hon. Minister went to the length of declaring that when speakers on the hustings had, in his presence, spoken of this question, he had blamed them for it, stating that as far as he was concerned the question was settled and outside the sphere of politics.
Mr. Speaker, on the 6th August last, in the city of Three Rivers, the hon. Minister of Public Works, in company with Mr. Henri Bourassa, opened the electoral campaign in the Province of Quebec. _
I have here the report of that meeting as published in "Le Devoir", recognized organ of the minister.
This is what Mr. Normand, the conservative candidate said :
Mr. Bureau must render you an account of his conduct in the great questions touching our national life. He must account to you for the Manitoba school question which is not settled irr spite of the statements of those who betrayed onr brothers and which remains now as it was then, an iniquitous and monstrous violation of the natural la.w which permits every man to adore God in the language spoken by his father and mother.
The same day, on the same hustings, in the presence of the hon. Minister of Public Works, the hon. deputy Speaker of this House, the Knight (sans peur et sans re-proche,) as described by 'L'Evenement,' made the following statement.



A FINE EXHIBITION.

[Stage Direction]
* The resolutions will go this afternoon if the government is defeated before six o'clock/
These are the words of hon. Robert Rogers in reply to the Nationalist demands for delay in the introduction of the Bill to extend the boundaries of Manitoba.
English-speaking Canada has been waiting many years for this straight talk to Quebec clericals. It stirs the British spirit of Canadians to read such a declaration. We have been accustomed for so long to see our representatives at Ottawa grovelling before the black robes of Quebec, that it seems like the banning of a new era to have a responsible Minister declare the intention of the government to do right regardless of the threats of bishops, priests, or their Nationalist infantry.
It is the voice of a full grown man, in whom courage is the dominant characteristic, not the. expression of a politician who listens to the timid council of the place-hunters.
Hon. Robert Rogers has placed himself on the level taken by Sir John Macdonald when he was urged to pardon Louis Riel the second time. Then as now, thq black frocked priests and bishops of Quebec invaded Ottawa to save the neck of a twice convicted murderer. The old chieftain, who had gone much too far when he pardoned Riel the first time, made up his_ mind that the death penalty should he inflicted. Prom within his cabinet, from the floor of the House, from the episcopal palaces of Quebec, they came pleading and threatening to save the French rebel. It was all useless. The old man, driven into the corner by the fierce attacks, gave his head a characteristic shake as he said:
' Riel shall die, if every dog in Quebec barks at my heels.'
Prom that day until last week when hon. Robert Rogers spoke, there has not been such a display of strength and courage among the ministers at Ottawa. We hope that this determination to resist Quebec will be maintained. Ontario and the other provinces will do justice to the French. But the time has come when they will no longer allow Quebec
[Stage Direction]
to ride rough shod over their constitutional rights.
I will not stoop to disprove the malignant charges of that paper against the clergy of the province of Quebec, passing over them in scorn is the best answer which can be given.
But are not the victorious clamours of the organ of this section, whose influence in the administration of the day cannot be denied, a most evident proof of the shameful retreat and the unconditional surrender of the representatives of the minority in the government?
The ministers are complaining bitterly of their Nationalist auxiliaries who to-day are up in arms against them. Their tranquility has been troubled. They lament over the obtrusive voices that disturb their sleep and dispel their dreams.
We can afford to look with indifference on this family quarrel. We have no sympathy for those by whom we have been slandered, hissed and insulted.
We cannot forget that we have been charged with cowardice and treason, when we had done our duty as loyal citizens and had taken our political lives in our hands to stand by a cause which we considered to be in the interest of the country.
Those men, our most violent enemies of yesterday, are to-day isolated, standing between two seats, denounced on the right, ignored on the left, in that position in a word, in which must inevitably sooner or later, find themselves all those who play such a game.
In concluding, I-will say that the stand of the government on this question is the same that they have taken on all the problems they had to solve. They are satisfied with having the agitation kept up and they carefully avoid taking action.
What did we see three or four weeks ago? The ministers from the province of Quebec, the so-called champions of orthodoxy, those lofty sponsors of our religion, in order to please their allies of Ontario who have made a political machine of the ' Ne temere decree,' asking the Privy council in England if they can refrain the province of Quebec from giving effect to the rules of the Catholic church for the oelebration of marriages between members of that faith, instead of voting down at once the arbitrary Bill which had been submitted to the House.
And what about the naval question? It has been solemnly declared in front of every chuch in the province of Quebec that the naval law would be repealed at the first session of Parliament, after the election.
But to-day, the government are waiting to consult with the admiralty and we can easily forecast what the answer will be.
Ernest Lapointe: In the meantime we have entered the fight and we will keep' it up to the end.
Public opinion is better enlightened, better informed and conscious of the grave error committed in a moment of weakness is already beginning to regain its foothold. When the occasion will come, the people-will take revenge'on those by whom they have been so outrageously misled.
I will have great pleasure in voting for the amendment of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland).


Albert Sévigny: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the night and at this phase of the debate,, it is not my intention to detain the House by a long speech, but 1 think it is my duty to give some explanation before casting my vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland).
It has been my privilege for several years past to be acquainted with the ex Postmaster General. I am quite ready to concede here, as I have done more than once outside of this House, that my hon. friend is a talented French-Canadian; nevertheless, I hold together with several members to whom I have spoken about it, that the hon. gentleman, besides being a clever young man is also an excellent comedian. I followed him in that memorable campaign of Drummond-Arthabaska, in the fall of 1909; I followed him during the last electoral fight that was ended by the great victory of the 21st September. On all occasions it was made apparent to me. . .


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is my hon. friend alluding to me?


Albert Sévigny: No. I f m alluding to the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Beland); if I mistake not, my hon. friend must be styled the ex-minister of Marine and Fisheries.
I have always found my hon. friend-he has been a Minister for thirty days-to be very clever when meeting his opponents and discussing thn naval question. I was honoured by his presence in my county and I listened to him on numerous other occasions. When he was addressing French Canadian electors in the province of Quebec, he used to say: Our opponents are trying to work you up about that navy, a small little navy that will serve only to protect your butter and your cheese; you are not going to vote for the large navy that Borden wants, and don't forget that Borden wants to give, besides, 25 million dollars to assist England in the wars of the empire. He invariably concluded in appealing thus to hi3 fellow citizens: If you vote for Laurier, you are voting for a small navy; if you vote for Borden you are voting for a large navy. For him the whole question was between a small and a large

navy. That tactic was clever enough and was fairly successful in several places; it succeeded even in my county, but not sufficiently to prevent my being elected.
To-night, after the vote, I listened with great pleasure, as I always do to, the speech of the hon. member for Beauce, who is one of the best speakers of the province of Quebec.
For more than a week now, we are discussing this question of the Manitoba boundaries. For my part, I took on that question a stand which is absolutely sincere and definite, and that stand I have taken at a considerable sacrifice. For the last ten years, unfortunately, I have been mixed up in politics and I have always fought for the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, in its darkest days, and a few months after taking my seat in this House, I came to the conclusion that I was in duty bound to vote against the party for which I have always fought.
_ I say that it was a great sacrifice. I did it in order to harmonize my vote with my past record and in justice to those whom my conscience called upon me to support under the circumstances.
The hon. member for Beauce has followed the whole debate; he did not however take any part in the discussion upon the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Yamaska. He proposed nothing himself as a measure of justice to the Catholic minority of Keewatin. He now comes forward with a motion having no bearing whatever on the question and which, as he says, would place the rights of that minority in the hands of a few persons who would confer with the government of Manitoba. What would take place at such a conference? Would the hon. member be there? Would I or other members of this House be there to offer suggestions? Certainly not. I say therefore that it is here in this House where the members from the province of Quebec and for all Canada are present that suggestions should be made. If the hon. member will submit a measure calculated to_ protect all the rights of the Keewatin minority, I will undertake to vote with [DOT]him and once more against my party. But I will have none of the measure he now suggests, because I do not believe in its efficacy and past events strengthen me in that connection.
In 1905, the parliament of 'Canada had to debate a question concerning which public opinion was roused as it is to-day. The Liberal government having decided to create two new provinces in the west, Alberta and Saskatchewan, there arose the questions of separate schools and of the preservation of the rights of the French language in those provinces. What took place then? Mr. Bergeron, then member
for Beauharnois, submitted an amendment which reads as follows at page 9046 of the Debates of that year:
That all the words after ' he ' at the end of the question be left out and the words:
' Recommitted to a community of the whole House with instruction that they have power to amend the same by striking out all the words of clause 16 and to substitute therefor the following:
16. Section 93 of the B.N.A.. Act of 1867 shall apply to the said province as if at the date fixed for the coming into force of this Act, the territory included in the said province were already a province, the word ' union ' in the section meaning the same date.
2. The legislature shall have the right to pass laws with reference to education, but it shall always provide for (a) the existence of separate schools and their enjoyment by the minority, Protestant or Catholic, who may claim them, (b) The effective control of said school in matters of teaching by the said minority, (c) the full liberty for the majority in any school district to have such schools as they may desire, (d) the equitable and proportionate distribution between the majority and the minority of all monies appropriated for education by the legislature of the province and of all monies arising from the school fund established by the Dominion Lands Act.
Such is Mr. Bergeron's amendment, it is clear and precise and if the member for Beauce will prepare a similar one to secure the complete protection of the rights of the minority in Keewatin, I solemnly promise to vote for such an amendment.
What took place in 1905? When the division took place on Mr. Bergeron's amendment, the hon. member for Two-Mountains (Mr. Ethier), the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Belaud), and all the French Canadian Liberals from the province of Quebec voted against it. Such is the measure of their sincerity in the protection of the minority and of Catholics in the new provinces. Am I not right in saying that they stand condemned by their past record and they will remain so condemned in the province of Quebec.? At the same period and during the same debate, Mr. Bourassa presented an amertdment concerning education in the new provinces. What did these members do about it? Consult the debates and you will find that they voted against the Catholic minority sacrificing all that they lay claim to today in the name of Catholics of the province of Quebec.	-
Did not the hon. member for Beauce who a moment ago,took upon himself to speak in the name of 42 per cent of the population, vote with his colleagues on your left against the use and maintenance of the French language in the new provinces?
Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated, I have come here resolved to do my duty. I remember the declaration I have made

in the province of Quebec since I am in political life. At the beginning of the present session, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), a talented French Canadian, an honour to his nationality and whom I much admire-quoted certain words he said were uttered by the member for Dorchester, concerning the navy and which appeared to be an attack against the English of Ontario. I deny absolutely having ever uttered the words attributed to, me by the member for Rouville. What I said outside of this Chamber I am ready to repeat here. Some days ago, I gave notice of a motion concerning the navy; I knew what I was doing on that occasion. Somebody had to bell the cat and I did so without hesitation.
I am quite satisfied with the government's attitude on this question, but here again as on the school question, my conduct was entirely sincere, I had no other object butj to do my duty to the best of my knowledge and ability, and notwithstanding the deep regret that I felt and expressed, I did not hesitate to differ from my party, nor shall I hesitate to do in future if I consider it necessary. Let the hop. members for Beauce, Two-Mountains and Kamouraska submit an amendment securing the rights of the minority in Keewatin and I shall be very happy to separate once more from my party and to do my duty. But I refuse to be duped by such people who are not sincere, as I have proved, and for that reason I shall vote against the amendment presented by the member for Beauce.


Hon. W. B. NANTEL (Minister of Inland Revenue).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, at this advanced hour of the night, I have no intention of making a long speech. Other occasions will offer when I will be able to discuss the question before the people.
I simply desire to call attention to a statement made 'by the hon. member for Two-Mountains, my neighbour, who said that I had promised to settled the Manitoba school question if the Conservative party was returned.
This statement was quite unfounded and I protest strongly against it.
It is true that I have undertaken campaigns on that question, especially in 1896, when I supported in the county of Terrebonne Mr. Chauivin, a devoted partisan of the Manitoban minority. I discovered then to my regret that the electors of the province of Quebec declared themselves favourable to Mr. Laurier against the Remedial Bill. I discovered since that this feeling in favour of the present leader of the opposition did not cease to grow. So much so that approval came to him from quarters whence we had^ at first been encouraged to fight against him. I remember that my friend Mr. Chanvin was twitted with being Mr. SEVIGNY.
more Catholic than the Pope. This was said by Liberal speakers throughout the province of Quebec. I might quote many speeches and newspaper articles in support of what I have said. I will quote only one. It shows clearly that the feeling in favour of Mr. Laurier's school policy had gathered strength and that starting from the deepest strata of the popular conscience it had reached the highest sphere of the religious world.
Allow me to read a despatch published by "Le Soleil" and reproduced by "Le Canada " on the 5th July 1907; it shows that the Laurier-Greenway settlement was then accepted as an accomplished fact.
' Le Canada,' a daily newspaper of Montreal, Sir Wilfrid's organ, reproduced to-day, (July 5, page 8), under the heading ' Sir Wilfrid at Rome,' the following from ' Le Soleil,' organ of Sir Wilfrid, at Quebec:
(Special correspondence.)
Sir Wilfrid, as the despatches have already informed you, spent a few days at Rome, coming from Marseilles by way of Cannes and Genoa.
He was received most courteously by His Holiness Pius X in a private audience.
He was given a reception at the Canadian college, at which were present a number of bishops and prelates.
The speech of His Eminence Cardinal (Vincent) Vanutelli was much remarked. His Eminence complimented Sir Wilfrid on his brilliant qualities as a stateman, and warmly thanked him for the services he had ren-defed to the church.
He spoke of the good example given by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to his fellow citizens in his private life.
The church, he added, is proud of this son of hers who has become, without betraying his convictions or principles the chief magistrate of a great country in which the majority of citizens are Protestants.
I send you without comment these declara/-tions of Cardinal Vanutelli which received prolonged applause from the distinguished audience.
An event such as this taking place after the lame settlement of the school question in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan at length convinced me that the struggle was useless.
Moreover I had still present in my mind the manner in which the champions of the minority had been treated by the electorate of the province of Quebec. The defeat of the Tupper Government, that of onr fellow countrymen Messrs. Taillon, Desjardins, Angers and several others proved to me that popular feeling was swayed by principles different from those we defended.
We might thenceforth say to our compatriots : "Since yon allow yourselves to be blinded in his manner, I do not see why we should insist upon defending principles which you have rejected notwithstanding onr efforts." And when I speak of blindness, I am using a very mild expression as.

some others more appropriate might not be parliamentary.
Thenceforth my mind was made up. I ceased to pay any attention to the Manitoba school question and from that date I have never made any statement of. a nature to justify the words which the hon. member for Two-Mountains has just uttered.
I have been called to task for my silence in the course of this debate, but I had an excellent reason for remaining so. On this point I had taken the lead of my colleagues, Before the Bill now being considered was submitted to the House, I had taken a well defined attitude with respect to the rights of minorities in the West. At a banquet given to the hon. Postmaster General at Quebec, some days before the cabinet was formed, I -had expressed my views.
I have nothing -to add or to withdraw of what I s-aid on that occasion. Nothing since then has altered my views and I stand ready to answer for them before my constituents. I take my full share of ministerial responsibility as to the Manitoba Bound-ries Bill.
As to the Keewatin question, it w-oul-d be useless for me to go into it at any length; it is exhausted. The House has heard all the arguments for and against the adoption of the Bill and the position taken by the government needs no further support.
I will merely call attention to the fact that there would be no justice in imposing upon -Manitoba for the annexation of Keewatin restrictions which nobody dreams of putting upon Quebec for the annexation of Ungava or upon Ontario for the annexation of another portion of Keewatin. Everybody admits that by the fact of this annexation the laws of Quebec, be they school laws or otherwise, become those of Ungava.
In the -case of Manitoba -objection is taken to the school laws of that province under the Laurier-Greenway settlement. But thi-s settlement is after all but an accident to which the -people -o-f Manitoba may themselves apply a remedy. In fact, the Laurier-Greenway settlement cannot be altered by federal legislation. It is unjust in respect to the Catholic minority, but may be corrected by an act of the Manitoba legislature. From this source alone can the remedy come and from the past conduct of the Roblin government there is a moral guarantee that all hope is not at an end and that the province of Manitoba is gradually reverting to a sounder interpretation of the constitution. Besides to whom are due these school difficulties of which we are to-day feeling the full weight?
To such men -as Messrs. Greenway and Sift-on who were rewarded by Mr. Laurier after having cooperated with him in perpetrating the injustice from which the Catholics of Manitoba have suffered so long.
That the system of toleration that n-ow obtains in the province shpuld -be maintained that it gives us hope of a measure of complete justice is established from the declarations just now made by the hon. Mr. Rogers.
I will say no more; I merely wi-shed to deny the statements made by the hon. member for Two-Mountains. I deny once more and in .the most positive manner that I said anything like what he attributed to me. I stand iby what I declared at Quebec. I assume entire responsibility for the attitude I have taken to-night and I have no fear of meeting my constituents on this question. For my part, I -have received no petitions from my county and I do not consider that in acting as I do, I am -abusing of the freedom of action thus left in my hands.
I shall vote ag-ains-t the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Beauce and in favour of the bill which I -consider to be an act of justice towards Manitoba, granting as it does a,ll_proper security to minorities and tending to promote a proper understanding, peace and union between the different races- -and icreeds, whose every right the government is anxious to recognize in an equal measure.


Mr. DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville).: (Translation.) At this advanced hour Mr. Speaker, I will only s-ay a few words upon the question now before us, which is the annexation of the territory of Keewatin to Manitoba at the latter's request. Although I have no intention to consider the Bill from its financial aspect,. I must say that from what I have heard of the debate on that point, I must come to the conclusion that Manitoba has been treated like a favoured -child by this present government; Canada's other -children, will after this, it seems to -me, have much difficulty in believing that parental affection is equally distributed throughout the family. The consequ-en-ce of the government's action, in any opinion, will b-e that other provinces will be coming to us for better terms which w-e will be obliged to grant them if we would wish to preserve that peace and harmony so necessary to progress and to the development o-f the -country. -Such a policy does not tend towards the unification of the different portions of the Dominion. On the contrary it cannot fail to strengthen the secession -movement already becoming apparent.
My intention in rising -this evening is more -especially to touch upon another aspect of the -question; the attitude of the Catholic Conservative members from the province of Quebec.
We have here a Bill for the annexation of territory to one of the provinces of the Dominion. It appears to -me perfectly clear that this territory is at present govern-

ed by laws providing lor the establishment of separate schools. Four members of the government are Catholics from the province of Quebec. Those ministers have proclaimed themselves or have been proclaimed the only true defenders of the rights of minorities. They have abused the Liberal ministers and members, or allowed them to be abused by their stumpers and newspapers, accusing them of being sold, cowards and traitors to their race and religion, in consequence of the attitude of the Liberal party on the question of schools in Alberta, Saskatchewan and /Manitoba. Nay more, one of these ministers the hon. Ministers of Public Works, carried his zeal in the cause of minorities to the extent of demanding the use of the French language in Alberta and Saskat-cbewan, although no statute could be found to support his contention.	_
All or nearly all the French-Canadian members sitting on the Speaker s right and supporting 'the present government were elected as Nationalists, that is to say as champions of the rights of minorities, having specially promised the people that the greivan-oes of our fellow countrymen in Manitoba would be remedied, declaring -everywhere that the school question was not settled and was not as they said dead and buried, that Laurier had nobody left to betray, having betrayed his brothers from the west and Manitoba.
'Elect us/ they said, 'and you will find that all this injustice will -disappear.' 'Alas! what a cruel awakening for the trusting souls who believed them.
In vain had w-e repeated that such declarations were not sincere and that dem-agogism in its worst form was being use-d t-o attain power; in vain did we -explain that the government had done the best it could under the circumstances and that no -other government could have -done as well. The people are now in a position to judge between us. The Bill is before us, but in what manner are the rights of minorities secured? Where are th-e defenders of Catholic rights in the west? Have they withdrawn from the government? Will those who may have done so at one stage cease to support an administration unfaithful to its promises and which refuses to accept their views on a question that should be for them primordial and vital, being the fundamental principle of their policy, as explained to the electorate of Quebec. Are they trying or will they try to defeat the government? No, they will continue to support the present government; we are safe in predicting that, knowing them as we do. But the day of reckoning will -come, and we await it eagerly and confidently.
What has been done to-day by those men who, as the hon. Minister of Public Mr. DEMERS.
Works, said at Nicolet, (I quote from the report of ' Le Devoir ', June 16, 1911):
Parliament has reached suoh a state of degradation and servility, as everybody knows, that the deliberative character of the House is a thing of the past. No deliberation is possible without freedom of -opinion. But such freedom -may be said to be non-existent, especially among members of the majority. They are held fast by the chains of party discipline. When the will of the government has been made known, woe betide any partisan who attempts to disobey the orders of the whip. There remains to him no alternative but to commit * hari-kari/ as the Japanese say, he must commit suicide- publicly. (We m-ay be quite sure that the hon. Minister will never commit ' hari-kari'). This party rule is at the present moment one of the most formidable menaces to our liberty and that of the country, other people are aware of it. And I hope that you will elect, at least with- our help, only such men as are resolved -to throw off that yoke which has become a serious danger to our country and to vote under every circumstance according to their conscience and regardless of that discipline which is admittedly shameful, reducing as it does to impotence the assembly which governs our distinies. When the common good requires it, we must be able to sacrifice personal interests and forget party divisions in deference to the supreme interests of the nation.
What have such men as the hon. the Postmaster General done? I quote from ' L'Action Sociale ' of the 11th September, 1911.
' I am old enough to use my own judgment and I stand by the policy of Monk, Bourassa and Lavergne.' and added ' L'Action -Sociale/ '-that answer was applauded/
Where are the men, such as an hon. French Canadian Conservative member whom I cannot name under the circums-. tanoes and on account of the rules of the House who said, I quote from ' Le Devoir/ 19th June, 1911, report of the Sorel meeting:
On the other hand, while Mr. Lemieux said that the rights of the French language in the West must be abandoned, Mr. Monk stood for the complete exercioe of those rights, and Mr. Borden, convinced that the French language was not guaranteed by the constitution, refusing to listen to the claims set forth by his colleague, Mr. Monk broke away from his party; and thus meeting from the extremities of partisanship Mr. Monk and Mr. Bourassa clasped hands. That alliance will certainly some day bear fruit, and today, says Mr	 we are definitely '
seperated from the parties	
It will be asked: Who shall lead this free and independent movement. It matters little,
says Mr	Give us independent
members in the House, give us good soldiers
and leader will appear	 Of course,
these also will follow political leaders, but on condition that they shall defend the rights of the Catholic religion and of the French language.

And what does the hon. member for L'lslet- think of all this? Will he continue to support the present government, and the Minister of Public Works, he who stated at the Fraserville meeting (I quote from 'Le Devoir's' report of that meeting):
He recalled the memorable days of 1905, when being then a new member of the House, the first voice he heard raised in favour of our brothers in the West, was that of Mr. Bourassa, who, with his friend, Mr. Lavergne, extended his hand over party barriers to Mr. Monk and his few disciples in order to defend.those whose rights were denied.
And to-day, once more, we inscribe upon our programme: Justice to ithe French language.
And what does the hon. member for Jo-liette think of 'his chief Mr. Monk' as he said, with emphasis, no doubt, on the 26th August, 1911 ('Le Devoir', 29th August, 1911)? Will he continue to support the present government which has been found wanting upon what he declared to be the only, the great question?
What do the electors of the province of Quebec think to-day when they remember having read and heard the words uttered by Mr. Normand, Conservative-Nationalist-opposition candidate in Three-Rivers (Report by 'Le Devoir', 7th August 1911 of the meeting held at Three-Rivers the 6th)?
You have come, he said, to call Mr. Bureau to account for his stand on those great questions touching our national life.
You have come to ask him to render an account of the Manitoba school question which is not settled, notwithstanding the statements of those who betrayed our bretbreu. (Mr. Normand had certainly not conferred with the hon. Minister of Public Works on the subject) and which remains to-day as it was then a glaring and monstrous violation of the natural right possessed by every man to adore God in the language spoken by bis father and mother.
You will require from Mr. Laurier and Mr. Bureau an account of their conduct at the time when contingents were sent to Africa.
How shall the hon. member whose name I cannot now mention suit to his vote on the present bill, his words as reported in 'Le Devoir' of the 6th August, 1911?
The present government (the Laurier government) do not settle great questions, they kill and bury them. (Cries of shame).
Their final method is to say of any such question that it is dead and buried.
Dead and buried indeed the Manitoba schools question notwithstanding the eloquent voice exclaiming:	I am:	the eternally
wounded and my grave is a cradle!
What does 'L'Evenement' think, or rather what should it think, being the chief organ of the conservative party in Quebec and the personal organ, as I think, of the hon. the Postmaster General, and having printed in heavy letters on the eve of the election, sentences such as this:
Let us avenge the Catholic and our fellow-countrymen of the West.
Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed and are still witnessing an ignoble comedy, a demoralizing spectacle especially when the actors are men whose first duty should be the moral and intellectual uplifting of the people; I have no doubt that the day of reckoning will come soon for those who have contributed to the gigantic farce of which we have been the unfortunate witnesses.
I do not desire to close my remarks without referring to certain statements made by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny). He told us in substance that he would not vote for the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Beauce because he had no confidence in him. His scruples should not be a matter for surprise as he has spoken to us of his conscience. But what must he think of those amongst us who supported the amendment of the hon. member for Yamaska? Does he suppose that we so voted because we had confidence in the mover, especially after the contradictory speeches delivered at two days interval by the hon. member for Yamaska? In the first he stated that after due consideration and after the dissertation of his former professor of constitutional law, he had reached the conclusion that the minority had no vested rights in Kee-watin. In the second, he discovered that the minority had vested rights. The duty of the hon. member for Dorchester is clear, there is only one matter for him to consider that is whether the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Beauce is conformable to his principles.
The hon. member for Dorchester expres-ed a regret that the hon. member for Beauce had not spoken sooner. But had he himself spoken on the question before the speech he has just delivered? As a government member his duty was to give the example. All that the hon. member for Dorchester had done before his speech delivered to-night, was to vote, as we did, for the amendment of the hon. member for Yamaska. The hon. member for Beauce, according to the logic of my friend the hon. member for Dorchester, would thus be at some advantage having spoken first.
Mr. Speaker, I shall say no more and I think that the House has already understood that I will vote in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Beauce.


Mr. E.: PAQUE'T (L'lslet). (Translation) Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John and Iberville has asked me if I should continue to support the government on other political questions. I may say to him in reply that I shall always be ready to rise superior to considerations of party politics to defend leaders who best represent my views. In 1905, I defended



the rights of minorities and of the French language. I desire to do the same in regard to this ICeewatin question. In 1905, when the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were being created, I joined hands notwithstanding political lines with Mr. Henri Bourassa and Mr. Armand Lavergne, in order to defend the right of minorities and of the French language in those vast prairie lands opened to civilization by our forefathers. To-day as before, in order to defend the minority rights, I am leaving for the moment those men whom I must approve and admire. My friend from Beauce comes at the last moment, comes with an amendment, asking us to vote for a conference between the government of Canada and that of Manitoba. That amendment should have come sooner. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier prepared this Bill last year he thought of no such thing. I will therefore vote with the government for the reasons given by my friend from Dorchester.
My friend from St. John has treated hon. Mr. Monk with severity. Does he not know of the patriotic spirit of the Minister of Public Works and of the efforts made by him to secure the rights of the minority? I have the greatest confidence in Mt. Monk. Never shall I forget the memorable sitting of the 3rd of February, 1910, when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, his voice trembling from physical anguish, rose to enter his energitic protest against those who violated the rigths of minorities. I can have no confidence in the men of the Lib-al party, who endeavour to defend, when in opposition, the sacred rights of minorities betrayed by them in the past.
I left my party on this occasion in order to remain faithful to my past record; but in voting for the government against the motion of my friend from Beauce, I desire simiply to show that I have no confidence in the leaders of the Liberal party. The leaders of the Conservative party, Hon. F. D. Monk, Minister of Public Works, Hon. L. P. Pelletier and Hon. B. Nantel will know how to defend in future the true interests of Canada. I made the greatest sacrifice of my political career by voting against the government on the Keewatin schools question. Our ministers are looking towards Manitoba. I hope that they will insist upon our rights in a patriotic manner. I am sure that they will defend the true interests of the country. In so doing they deserve and will deserve my entire gratitude and confidence.


Edmond Proulx: Mr. Speaker, when Manitoba was admitted into confederation there was a statutory limitation imposed with regard to education and it is the same limitation which I wanted to impose on this new territory now Mr. PAQUET.
being added to the province. Some hon. members on the other side of the House have made a distinction between creating a new province and adding territory to a province already formed. The only difference is that we must obtain the consent of the legislature of the province to the conditions or terms that we want to impose. We are treating Manitoba very generously. I think we are treating her too generously. We are giving her too much. We are in a position to impose terms and terms should be imposed. The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) is willing to trust to the mercy of Mr. Roblin and his government. Well, I am not too confident in the government of Manitoba, considering the declarations of an ex-colleague of Mr. Roblin who now sits in this House as Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers). I have here the report of a speech made by the Minister of the Interior at Virden on January 6, 1909, and it reads as follows:



TWISTS TO COMPULSORY EDUCATION ISSUE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Rogers, in his speech here last night, tried hard to twist the compulsory education policy which has been advocated in the legislature by the Liberals, into a sinister attack upon the educational liberties of the province made in accordance with deep-laid plans to re-establish separate schools. He declared that certain Liberals had entered into a conspiracy with Sir Wilfrid Laurier to force the issue of compulsory education, the idea being that when it reached a certain point the Dominion government would cut in and give the province the option of _ reestablishing separate schools in this province or foregoing the enlargement of its boundaries. Mr. Rogers then proceeded to deliver his time-honoured harangue upon the boundary question, displaying, - as usual, a series of maps. He represented the province as being persecuted for its devotion to the national school system; and represented Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Manitoba Liberals as engaged in a nefarious plot to compel the restoration of separate schools to the minority. This portion of Mr. Rogers' speech was a skilful and audacious appeal to feelings which are Strong in this constituency; and he closed with a fervent appeal to the electors of Virden to rally to the support of the government as defenders of the liberties of the province.
I think that the Postmaster General, when he reposes such high hopes in the Manitoba government, is living in a fool's paradise, and I think it would have been more in conformity with his duty and. especially with hijfe previous pledges and promises to his compatriots of the province of Quebec to have voted for the amendment of the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. La-marche) and to have thus safeguarded now and forever, the rights of the minority, either Catholic or Protestant, in regard to

separate schools in this new territory. I submit that the Act of 1875 has applied to the Keewatin district since the 31st January, 1907, and, moreover, I think that the ordinances 29 and 30, passed by the Northwest Territories legislature and council and which are found in the consolidated ordinances of 1901 apply to the district of Keewatin. Some hon. members on the other side of the House have maintained that the Catholics have no rights, and the Postmaster General is one of them, because there have been no separate schools in the district of Keewatin. It is true that separate schools have not been in operation, but still the right exists and they could have been organized under ordinances 29 and 30, which were in force before 1907. When the district of Keewatin became part of the Northwest Territories, those ordinances and the laws in force in the Northwest Territories became applicable and in force in the district of Keewatin. I do not intend to speak at any length at this hour, but I was anxious to explain my reasons for voting for the amendment of my hon. friend from Yamaska. I am sorry it did not carry. I would have preferred that it should have carried, but since it could not carry, since a large majority in this House was against it, I think that the best thing we can do now, is to adopt the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Bel and) and not pass this Bill before negotiations have been entered into between the province of Manitoba and the representatives of the minority in that province. The Roman Catholics of Manitoba are to meet to-morrow night. There has been a meeting called of the) Roman (Catholics from the different parts of the province. This Bill should not pass before they are heard, and before they have had an opportunity of making their representations. The law at present in force in Manitoba is not satisfactory to the Catholics. We heard the other night the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Molloy), who must know the condition of his co-religioniets in that province, say that at Winnipeg and Brandon they had to pay double taxes,- that they had to pay theiT taxes to the public schools and at the same time, they had to maintain their own schools. I do not think that the Postmaster General himself thinks that is a satisfactory condition for the Catholics of Manitoba. I think it is his duty and that of the government to leave the Bill in abeyance until a satisfactory understanding has been come to between the government of Manitoba and the Catholics of that province. I shall have very much pleasure in voting for the amendment of my hon. friend from Beauce.
Mr. GEO. H. BOIVIN (Shefford).: Mr. Speaker, I have only one word to say upon this question which has taken up so much 1581
of the time of the House. I want to give to you, Sir, and to hon. members here present, my reasons for voting against the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou) and in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr Baland).
I voted a few moments ago against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou), because I considered that this amendment was of a nature which rendered it either ultra vires or useless. Many legal minds have given opinions upon this school question, many eminent lawyers throughout the country have decided that it is impossible for the federal government to coerce Manitoba by the inclusion of any amendment or additional clause in this Bill without the consent of the legislature of Manitoba. I agree with these gentlemen, I agree with the opinion which was given in this House by the hon. the Minister of Justice, and that is one of the reasons which led me to vote against this amendment. It is true that it has also been stated in the course of this debate that the amendment did not have any great effect and that the principal reason why it was proposed was in order to place the new territory added to Manitoba under the same school system as the old territory. If that is the case the amendment is utterly useless because there is no doubt in my mind that the school system which exists in Manitoba at present will be extended to the new part of that province. But is that all? I claim that the hon. members who form the present government, the right hosn. the Prime Minister and his colleagues in this House, promised the people of Canada more than to give to this new territory the same school system which exists in old Manitoba. I claim that the Prime Minister indirectly and many of his ministers directly promised) the people of this country and especially of the province of Quebec that they would give separate schools to old Mianitoba, and that is what they are not doing when they present this Bill. It is very true that the Prime Minister very carefully refrained during the course of the last campaign from going into those counties in which the candidates were supposed to be of the Nationalist school and to have as their leaders Messrs. Monk and Bourassa. But he did come into Shefford and in Shefford the Prime Minister had as candidate Mr. James Davidson of Montreal who, on August 17, 1911, published a manifesto signed by his own hand which cannot be denied. In that manifesto he writes among other things:
If I am elected I will endeavour to have
the rights and prerogatives of the Catholic French Canadians of all provinces respected and recognized as are the rights of the English Protestants of the province of Quebec

with recognition of their schools, and of the French language, etc., eto.
And on August 30, or 31, the present right hon. Prime Minister addressed a meeting in Granby in favour of Mr. Davidson. Mr. Davidson was unquestionably his candidate and to-day he brings before the House a Bill in which he says not a word about separate schools. I did not vote against the amendlment proposed by the hon. member for Yamaska because I am against separate schools. I am in favour of separate schools. I think that separate schools should exist throughout the Dominion, both Catholic and Protestant; but they can only be established in Manitoba by the government of Manitoba, they cannot be forced upon that province by this government. Conferences *and conciliation, the policy of the Liberal party for the past thirty years, are the only way that improved conditions can be obtained for the minorities of Manitoba. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), .asks that a further conference be held and I believe that if ever there was a time in the history of Canada when separate schools could foe obtained from the Manitoba government, it is precisely now, when we are passing a Bill to increase the territory of Manitoba giving them thousands and thousands of square miles of territory and .millions of dollars. Now is the time to have a conference with the Prime Minister of Manitoba and to obtain from him the passage of some law in the province which would improve upon the Laurier-Greenway agreement of 1897.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Good, good!


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Robert Laird Borden: It is expected the Minister of Finance will make his Budget
speech.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 4.05 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 13, 1912.