3901 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3902
NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES ACT AMENDMENT.
Mr. DEWDNEY moved second reading of Bill
(No. 126) to amend the Acts respecting the North- West Territories.
Mr. DAVIN. This Bill, as far as it goes, is a
good Bill, and will meet certain desires of the people of the North-West Territories,
but at the same
time it leaves a good deal undone that many of us
in the North-West would like to see done. When
we go into Committee I intend to move the addition of a clause to the following effect:—
Section 7 of the amending Act is hereby repealed and
the followmg substituted therefor:—
The persons qualified to vote at an election for the Legislative Assembly shall be
the male British subiects by birth
or naturalization (other than unenfranchised Indians and
members of the North-West Mounted Police) who have
full attained the age of 21 years, and so on.
It will be very important to have that clause
inserted, which will prevent the members of the
North-West Mounted Police voting for candidates
for the Assembly. Take the constituency of North
Regina, and at the last voting, Jelly had 227 votes
and Brown had 135 votes, and there were 80 police
votes polled for Jelly, so that Jelly won the election
by a very small majority of the civil vote. If Brown
had had a few more votes, the police vote would
have decided the election, and I think that is very
undesirable and creates a great deal of ill-feeling
that the constituency should be watered by a vote
that is not permanent, because the members of the
force are moved from one place to another, have no
special interest in the place, and have no reason for
devoting their attention to the matters which might
affect legislation in that Assembly. I need hardly
say that I do not approve of that standpoint in
politics which looks to the United States as having
everything superior to ourselves, as if we had not
as great natural advantages as they have, and as if
we could not hope to build up as great a nation as
they have built up: but at the same time there is
no reason why we should not learn something from
what has been done in the United States, and I
should have been glad if this Bill had contained
some things which it does not contain. However,
3903
[COMMONS] 3904
this Bill goes a great deal further in the direction
of giving the Territorial Assembly the mastery of
North-West affairs than any previous Bill. For
instance, under this Bill the Assembly will have
power to deal with its own elections, and there is
a clause that gives the Assembly the power of deciding other important matters. I
consider that
the principle we should go upon is to give that
Assembly, as far as we can, the power of dealing
with all things which the British North America
Act places within provincial control, always excepting the power of borrowing money
which the people
do not desire. I think that a great deal more might
with propriety and with great advantage to the
North-West be placed in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor and the Assembly. For
instance, I
have been pressing on the attention of the Government and of the Hon. Mr. Carling
the propriety of
placing funds at the disposal of the North-West
Government to enable them to deal with immigration.
There is no reason why a sum should not be given
to the North-West Assembly to enable them to
supplement the action of the Dominion Government
in bringing immigrants into the North-West. The
Dominion Government very properly takes control
of the immigration for the whole of this country, but
in addition to that the different provinces put forth
exertions of their own. British Columbia can put
forth exertions of its own, so can Manitoba, so can
Ontario, and so can all the provinces, because they
get a lump sum paid to them by the Dominion
which is based on certain calculations. Probably
we may have the census returns in our hands be
fore we get through with this Bill, and I believe
that, if you take the population of the North-West
Territories and the fact that we have no public
debt whatever and take all the circumstances into
account, you will find that we are entitled to a far
larger sum than we receive at present from the
Dominion treasury. Therefore, there is nothing
unreasonable in asking that a sum shall be placed
at our disposal to enable us to put forth our energies
for the encouragement of immigration. A few days
ago, I was speaking with a gentleman who had
been up in the territories looking at the development of the country in the interests
of his friends
in the old world. He said he was told in Winnipeg, that the country near Regina was
barren.
Now, no matter whether you go to Alberta or to
Assiniboia or the Saskatchewan, you will find the
country is rich in farming lands, and Mr. Duncan
McIntyre and Mr. Angus, who have visited the
delta of the Nile, found the same character of deposit in the Regina basin as they
found there.
Yet this gentleman was told that there was
nothing but barrenness around Regina. We,
therefore, ask that there should be at the
disposal of the Assembly power of action and
amounts to enable them to have immigration
agents, some from the Saskatchewan, some from
Assiniboia and some from Alberta, so that they may
go either to Dakota, or to England, Ireland or Scotland, or to German or Scandinavia,
and to supplement the work of the general Dominion agents
in pointing out the advantages of the different
North-West Territories. Now, I will call the
attention of the House to what is done, and has
been done in the states, when making territories.
When Minnesota was organized into a territory
on 3rd March, 1849, it had a population, according to the census of 1850, of only
6,077, con
sisting in the main of French MĂ©tis in the employment of the American Fur Company.
When
Dakota Territory was organized, which took place
on 2nd March, 1861, the population amounted to
4,837. Montana, which was lifted to the position
of a territory on 20th May, l864, had only a population of 20,595 in 1870. Wyoming.
which was
organized on 25th July, 1808, had only a population of 9,000 odd in 1870. Now, if
you look at the
progress they have made you will find it set forth
by the following figures:—
|
1880. |
1890. |
| Montana ............... .. . |
39,159 |
132,139 |
| Wyoming ......... . .. .. . |
20,789 |
60,705 |
| Minnesota ................ |
780,773 |
1,301,826 |
| North Dakota ........... . . . |
36, 909 |
182,719 |
| South Dakota ..... . ....... |
98,268 |
328,808 |
We know now, as a fact, that the attractions of
the North-West of Canada are greater than the
attractions of those places. If you take the North- West of Canada you will find that,
compared with
any of those territories, some of which have since
become states, in farming land, in forest, in mines,
in rivers, our North-West, in most all those points,
are richer than the states I have mentioned. Now,
I will call the attention of the Government to what
has been done for a territory in the United States.
It is given a governor, judges and executive
officers appointed, and salaries paid by the Federal
Government at Washington—that we do: a legislature chosen by the people—that we do;
federal
appropriations for legislative expenses for a session
of 60 days, public buildings, and military and territorial roads—that we practically
do: lands
for schools and universities, one-eighteenth
of the area of the territory—we have lands
for schools, but no land has been set apart as
yet for a university. Last year I was a member
of a body that met together, persons who were
supposed to have some fitness for speaking on educational subjects, and we passed
a resolution which
I think was sent. to the Minister of the Interior;
we passed a munber of resolutions which, I fancy,
the secretary of the school board, Mr. James
Brown, sent to the Government, in favour of having
land at once set apart for a university in the territories. I will say that that cannot
too soon be
done. Now, that is what we do not do, and I say
it is a thing that should be done. The United
States make land grants to the territory for 1,800
miles of railway, to be organized and controlled by
the Legislature. And what is the advantage of that?
At the present moment, in the State of Minnesota,
at 3 per cent; on the gross earnings, those railways, organized by means of such help
as that,
now return an income of $600,000 per anmun to
the treasury of the state.
Mr. TISDALE. Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that in the organization of a territory
they specially set apart lands, of which the
Assembly of the territory have control, for railway
purposes?
Mr. TISDALE. In what territory have they
given it? If it is so, I am informed otherwise. I
merely want the hon. gentleman to name the territory.
Mr. DAVIN. I will name the territory—Minnesota.
3905 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3906
Mr. DAVIN. When Minnesota was a territory
it got 1,800 miles of railway, and after it had been
a State for some time it got a large amount of its
swamp lands.
Mr. TISDALE. Was not that part of the
Northern Pacific, a transcontinental railway? I
understood that the only roads built through Minnesota while it was a territory were
a part of the
United States system of railways.
Mr. DAVIN. My hon. friend says he understands that; but all I can tell him is that his understanding
is not as sound on that matter as it usually
is on other subjects, because he will find, if he
looks into the history of Minnesota, which he will
find in the Library—
Mr. TISDALE. What was the railway that
received this aid?
Mr. DAVIN. I state, with the responsibility
that belongs to my position here, that that was
done, and that they are taking $600,000 a year at
this moment, at 3 per cent., from the railways they
themselves subsidized. Then there was a representation by delegates in Congress that
bettered
that. When we got representation we also got a
vote. Now, there were subsequent grants, as I
have said, to Minnesota that put it in possession of
a third of the lands of the State. Now, Mr.
Speaker, I think that as we are giving the North- West a new start it would be well
for the Government to consider whether they should not treat
the territories of the North-West just as you treat
a young man when you are setting him up in the
world, giving him something on which to trade for
himself. At present, what we do is to vote certain
sums for specific purposes, and we may get, I
assume, the power to deal with this; but what we
should do is to give them some capital on which
they can go on for themselves; we should give
them some of the lands in the Territories that they
may deal with themselves, and give them a subsidy to
be expended on immigration, and on other purposes
that may strike them as necessary for the country,
give them a sum in addition to what you now give
them. I do not want to give up voting specific
votes, but to give them a sum in addition to that
which will enable them, to use a colloquial expression, to go on their own hook in
some matters, which
will call forth the enterprise of their statesmanship.
I think if these suggestions are adopted it will be
found that immigration will increase, the population
will go ahead at a greater ratio than it has in the
past, and the territories will be more prosperous. I
may say that the Bill is one that I think will satisfy
the people of the North-West, qualified by the
criticisms I have made.
Mr. O'BRIEN. This Bill which proposes to confer upon the North- West Territories very important
rights and very extensive powers, leaves untouched
one subject which is, perhaps, if not of the greatest
importance, of very great importance, especially in
view of what we may hope to see realized, a great
extension of population, of wealth, of industry and
of enterprise, in those territories—that subject is
the subject of education. Now, I find that the 9th
clause of the Act which is now being amended, is
not referred to at all in this amending Act.
that clause it is enacted that:
"The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall pass all ordinary ordinances in respect
to education, but it shall
therein always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion
of the Territories, or of
any less 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
the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman
Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and in
such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or
Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to
assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves
in respect thereof."
Judging from the wording of the Act and from
there being no reference to this clause one might
reasonably assume that it was intended that the
power of dealing with the subject should be left in
the hands of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
I understand, however, that it is contended that by
the interpretation clause this power, herein apparently given only to the Lieutenant
Governor in Council, is also vested in the Assembly, to which new and
extensive powers are given. I think, even if that
is the case, it would have been better if the Act
had been so worded that there should be no doubt
as to that point, but that when we are giving this
body the power to deal with property and civil
rights and a variety of other subjects referred to in
the Act, this subject of education, if it were to be
dealt with by it, should be specially mentioned.
However, that is not the subject to which I wish
to direct the attention of the House. This clause
which I have read establishes in the North-West
Territories, whether the people desire to have it or
not, the system of separate schools. The question
that I wish to bring before the House to-day is,
whether this legislation we are about to pass,
giving these territories practically provincial
powers, should contain an enactment, which,
whether the people like it or not, will compel
them to establish separate schools. I use the word
"compel" advisedly, because, although the term is
permissive, yet we know perfectly well from experience in other provinces that although
the word
"may" is used it is virtually as imperative as
if the word "shall" was used, and therefore I
am justified in saying that the intention of the
clause is that there shall be in these Territories
separate schools, and there is no option given to this,
I will not say newly constituted body, but this body
to which these extensive powers are given, to say
whether they will or will not have them. In consequence of this restriction of the
legislative power
of this Assembly we shall have again within a very
few years the same controversy and agitation which
have recently occurred in Manitoba, and, we shall
have in the North-West Territories, if I am not
much mistaken in the temper of the people living
there, and who may be living therewithin a few
years, a determined effort made to get rid of this
restriction and to assert the right to say whether or
not they will have separate schools; and they may
go perhaps further than the people of Manitoba
have gone, and although in the present case there
will not be the doubt as to their power, as in the
case in Manitoba, yet certainly we shall have the
attempt made to assert a right to which, under all
the circumstances, they are entitled, namely, that
they shall, at all events, have flower to say whether
or not separate schools may be established. I do
not propose to enter into the question whether
3907
[COMMONS] 3908
separate schools are advisable, whether
experiences in the various provinces, especially in Ontario, where in regard to this
matter
we have had the largest experience, and where it
has been productive of the most important results,
would lead us to decide the question as to whether
it was advisable or not that separate schools should
exist in any of the provinces of the Dominion. We
know very well what the result has been. We
know very well that in several provinces an
agitation in opposition to these schools has taken
place and has generally been successful. We
know perfectly well that if Ontario had the power
today to say whether separate schools should be
abolished or not there would be a very strong expression on the part of the majority
that separate
schools should be abolished. I do not speak of the
subject as having myself any dislike to religious
education. On the contrary, as far as my personal
feelings and convictions are concerned, I would very
much prefer a system of education which would be
essentially a religious system. Unfortunately, under
the existing circumstances of the country, no province has been able to devise a plan
by which such
system could be established; and we find the
only result of the adoption of that principle
is, that one particular denomination has established schools, by means of which it
has sought
in various ways to extend its influence politically
or otherwise, and has never been content to
stand in the position in which it was placed by the
British North America Act, but in the various
provinces it has extended its power until in Ontario
there is a very general determination, which to some
extent has been carried out, that that body shall
be compelled to revert to the position in which it
is placed in the British North America Act. I
shall simply content myself on the present occasion
with contending that as regards this question of
restriction imposed by section 9 of the present Act
it should be removed, and the Assembly should be
given power and control over education, and no
restriction should be imposed by this legislation as
to whether separate schools shall be established in
the North-West Territories or not. I do not propose to enter into the question as
to whether it is
advisable to have a separate school system, but I
confine myself to the contention that this Assembly
should have power to deal with the question. I
go further, and say that as this Act makes no special
reference to education, and as before very long
there will be another opportunity of dealing with
this question, and taking up the whole subject of
education, which is virtually not taken up by this
Act, and as no particular harm can result from postponing the question for a short
time, I will not
at the present time go further than to say that
I trust the Government will take the subject
into its serious consideration, and will decide,
in view of all the circumstances of the case,
considering the views of all the provinces, considering what the future of the country
is likely
to be, before next session whether or not in conferring these great owers, which they
have conferred on this Assembly by this Bill, they will not
go further, and give them perfect and absolute control over education. It maybe said
there are no
petitions from the North-West Territories asking
for this. I think we have had some evidence that
there is a strong feeling on the subject, but even
were there not one member from the North-West
 to rise in this House and endorse the view for which
I am contending, it must be remembered that we
are not legislating for the comparatively small
handful of people in the North-West Territories,
but we are legislating for the large number we hope
to see there within a very few years, and I think we
may fairly assume that the Bill giving these
sive powers is intended, although there is no limit
stated as to the period of its duration, to remain
in force for a very considerable period of time.
With the powers that are given to the North-West
Territories under this Act there will be no reason
for giving more extensive powers or for creating
separate provinces for, very probably, a good many
years to come. And, Sir, what will be the position of those who may then be prepared
to contend, as I contend now, that this subject should be
dealt with by the Provincial Assembly? Why,
Sir, we shall have the cry that has been raised so
often in reference to this question, as well as to
kindred questions in the Dominion of Canada: we
shall have the cry that those who were in favour
of separate schools have had them established by
law, that they have been existing for so many
years, that a vested right has been created in them,
and that this right ought not to be set aside. The
difficulty placed upon those who feel as I do on this
question will be very greatly increased if we allow
this period of time to elapse without removing the
restriction imposed by the 9th section of the Act
to which I refer. I say that for this reason this
restriction ought to be removed before this system
becomes finally established in the North-West Territories I think the proposition
is a reasonable one;
I think it is a proposition which the Government
ought to accede to, and it is a preposition which I
hope they will accede to. I hope that now when they
are establishing this principle, giving these extensive powers to this Assembly, they
will give them
the power of saying whether or not there shall be
separate schools in the territories, if they are
to have the subject of education in their hands at
all. I repeat again that this is a reasonable proposition; it is a proposition which
the Government
ought to accede to, and it is a proposition which I
hope they will accede to. However, under existing
circumstances, I do not wish at this period of
the session to raise a debate which probably would
create a good deal of angry feeling, and which undoubtedly would produce a discussion
which, considering the many pressing matters now before the
House, and in the present condition of the Administration, it is desirable to avoid
if possible. And
I venture to say, in speaking on this subject, that I
am giving expression, not only to my own opinion,
but to the opinion of many other members of this
House who hold the same opinion as I do in
regard to this matter. Under these circumstances, I do not ropose, while the present
Act is under consideration, to offer an amendment myself to the Act as it now stands;
but
I tell the Government—and I say it with all seriousness and all determination—that
unless they
either deal with the subject now, which is the proper time to deal with it, when they
have the Act
efore them, or unless they will, during the recess,
consider the question, and before the next session
bring forard an amendment to the Act in the
direction I think it should be amended, then I
can tell them that they have not heard the last of
this question, and that at a time which shall be
3909 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3910
more convenient for raising this discussion it will
be raised in this House, and they will be compelled
to meet it, and to let the country understand distinctly whether or not they are prepared
to remove
this restriction. I think, Sir, there is nothing else
I need say on this question now. I think I am
making a reasonable request; I am making a request which I am very certain will be
supported
by a majority—I will not say only of those whom I
represent—but a great majority of those who are
represented in this House—at any rate, by the
members from the Province of Ontario. I think
that a similar expression of opinion would be
given also by the electors in many other portions
of the Dominion. The subject, of course, is one
that is comparatively new, for all our dealings
with the North-West Territories have been
so far tentative, and experimental rather than
absolute. We are now, however, going a step further. We are now giving to this Assembly
powers
which it has not hitherto possessed: and there is
one thing which may be taken for granted, that
with the acquisition of the new powers given under
this Act the people of these territories will enquire
why they should be restricted in this great and important particular. It is because
I think such is
the case, and because I do not wish on a future
occasion, when this subject comes again before the
House for further legislation, that those who think
as I do on this system of education should be met
with the objection that so many years ago this
system was established by law and that, therefore,
a vested right is created which the Legislature should
not now interfere with. Why, Sir, it would be
almost fair to argue that this would come within
the provisions of the British North America Act.
If not in reality it would by analogy, because
the British North America Act secured to the provinces which came into Confederation
whatever
rights were enjoyed by the supporters of separate
schools at the time of Confederation, and if we
create new provinces out of these territories it may
fairly be argued that the analogy of the British
North America Act will apply, and that in creating
new provinces and bringing them into Confederation there will be something like the
same rights
guaranteed to the supporters of separate schools
which were guaranteed to the provinces having
separate schools before coming in under the British
North America Act. Sir, under all these circumstances, I think I am taking a reasonable
course in
calling the attention of the Government to this
matter, and in telling them that unless they are
prepared either to remove this restriction now
when the Bill is before the House, or unless before
next session they will make up their minds to remove it, the subject will again be
brought up, and
brought up with perhaps not, as I may say,
the studied moderation with which I have brought
it forward on this occasion. I can tell the Government that the whole subject of separate
schools
will come up, and possibly a demand will be made
in this House and supported by public opinion in
this country which will go a great deal further
than the moderate proposal I now submit. Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to offer any opposition to
the second reading of the Bill. I am not going, as I
said, to bring forward myself a resolution on this
subject when the Bill is in Committee; but I hope
the Government will take the course I suggested,
and if they do not take it, then they must be pre
pared at the next favourable opportunity, having
had full time to consider this question, to state
whether or not they will meet the proposal, which
I think is a moderate and reasonable one.
Mr. MACDOWALL. Mr. Speaker, as one of the
representatives of the territories I may say that I
believe the people of the North-West Territories
will be willing to accept this as a temporary measure. It can be nothing else than
a temporary
measure, because it is the hope, not only of the
people of the territories, but I believe of the people
of all Canada, that the condition of that country
may alter and improve so materially that by the
end of the next three years another form of legislature will have to be granted, or
perhaps some
legislative divisions will have to be made in the
Territories. Just now Parliament has been devoting its attention to the question of
immigration,
and should the measures taken by the Dominion
Government prove of use, and should a large number of immigrants come into the country,
it is considered by the people living there that the population will have increased
to such an extent that it
may be advisable to divide the territories, and to
perhaps carve out one or two provinces. I think,
as the territories exist just now, it would be a
mistake to alter the conditions affecting the schools.
I, for one, am pledged to the maintenance of separate schools at present, and when
my hon. friend
the member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) warns the
Government that if they do not next year bring in
a Bill to place the question of schools, and the prohibition of separate schools,
if necessary, in the
hands of the Legislative Assembly, I may warn him
that as one of the representatives of the territories
I am pledged during this Parliament to oppose
such a measure. I believe that the people of the
North-West are very liberal in their opinions.
The Protestants who live there have their own
schools, and they do not in the least object to the
Roman Catholics educating their children in the
manner in which their conscience dictates. I believe at
the same time that there is a very strong hope amongst
the people of the North-West Territories that the
children of Canada may know that there can be
nothing very detrimental to religion in learning
reading, and writing, and arithmetic, and other
teachings such as that, in the common schools of the
country. But they recognize that, as long as there
is a strong prejudice on the part of a large section
of the people throughout the country, arising simply
from a good motive, it must be respected. During
the last session of Parliament, when my hon. friend
from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) introduced in
this House a measure affecting the schools of the
North-West, he stated that the different representatives of the territories did not
represent the feeling of the people there. Well, Sir, we have had a
general election since then. In my district there
is not only a large number of Roman Catholics, but
also a large number of North of Ireland Orangemen;
there are Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists,
Baptists, and adherents of almost every denomination; and at every single meeting
I attended, whether in a Roman Catholic settlement
or an Orange one, when I was asked to state what
course I would pursue in regard to this school
question I boldly replied that I would pursue such
a course as would be favourable to maintaining the
separate schools and respecting the religious
3911 [COMMONS] 3912
opinions of the different sections of the people.
There is really no hardship at all to the Protestants
of the North-West in the separate schools as they
are at present constitued, because the present Act,
which I presume will be continued after this Bill
passes, provides that Protestants shall be taxed for
the maintenance of Protestant schools, and that
Roman Catholics shall be taxed for the maintenance of Roman Catholic schools. No Protestant
is
taxed for the maintenance of Roman Catholic
schools unless he chooses, and at the same time no
Roman Catholic is taxed for the maintenance of
Protestant schools unless he chooses to be taxed in
that way. I do not think there is any great
danger from a system of that kind; and if the hon.
gentlemen who espouse so warmly the interests of
the North-West would turn their attention to the
material welfare of that country they will find
that the people of the territories are able to take
care of their own spiritual interests. Now, the
hon. gentleman, in referring to this question, says
he is not sure whether the British North America
Act controls the question of schools in the North- West Territories or not. I can
hardly believe that
it does, for there is a provision at present on the
Statute-book providing for the maintenance of separate schools in the territories.
It, therefore, appears
to be plain that this House regulates these matters;
and I would warn the hon. gentleman, before he
brings a measure before this House for the purpose
of abolishing separate schools in the territories, to
consider the constitution of this House. The hon.
gentleman says I have misunderstood him—that he
did not intend to abolish separate schools, but
merely wished to give the people the right to say
whether they would have separate schools or not.
I may say that I am opposed to that while the constitution of the territories exists
in its present
form. When those territories are divided into
provinces, then they may be given control of their
schools; but while they continue to be territories
it is better to leave the school question as it is.
When they are divided into provinces there will
be a sufficient population of the different denominations to guarantee that no one
denomination shall
be treated unfairly. But I believe, further, that
when that happens the provinces must be given
control of their own lands, and be given proper
subsidies to ensure the efficient government of those
provinces. I know that the hon. member for Bothwell will immediately say: Here are
those North- West political highwaymen after our pockets
again. But, Sir, it would be useless to establish
Provincial Governments in the North-West unless we gave them the means of carrying
out their purposes. I consider that the time
is not ripe for establishing Provincial Governments in the North-West until you give
them
good and solid means to enable them to redeem their responsibilities. At the same
time, I
believe that this House has shown its responsibility in regard to that country. It
has chartered
railways throughout the North-West in every
direction. This is practically the Provincial Government of the North-West as well
as the Dominion Government; and when we who represent the
North-West appeal to the Government, and the
Government appeal to this House for subsidies to
assist our railways, I think hon. gentlemen forget
that whereas they who belong to the older provinces have power to obtain assistance
from the Provin
cial Governments, we in the North-West Territories
have no such power: and, therefore, if we were to ask
the Government, and the Government were to ask
this House to grant double subsidies to railways in
the North-West Territories, they would act on a
sound basis; because they would grant one-half in
their capacity as the Provincial Government and
the other half in their capacity as the Federal
Government. Now, Sir, there was one other question referred to by my hon. friend from
West Assiniboia; that is the question of immigration. I do not
think I need say very much on this question to impress upon this House still more
strongly than it has
hitherto been done that the question of immigration
is one of the most material questions in the North- West. The hon. member of Assiniboia
suggested
that a sum of money should be provided by this Act
to be given to the Government of the North-West to
be expended on immigration. I think myself that
that would be a very wise thing indeed, and I hope
that when the Supplementary Estimates come
down we shall find a sum in them for that object.
But there is one defect in this Act which I hope
will be remedied. The population of the North- West act was passed, and the electoral
districts
for the last Provincial Legislature were drawn out.
Now, by this Bill you are cutting off the three
legal experts of the Council, and I would ask the
Minister not to increase the number of Assembly, but to provide for three new elected
representatives to take the place of those three legal
experts, one of those representatives to come from
the district of Saskatchewan, and the other two I
think my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Davis) is
fairly entitled to claim, according to the population
of his district. If this is done it will give the
greatest satisfaction to the people of the North- West. I think the Bill will then
be satisfactory to
them as a temporary measure, because it can only
be a temporary measure, if the North-West continues to grow as we hope it will.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. I do not intend to find
fault with the Bill; but I would ask the Minister
if subsection (
f) of sub-section 2 of section 6 givesÂ
power to the Assembly to establish the ballot in
local elections?
Mr. DEWDNEY. Sub-section (
f) gives power to Â
the Legislative Assembly to give the ballot. That
is the intention.
Mr. LARIVIERE. I was rather astonished at
the remarks that fell from the lips of the hon.
member of Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) on this particular occasion. We have heard a good
deal before
on this question of education as well as that of the
dual language, and in most of these instances
the objections came from representatives of the
Province of Ontario, who, being unable to impose
their own ideas in their own province, are trying
to impose those very ideas outside of the Province
of Ontario itself. The question of education is one
of those which have been well guarded in the constitution; and I may say that, upon
reading the
British North America Act one cannot fail to
notice that the spirit, as well as the letter of the
constitution, is in favour of separate schools.
Clause 93 is as follows:—
"In and for each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
education, subject and
according to the following provisions:—
3913 [AUGUST 14, 1391.] 3914
"First, nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege wrth respect to denominational schools which any class
of persons have by law in
the province at the Union: Second, all the powers, privileges and duties at the Union
bylaw conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools and school
trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects shall be
and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient
schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic
subjects of Quebec: Third, where in any province a system of separate or dissentieut
schools exists by law at
the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature
of the province, an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any act
or decrsion of any provincial
authority affecting any right or privileg of the Protestant
or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in
relation to education.'"
Therefore, when a system of separate schools
existed prior to the Union, or was thereafter established, it was provided that that
system could
not subsequently be altered: and I say that
this being the case, the spirit of our constitution is in favour of the system of
separate schools.
In the case of the North-West Territorics, before
we enacted legislation to govern those territories
there were schools in existence, and those were
separate schools: and when this Parliament, in
giving a constitution to those territories, enacted
that the schools to be thereafter established would
be separate schools, we have only continued the
system that was already in existence, and a system
already under the pmteetion of the constitution.
The British North America Act provided that
what existed in the provinces that were then
united should be extended also to the provinces
afterwards taken into the Union and to-day form
part of Confederation, and that provision applies
also to the territories we have acquired since.
Therefore, I may say. that in leaving what
is well alone the Government is only carrying out the spirit of the constitution,
as I
have already explained. With regard to the feeling of the people in the Territories.
I may say that
the feeling out there is just as has been represented
by the worthy representative of Saskatchewan (Mr.
Macdowall). Last year a large number of petitions were addressed to this Parliament,
asking that
the same system which was in existence should be
maintained, and protesting against any change such
as was then contemplated by some hon. members of
this House. This year, I may say, I have a certain
number of similar petitions in my desk, which I did
not deem advisable to present to this House, because
I did not think that this question would he brought
up for our consideration. I am glad, however, that
the hon. member for Muskoka has only put in his
remarks as a protest, and does not intend to raise
otherwise this question during the present session.
and I hope we will never hear any more of those
very nasty questions, and that of education, which
should not have been raised on this occasion.
Mr. McNEILL. I desire just to say a few words
with reference to this matter. I would not have
said anything at all had it not been for the remarks
which have fallen from my hon. friend opposite;
but I think it is well that I should at once remove
what seems to he a complete misapprehension from
the mind of my hon. friend. He says that some
persons in Ontario, unable to carry their own views
as to education into effect there, desire to impose
those views upon people in other portions of this
Dominion. Now, that is an entire misconception
of what has fallen from the hon. member for Muskoka. Nothing more entirely opposed
to the
remarks which I, at least. had the pleasure of
hearing from him, could well be imagined than that
statement. What my hon. friend said was this—
if I could state the exact logical opposite of what
has been cited by the hon. gentleman opposite—
not that he desires to impose the wishes of people
outside the North-West Territories upon the people
of the North-West Territories in reference to this
matter, but that, on the contrary, he desires to
take care that the wishes of no one outside the
North-West Territories shall he imposed upon the
people there with reference to this matter. He
wishes to have safeguards taken lest at some time
the wishes of other people should be imposed upon
them. He wishes to take care now that we do not
do something which will prevent the people of
the North-West having the power to carry out
their own views in reference to this matter: and
surely it is scarcely fair to my hon. friend to represent that he has any desire to
force the wishes
of other people on the people of the North-West
Territories. When my hon. friend understands
what the hon. member for Muskoka really means I
hope he will have the kindness to get up in his place
and withdraw the observations he has made, which,
I am sure, were not meant in unkindness, but, which
really were not doing justice at all to what has
fallen from my hon. friend. For my part, I should
like to see the people of Canada if it were possible,
educated in one school. I should like personally
to see the young people brought up in the closest
possible friendship with one another. I think that
would be for the benefit of the people of Canada,
but I quite recognize the fact that other people
differ from me in that respect. I quite recognize
the fact that they may be right and that I may be
wrong, and all my hon. friend says and all I say in
regard to this is that we should take care that
those in Canada who think as we think in regard
to this matter should have the opportunity of
carrying out their wishes, and that those who
think differently should have the opportunity of
carrying out their wishes. We simply hope that
we shall not now do anything which will prevent
the people of the North-West Territories in the
future from dealing with this matter in any manner they please. If they wish separate
schools, let
them have them; and if they do not wish separate
schools, do not force them upon them. That is all
my hon. friend says, and if that is not a fair and
reasonable propositionl do not see where a fair
and reasonable proposition can be found.
Mr. LARIVIERE. When I made my remarks
I had in my mind the last fight that took place in
Ontario, and from what I read in the newspapers
and the speeches that took place I formed the
opinion on which I made my remarks. As to
leaving this to the Local Legislature the experience
we have had in Manitoba is so sad that we cannot
agree to leave our interests to a set of demagogues,
who try to impose their own views on other people,
without any regard to the interests or the welfare
of the minority.
Mr. SPEAKER. I hope the hon. gentleman
will not make a speech, as he has already spoken.
He will have an opportunity to speak in Committee.
Mr. AMYOT. I am very glad to see that we
will not have a repetition this year of the animated
discussions on this subject which took place before, but I do not think the occasion
should pass
3915
[COMMONS] 3916
without my stating my views in regard to this
matter. I humbly submit that this is a very important question, that it has a great
deal to do with
some rights which we should not infringe upon,
that it touches the constitution itself, and the consent of the parties to that constitution.
When
the question came up to incorporate Manitoba and
the North-West in the Dominion some great
troubles arose. Troops were sent there, and then,
on the invitation of the Ottawa Govermnent, delegates were sent here. The Government
of England took great care that the incorporation of that
province in the Dominion would not be effected without the consent of the parties
interested. The delegates came to Ottawa with a Bill of Rights. I hope
that the hon. gentlemen who place themselves under
the flag of equal rights will not desire to see any
rights infringed, and they will see that the North- West would not have joined the
Dominion if the
claim made by the North-West generally, and not
only by Manitoba, had not been accepted. Those
delegates who were specially appointed, in conformity with the invitation of the Government
of this
country, came to Ottawa and presented their Bill
of Rights. The seventh clause of that Bill of Rights
says:
"That the separate schools be preserved and the money
for those schools be divided between the different religious
denominations and their respective populations, according to the system followed in
the Province of Quebec."
Section 16 says:
"That the French and English languages be common
in the Legislature and in the courts, and that all the public
documents as well as the Acts of the Legislature be
published in both languages."
And in a report elaborately prepared by His Grace
Mgr. Tache, dated the 27th December, all the facts
that occurred then are related, and it says at
page 7:
"The question of separate schools as asked for in Article
7 of said Bill of Rights was taken under consideration.
The delegates were assured that not only would they have
the benefit of the clauses of the British North America
Act, but that they might assure their people that in the
Red River district the separate schools were guaranteed
to them, and the usage of the French language as an
official language was also granted as it had been asked in
Article 16 of said Bill of Rights. Moreover, it was promised
that we would receive what was asked in Articles 17 and
18."
I did not mention that Article 18 states that a judge
of the Supreme Court will speak both French and
English. The bishop goes on to say that these
claims were all granted as a matter of course. If
the granting of the same was not in terms
identical with the demand which was made, at all
events it was substantially granted in order to
satisfy the interests of the different parties.
That was one of the bases of the convention, and
the Dominion of Canada has been allowed by England to acquire those territories on
the special condition that the French language and the separate
schools should be maintained. That is a contract.
It is the basis of a constitution, and if we begin
now to change that constitution we may shake the
tree of Confederation in such a way that perhaps it
may not live long; we may prevent it from having
large branches which would shelter a large, a healthy
and a happy population. The hon. gentlemen who
look for equal rights must not at the same time try
to take away from others the rights which are
guaranteed by charters. I may be told that this is
not a British charter. That is true. As far as
Manitoba is concerned, the charter is British. As
far as the North-West is concerned, it is a Dominion
charter; but it results from the stipulations which
were made when Manitoba was allowed to join the
Confederation, that the same basis would be adopted
by the Dominion for the North-West Territories, and
we cannot now take away the rights and privileges
which were granted to the minority in any of those
two provinces without abusing our powers and
without acting unfairly and unjustly towards
those minorities. If there was something against
the common good when a man worships his
God according to the Catholic religion, if there
was something against the public good when
a man speaks French, then I would say: all
right, you act for the common good; but where
is the man of common sense who will say in
this House of Parliament of Canada that it is wrong
to worship God according to the Catholic religion?
Where is the man who will say it is wrong to
speak French? Do we not in our language teach
our children to respect the property of their neighbour? Do we not teach them to be
loyal to the
Queen? Do we not teach our children all those
rules of morals necessary for the welfare and safety
of a people? If, then, in the Catholic religion, and
in the French language, there is nothing against
public good, you must respect the conditions
concerning them, which were established when
those parts of the Dominion joined the Confederation of Canada. I maintain that in
our
Confederation, under our system of Government, we must follow the constitution as
it
has been agreed upon; and if we go astray from it
we lay down principles and make precedents which
will bring us into a state of division and trouble,
and which might demolish the whole work of Confederation. Those who look for unity
instead of
union do not understand the system under which
we live. There is a great and essential distinction
to be drawn between the two things. The essence
of a Government by a King or an Emperor, as in
England or France, is unity? The essence of
a Confederation is not unity, it is union, and there
is a wide distinction to be made between the two.
On this point, I will quote from a high authority,
"Lectures introductory to the study of the Law of
the Constitution," by Dicey. I draw to this work
the attention of the hon. member for Muskoka,
whom I know to be animated with honest and honourable motives, who is sincere in his
convictions,
who acts in what he believes to be the real interests
of the country. I ask him to look at that authority
and to follow my quotation, and to learn how to respect the sentiments of those who
have not the
honour of speaking his language or of professing
his religion. We respect his rights; we want equal
rights for all—equal rights for the Protestant and
for the Catholic religion, for the English and for
the French language. Those rights cannot be infringed upon without troubling the harmony
and
the welfare of our commonwealth. On page 129
of his work Dicey says:
"A second condition absolutely essential to the founding of a federal system is the
existence of a very peculiar
state of sentiment among the inhabitants, of the countries
which it is proposed to unite. They must desire union,
and must not desire unity. If there be no desire to unite,
there is clearly no basis for federalism: the wild scheme
entertained, it is said, under the commonwealth of forming a union between the English
Republic and the United
Provinces was one of those dreams which may haunt the
3917 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3918
imagination ofpoliticians. but it can never be transformed
into facts."
At page 130 he says:
"The sentiment, therefore, which creates a federal state
is the prevalence. throughout the citizens of more or less
allied countries, of two feelings which are to a certain extent, inconsistent—the
desire for national unity and the
determination to maintain the independence of each man's
separate state."
At page 132 he says:
"From the notion that national unity can be reconciled
with state independence by a division of powers under a
common constitution. between the nation on the one hand
and the individual states on the other, flow the three leading characteristics of
federalism—the supremacy of the
constitution—the distribution among bodies, with limited
and co-ordinate authority, of the different powers of government—the authority of
the courts to act as interpreters of the constitution."
Now, Mr. Speaker, under our system we have that
constitution which must be our sole guide; we must
not depart from it in any way. A part of that constitution has been granted by the
Queen, and the other
part has been granted by this Parliament, in virtue
of the powers given to us by the Queen. The
constitution as it stands is the consequence of the
act and the direct will of the people at large.
It follows that that constitution must be stronger
than the courts, stronger than Parliament, stronger
than any power in this world. We have consented
to enter into Confederation under certain stipulations, and they must remain our rule.
Of course,
some human power will have to interpret some
acts of the Legislatures to find out whether they are
conformable to the constitution, but the constitution itself must always remain as
our guiding star.
What does the hon. gentleman, with a good motive,
doubtless, ask us to do? He asks us to change that
constitution. I say that he cannot receive the
consent of those who look seriously to the future of
this country. The generous spirit of all the parts
of the Constitution, either Imperial or Federal,
is that the two languages shall remain in
the right of the different populations, of the
different people composing the federation: secondly, that separate schools shall remain
intact. Separate Schools are allowed under law to
remain separate in the Province of Quebec, and if any
member of this House, or any one out of the
House came into the Province of Quebec and asked
us to do away with separate schools, to keep only
the schools of the majority, you would find the
whole Catholic population of the Province of Quebec rising as one man and saying,
No. The Protestants are entitled to their Protestant schools;
they entered Confederation with that stipulation,
and they will keep them. I was happy when I
saw in the neighbouring province, the great and
prosperous Province of Ontario—when I saw there
a Prime Minister, to whatever party he may belong,
rising up from his seat and, in the name of a great
party, saying: "I will defend the separate schools
because they are established by the constitution,
and I must observe the constitution." I deprecate
the Acts of Martin of Manitoba, to whatever party
he may belong, when he got a law passed to change
the constitution, which he had not the right to do,
concerning the separate schools and the French
language in that province. I will not for my part
consent to be a part to any law entrenching upon
vested rights. The people professing the Catholic
religion in the North-West are in a minority to-day:
who can tell us that in 100 years, or 200 years, they
will not be the majority? Then if the majority becomes Catliolic, and if that majority
is asked to
establish separate schools and to do away with the
Protestant schools, following the rules of the Catholic Church, the majority, then
being Catholic,
will say, "No; vested rights must remain vested
rights, and nobody must infringe upon them."
That is, Mr. Speaker, the general understanding,
and we must not infringe upon it; that is my way
of looking at the constitution of the country, it
must be our guide and our only guide. It is the
only way of forming a grand people in union under
the British flag, of making everybody happy, feeling that his rights are respected,
that the future of
his children is assured, and that his religion, as well
as his language, are not exposed to be taken away
from future generations for whom he is responsible.
Now, the same authority which I quoted a moment
ago, gives general rules as to that constitution. He
says, page 144:
"Under the federal system it is otherwise. The legal
supremacy of the constitution is essential to the existence
of the state."
The words are clear. He speaks thus of the United
States:
"The glory of the founders of the United States is to
have advised or adopted arrangements under which the
constitution became in reality as well as name the supreme
law of theland. This end they attained by adherence to
a very obvious principle and by the invention of appropriate machinery for carrying
this principle into effect.
The principle is clearly expressed in the constitution of
the United States. 'The constitution' runs article 6,
'and the laws of United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the
land and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the constitution or laws in any state to the
contrary notwithstanding.'"
The same authority, speaking of our British North
America Act of 1867, page 153, says:
"Throughout the Dominion, therefore, the constitution
is in the strictest sense the immutable law of the land.
Under this law, again. you have as you would expect,
the distribution of powers among bodies of co-ordinate
authority."
Where is the consent, I will not say of the majority, but of the minority of the North-West,
who
joined the Dominion under a special compact, to
do away with separate schools or abolish the
French language in any part of the public or official proceedings either of courts
or of Parliaments.
If you do any man in the North-West the injustice
of taking away from him vested rights in that respect, if you do him the injustice
of not allowing
him to speak in Parliament or read the Acts of
Parliament, or the decisions of the court in his own
language, you do not act with justice but with tyranny; you use force towards the
minority in order
to take away the rights belonging to them, and
which the majority had given to that minority.
You trespass on private rights, you deprive a body
of people of their vested rights without their consent, and I do not believe it will
be noble, fair and
even excusable on the part of this enlightened
Parliament to do any such action, when we boast
of the great education and the great liberty
which every one enjoys under the British flag.
In the name of the constitution, in the name
of vested rights, in the name of equal rights,
because equal rights do not consist in taking away
rights from others, in the name of the future
of this country, of the peace, harmony and
welfare of every part of this Dominion, I implore
this Parliament not to infringe on vested rights and
3919
[COMMONS] 3920
to maintain for the North-West as for any other
part of the Dominion, all rights granted to the
people by the constitution, which has received the
sanction of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen
Victoria.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. member for Bellechase
(Mr. Amyot) seems to confuse a portion of the constitution with the constitution itself.
That portion
of the British North America Act referred to provided for a condition of things that
was in existence
in two provinces of the Dominion when Confederation was accomplished, and that is
the reason those
rights were given to those provinces by that Act.
Among the exclusive rights given to a province, as
stated in clause 93 of the British North America
Act, was:
"In and for each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
education, subject and
according to the following provisions."
These provisions were made to apply to a condition
of things prevailing only in two provinces of the
Dominion when Confederation was about to take
place. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr.
Amyot) forgets that there are some provinces that
have not the right to separate schools today, but
which came in under the constitution, the same as
the North-West Territories or Manitoba did; and
it must be remembered that these provisions were
applicable to a condition of things that existed in
Ontario and Quebec alone, and they were framed
to meet that condition, and not to apply to other
provinces or territories that might come in hereafter. The member for Bellechasse
says we have a
right to maintain that provision. I believe we
have the right to do so. We went into Confederation on the understanding that the
British North
America Act should be our future constitution.
and there is no violation, when we are giving a
constitution to the North-West Territories, in
granting the new province the right contemplated
to be given to all provinces, to deal exclusively
with the subject of education. In New Brunswick
the people have that right, in Nova Scotia they
have it, but in Ontario and Quebec they have not
that right, because separate schools were established
anterior to Confederation, and they must be retained
in accordance with the constitution. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LaRiviere)
says those provisions have the sanction of law to-day in the North- West. The hon.
gentleman refers to a section in the
old Act. I should like to ask, when was that passed?
It was not passed at the time we acquired the
North-West Territories but was inserted in a provisional Act in order to give quasi-legislative
power
to the Lieutenant Governor in the North-West.
If there is any force in the arguments of the hon.
members for Bellechasse and Provencher, they
must show that by law or usage the educational
system of the country, anterior to the time we acquired Manitoba and the North-West,
separate
schools existed, and, if such were established, there
might be some force in the contention that the
people had the right to retain the power they enjoyed
and exercised. But I do not understand that the
clause of the Act that the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) read is part and
parcel of the
constitution, but simply a clause of the North-West
Territories Act. The hon. member for Provencher
(Mr. LaRivière) said that the people of Ontario
should not force their opinion into legislation for
the North-West Territories. He forgets that he is
adopting that course himself, because he does not
belong to the North-West Territories, but to the
Province of Manitoba. But it is not a matter of
jurisdiction limited to members from those Territories, when we are framing a constitution
for that
western country, but the right to take part belongs
to every member of this Parliament. We are making that constitution. and it ought
to be in harmony
with the provision of the British North America Act,
if I rightly interpret it, which is that every province
that enters into this Union shall have certain exclusive rights as laid down in the
British North
America Act, and one of these rights is, that in
and for each province the Legislature may make
laws in relation to education. It goes on and says
"subject to the following provisions:" but, as I
before stated, the provisions were only made to
provide for a condition of things that existed in
two provinces, not all the provinces, and therefore
we may fairly leave that part out of consideration.
I must confess that I agree very largely with the
sentiments expressed by the hon. member for
Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien). If it is possible for us in
giving a constitution to the Territories to give it
such exclusive rights that they may deal with
education, as every other province in the Dominion
has the right to deal with education, then I think
it is fair and just that we should do so. Nor do I
think we should be hammered in the discharge of
our duty, notwithstanding the clause of the British
North America Act which has been already cited,
and a clause which was made long after we bought
the North-West Territories.
Mr. LARIVIERE. I would ask my hon. friend
to look at sub-section 3 of section 93. My hon.
friend has only read up to sub-section 2, but he
will find that sub-section 3 applies to the province
where a system "will be thereafter established."
"Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law at
the Union or is thereafter
established by the Legislature of the province, an appeal
shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any act
or decision of any provincial authority affecting any right
or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority
of the Queen's subjects in relation to education."
This provides fer where the legislation has provided
for separate schools, or where separate schools existed
when the province was brought into Confederation.
I do not understand there was any law to provide
for separate schools in the North-West Territories
when they came into Confederation, and therefore
I say that this cannot fairly apply.
Mr. LARIVIERE. My hon. friend knows that
the British North America Act applies to all the
provinces.
Mr. SPROULE. It certainly does, but I say
that the sub-section which the hon. gentleman has
asked me to read:
"Where in any province a system of separate or
dissentient schools exists by law at the Union—"
I claim it did not exist thereby law at the Union.
Mr. SPROULE. This is an Act that was passed
long after the Union, and it did not exist by law at
the time of the Union, and therchre I say that it
cannot be fairly applied to this particular case.
In view of the trouble we have seen in the Province
of Manitoba lately in regard to this question, and
3921 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3922
in view of the troubles that have taken place in
other provinces, I think we should be very careful
in dealing with this subject here. If there is any
one principle more than another by which we should
be governed it is that principle that we have acknowledged, the principle which we
have in every
province in the Union, save and except the provisions
that were made for conditions that existed by law
anterior to the Union. I say it is right to give to
the provinces the power to deal exclusively with
education, as was contemplated by the British North
America Act, if I correctly interpret it. I do not know
whether at the time that this Act was written
this provision for educational powers was overlooked, or that it was intended to allow
the law to
remain, but I think it would he better to give a free
constitution to the territories, as they are about to
organize a Legislative Assembly, and to give them
the same rights and powers that are exercised in
every other province of the Union to-day.
Mr. AMYOT. Without the right of changing
anything as to education and language. We have
been kept as a protection here.
Mr. SPROULE. I have not spoken about language at all. I have spoken with regard to the
subject of education, and according to my interpretation of the British North America
Act it
allows every province to have exclusive right over
that. Â
Mr. DAVIS (Alberta). Mr. Speaker, before this
Bill receives its second reading I wish to say a
very few words upon it. I am satisfied that this
Bill meets with general approbation in the North- West Territories, and I shall raise
no discussion
with regard to the stand that my hon. friend from
Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) takes in reference to it;
but I will say this: That this question of education
is one on which there is very little said in the
North-West Territories, and had it been included
in this Bill I, for one, would have stood up for separate schools. You may say that
ever since the
North-West has been the North-West and in fact
when it was originally settled, the first schools that
were established there were Catholic schools, and
I cannot myself see why we should take any rights
away from these people which they had. I believe
in fair-play the world over. Even if the Roman
Catholics are now in a minority, there is no reason
why the majority should dictate to them, and say:
You shall not have what was granted to you when
you first came into Confederation, as we might say. I
There will be time enough when we are divided into
provinces, which will be, I hope, at no distant date,
to discuss this question. Then, if we are to have
a new constitution it will be good and seasonable
time to discuss this question, but at the present
time I say: Let it alone. Now, with regard to
the provisions of section 2 of the Bill now before
the House. That section provides that there shall I
be twenty-two members in the Legislative Assembly,
but when the Bill comes up in the Committee I
shall move that the number be increased to twenty- five members. We have had taken
from us three
of the legal experts, two of whom came from the
district of Alberta, and I shall give my reasons for
saying that we should have two additional members in that district. When in 1888 the
proportion
of the members was granted it was taken from the
number of names that were on the voters' lists at
that time. Alberta was entitled to six members
at that time, Assiniboia to eleven, and Saskatchewan to five. As we cannot yet get
the
proper estimate by the last census, it is only
fair that. we should take the same proportion
now as was taken three years ago—that is, by
number of names on the voters' list. If
the division was fair, then it is fair now.
I find that in Alberta there were 6,492 on the
voters' list, and that divided by six would give
1,082 voters which each member in the district. of
Alberta represented. In Assiniboia, cast and west,
there were 7,255 names, which, for eleven members,
would give each a representation of 659 voters, as
against 1,082 for Alberta. Now, I am only asking
for two members, which will leave me still to the
good, with each member representing 816 voters in
Alberta as against 659 in Assiniboia. I think I have
a just claim in asking for these two additional
members, and if there were a redistribution according to the number of names on the
voters' list at
the present time I think Alberta would be entitled
to four members instead of two. I may say that I
have heard no complaints from any portion of
Alberta with regard to the clauses of this Bill.
They have not even found fault with the representation, as they thought I would look
after that
myself. I have my schedule drawn out in reference to the representation, and I will
produce it
before the Committee when it comes to the question
of redistribution provided we are allowed the two
extra members. I do not propose to detain the
House any longer at this stage, but when the Bill
comes up in committee I shall have something to
say upon it.
Mr. DAVIES. (P.E.I.) Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make just one. remark in reference to this question.
I regret that the hon. gentleman should have
debated at such length, and with, as I thought,
unnecessary warmth, the subject of the introduction
into the North-West of any provision with respect
to education. My hon. friend to my left spoke
about this subject as if an attempt were being made
to interfere directly or indirectly with the rights
which are secured by compact to the Province of
Quebec, the Province of Ontario and the Province
of Manitoba. I do not understand that any intimation was given in that direction,
and if it was,
it certainly should not, so far as I understand the
question, have any sympathy or support from me.
I think those rights are sufficiently guaranteed by
the British North America Act, and I have not
heard that any agitation exists in any of those provinces for the purpose of having
any of those rights
interfered with. I would not have said a word on
this Bill except for the remarks made by these hon.
gentlemen; and I desire that it should not he understood on this occasion that Parliament
is bound
by the silence of one or all of its members from
expressing its views when those territories are
erected into provinces. My opinion is now, and
has been for years, that when that time comes you
cannot withhold from the provinces so erected
the right to determine for themselves the
question of education in one way or the
other. I would be the last to favour this
Parliament imposing upon the people there
any system of education, either free or separate. I
only claim that when a Bill is introduced to erect
those territories into provinces that Bill should
contain a provision enabling the people of the dif
3923
[COMMONS] 3924
ferent provinces so created to decide what system
of education they shall have. I do not discuss that
question now. I only express this view, lest I might
be supposed by my silence to give assent to some
extreme doctrines which hon. gentlemen have propounded. In view of the remarks which
have been
made, I thought it necessary to disclaim that, in
assenting to the passage of this Bill, I bound myself
for all time on this question of education. I do not.
Although we are giving powers almost equal to
those conferred upon Local Legislatures, we are not
erecting the territories into separate provinces.
When that is done. I suppose it will he done by the
Queen in Council under the 146th section of the
British North America Act, and I simply claim the
right when that time comes to determine for myself. In accordance with the view I
have always
held and hold now. I have no hesitation in expressing, respectfully, that the people
of those new provinces should have the right to determine what
system of education they shall have.
Mr. BEAUSOLEIL. (Translation.) Mr. Speaker,
the question of the representation of the minority
in the Legislature of the North-West Territories
was brought up last session of the last Parliament,
by the reading of a letter from Mgr. Grondin, Bishop
of St. Albert, in which is to be found the following
passage:—
"Although in the minority, we might be able, nevertheless. to send two representatives
in in the House, but they
have succeeded in making this a thing impossible for us.
I again charge the Dominion Government, who in marking out the electoral districts
have divided up the two
French centres in such a manner that it is impossible for
us to secure representation."
During the debate on the Bill introduced by the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy to
abolish the French language in the North-West
Territories, the question was again brought tip by
the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Macdowall),
in a dialogue which took place between him and the
hon. Minister of Justice, when the latter introduced
his famous amendment. This dialogue is to be
found in the last year's debates of the House, column
882. I will now read it:
"Mr. MACDOWALL. The hon. the Minister of Justice
said. before he moved his ammendment the whole
North-West should have fair representation in the Legislative Assembly before that
question was dealt with by
that Assembly. I should like like to ask him does the Government contemplate a re-distribution
of seats in the
North-West Assembly? because otherwise the population
of the North-West will not have the fair representation
they are entitled to.
"Sir JOHN THOMPSON. That is a matter which will
have to be dealt with by Parliament, as the subject-matter
of this resolution will be, should it be adopted. The Government will consider that
subject before bringing down a
Bill.
"Mr. MACDOWALL. I understand that there will be
a re-distribution of seats for the North-West Territories.
and the Wrench population will be, given a representation
before this question has to be dealt with.
"Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The hon. gentleman will
understand that if it is shown to the Government that
there is not a fair representation in the present system of
distribution this Parliament will beyond doubt remedy
the evil."
I wish to know, Mr. Speaker, whether the Government has studied the question, and
whether it is
ready to say whether the French population of the
North-West is to be represented in the Legislature,
for it has been shown that there exists a just grievance, and the Government has promised
to remedy
this grievance when it should be shown. In section
2 of the Bill now before us the Government refers
to a schedule containing a description of the electoral
districts, according to which the elections shall he
made. However, the Bill contains no new schedule,
and before it be read for a second time I wish to
know if the Government is ready to fulfil the promise which it niade, of giving the
French population
of the North-West a representation proportionate
to its importance?
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I should have been
better pleased myself if the measure we have before
us had made some provision for the creation of an
executive responsible to the Local Legislature, and
controlling the expenditure of moneys placed at
the disposal of the Legislature of those territories.
I notice in the Estimates which we have before as
certain sums of money voted by this House for
certain specific purposes: and I think, when the
territories have rrown in population to such an
extent as to justify them in having a representative
Assembly to legislate for them, that we ought to
hand over a reasonable sum of money, such as we
are voting here for specific purposes, to the control of
that Assembly, and allow it to determine how and
for what purpose that money shall be applied.
When we undertake to confer representative
institutions on the people of the territories we are assuming that they are in a condition to
exercise the
functions of self-government: and one of the
earliest functions of self-government would be to
apply the revenues placed at their disposal to those
purposes which they think most necessary for the
welfare of the territories. That, I think, is a
matter of very considerable importance. I do not
overlook the fact that the population of this vast
area is not a homogeneous population, in the sense
of being united together and capable of understanding each other's wants, in the same
way that a
population in a well-settled province could. It is
highly probable that it may be found, in the
interest of good government in those territories,
that at no distant day they should be divided,
and that it will be found that they will be capable
of carrying on the local legislation in a way more
satisfactory to themselves if they had separate districts, each of which is separately
represented, than
by undertaking to embrace nearly one million
square miles within the area of one Local Government, and bringing together representatives
of
distant settlements, who cannot understand each
other's wants and can know little or nothing about
each other's circumstances. That fact alone will
make any Assembly which may be called together
there different from what a representative Assembly would be in a well-settled province.
I observe,
too, that by section 3 you give to the Lieutenant
Governor the powers and prerogatives that belong
to the Crown; you give him the power of dissolution. I think that is very questionable.
You say
that the Legislature, when elected, shall be elected
for three years, unless sooner dissolved by the
Lieutenant Governor; but why should the Lieutenant Governor have the power of dissolution,
when
you have not given him any responsible advisers?
The advisers he may have are not responsible to the
majority of the Legislature. It does seem to
me that the evils which might arise from
this power being held by an irresponsible officer
are far greater than those which would spring
from the continuance of the Assembly for the
whole period of its election. The Assembly
3925 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3926
exists, under this section, for a period of
three years, unless sooner dissolved. Why should
it be sooner dissolved? Why should it not continue as a county council does, until
the period for
which it is elected expires? Why give an officer
appointed by the Ministers here the power of dissolution? His Excellency the Governor
General
exercises that power, but he does so upon the
advice of Ministers who are responsible to Parliament for the advice they give. But
out there you
have no Ministers, you have no advisers who are
responsible to the Local Legislature and can be dismissed from their positions by
the action of the
Local Legislature for having given bad advice in
this matter. I think that is a power which ought
never to be vested in an officer appointed by the
Federal Ministers, or His Excellency upon the
advice of the Federal Ministers, unless surrounded
by men responsible to the. Local Legislature for the
advice they give. I especially invite the attention
of hon. gentlemen to this section of the Bill, and
when we go into committee I think we should
amend this, and unless the Government are
prepared to say that the time has come when
the Lieutenant Government of the territories shall
be surrounded by men responsible to the Local
Legislature for the advice they give, and that the
moneys given by this House shall be handed over as
a subsidy to that Legislature to distribute as they
may see proper, under the constitutional provisions
which pertain wherever parliamentary government exists, we ought not to take this
step, because it is one which ought necessarily to be
accompanied by the others I have mentioned.
Motion agreed, and House resolved itself into
Committee.
(In the Committee.)
On section 6,
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). There does not appear
to be any provision by which the returning officers
will be appointed. The absence of such a provision is, in my opinion, a very serious
defect in the
Bill.
Mr. MACDOWALL. It is better to allow some
latitude, and to leave the matter in the Lieutenant
Governor's hands.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). That is a subject on
which the legislature should have the power to legislate. If there is any doubt, we
should not tie their
hands, so that they cannot make provision
legislatively for returning officers. I think the
words "unless otherwise provided by the Legislative Assembly of the territories" should
be added.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I have no objection
to add these words, and I will consider the clause
carefully.
0n section l3,
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). In that section, is it
the intention of the Minister to give power to
determine the succession of property and to determine the mode of registration?
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. It is all subject, as
 you will see by the main section, to any Act of the
Parliament of Canada.
Mr. DAVIN. I would like to ask the Minister
is there any difficulty in sub-section 4 about bonds
issued by a municipality. Then irrigation companies are excepted, and I think it would
he an
advantage that they should not be excepted. It
may be said that irrigation companies would have
to do with the public domain, which is controlled
by the Dominion Parliament: but I should think
that the territories might have power, subject to
certain conditions, to organize irrigation companies.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The incorporation of
telephone companies in towns is far less important
than some of the other powers we give.
Mr. DAVIN. This sub-section will prevent as
giving a charter to a little street railway. I would
suggest that the Government would permit the
municipalities to have a charter from the Local
Government for a short railway.
Mr. MULOCK. Is there any reason why the
Government should not give them power, as the
provinces have, to incorporate any railway company?
Mr. MACDOWALL. I think there is good reason,
because this House has assumed the incorporation
of railway companies in the North-West Territories.
Railways in the North-West cannot be built
without financial assistance, and this Parliament
should have power to charter them until the North- West is able to give the necessary
assistance.
Mr. MULOCK. The granting of a charter is one
thing and the granting of aid to build railways is
another. I should think that the people in the
immediate locality would be the best authorities to
pronounce in favour of a railway, and the corporation
afterwards could appeal for aid to whatever source
it liked. I am surprised that a member from the.
territories should desire to prevent the Legislature
incorporating a company. It is a great deal more
expensive for men to come to Ottawa to obtain
a charter than it would be if they could obtain it
3931
[COMMONS] 3932
within the limits of their own territory. I can see
no possible harm in the territories having that
power: they need not exercise it if they do not
like. If I represented a constituency in the territories I would be in favour of having
such power
given to the territories, trusting to the wisdom of
the people that it would be exercised for the public
good.
Mr. MACDOWALL. I do not agree with the hon.
gentleman. In the first place, it is not very much
cheaper to get incorporation in the North-West
Assembly than it is here. They can get a private
Bill passed through here just a mut as cheaply as
they could in the Assembly. One object I have in
view in saying that this House should keep the
power of incorporating these railways is thatI think
it would teach this Parliament what its responsibilities and duties are to the North-West.
The
incorporation of railway companies is one of the
most important things connected with these territories. and I think that when a Bill
connected with
the incorporation of railway companies passes
through this House hon. gentlemen will perhaps
appreciate their responsibilities to the territories
more than at present.
Mr. TISDALE. There is another objection to
this. If this power is given to them they would
have to pass a General Railway Act, which would
involve very heavy machinery, until they are incorporated into provinces, and we would
have
another set of railway Acts to come in contact
with the Railway Act of the Dominion. I think
that until the territories become provinces they
should not have this power.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I think that the power
to incorporate Railway Acts in that territory, as
long as it remains an undivided territory, would be
far more extensive than the power to incorporate a
railway in the provinces. You do not know what
extent of territory you will assign to a province in
that country yet. Suppose you were to make a
province of the Saskatchewan district at this moment, the majority of the people living
in that district could incorporate a railway extending all the
way to the North Saskatchewan, at the foot of the
Rocky Mountains. A railway of immense extent
could be incorporated in a territory although the
vast majority of the inhabitants may reside in a
very limited district. I do not think, however,
that would apply to tramways, which are in their
nature local, and extend to a very short distance;
nor do I think it would apply to telephone companies in towns. I do not see why, if
you confer
any municipal institutions upon them, you should
not confer the power to incorporate a telephone
company. You have given them powers implying
a much larger degree of responsibility, and it
seems to me that powers relating to tramway and
telephone companies might safely be entrusted to
the Legislature of the territories.
Mr. DEWDNEY. I agree with the hon. member, and there is no objection to striking out the
words "tramways and telephones." But I think
it advisable that we should keep in our own hands
the control of the water powers. That is a very
important matter, and I believe that companies
will be formed for the development of the water
powers there. But until provinces are established
in the territories I think we should keep the control of the water powers in our own
hands.
Mr. WATSON. I think the arguments used by
my hon. friend from North York (Mr. Mulock)
should have some weight, especially with members
from the North-West. I was a little surprised to
hear the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr.
Macdowall express the opinion that we should
curtail the powers of the North-West Council.
That body represents the people of the territories,
and I think they should have all the powers of a
Local Legislature, which they ask for. We can
easily understand that a North-West company
might wish to orgamize for the purpose of building
a tramway or short railway
Mr. WATSON,—for the purpose of opening up
a coal mine, for instance, or a steamship company
for the purpose of owning a steamship. Under this
Bill that Legislature will not be able to exercise
such powers. What harm could arise from the
representatives of the North-West having power to
grant the privilege of constructing a railway? I
do not agree with the hon. member for Saskatchewan that it is necessary to subsidize
every railway
in that country. I think men might have sufficient
interest there, they might acquire sufficiently large
tracts of land or coal-fields as to justify them in
building a railway without coming here for a
subsidy: and I would prefer seeing the hon. member for Saskatchewan, with his knowledge
of the
North-West, showing a disposition not to be tied
to the apron strings of the Dominion for so many long
years, but rather to have the people of the North- West depend on their own resources,
and do their
own business in their own way. The provinces
have power to grant railway charters, though that
power was interfered with for some time, we know
with what result. I do not see why the North- West Assembly should not have the same
power,
and I am rather surprised at an hon. gentleman
coming from the North-West wishing that it should
not be granted.
Mr. MACDOWALL. I think I can remove
some of the surprise of the hon. member. He
represents the small Province of Manitoba, and,
when I say the small province, I speak comparatively. The North-West Territories are
immense,
and, compared with them, the Province of Manitoba is of small area though thickly
populated; and
it has a much larger revenue, because the total
revenue of the North-West Territories, from all
territorial sources, does not exceed about $20,000.
Therefore, it would be premature to grant the
North-West Assembly those extensive powers. It
is in the interest of the people of the North-West
that we should make the hon. members of this
House understand that they are the Provincial
Government of the North-West Territories, that
upon their shoulders rests the responsibility of aiding the construction of railways
in those territories,
that they must redeem the responsibilities of the
Provincial Government, as well as the Dominion
lovernment, so long as they continue to possess
those powers.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). It seems to me that we
ought to make provision for the constitution of the
Legislative Assembly, for conferring upon it power
over its own existence, power to provide for the
division of the country into electoral districts, for
3933 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3934
the qualifications of members and for the qualification of electors.
On section 10,
Mr. DAVIN. I would urge upon the Government that they should consider sub-section 2. The
next is a very useful sub-section, and will meet a
difficulty which occurred in Calgary, but this subsection will work in this way: The
Legislative
Assembly is to have power to determine by an ordinance where a deputy sheriff may
be appointed,
and then it is provided that each sheriff "shall
appoint a deputy or deputies at such places within
the district" as are determined by the Legislative
Assembly. I think the sheriff in Regina has jurisdiction as far as Moose Jaw in the
west, and as far
as Fort Qu'Appelle and Qu'Appelle Station in the
east. Mr. Davidson represents Fort Qu'Appelle, Mr.
Sutherland will no doubt again represent Qu'Appelle
Station, and Moose Jaw will be represented by another member. Each of these places
will urge the
Assembly to pass an ordinance compelling the sheriff
to appoint a deputy, so that you will have three deputies. Speaking subject to correction,
I believe that
all over the Dominion the sheriff is only obliged to
have one deputy, but here you put this burden on
the sheriff at Regina, who is not paid within one- tenth as much as most of the sheriffs
throughout
the Dominion. This will reduce his income, and
the Minister of the Interior, who knows the North- West well, knows what the scanty
income of the
sheriff amounts to. It will reduce the income of
the sheriffs to such a small sum that you cannot
get a respectable man to take the office. Let me
point out, further, that you are making a provision
here for the deputy sheriff giving bonds. The sheriff
has given bonds; he is to be responsible for himself, and he is also to be responsible
for the deputy
sheriff.
Mr. DAVIN. Ontario is a very much richer
province, and he is only to appoint one deputy.
Here he may have to appoint three.
Mr. SPROULE. The deputy gets constables
often to do his work.
Mr. DAVIN. I dare say he does, but so
does the sheriff get constables in the North- West to help him. But I want to point
out that
you will reduce the income of a sheriff to about
$500 a year, and you will not get a respectable man
to take it. Now, if there were four or five centres
represented by a member in the Assembly you
would have each one of them clamouring to have a
deputy appointed. We know the state of things
in the territories very well, and we know that if
you lay before the members of the Assembly any
means of increasing their patronage they will try
to do it.
Mr. DAVIN. Let me give an illustration: He
will go to Fort Qu'Appelle, he will go down to
Qu'Appelle Station, or to Moose Jaw, but at the
same time without being compelled to do it. He
has a deputy in Moose Jaw, he has a deputy at
Fort Qu'Appelle, and at Qu'Appelle Station, and
he can take a gentleman engaged in one kind of
business or another, pay him a small commission, and
the man is ready to act for him. But the minute
you make it compulsory to appoint a deputy, then
you place somebody in a position to exact a much
larger remuneration from him. I never heard
that there was any incoinvenience; I doubt very
much if either of my hon. friends from Alberta
(Mr. Davis) or Saskatchewan (Mr. Macdowall) has
heard any complaints as to the way the work of
the sheriffs has been done in their district. I
never heard any complaint, and it seems to me to
be almost wanton to try to remedy a grievance in
regard to which there has been no complaint. I
think the difficulty arose in regard to the sheriff in
Calgary, who insisted, himself, in going long distances. I think there was some difficulty
of that
sort, and it was in order to meet that difficulty
that this clause has been introduced. I think, myself, that you might devise a sub-section
that would
prevent any grievance occurring.
Mr. MULOCK. How are you going to get along
with the incapacity of a sheriff?
Mr. DAVIN. There is a sub-section dealing
with that afterwards, in case of a vacancy arising
by reason of the sheriffs incapacity or otherwise.
Mr. MULOCK. It says his deputy may perform
his duties until his successor is appointed. I am
supposing that there is no deputy.
Mr. DEWDNEY. I have had a communication
from the sheriff in my district since this Bill was
printed, and he did not appear to object to the
power of appointing deputies, but he did ask that
the deputy should be compelled to give security.
There is no particular object in that which I can
see. I suppose the sheriff could take security
from his deputy when be appointed him.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Because he is responsible.
Mr. DEWDNEY. No representation has been
made to me, but I understand there have been requests made for more judicial districts.
There
was a difficulty in getting different processes and
taking out registration papers, and they wanted
more judicial districts, which meant more judges
and a full court. That was thought to be advisable, but that if it was found necessary,
in the
interest of the country, that these deputies should
be appointed, it would meet their wishes in that
regard, and there will be deputy sheriffs in different
points of the territories to get over that difficulty.
Mr. FLINT. I think there is a great deal of
weight in what the member for Assiniboia (Mr.
Davin) says. I think that it is almost too hard
upon sheriffs to compel them to appoint deputies.
I also observe here that the Legislative Assembly
is given power to prescribe the duties of the
deputies. I should think it would be better
that each sheriff should appoint a deputy, leaving it to be inferred that the powers
of the
deputy are the usual powers of a deputy
under the common law, or under any law of this
Parliament. But here we give a legislative body
power to confer powers upon deputies, which may
possibly differ from the owers of the sheriffs themselves. There is no definition
in this Act of the
powers of the sheriffs and clerks, and I think
we are going out of our way to allow the Legislative Assembly to define the powers
of deputies
3935
[COMMONS] 3936
and clerks. I think myself that the sheriffs
are probably the most poorly paid officials, as at
rule, in the country, and legislation tending to
diminish their revenues ought to be very carefully
considered. If the Legislature provides that the
sheriffs or clerks may appoint deputies it would
be ample to protect them and also to protect the the
public.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I understand the Minister of the Interior to state that there are some;
very large districts over which the sheriff's duties
extend, and it was found to be some inconvenience
to go to the sheriff whenever it was necessary that Â
that official should be seen, or should be called
upon to discharge certain duties, and it is proposed
to divide his district into sub-districts, requiring
him to appoint deputies in certain portions of the
district over which he is sheriff. If that is so, and
if it is a choice between requiring the deputy to
act and the appointment of a new sheriff, then it
might not be possible to leave it as a matter of
option with the sheriff to appoint a deputy or not.
It might be necessary in the public interest that
a deputy sheriff should be named. In this subsection, if it is allowed to stand, I
do not think
these words are necessary:
"That such powers as are from time to time determined Â
by an ordinance of the Legislative Assembly."
Of course, there are no ordinances any longer.
When the Assembly becomes a representative body
its Acts are not ordinances, but Acts.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). That is simply because,
as the Minister will remember, there were certain
nominated members sitting in the Assembly. The
distinction is perfectly clear in law between an
ordinance and an Act.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. There is no doubt
that that wouldbe a more suitable expression. For
three years past there has been no Council, but an
Assembly. We have not changed the original Act,
which provides that they should be called ordinances.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Yes. Let me take a
general view of the situation as regards sheriffs and
clerks. Dealing first with the remarks of the hon.
member for Yarmouth (Mr. Flint), I may say that
the sheriffs are a little better off in the territories
than in some parts of the Dominion, for in the
territories, in addition to the fees, which are very
liberal, they each receive a salary of $500 a year.
During a visit I paid to the North-West I had
the same experience as was encountered by every
Minister, namely, that at nearly every settlement I
heard complaints of delay, of expense and inconvenience in litigation arising from
the absence of deputy sheriffs and deputy clerks. They all said:
"We want a sheriff: we want a clerk." I explained
that the policy was to havea sheriff for each district; but I saw no reason why a
deputy sheriff
should not be appointed at each place. The North- West Assembly has to enact the sheriffs'
fees and
to pass an Act regulating the number of deputy
sheriffs and deputy clerks, and to provide a scale
of remuneration for the officers, and the whole
thing is subject to our review. If the Legislative
Assembly should insist on too many deputies and
provide too low a scale of fees, the ordinance
must be amended or disallowed. But the difficulty presented by the people is a very
serious one. Take the district of Alberta, for instance. The sheriff lives in Calgary.
If a person
in Edmonton desires to have a writ issued he must
send the writ down to Calgary to be issued. It is
delivered to the sheriff at Calgary, the sheriff sends
some one upto Edmonton, and he is paid travelling
allowances for the whole distance. When the time
comes for judgment he cannot get judgment at
Edmonton, but he has to send to Calgary. He
must get execution, and the officer must then
travel to Edmonton again. There is no reason
why there should not be a deputy at Edmonton
capable of serving a writ the moment it is issued,
or of issuing execution on the judgment. But to
make it effective, there must be a deputy clerk who
can issue a writ. When that is done the creditor
at Edmonton having a debtor alongside him does
not need to go to Calgary, but he can go to the
clerk next door and have the writ issued, and can
go to the deputy sheriff near by, and he can serve
the writ on the debtor immediately. The whole proceeding could be accomplished in
a few moments and
at very little expense. There would be no cost to the
sheriff, but the Local Assembly should provide the
way the deputy sheriff should be compensated for
the service rendered in serving. When the time
came for the creditor in Edmonton to get
judgment against a debtor in Edmonton. instead
of going to Calgary he goes to the deputy clerk
and has execution issued. The execution is enforced by the deputy sheriff. But in
order to carry
out that system we must give the Local Assembly
power not only to say what they shall be paid, but
to prescribe their duties, and unless this is done the
deputy clerk would have no power to issue a writ
unless he received instructions from the clerk, and
the deputy sheriff would have no power unless he
received instructions from the sheriff. But we
enable the Legislative Assembly to introduce a
system which is similar to that prevailing in the
provinces.
On section 10,
Mr. FLINT. A sheriff or clerk may have several
deputies, and the provision does not say which one
shall perform his duties in case of death.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The object is to keep
alive all their powers in their respective districts.
On section 80, Â
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). These provisions of the
North-West Territories Act were inserted at a
time when the powers of the North-West Legislature were very much more limited than
they are
at present. When we propose to confer upon them
the power for the administration of justice in the
North-West Territories, as an incident of that
power would be the power to establish gaols and
lock-ups, and so on; and yet we retain here all the
power of providing places of confimnent, the same
as if the original condition of things was to continue. It seems to me that these
provisions of
section 80 ought to be considered, and that our
legislation shouid be of a temporary character, and
should provide for being superseded by the legislative functions of the Government
of the territories.
3937 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3938
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The hon. gentleman
will see that by section 13, sub-section 3, we give
the Assembly power to maintain and manage
prisons. By this section we simply take concurrent power with them, in view of the
fact that
they have not the means at their disposal of keeping up the prisons necessary. Besides,
the question of expense, the duty devolves upon us for
providing for long term prisoners. This section simply enables us to exercise concurrent
powers in keeping up goals and establishing as
penitentiaries any building that may be available
for that purpose. We have one at Prince Albert
and another at Regina, and under powers like
these, we will make them both penitentiaries and
we take power here to arrange as to the way prisoners should be kept.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The Minister will see
that he is taking power here to provide places
where prisoners may be detained for trial. That is
an ordinary gaol and not a penitentiary. It seems
to me that this legislation should be temporary,
and that we ought to indicate that our powers are
temporary.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. We must have power
at present, because we must provide the accommodation.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Or give them the money
to do it, which would seem to me to be the better
way.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. We keep up the police
prisons at present and we do all that kind of work.
I fancy that for a good many years to come these
are the powers under which the prisoners will be
taken care of, and not the powers that we give to
the Assembly. The whole Act is temporary of
course, in view of the fact that ultimately the districts will be formed in provinces.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). But the Minister knows
how much more easy it is to assume expenses of
this sort than it is to shift the burden on some one
else at a future period; and if we are going to shift
the burden, it ought to be clearly indicated. I
think it would be a more prudent course in the end
tofurnish the North-West Assembly with the means
of establishing gaols and lock-ups where the population is verysparse than it would
be to undertake
to provide them ourselves.
Mr. FLINT. I see that a change has been made
in the wording of Clause 80. It formerly said that
the Governor in Council "may cause to be erected"
these buildings, and this clause simply says that he
may direct that any building or buildings shall be
a gaol or lock-up.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Instead of erecting a
building for the purpose, we may want to use one
already erected. But the mere power to erect buildings there is practically useless,
because we shall
have to come to Parliament for the necessary funds.
On section 17,
Mr. DAVIN. I do not see very well what advantage there is in making this change. It seems
to me that it will lay entirely into the hands of
the North-West Mounted Police. Suppose an informer goes to a policeman, and then the
policeman goes and lays the information; the policeman
will get half the fine and not the informer, although
after all it was the informer who brought the guilty
act to justice.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The matter has been
brought to our notice by one of the judges in the
North-West, who represents that there is great
difficulty sometimes in ascertaining who the person
is who is entitled to the moiety of the penalty.
The informer, using the term in its ordinary
sense, may be one person or several who give the
information on which the proceedings are taken;
and as there is often strife as to who should have the
moiety, we think it better to say that the person
who lays the information shall be entitled to it.
On section 18,
Mr. FLINT. Suppose the person has no money
to pay the fine, should there not be some power of
imprisonment?
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. That is provided for
in the Summary Convictions Act, and the procedure
follows that. The change made is simply this: In
one of the districts a permit to A.B. to have five
gallons of liquor enables C.D. to have it in his
custody. If C.D. be a saloon keeper, as he often is,
he may have a permit for every letter of the
alphabet, and still no permit of his own; and this
is to oblige the person who has the liquor to show
a permit to himself. It is to make the law as to
permits more stringent.
Mr. DAVIS (Alberta). I would like to explain
a case which I have seen happen with my own eyes.
Suppose a man has a bottle of brandy, and another
man who sees it informs upon him, he will be fined
this $200 or go to prison. I think the clause is
extreme.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I suppose it is; that
is the case with every law. It is easy for any
person who is willing to do so, to fabricate evidence
or commit perjury. But with regard to all these
laws for the punishment of statutory offences, we
have to make the possession of the forbidden article
prima facie evidence of the guilt of the party. I
do not see any other way of doing it.
Mr. DAVIS (Alberta). The way I see of doing
it is to do away with the obnoxious law.
Mr. DAVIN. Of course the Assembly will have
power now to deal with that matter; but it seems
pretty hard that a hotel-keeper is liable to be punished if the liquor is found upon
the person of a
guest: The hotel-keeper might be pinished and
not the man.
Mr. DAVIN. The man might have liquor in his
room, and it would be on the premises of the hotel- keeper
On section 20,
Mr. AMYOT. When I had the honour of addressing a few words to the House on this subject, I
quoted some of the clauses of the bill of rights submitted to the Government of the
Dominion, concerning the rights and privileges of the minority. I
omitted, however, to quote section 10, which says
that the transfer by the Hudson's Bay Company to
the Government of this country would not prejudice, in any way, the rights of the
people of the
North-West. If I understood the hon. member for
East Grey (Mr. Sproule) rightly, he said that it
3939
[COMMONS] 3940
would not be contrary to the constitution to deprive
to-day the French population, the minority in the
North-West, of the right to speak French, because
the statute incorporating that country to the
Dominion is a federal statute.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman misunderstood me, because I never said anything about the
French language.
Mr. AMYOT. Then I did not hear sufficiently
from my seat what the hon. gentleman said. I am
going to draw the attention of the House to a most
important question. I humbly submit that we have
no right whatever, under the present circumstances,
to pass this clause. I admit that the governmnent,
in respecting the rights of the minority as to
education, have made a step in the right direction,
and I fully endorse their action in that respect. I
admit also that to preserve the right of the minority
to the use of the French language before the courts,
is another good feature of the Bill; but they are
giving power to a local council to regulate, by
ordinance or otherwise, what language they will
be pleased to use in their proceedings and the
reports of their proceedings. That amounts to
saying that this Parliament
de facto abolishes the
French language, as far as that goes, for, as we
well know, the majority there will, on the very
first day, declare that the expense and trouble of
having their proceedings recorded in both languages
will be too great and the French language will be
abolished. Moreover, we are admitting a principle
I cannot endorse, and which I am sure a great proportion of the people of this Dominion
will not support. That is the principle that, at any moment, we
may grant to the majority of a province the right to
take away the liberties, the franchise and the privileges of the minorities, with
regard to education or
religion, which amounts to the same thing, and to
language. I am opposed to that principle. The
hon. member for Queen's (Mr. Davies) said he was
in favour of provincial autonomy, and wanted to
leave to the provinces full control in these matters.
I am also an autonomist but will not go so far as
that. I hold that when interests are common,
when it is a material question, when the question
is one which relates to commerce or civil property,
in which the interests of all are homogeneous,
every Parliament should have full power, within
its jurisdiction, to deal with such questions. But
no authority should be given to Local Parliaments
to decide upon questions of education and language,
where the interests are not common, where they
are often hostile, and in which it is only by the
spirit of Christian philosophy and forbearance these
hostile interests of religion and language can exist
peacefully together. If you touch those questions,
by giving the right to a majority to take away the
rights of a minority, you are carrying the principle
of autonomy too far. You are not only giving the
power of preservation to the local authorities but
you are giving them a power of destruction. You
are giving them power to destroy vested rights, and
acting in direct opposition to our censtitution, not
only to the law of this Parliament but to the
law as formulated by the English Parliament. I
have already expressed the sentiment, and I am
not ashamed to repeat it, and in doing so I speak
the sentiment of a great many, that I am first of
all Catholic, that I am, in the second place, an English subject speaking French,
and that it is only in
the third place that I am a politician. Whenever
the interests of my religion are concerned, they take
precedence over all other interests. The question
of language occupies the second place, and it is
only in the third place that I am a politician; and
all the interests possible of party will never make
me change one of my convictions with regard to
the religion or the language of my forefathers. It
is all very well to say that a motto of a party is
such and such. My motto is, first, that the vested
rights of religion and language shall be respected,
and to no party in the world shall I submit my
convictions in that respect. My religion teaches
me to respect the rights and privileges of others,
and I will do so; but in return I ask that the privileges, the vested rights, so far
as we are concerned,
shall be also everywhere respected. In the preamble of the British North America Act,
I find
these words:
"And whereas it is expedient that provision be made
for the eventual admission into the Union of other parts
of British North America."
Now, if we refer to clause 146, we find it is there
provided that the future admission of provinces
must be subject to the provisions of this Act. That
is very explicit. It makes the British North America Act apply to the other parts
of the Dominion,
when admitted as provinces. Now, what do we
find? I beg to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to the Statutes
of Canada of 1872,
in which he will find a copy of the Address of both
the Senate and the House of Commons, praying
Her Majesty the Queen to issue the proclamation
necessary to bring these territories into the Union.
We are today responsible for what was agreed to
by the House of Commons and Senate then, and
Parliament then said:
"We most humbly beg to express to Your Majesty that
we are willing to assume the duties and obligations of
government and 1egislation as regards these territories;
that in the event of Her Majesty's Government agreeing
to transfer to Canada jurisdiction and control over the
said regions, the Government and Parliament of Canada
will be ready to provide that the local rights of any corporation, company or individual—"
Company or individual—
Do we respect those rights? I say we do not,
when we give to the majority the power of taking
them away in certain respects, and if we admit the
principle once, we commit a wrong that will open
the door for future abuses and expose this country
to tremendous dangers. If we do that, we will
change the spirit of the constitution, the entente
formelle, the express agreement, the formal will of
the people, and legislate against the interests there
protected. We will then see every year claims,
either through excessive zeal or other causes, to
destroy, one by one, all the guarantees which have
been given to us. For my part, I will not propose
an amendment. If one is proposed I will vote for
but I desire to register my protest, and to say
that from my point of view we should in no way
extend the principle of autonomy so as to give to
the majorities the power to take away from the
minorities privileges which they enjoy, where their
interests are not common but are hostile. However, I have done my duty, and I will
take no
further responsibility in the matter.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The clause as it is
inserted in the Bill and supported by the Govern
3941 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3942
ment is not based on any ground of autonomy
in regard to the territories. On the contrary, as
to the territorial Government, as it is established either by the original Act or
by this
Bill, the whole system is temporary, and the provisions of the law now being enacted
are temporary.
Parliament will have complete control over the
whole subject when it lays down the constitution
which may be given to any provinces which may be
created in the North-West. In the meantime we
are simply adopting the terms of the resolution on
this subject passed last session, and the language
which then received the approval of the House. In
fact, this section carefully preserves the language
of the resolution of last session, and after the most
careful consideration it was then adopted with a degree of unanimity which was very
satisfactory in
view of the feelings which were likely to be evoked
in dealing with a subject of this kind. In addition to
the provision that the
status quo shall be maintained
for the present, there is the provision that, after
the next Assembly is elected, the Assembly shall
he allowed to regulate its own proceedings as to
the language to be used in the Assembly itself, as
to the language in which the proceedings shall
he recorded and as to the language in which
those proceedings shall be circulated. The hon.
gentleman will see that, while it is only a
reasonable concession, it is also an inevitable
concession, because any legislative body will
inevitably regulate the mode in which its
business shall he conducted, and, if even there
were no obligations resting upon any Legislative
Assembly to listen to the views of a gentleman who
desired to express himself in any other than the
English language, I am sure that in this country
and in almost any civilized country, the views he
desired to so express would be heard with due respect. I cited to the House last session,
when this
matter was under discussion, instances which had
occurred to my own knowledge in provinces where
there had been no idea of preserving the French
tongue by law and yet where that language was heard
with as much respect and attention as the English
tongue when any gentleman chose to use it. It is
also to be observed that we still have a parental
handover the territorial Government and Assembly,
and that it is in our power, if at any time the Legislature should not think fit to
print the Acts in the
French or German or any language required to
give complete publicity amongst the settlers in
the North-West, to see that that provision is made
in the most ample manner.
Mr. AMYOT. I am very much pleased with
these remarks of the Minister. I am pleased with
his statement that there will bea guarantee in the
future, when we want to use the ideas of the
framers of the present Bill, and I am not so prejudiced as not to recognize the peculiar
circumstances which surrounded the discussion of the Bill
of the member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
last session. It is not necessary for me to say now
all that I think in regard to this matter, and I am
glad to find that this Parliament remains as a safeguard for the rights of the minority.
I think we
sanctioned a false position last year, and I protested by my vote then, and I now
protest by
my words against the same error. In Manitoba,
in spite of the constitutional principle; the statutes
are no more printed in French, though a large
number of the population are French. They
were the majority a few years ago, but they are not
so any longer er. Is it not the right of those people
who contribute their share to the public purse to
have the laws of the land published in their own
language? I am sure that no court of justice which
has any self-respect will declare that this law is not
ultra vires according to the laws of this country
and according to the laws of England. In the
meantime, however, its provisions are carried out.
Considering actual circumstances, the declaration
of the Minister of Justice is a great satifaction to
me, though I have lodged my protest against the
present measure.
Mr. WALLACE. I think it is a matter of great
satisfaction that this clause has been brought forward. I regret that the Government
has not seen
its way clear to have also provided that the proceedings before the courts should
have been dealt
with in the same way as the proceedings in the
Legislative Assembly, and that full power in that
matter should be given to the North-West Council
as it is to the Local Legislatures. We have a much
larger French population in Ontario than there
will likely be in the North-West Territories for
many years to come, and I believe we have found
no difficulty or no serious inconvenience from the
fact that we have only one official language in
the courts in that province. In fact, every
man, whether French, English or German—because we have a very large German population
in this province also—has experienced no practical difficulty in regard to this matter
in the
Province of Ontario, and I apprehend there
will be no serious difficulty whatever in the
North-West. But this matter is one that the
provinces have a right to decide for them
selves, and the Government is wisely conferring
the power upon the North-West Assembly after
the next election to exercise that power so far as
the proceedings of the Assembly are concerned.
Another question which comes up in the same connection and which has been referred
to this afternoon is the question of having separate schools, if
it is the wish of the people in the locality. That
is a question; as the hon. member for Muskoka
(Mr. O'Brien) said in his speech, which is a very
large and important one, and I think cannot be
fully and freely dealt with at the close of a session
such as this. I am gratified by the statement of
the Minister of Justice which if I understood it
was that Parliament shall have complete and
untrammelled power in the future to confer upon
those territories the provincial rights which the
other, provinces possess, to legislate on all those
questions, not only as regards language but as
regards schools and all other subjects over
which  Local Legislatures have complete control.
I am a little surprised at the action of the hon.
member for Bellechase (Mr. Amyot), whom I
have heard in this House on so many occasions,
asserting the inalienable right of the provinces
to legislate in their own interests without being
trammelled in any way by the Dominion Parliament, and now taking a complete somersault,
and advocating that the provinces should not be
given those rights, but that they should be retained
by the Dominion Parliament.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The hon. gentleman, I think, is performing a somersault too. He
3943
[COMMONS] 3944
forgets that he has just now made a tumble. Mr.
Chairman, I will ask the Minister of Justice again
to give his attention to the use of this word "ordinance." The expression is used
all through the
Bill, "ordinance" instead of "law," and "ordained" instead "enacted." Of course unless
you
define the word in the sense in which you use it, it
would be really necessary to make the law conform
to the present state of things, which it does not by
the use of that word.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Before the Committee
rises I would call attention to section 93 in section
18 of the Bill, and to the words "in whose possession
or on whose premises any intoxicating liquor or
intoxicant of any kind is." The Minister will see
that that is not a
primâ facie presumption of guilt,
it is a conclusive presumption, it is one that cannot
be explained away by shifting the burden of proof
from the party who will be inculpated. He has
no permission to show that the liquor did not
belong to him, or that it was brought on his premises by some other person. In the
criminal law
you have a provision that the party in whose
premises counterfeit dies are found, is held presumptively guilty, but he is not conclusively
guilty. He
may prove that the dies were brought there by some
other person. It seems to me those words would
make the guilt conclusive, and the party would not
be at liberty to show that the liquor was not his
and that it was not brought here by him.
Mr. AMYOT. About the somersault, we may
as well settle that question at once, seeing that we
are not very much in a hurry. I am surprised that
a love for the autonomy of the provinces has arisen
so suddenly in the breast of the hon. gentleman
from West York (Mr. Wallace). He did not seem
to understand that question until he had an opportunity to attack the Catholic religion
an the
French language in the North-West. Then, suddenly he becomes an autonomist, and he
understands the full obligation of this Parliament to
grant all possible powers to the Local Legislatures.
Before that he did not understand it at all. Heretofore he wanted this Parliament
to retain every
power, and he desired that the Local Legislatures
should have as little power as possible. But when
he wanted to give equal rights to the Catholics by
taking away from them their right to separate
schools, and when he wanted to give equal rights
to the French people by taking away from them
their right to speak French, then he began to
understand provincial autonomy. When he perceived that in this Parliament he would
have to
face one-third of the members of the House, he
would have to face the possibility of a division
within each party, and that he might endanger his
own party, then he found the splendid plan of the
autonomy of the provinces, and he said Let
us give to a majority in the North-West, favourable to the sentiments of my heart,
a power that
we cannot exercise at Ottawa; let us delegate to
them such powers that they may be able to do to
the Catholics and to the Frenchmen in the North- West that which we are not able to
do at Ottawa.
If ever there was a somersault performed, the
hon gentleman has performed it very skilfully
and very elegantly. I will tell the hon. gentleman
what we understand by the word "autonomy."
We believe that Confederation consists of diverse
parts. There is a Government for the common
interests of the whole, and there are local Governments for the diverse interests
of the parts. Each
Legislature has got special lights defined by the
constitution, and within those rights each Legislature must be entirely free and all-powerful
within
the limits of its jurisdiction. That is the autonomy
of the provinces under Confederation. One of the
principles of Confederation was that the basis of
union would not be infringed upon. What was
the spirit of the Act at the opening of the
conference? It was that the religion and the
language of every subject should be respected.
Would the hon. gentleman seriously tell us
that if, in the beginning, we had been told
that under Confederation some means could be
devised and attempted to take away from us the
right to speak French or to worship God in the way
our conscience dictated—does he suppose that we
would ever have consented to join the union?
He knows bettet than that. It is only by hidden
ways, by devices which are not avowed, that he
tries to reach his object. I am sure that with
his good heart, if he perceived that he was doing
a real injustice, he would step backwards. I am
sure he will not try to use his influence to take away
from a fellow-subject the right to act, or to speak,
or to pray as he pleases, and as the sentiment of his
heart may inspire him. What would he say if we,
in the Province of Quebec, endeavoured to take away
from the minority any right that they enjoy as to
language or religion? I may tell him that, whether
we would be wrong or right, we shall not do it,
because we are just. We have learned in our language the laws of nations and the laws
of forbearance; and we have learned in our religion the laws
of personal property, and that material property is
nothing compared to spiritual property. If he loves
Confederation, if he loves the British flag, if he
desires to form a grand nation on this continent, let
him learn to exercise forbearance. Let him tend
to the union of the hearts, let him give to everyone
the privileges he cherishes, let him grant liberty to
everyone, and he will see that party differences
will be no cause of harm, and that whatever may
be the party to which we belong we will be all
Canadians, loving each other and fighting in common for the welfare of the whole people.
Mr. WALLACE. If the hon. gentleman would
practise a little more of the virtues he preaches he
would be a little more consistent in his character.
There was no preposition made by me that any
rights and privileges should be taken from any
person. On the contrary, I proposed a recommendation that the people should be given
more power
to control their own local affairs in accordance with
the system prevailing in other provinces, and that
a portion of the rights and liberties given to Quebec
and other provinces of the Dominion should be
given to the people of the North- West Territories.
That is a reasonable proposition, and it is one the
people will demand and obtain. Although the
country is not ready for a complete system of self- government, and the population
is not sufficiently
numerous to have all the machinery of the Local
Government as in other provinces, yet by this
Bill the people of the territories will gradually get
their rights, and the measure will have to be extended still further to give them
the right of con
3945 [AUGUST 14, 1891.] 3946
trol over their local matters, the proceedings of
their courts, and of their Legislature, and the conduct of their schools. That is
all I advocated. If
that is an example of want of liberality, of want of
Christian spirit and of proper consideration for the
feelings of others, I must plead guilty.
Mr. BEAUSOLEIL. I am perfectly ready to
agree to the proposition made by the hon. member
for West York (Mr. Wallace). If Parliament will
give to the North-West Territories the same laws
as they have imposed on Quebec, we shall be satisfied. The hon. member must know that
not only
the Imperial Statute has not given to the Province
of Quebec the right to prevent part of the population from speaking English, but it
has gone further,
and created a province within a province by enacting that the limits of 15 counties,
in which at
that time the majority of the people were English- speaking, could not be changed
without the consent of the majority of their representatives. Even
in the case that the whole of the other 50 members
of the Legislative Assembly should consider the
change necessary, such a change could not take
place without the consent of the majority of those
15 members. Far different is the position in the
North-West. Not only is there no French province within the province, but to this
day we have
been unable to obtain a pledge that any representation would be given to the French
element in the
territories. Such is the difference at present
between the Province of Quebec and the North- West Territories, so far as language
is concerned.
So far as religious schools are concerned, is the hon.
gentleman prepared to give to the territories the
same rights and liberties we enjoy in the Province
of Quebec? Then give us at once the widest law
for separate schools that exists in the Dominion,
for such is the school law of the Province of
Quebec. The Dominion Parliament has no power
to legislate on the question as to the language
in which the laws shall be published, or the debates of Parliament conducted both
in the Parliament of the Province of Quebec and in the
Dominion of Canada. The Imperial Parliament
has put these two questions outside of the limit
of provincial legislation, and laid-down these
two principles, which are at the basis of the
constitution: the equalityof Roman Catholics and
Protestants, so far as schools are concerned, and
the equality of the French and English-speaking
populations, so far as the official languages are concerned. These two fundamental
principles we
desire to maintain. We want it formally recognized
all over the Dominion that those rights now existing,
both by usage and by law, shall be preserved, and
therefore we protest against the granting to the
Legislative Assembly of the territories of the right
to abolish the French language, which is established
by the constitution, and which cannot be taken
away without violating the constitution, and destroying the harmony, good-will and
happiness of
thepopulation of this country.
Mr. DAVIN. I do not desire to move the
clause to which I spoke on the second reading, but
I ask the Government to kindly consider it. The
section I intended to move was as follows:—
The persons qualified to vote at the election for the
Legislative Assembly, shall be male British subjects by
birth or naturalization (other than unenfranchised Indians, and members of the North-West
Mounted Police),
who have attained the full age of twenty-one years, who
have resided in the North-West Territories for at least
twelve months, and in the electoral district for at least
three months, respectively, preceding the time of voting.
The object of inserting such a clause was to prevent members of the North-West Mounted
Police
voting for any candidate for the Local Assembly,
and I would impress on the Government the reasonableness of this suggestion. Remember,
it is a
quasi-military body—that the members are shifted
from one place to another. These are not the only
considerations; they will vote for a candidate for
an Assembly which has no power whatever to make
laws affecting them. They are outside of its jurisdiction, and yet they can come in
and water, so to
speak, the stock of the civil vote. At the election
in North Regina there were 360 votes given, and
of these 80 were police votes, and all were thrown
for one candidate, not a single policeman voting for
the candidate who was beaten there.
Mr. DAVIN. No, it is an open vote; but by- and-bye it will be vote by ballot. The Assembly
will have power to deal with that matter, but not
as regards the next election. I do not press my
clause, but I ask the Government, as I understand
the Bill will remain in Committee, to consider the
suggestion and decide whether this clause is necessary or not.
Mr. MACDONELL (Algoma). I am sorry to differ from the hon. member for Assiniboia. We all
know the members of the North-West Mounted
Police are the sons of either Ontario or Quebec farmers who go out there, probably,
in the first place,
to perfect themselves in militarv organization and in
the next place, to become settlers in that district.
If at legislative elections in Ontario farmers' sons
have the right to vote, I think the Parliament of
this Dominion should grant the North-West
Mounted Police the same right; and indeed, I
think it would be unfair to take away from them
the right to vote they enjoyed in Manitoba, Quebec or Ontario. With all due respect
to the member, for Assiniboia, I am obliged to differ with him
in this respect.
Mr. DAVIN. My hon. friend will see that I am
not very particular in pressing the matter. I do
not think the members of the police care one pin
about having the vote, and so far as I know it is
of no advantage to them whatever. If it were
any advantage to them I certainly should not wish
to take it away. The reason I wish to take it
away in regard to Dominion elections is, that it is
of no advantage there at all, and they wish to be
deprived of it. When they are farmers' sons in
Ontario, as farmers' sons the Legislature of Ontario can pass Acts that will affect
them; but as
members of the Mounted Police, how can this
Assembly pass any Act that will affect them?
However, as the question is not to be pressed tonight, I will not speak further on
the matter.
Mr. TROW. I think the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Macdonell) can speak feelingly in that
respect, because I am aware that a very large
proportion of those who voted for him were
navvies, and have no permanent place of residence,
and were from all parts of the Dominion, and
many from the United States. I think he, certainly, above all other men should advocate
that.
Mr. MACDONELL (Algoma). I say right
here to the whip for the Grit party on the other
3947 [COMMONS] 3948
side of the House that he is entirely mistaken in
what he says. The electors who voted for me were
electors who were on the Dominion voters' lists;
they were British subjects; they were twenty-one
years of age, and they were entitled to vote.
Mr. MACDONELL (Algoma). You need not say
"louder," because you can hear me well enough. I
defy any man in this House or any man in this country to say that anyone voted for
me in the district of
Algoma who was not entitled to vote. But, under
your one-sided Ontario Election Act, one-half of
these individuals were not entitled to vote, whereas under the Dominion Franchise
Act any man
who is a British subject, twenty-one years of age,
in receipt of an income of $150 a year in our district—it is $300 every place else—was
entitled to
vote. The hon. gentleman says they were navvies;
a navvy, as I understand it, and I have some experience in that way, is a man who
delves for a
living. He is a man who delves with the shovel,
and puts it into a wheelbarrow, and wheels it off
to a dump on a railway. That constitutes a navvy,
and there was not a navvy in the whole district of
Algoma during last election, because there were
no railways building there. The men who voted for
me were railway men, fishermen, farmers, lumbermen and miners. I tell the hon. the
chief whip
(Mr. Trow), on the other side of the House, that he
is mistaken when he makes the statement that he
did just now.
Mr. TROW. The lists were made out years
before—
Mr. DEWDNEY. I may say, Mr. Chairman,
that the amendment that is proposed by the hon.
member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) will be
considered between now and when the Committee
meets again.
Committee rose and reported progress.
This individual participated in:
