[COMMONS] 6080
NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES ACT.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON moved third reading of Bill (No. 149) further to amend the
Act. respecting the North-west Territories.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker. I do not
rise to object to anything the Bill contains,
but, for the purpose of asking the House
to add to the measure an amendment which,
I think, on reflection and consideration, the
House will believe to be in the public in
terest. In 1891 we conferred upon the Legislative Assembly of the North-west Territories
almost complete power, power almost
as full as that which the provincial bodies
enjoy under the scheme of the British North
America Act, by which a certain portion
of legislative authority is vested in the
provinces, while a certain portion of authority is retained by this Parliament. But
we
did not confer on them any additional authority to that they already enjoyed in the
matter of education, and it is in regard to
that subject I propose to draw the attention
of the House this evening. It cannot too
firmly be kept in mind that, according to
the scheme of the distribution of legislative
authority, the subject of education was declared to be a matter of local concern,
and,
therefore, properly belonging to the province; and my argument will be that, as
we have conferred upon the Legislative
Assembly of' the North-west Territories
nearly all the power and authority which
have been conferred upon the provinces,
this power or right to deal with the matter
of education should not be withheld. Let
me, for a moment. draw the attention of
the House to the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act of 1891. By that Act
it was determined that the Legislative Assembly " shall, subject to the provisions
of
this Act, and of any other Act of the Parliament of Canada at any time in force in
the Territories, have power to make ordinances for the government of the Territories
in relation to the class of subject next hereunto mentioned, that is to say." I want
to
compare that Act, section by section with
6081 [JULY 16, 1894] 6082
the authority which the provinces possess
under the British North America. Act. In
the first place, as no. constitution, properly
so-called. was given to the Territories, so, of'
course, there is no power possessed by them
to amend the constitution. The first authority given to a province is to amend its
own
constitution, and in that regard the Legislature of a province has wider powers
than is possessed by this Parliament, because this Parliament has not the power to
amend its own constitution. The next
power which is conferred by the British
North America Act is " taxation within the
province in order to raise a revenue for
provincial purposes." Upon the Territories
we conferred power of direct taxation within the Territories in order to raise a revenue
for territorial or municipal or local
purposes. So that the great sovereign
power, the power of taxation, the power
of raising money in that way was conferred upon the Legislative Assembly of
the Territories. Then "the borrowing of
money on the sole credit of the province "
was withheld, because, as I have already
had occasion to say with respect to amending the constitution, there being no province,
the power to borrow money was very
reasonably and very properly withheld.
The next is, "the establishment and tenure
of provincial offices and the appointment
and payment of provincial ofllcers." We gave
to the Territories "the establishment and
tenure of territorial oflices, and the appointment and payment of territorial oflicers,
out of the territorial revenue." Then, the
management and sale of the public lands
belonging to the province, and of the timber
and wood thereupon " are withheld, as in the
province of Manitoba. We give, however,
" the establishment, maintenance, and management of prisons in and for the province,"
and "municipal institutions in the territories," while we withhold the " establishment,
maintenance, and management of
hospitals." We give the power to raise
a revenue by " shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer, and other licenses." We confer
power with respect to "local works and undertakings, other than such as are of the
following classes,"—these are not quite the
same as apply to a province, but are very
nearly so. We confer power with respect
to " solemnization of marriage in the provinces," and also in the Territories. We
confer power " with respect to property and
civil rights," and " with respect to the administration of justice, including the
constitution, maintenance, and organization of
provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure
in civil matters in these courts ; but not the
power of appointing any judicial oficers."
We give authority for enforcing any law
to punish " by fine, penalty or imprisonment
for enforcing any law of the province made
in relation to any matter coming within
any of the classes of subjects enumerated
in the section " ; also, " generally matters of
a merely local or private nature in the Territories." So it will be seen that, with
very
few exceptions, and some of those exceptions incident to the fact that autonomy has
not yet been fully conferred on the Territories, the same power as the Territories
would have if they were a province, has
been substantially conferred upon the legislative body which has power to make ordinances
in those Territories. With respect
to education, we made no change. We
left the law with respect to that subject as
it has been since 1875, and that law is a
most extraordinary one. unprecedented, so
far as I know, and one which, I think, ought
no longer to remain in force in the Territories. It is compulsory as to separate
schools. It enacts that there shall be separate
schools. Substantially, its provision is that
whatever the majority may be in any locality, it may establish a school known as a
public school, and the minority in that
locality may establish a separate school.
So that there may be in every locality where
there are Protestants and Catholics the two
school systems. The majority have the right
to call theirs a public school, the minority
have the right to establish what is called a
separate school, and it becomes a separate
school in that locality, although it may not
be a separate school in any other locality.
The exact provision of the clause reads:
But such ordinance shall always provide that the
majority of ratepayers of any district, may establish such schools there as they think
fit, and make
the necessary assessment and collect-ion of rates
therefor; and also that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestants
or Roman
Catholics, may establish separate schools there.
That is a provision which has been the law
with regard to the North-west Territories
ever since 1875. Now, Sir, let me draw
the attention of the House to the present
position of the North-west Territories so far
as population is concerned. The population
of the Territories, according to the last census, is 66,799, of whom 13,008 are Roman
Catholics, or not 20 per cent.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. How many Indians are
included in the total population ?
Mr. McCARTHY. I do not think the
Indians are included in this 66,000.
Mr. McCARTHY. I may be wrong about
that. In British Columbia there are 20,000
Catholics in round numbers, out of a population of 97,000, or over 20 per cent.
Mr. McCARTHY. I cannot tell the hon.
gentleman whether that includes the Indians
or not, but he probably can tell me.
6083 [COMMONS] 6084
Mr. McCARTHY. The 97.000 includes the Indians. and I suppose there are Catholics among the Indians
as well as Prostestants
Mr. DALY. The larger proportion are Roman Catholics.
Mr. McCARTHY. So that out of the 20.-Â 000 Catholics the larger proportion are Indians. according
to the information the hon. gentleman gives me, and therefore my figures will be understood
in that sense. Then in Manitoba there are 152,000 population. of whom 20,000 are Roman
Catholics. or 13 per cent. In New Brunswick, out of  a population of 321,000, there
are 115,000 Roman Catholics, or 36 per cent. In Nova  Scotia there are 122.000 Roman
Catholics out of a population of 454,000. or 27 per cent of Roman Catholics. In Prince
Edward Island the proportion of Roman Catholics seems still larger. there being 47.000
out of a population of 109,000. That is the pro-Â portion of Roman Catholics in these
various provinces. But it must be remembered that in the province of British Columbia
and Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick there is no separate school system. The
absolute unlimited control of education is vested there in the Provincial Legislatures.
and it is so vested because, according to the scheme of Confederation that being a
matter of local concern, was deemed to be one proper to be left to the local authorities.
We know that  In Ontario there was a separate school system at the time of Confederation,
and that it was stipulated on the part of those representing the province of Quebec.
as I understand it. that that system of separate schools—which in fact had beenÂ
imposed upon the province of Ontario by a majority of the representatives from the
sister province of Quebec, when they were united as Canada—that that system should
be perpetuated, and as a correlative. it was en-Â acted that the same system existing
for the benefit of the Roman Catholics in Ontario should be established for the benefit
of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. So far as these two provinces
are  concerned, a special arrangement was entered into as a part of the terms upon
which Confederation was established ; but with regard to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia
they were left free to deal with the matter of education as to them seemed fit. WhenÂ
Prince Edward Island was afterwards admitted to the Union, the authority respecting
education was left to the Local Legislature in Prince Edward Island. and when British
Columbia was brought in, the authority to deal with education unfettered was left
to that province, and when we conferred a constitution upon Manitoba we conferred
it in the manner which is perfectly familiar now to the House. and which is expounded
to be practically. that Manitoba was to have unlimited control in the matter of schools.
Now. Sir, why under these circumstances should we fail to trust. or be afraid to trust,
the people of the North-west Territories with
full and complete power in matters of education ? In the case of almost every other
power which it is possible to confer upon the Territories, we have though them worthy
of our confidence. and I want to know why it is that we think them unworthy of dealing
with this matter of education ? I am not here to argue one way or the other with reference
to separate schools. My own view on the subject is  perfectly well known. I would
prefer that  there should not be separate schools. I would prefer to see all the
children of the land brought up without being divided into hostile camps on the matter
of religion ; but I am quite free to say that I would not interfere with any of the
provinces, or with the laws or regulations of any province. that in their wisdom think
proper to adopt separate schools. It is a matter with  which this Parliament ought
to have no concern. The question here is : why should we insist, because in 1875,Â
when there was hardly any population in the Territories at all. and when we governed
them from here almost absolutely, why should we now when we have though proper to
give them power and authority in matters of legislation ? Why should we in this particular
matter of schools withhold from them the full and complete power which I submit is
theirs as of right ? I do not propose to occupy the time of the House with anything
more than a brief statement—because the subject is pretty well known to us all— a
brief statement of the scope and object of my amendment. I have tried for many years
past : in 1893. in 1893 and during this session. to have this change made. I did
not try before. because I felt it was a matter so local in its nature that until invoked
by the Territories to move in the matter, I did not take upon myself to bring the
matter to the notice of this House.  But in the year 1890, I  think, the Assembly
of the Territories by a practically unanimous vote, petitioned this Parliament to
do away with this clause with reference to education, and to give them unlimited
power to deal with it. and since that time. from session to session. whenever the
Bill has been brought up, petition after petition has been presented to this House.
So far as I know. no petition has been presented against that power to deal with education
being conferred. We have therefore the request of those who care locally interested
that they should have this authority. and having that request from them. there should
be some good reason for withholding it. Â During the two last sessions the Government
introduced a Bill dealing with the North-west Territories, and in neither of thse
Bills did the Government propose to deal with question of schools. and upon my moving
in the matter at the close of the session. the Government thought proper to withdraw
the Bill without permitting a discussion on the subject. This year the Government
have again introduced their measure : and if I had known that they in
6085 [JULY 16, 1894] 6086
tended to introduce it and pass it through
the House I should not have troubled the
House by the introduction of a Bill on
the subject ; because it seems to me that it
is a matter that the Government ought to
have dealt with, and if the Government did
not think fit to deal with it, the proper time
to move an amendment was the time I am
now taking, when the Government measure
for enlarging to some extent the power and
authority of the Legislative Assembly is
under the consideration of the House. Now,
I want to draw the attention of my hon.
friends to a very important. provision. By
this legislation we are really rivetting upon
the people of the North-west the separate
school system for all time. One of the provisions of the constitution with regard
to
separate schools—a provision which was observed with reference to New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia, and, if my memory serves
me rightly, also with reference to Prince
Ed ward Island and British Columbia—was
that conferring full power on the Provincial
Legislatures with reference to education.
with this proviso :
If and for each province the Legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education
subject and according to the following provisions.
This is not merely of application to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. but is of
universal application, so far as it is embodied
and may be embodied, and probably would
be embodied, in any constitution given to
any province. Subsection 1 provides:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect
any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons
have by
law in the province at the Union.
Now, we insist by the clause of the Act of
1875, which has been included in the various
consolidations of the legislative powers of the
North-west Territories, which have been
made from time to time, that they shall have
separate schools: and if we continue insisting that that system shall prevail up to
the
time we create provinces in the North-west.
then the application of this clause of the first
subsection of section 93 of the British North
America Act, to which I have referred, rivets
for all time upon the new provinces the
system of separate schools. Create a province there now, enact the usual clauses of
the British North America Act. and the result
will be that in the new province those who
have enjoyed what is spoken of as a right or
privilege with respect to denominational
schools would be able to say: The constitution given to this province by the Dominion
Parliament does not permit any interference
with any right or privilege which we enjoyed prior to the time of the creation of
this province. That, I think. is a. most important consideration. It has been urged,
and I have heard it argued : Why not allow
this matter to remain until the new province.
is created ? Why interfere with the matter
so long as there are mere territories ? It
will be quite time enough, when we are
creating provinces in the North-west, to give
them full power in school matters. Well,
those who argue in that way will, I think.
find it very difficult to contend that the
population of the North-west are not as competent as any other population throughout
the Dominion to legislate in regard to educational matters. But even if they were
not,
we ought to leave it to them to select the
system of education which they prefer, so
that they should not be conducted against
their will by the clause of the Act to which
I have referred. Nor is it altogether an
unimportant matter in another sense. In a
sparsely-settled population, such as you have
in the North-west, could there be anything
more suicidal and foolish than the division
of the school population into two separate
bodies ? It is difficult enough, no doubt,
to educate the children in the North-west,
even with one school system. But for the
people to divide their resources and to fritter away their means in the establishment
and perpetuation of two systems. does appear to me to be the greatest possible folly.
and probably more so there than in any
other part of the Dominion. Now, what is
the position of affairs there at the present
time ? And when I say the present time
I refer to 1891, the last year for which I
have been able to get a report on educational
matters in the library—I do not, suppose
there has been any important change since
then as to the number and the division of
the schools. According to this report there
were 210 Protestant public schools and 34
Roman Catholic public schools: and when I
speak of the public school, it is the school of
the majority. In the North-west, unlike the
province of Ontario, there is not one. set of
public schools and another set of separate
schools; but there may be a Protestant
public school in one locality, and a Roman
Catholic public school in the adjoining locality, and the school of the minority will
be
the separate school, whatever it. may be.
Now, I cannot find that there are in the
North-west any separate schools of Protestants; however. my hon. friends who come
from the Territories will be able to correct
me on that point. The Protestants have not
availed themselves of their privilege of establishing separate schools, and the result
is
that either their children have to so without
schooling or have to attend the Roman
Catholic schools in places where the Roman
Catholics are in the majority. But there are
eleven Roman Catholic separate schools:
and I think the House will be astounded to
learn the cost at which these schools are
maintained. Now, at Lacomb, which I believe is the term used by the separate school
party for Calgary, if I am correctly informed, the daily average attendance at the
separate school is 94. and the cost per pupil,
$29.53. In the Protestant public school the
average attendance is 159, and the cost per
pupil, $18.65. So that for the separate school
the cost per pupil is $10.88 more than for
6087
[COMMONS] 6088
the public school. No doubt that is owing to
the fact that the public school is the larger ;
but join these two schools together, and the
cost of both would be materially reduced.
And that is by no means the worst example
of division. In Prince Albert the average
attendance in the Protestant public school
is 78, and the average cost per pupil, $33.55 :
the separate school has an average attendance of 11, with a cost of $48.58, or $15.03
per pupil more in the separate
school than in the public school.
Well, these are the places that I am able
to trace and compare the public school system with the separate school system. because
the names are not identical, and I
have not been able to trace the others and
to make any comparison with them. But
let me give the House the statement of
one or two schools here. Catholic separate
schools. At the school called St. Andrew's
—I do not know where it is—the average
attendance is nine and the average cost
$56.25 per pupil. At the school called St.
Peter's the average attendance is seven and
the cost per pupil $58.96.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Are those Indian
schools ?
Mr. McCARTHY.I fancy not. They are
put down as Roman Catholic separate
schools. They are not Indian schools, no
doubt.
Mr. FERGUSON. Have you any idea of
the locality of these two schools ?
Mr. MCCARTHY. No, because there is a
larger Protestant population there than
Catholic population, or there would not be
separate schools.
Mr. FERGUSON. Can you give us a comparison of the cost of the pupils in the
Protestant public and Catholic public schools?
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes; but I first want
to draw the attention of the. House to the
cost in Ontario of the schools. In Ontario
the cost per pupil is $8.40. I think it is only
fair to tell the House that I understand
that calculation has been made, not upon
the average attendance, but upon the average number; but working it out upon the
average attendance, the cost would not be
more than $14 or $15 per pupil.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Everything—the Legislative grant, the municipal School grants, and
assessments, the clergy reserve fund, and
everything. The cost is put down for 1892
at $8.40 per pupil, but I understand that is
based upon the total number of pupils and
not upon the average attendance, whereas
in this table, in the public schools here. it
is based upon the average attendance. My
hon. friend (Mr. Ferguson) wanted to know
what the cost of the public schools is compared with the cost of separate schools.
Mr. FERGUSON. Pardon me, I want the
cost of the public Catholic schools and the
cost of the public Protestant schools.
Mr. McCARTHY. The public schools or
each denomination. At Moose Jaw the cost
is $11 per pupil ; at Qu'Appelle, $16.76.
Mr. FERGUSON. Pardon me again. Can
the hon. gentleman give it to us territorially
divided.
Mr. McCARTHY. My hon. friend will
treat that as he pleases. I give it to him
just as 1 find it here. It is $11 or perhaps
$14. as the figures are not very clear. I
find another school at Regina. is $33. then I
find a school at $21, and one at $17, and
running down the column I find one as low
as $6.64. and another as high as $35. where
the attendance is twelve. I think probably
that is the highest in the list.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I was speaking of the
highest among the Protestant schools. My
hon. friend is assuming the part of an advocate before he learns the facts.
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Take the other
schools—public Catholic schools. The first
one shows a cost of $55.75 per pupil. The
school at Saskatchewan costs $46.76 per
pupil. The school at St. Albert costs $21.21
per pupil. That at St. Leon $56 per pupil,
and that at St. Laurent $64.28. There is no
doubt that the average cost of the Roman
Catholic public schools was larger a good
deal than that of the Protestants. No doubt
about that, but I do not think that is a matter of comparison so much as the comparison
between public schools and separate
schools. Where we find both these in the
one locality, we find the difference in cost,
which I have given the House, and that
difference is enormously in favour of the
public school system, and we can easily conclude that if there were but one school
system instead of two, the cost would be
proportionately less. Now the total amount
spent by this Parliament in school matters
is over $100,000, so that the question appeals
'to us from the economic point of view.
$101,696 is the total amount we have granted
apparently for educational purposes in the
6089 [JULY 16, 1894] 6090
North-west, and the House can judge, from the statement I have given, whether the
expenditure is a wise or foolish one. Of that expenditure, the amount spent on the
Protestant
schools is 73.20 per cent, and on the Catholic 26.28 per cent, both public and separate.
Therefore my conclusion is that whatever
way you look at it, this question—and I desire not to raise any irritation or excite
any
passions, but simply that the matter should
be discussed on its merits—whatever way
we look at it, I am unable to see or appreciate any argument or reason why we
should not rid ourselves of this question from
Dominion politics, and hand the dealing
with education to where it properly belongs.
I therefore beg to move an amendment,
which will carry out that provision. I propose to make the amendment fit in with the
Bill which we are now asked to read a third
time. The first provision of that Bill is as
follows :—
3. Sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph seven of
subsection one of the section substituted by section six of chapter twenty-two of
1891, for section
thirteen of The North-west Territories Act, is hereby repealed and the following substituted
therefor :-—Railway Companies, (not including tramway and street railway companies)
and steamboats, canal, transportation,
irrigation companies.
That is the additional power conferred upon the Territories by this section, one of
the powers that we withheld from the Territories having been the incorporation of
railway, steamboat, canal and transportation companies, and the effect of this amendment
will be that the Territories will have power to incorporate tramways and street railway
companies. Now, I propose to add :
That the said Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be recommitted to a
Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend the
same by adding to the first section the words following: "and said subsection is further
amended by inserting therein after the thirteenth paragraph thereof the words following
:
14. In relation to education. But this amendment shall not take effect until after
the next genera election of members of the Legislative Assembly of the North-west
Territories.
2. And by amending the second section thereof by inserting the words "fourteen and"
after the word "section" in the first line thereof.
That will be to repeal the law with regard to education as it is now found in the
Statute- book. I move this, seconded by Mr. Denison.
Mr. HUGHES. In rising to offer an amendment, I need not say, Sir, that I do so fully recognizing
the position of the House as to this question. We have had this question before us
for some years. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. McCarthy) has
on more than one occasion given notice of his intention to move amendments
to this North-west Territories Act. But, until the present time, the House has never
been favoured with the opportunity of hearing the hon. gentleman's views or his arguments
in support of them. The hon. gentleman has rightly stated that two years ago
he gave notice of a motion to bring in a
Bill abolishing the control of this House in
relation to separate schools in the Northwest Territories, to amend the Act in the
manner he now proposes to do. You may
remember, however, Mr. Speaker, during the
whole session, those of us who were anxious
to take part in the discussion of that question had to sit here awaiting the convenience
of the hon. gentlemen, until finally
we were very much surprised one evening
to have the House called together to deal
with the subject. the only warning that
we were to have the question under discussion being the simple announcement, "call
in the members." It had been my
intention on that occasion, had the opportunity been afforded, to move an amendment
in the line I now propose. But, as I said, no opportunity was afforded me ; the members
were obliged to vote one way or the other on the question, and that without warning.
We also remember, Sir, how last session we were called upon day after day to be in
our places in the House in anticipation and expectation of the hon. gentleman from
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) bringing on his motion. But the matter was allowed to
drift until the close of the session and nothing was done. Then, on that occasion,
as on the present, the hon. gentleman showed but little interest in the affairs of
the House, his attendance being evidently with the desire of getting in his motion
in the closing hours of the session, when it could not be discussed, and when, as
now, there would be a very small House to discuss the question. I need not comment
further—it is not proper I should—
than to say that is the seeming object in
bringing in his motion at the time and in
the manner he does. Ample opportunity has
been afforded this session, as in former
sessions, to have this matter brought up
and discussed calmly and fully when the
members would not be hurried, as at the
present time, when a member occupying
the time of the House even for a few minutes
is subject to the odium in the minds of his
comrades, who wish to bring the session to
a close, of occupying time unnecessarily.
But, that aside, the proposition of the hon.
gentleman is to relegate to the Territories
control in matters of education. Now, Sir,
from the view-point on which I stand, that
seems an objectionable proposal. So far
as secular education is concerned, I go as
far as the hon. gentleman does, possibly I
go further than he does, in relegating that
to the control of the Territories. But, in
regard to theological education in the
public schools, when the hon. gentleman
proposes to hand that over to the Territorial
Legislature, I certainly differ from him, and
6091 [COMMONS] 6092
I shall endeavour in as brief a manner as possible to give my views on these points.
I shall outline briefly my reasons for differing from the hon. gentleman, reasons
jotted down, as his arguments were given in the course of the address to which we
have just listened. In the first place, if the hon. member's motion is passed, we
recognize as he does, the right of those Territories to establish separate schools.
That right I deny as being entirely subversive of the principles of responsible Government,
and good Government in any form. He also leaves it an open question with the Territories
and provinces arising therefrom to establish these schools. I shall endeavour, as
I proceed, to show that this idea is fallacious. If the Territories, following out
the views of the hon. gentleman, were given this control of education, and at the
time of their establishment as provinces, by their own act, only one system of public
schools was recognized, the obnoxious principle of separate schools might still find
root in the North-west Territories as in the province of New Brunswick and in the
province of Nova Scotia to-day. Both of these provinces have asserted the principle
of public schools, and yet, Sir, you will find that virturally they have their separate
schools, theological institutions, in the city of St. John, Moncton and other parts
throughout the province. We find in the city of St. John that the Roman Catholic convents
are leased to the public school board of that place—I know whereof I speak. and this
is true not only of St. John, but of other places in the Maritime Provinces—and the
Sisters and Brothers are hired, and are regularly on the staff of the public schools
as teachers. Thus, though in name there are no separate schools, the principle of
separate schools is established in the province of New Brunswick. And there is an
agitation springing up now causing dissension among the people. an agitation which,
I fear, will go a long way toward creating unrest throughout this country. More than
that, Sir, the policy of the hon. gentleman, if adopted, would allow of the taxes
collected from the people being used for theological purposes, and that, of course,
I object to. The hon. gentleman recognizes that theological or sectarian teaching
is part of national education, and that is a point in which I would differ from him.
I hold that our object should be the total severance of theological teaching from
our national system of education. I think no one will gainsay this point—that it is
the duty of the state to recognize how the citizens of this country shall be trained.
In declaring for a Dominion franchise—whatever the faults may be found in the details—we
have declared our right to say that the citizen in Nova Scotia shall stand before
the country on the same footing as the citizen in British Columbia or any other part
of the Dominion. We have asserted that we have the right as a nation to lay down the
rules that guide our citizenship. Now, no doubt, in the old
days, the church controlled state affairs, and it remained part and parcel of the
state machinery, and the only education one could find was the little smattering in
the church. There were scarcely any schools except for
the purpose of training people for the clerical profession and a few state functions,
and education was very limited. The church
in those days controlled the whole machinery of education, and the theological part
of education was considered, as it is even
down to our own day, to be by all odds
the most important. But times are changed,
and we now find that the people of the
nation recognize that the children of the
land should be educated, not only in matters of church form, but in various other
interests of life. As time advanced, we
find a little reading, writing and arithmetic
taught in the schools, and there education
ended. Now, however, we find that not
only are children trained intellectually, but
that attention is given to sanitary matters, and they are trained in the broad political
principles of the nation, and taught
the municipal, provincial and national institutions under which we live. We even
go further and admit that it is necessary
to train them morally or ethically, that
they may be able to distinguish between
right and wrong , and that each may know
his duty towards his fellow men. This, in
short, is the difference in the aim of the
education of to-day, and the aim of the
education of a number of years ago. But
that the state should tax the people for
the purpose of inculcating any theological
creed or dogma, is something that I am
satisfied is, if not of the past, will be of
the past in a very few years, in this land.
Now, in dealing with this matter of separate schools in Canada, we find ourselves
confronted not only with the question of
religion, but also with the question of race;
and here I may be permitted to say a word
on this latter point. Some of our French-
Canadian fellow-citizens take it as a personal attack upon their rights when any
opposition is offered to separate schools.
Now, it is not long since I had the pleasure
of reading a report. I think it was of the
Roman Catholic Committee of the Council
of Public Instruction of the province of
Quebec, where the very best men in that
province demanded that the theological control of the schools should be abolished,
and that the teachers should be trained just
as they are in other provinces of the Dominion ; that the clerical control so long
exercised over the schools there, should be, if
not entirely abolished, at least largely abolished. However, I wish to touch briefly
on
this question of French nationality. It is
a myth. Our French-Canadian fellow-
citizens are of the same race and lineage
as are those of British origin. France was
originally settled by the Celtic race, so were
the British Islands : in other words, we
find one the Britannia major and the other
6093 [JULY 16, 1894] 6094
Britannia minor. Then we find France
overrun by the Teutonic races ; the Francs,
the Goths, Burgundians and. other peoples
from the forests and plains of Germany.
The same or kindred peoples we also find
settling in Britain, the Angles, the Saxons
and the Jutes, at exactly the same period,
all kindred races exactly. Later on we
find France settled largely by the Norsemen or Normans. as they are called in
history, all along the valley of the Seine,
along the shores of the Bay of Biscay, and
even around the southern part of France.
That large infusion of Scandinavians or
Norsemen flowing into France, has made
her largely what she is to-day. We find
the identical people settling in Britain under
the names of Danes, or Swedes and Scandinavians. Following on down there is an
infusion of those Norman people into England, and then we find a return movement
in the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries, during which there
were settlements in France from Britain
even up to the days of the Henrys. So that
so far as race and blood are concerned,
the two peoples are identical, and the cry
of difference of race, when viewed in the
light of history, must necessarily vanish.
Now, language is another point on which
great stress is laid. I stand here prepared
to indorse any system that will, in any
legitimate manner, encourage the study of
the French language. A child who speaks
and understands one language well, is educated, but a child who understands two
languages well is better educated. It has
been said that a child who understands
three or four languages knows nothing at
all ; but, at the same time, I am free to
say that it is an advantage to any one to
be able to understand and speak two languages well. I would be the last man, the
last member of this House, either by voice
or vote, to seek to deprive my French-Canadian fellow-citizens of any right they enjoy
in the province of Quebec or the Northwest Territories, of educating their children
in their mother tongue. You can box the
compass on religion every morning if you
choose, but language cannot be changed
short of a lifetime. Therefore, this question is one that we must necessarily leave
to settle itself ; and in the years to come
I am satisfied that you will see a language
neither all English nor all French, but a
language strengthened by the best elements
of the two tongues, and the people will
be the better for it. Now, in discussing
this question many considerations must
necessarily be touched upon, and what I
propose to say I shall say with all due regard to every man's faith and every man's
creed. I have no desire to interfere in
the slightest with any man's creed or theology ; I would not tolerate any man interfering
with mine ; and, therefore, I would
not in the slightest interfere with any man's
theology. If, therefore, in reviewing these
matters. I should say anything that might
be considered harsh, or that is not generally discussed on the floor of this House.,
I trust that those who differ from me will
recognize that I am only dealing with historical facts, and not with a desire to hurt
any one's feelings. Many of our fellow-
citizens, the moment you talk of separate
schools, raise their hands in holy horror
and proclaim that their religion is attacked,
that an attempt is made to abolish their
church. Well, Sir, I maintain that a church,
be it Protestant or Roman Catholic, or be
it of any other denomination, that cannot
stand without being bolstered up by the
state, should vanish, and the sooner it
vanishes the better for all concerned. Now,
the contention that the French religion is
synonymous with Romanism is also a myth.
Let us review history, and you will find
that up to the sixteenth century the people
of France fought heroically against being
subjected to the tyranny of the Romish
Church. We find that as late as the sixteenth century the people of France held
out heroically against being subjected to
the control of the Church of Rome. Away
back, before the end of the first century
there were over a hundred creeds. Early
in the fourth century we find the famous
Council of Nice called, and even then, just
as in the present day, we find theologians
quarrelling ; there has been a standing quarrel from that day to this, and so it will
be
until the end of the chapter. I will mention another very important fact, from
which I date the rise of what you may call
the assumption of temporal power on the
part of the Roman Church. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that early in the
fourth century the capital of the Roman
Empire was changed from the city of Rome.
to Constantinople. We find at about the same
time that Constantine, the Emperor of Rome,
adopted the Christian faith, and that the
hangers-on of the Government and the great
majority of the priests of the old heathen
religion boxed the compass and turned with
him. That has been the rule from the time
of Constantine down to to-day. About that
time we find the whole Roman empire divided into metropolitan divisions, and a metropolitan
placed over each of those divisions.
The capital was removed from Rome to Constantinople. We find almost the only authority
existing in Rome to be the bishop of the
church ; from that time dated the power of
the church in Rome and its assumption of
power in the Western Empire. During succeeding years we find various attempts made
by the priests of the Christian Church to
fasten themselves on western Europe.
Shortly after this time we find the church
ready to support the party prepared to pay
the highest price for its support—just as
we do today. The price to be paid for
the support of the church has not changed
from that day down to the present. In the
eighth century we find the church extend
6095
[COMMONS] 6096
ing its power to France. We find the Pope
of Rome, fearing there would be a unification of Italy under the Lombard princes,
formed an alliance in order to secure his
authority in Europe. In return for assistance given in favour of the Pope of
Rome against the Lombard princes in
northern Italy, Romagna and Ancona, the
Pope gave two provinces to his ally, and thus
began the temporal power of the Church of
Rome. From that date, step by step, we
find that church gradually becoming stronger—I will not enter into all the historical
facts connected with it—and gradually becoming, age after age, more intolerant, until,
in the eleventh century it absolutely refused to recognize the control of the Emperor.
Up to that time, it is well known
that every priest and bishop and even the
Pope himself was elected by the people or
appointed by the Emperor. They claim no
divine right to rule, as they do at the present time. In the middle of the eighth
century we find the temporal power of the
church established, and it continued to be
so down to 1870, until the unification of
Italy, when Victor Emmanuel changed his
capital from Florence to Rome, and from
that date to this, the Church of Rome
has gradually ceased to be a temporal
power. Having entered into this historical review, we need not go further ; I
could go into details and show how, step
by step, this power was assumed, and this
divine right was assumed, but it is not
necessary. We find ourselves in Canada
suffering from the misgovernment and mismanagement of by-gone ages. I have no
antipathy whatever to any of our Roman
Catholic citizens or to the citizens of any
church, but when it comes to our having
our schools governed by that church—I will
not go into the details, although I have all
the figures here—and when it is apparent
that extra cost is incurred, that bad management prevails and other objections arise,
I object to this state of things, especially
in a sparsely-settled country—but I need not
go into these facts as they have already
been stated by the last speaker, and are
very well known. But there are very many
objections that are very properly urged to
any such system being perpetuated in this
country. We find that separate schools were
established as a compromise measure. In
the provinces of Ontario and Quebec they
are established, and I suppose they will remain until some time in future years when
they will vanish of their own accord, when
the people will have become so broad and
liberal that a system of theological government will not be tolerated. But in the
North-west, the matter is entirely different ;
in the Territories there is no need of compromise. I can easily see why, in the early
days of the province of Quebec separate
schools were established. We have two
races in that province, English-speaking and
French-speaking people, and I can easily
see how the question might readily arise of
establishing separate schools, based on the
question of language ; but I cannot see any
reason why such schools should be based
on theology, as subsequently was the case. As
regards language, the two races were about
evenly divided—language on the one hand
and theology on the other. The English-
speaking people, mostly Protestants, and the
French-speaking mostly Roman Catholic, and
it is very easy to see how the school question
gradually developed into the form it subsequently assumed, when Roman Catholic and
Protestant separate schools were established. I do not wish to be misunderstood—
do not desire to be understood as being in
favour of Protestant separate schools or
Protestant control of schools ; but my theory
is this, that there should be no theological
control whatever in connection with schools.
I shall endeavour to submit a few points
to support my view. It is our duty to teach the
youth of the land, intellectually. The question
of theology cannot possibly arise in teaching
reading, writing and arithmetic, or, in tact,
teaching any of the subjects that form our
school curriculum. History is the only subject on which any difference of opinion
can
possibly exist, and even in regard to that
I am satisfied an arrangement could he
arrived at which would be perfectly satisfactory to persons of all creeds and forms
of theology. Therefore, no question can be
raised by any theologian on subjects which
we may call intellectual in our public
schools. There can be no possible objection
to teaching sanitary laws or physical laws
relating to disease, and the development
of the human frame in our schools. Those
are recognized to-day by all theologians as
being proper, and certainly theology does
not enter into those subjects; therefore,
Protestants and Roman Catholics can attend such schools without straining their
consciences. Moreover, it is well recognized that the principles of government
should be thoroughly instilled in the minds
of the youth, and theology cannot possibly
enter into the principles of government ;
and i am satisfied that no one should, for
a moment, object to the teaching of that
subject. It is said, look at what the free
school system in the United States has produced. I point to the United States as a
country carrying out the free school system.
The men who are causing the dissensions
and troubles in the United States, are not
men who were educated under the free school
system of the United States, but they are
the offscourings of theological institutions in
the countries of Europe. I speak of every
theology, not caring what it may be. There
is an old saying which is this :
Of all ills with which mankind is cursed
Ecclesiastical tyranny is the worst.
If you can point me in history, anywhere.
and find the beneficial results of any such
teaching, then I am prepared to admit I am
6097 [JULY 16, 1894] 6098
in error. These strikes in the United States
and these anarchist troubles that reveal
themselves all over the country are the product of those who have been brought up
in
countries ruled by theological institutions.
Mr. AMYOT. The gentleman attacks Protestant theology as well as Catholic.
Mr. HUGHES. There is no objection whatever that can be urged on the part of any
theologian to the teaching of morality. Right
is right, and wrong is wrong. Long before
we found any of the precepts of theologians
that are blessing or injuring the world, long
before these theologies were introduced on
the face of the earth, we found right, right,
and wrong, wrong. Morality as taught in our
schools cannot be objected to from a theological point of view. For the benefit of
some
of our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens who
might object to the absence of the teaching
of morality in the schools, I wish to read
what a very eminent writer says on the
subject of the teaching of morality, and when
his name is mentioned it will prove acceptable to the great majority of the members
of that faith. Mr. Lilly, one of the leading
members of the Jesuit branch of the Roman
Catholics in England, says:
The ethics of Christianity are not, as Mr. John
Morley somewhere calls them, " a mere appendage
to a set of theological mysteries." They are independent of those mysteries, and would
subsist to
all eternity, though Christianity and all other religions were swept into oblivion.
The moral law is
ascertained, not from aimonncements of prophets,
apostles, evangelists, but from a natural and permanent revelation of the reason.
" Natural reason," says Suarez, in his great treatise De Legibus,
"indicates what is in itself good or bad for men ;"
or, as elsewhere in the same work, he expresses it :
" Natural reason indicates what is good or bad for
a rational creature." The great fundamental truths
of ethics are necessary, like the great fundamental
truths of mathematics. They do not proceed from
the arbitrary will of God. They are unchangeable,
even by the flat of the Omnipotent. The moral
precepts of Christianity do not derive their validity
from the Christian religion. They are not a corollary from its theological creed.
It is mere matter
of fact, patent to every one who will look into his
Bible, that Jesus Christ and his apostles left no
code of ethics. The Gospels and Epistles do not
yield even the elements of such a code. Certain it
is that when, in the expanding Christian society,
the need arose for an ethical synthesis, resource
was had to the inexhaustible fountains of wisdom
opened by the Hellenic mind. Â
The clearness, the precision of pyschological
analysis, which distinguish the ethics of the Catholic schools, are due more to Aristotle
and Plato,
than to Hebrew prophets or Christian apostles.
I merely cite that to show that even among
eminent writers and theologians in the Roman Catholic church the question of morality
is not necessarily connected with the teaching of theology, so that so far as the
teaching
of morals is concerned our schools could
very well be spared the trouble. Now, Sir,
it may be asked, why is it that the church
is so anxious to control the teaching of theology in our schools ? Of course it is
a relic
of the old days and they do not care to give
it up. In fact none of these principles have
been given up without a struggle. During
the last 200 years, since the overthrow of
theological control in relation to education,
the world has made more progress than in
all the previous years of its existence. That
fact alone I would urge in opposition, to any
control on the part of theologians in our
schools ; any control other than as citizens of
this country. We may well ask: have theologians any confidence in their own principles
? If they have, why do they seek to
take advantage of the public schools of the
country in order to inculcate their principles.
They have their various meetings every day
during the week, and they have the Sunday
schools in which to control the children, and
yet we find they are not satisfied with that,
but that they wish to control the public
schools of the country in relation to the matters of their theology. They certainly
should
not fear intelligent public criticism, if their
dogmas are right they should not be afraid to have them fearlessly criticised. There
is
one other reason why we should not have this
system of separate schools, either Protestant
or Roman Catholic, for I do not make any
exception to either one or the other. There
is the question of vested rights. The record
shows that every year these separate schools
in the North-west are increasing in numbers,
and by the time we come to establish these
Territories as provinces, we will find that
these schools have taken such firm root that
it will be all but impossible for this Government to eradicate them. I could point
to the
record of Ontario—but I shall not take up
the time of the House to go into that aspect
of the case—to show that separate schools
instead of unifying and upbuilding the nation,
divide it, and create a citizenship inside of
a citizenship owing allegiance, not necessarily to the nation, but to a foreign power.
I contend that separate schools are unnecessary, and especially where settlement is
very
sparse. Many of these schools in the North
west Territories have not more than seven
or eight children attending them, and yet you
will find that in some localities Protestant
children—because there are no Protestant
separate schools there, and I hope there
never will be—are forced to walk many miles
in order to attend the public schools, because
the schools in their own sections are Roman
Catholic ones. I am informed by many people
who come from the North-west, and I am informed by Roman Catholics in the province
of
Quebec, that neither in the province of Quebec nor in the North-west do they demand
6099
[COMMONS] 6100
theological schools . The Roman Catholic people themselves do not ask them, and, therefore,
I do not see why they should be forced
upon them. This is a new country, and in a
new country we should be very careful what
groundwork we lay down, and we should
examine very critically into the question of
allowing these theologians of any denomination to control our schools, for the seed
planted in early days is very hand to eradicate in later years. I maintain that separate
schools are contrary to the principles of responsible government. Responsible government
recognizes the individuality of each
citizen and separate schools train the youth
of the land, not to recognize that individuality which is necessary for true citizenship.
Therefore, I maintain that children trained
in separate schools are not likely to be as
good or as loyal citizens, ready to sacrifice
their whole independence for the country,
as those trained in public schools. Another
point I am pleased to say that not only
do we find several branches of the Christian
church to-day denying the right of the state
directly or indirectly to recognize any church,
but we find many individuals in other religious bodies which do not take the same
stand.
stepping out and refusing to accept from the
state any recognition of churches. I trust
that it will not be long before all the
churches, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, will take the same line and agree to
abolish separate schools, not only in the
North-west, but in these provinces. Another point. In separate schools the control
of the youth is abdicated to the theologians—
there is no getting round that point—and in
that way the children are brought up not
to recognize the parental authority and the
state authority as supreme, but to recognize
the church as overshadowing both the state
and the home and as the great fountain of
authority. The church to-day has a high
recognition, owing to the respect we all
show the clergy, from the position they occupy: and if their doctrines are as they
should be, they should not ask for more.
They have a certain amount of superstitious
regard—I do not use the word improperly—
tendered to them by people of all denominations, so that the utterances from the clergy
go further, and are received with less criticism, than the utterances of ordinary
citizens.
Therefore, I maintain that they should not
ask for any special privilege in relation to
the schools of this country, on account of
the position they already hold in the minds
of the people. Separate schools, Sir, create
a nation inside of a nation. Before separate
schools existed in this country the youth of
all creeds and doctrines were loyal to the
core; but today we find, unfortunately,
springing up in various localities a spirit
which looks to the church before it looks to
the state. In other words, we find the ultramontane spirit growing up in many parts
of Canada to-day, and recognizing the Government of Canada, not as the paramount
authority, but as secondary to other authori
ties. Another point is this : If one creed has
separate schools, then all must have them.
The schools of the North-west are wrong,
even on the basis of separate schools, for
they are recognized simply as Protestant and
Roman Catholic schools. But if one creed
is entitled to separate schools, then all are :
the Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Anglican, the Baptist and all other denominations
have an equal right to demand them. Therefore, I maintain that the present basis for
separate schools, if separate schools are to
be recognized, is entirely wrong. I advance
these arguments to show the absurdity of the
whole principle of separate schools. Â Now.
there is another aspect of this matter. If
the older provinces seek to force the system
of separate schools on the North-West Territories. I feel satisfied that the day is
not
far distant when those territories will be
peopled with a race that will not tolerate
separate schools. It does not require much
of a prophet to foresee that in the near
future the North—west Territories will have.
a much more predominant population than
they have to-day, and it is well for us in the
older provinces to consider, if we seek to
impose separate schools on the people of
those territories at the present time. whether
they will not in the near future come down
here and say : we will abolish your separate
schools. In other words. they may retaliate
in the coming years, as I have no doubt they
will in any event. Another important point
is this : Every session in Canada, so long as
I remember, we have found one province
arrayed against. another and one theology
against another, owing to this creed interference in state affairs, and, Sir, look
at it
as you will, get round it as you may, compromise as you will, and concede any point
you deem it necessary to concede, the
question of these theological influences is
eternally cropping up in this country. I maintain that the true position is that every
man
should, as I trust every man does. worsnip
God according to the dictates of his own
conscience. and that there should be entire
separation of church and state in all matters.
and that can only be brought about by
abolishing all separate schools. Another
objection to separate schools is this: You
may remember that the American revolutionary war was brought about because the
people were taxed without representation.
They were free men, and they refused to
pay taxes without representation. The contrary principle, I maintain, should hold
good,
that no taxation should carry with it no
representation. We find, however, that the
separate schools in Ontario and also in the
North-west, are governed by the clergy, and
the clergy in both Ontario and the Northwest are exempt from taxation. Therefore,
we find a set of men, we may almost
say a sovereign body, governing without
being taxed. That principle is wrong. We
also find the other principle in this fact : that
the Roman Catholic people of the country
are taxed. while they have not their share of
6101 [JULY 16, 1894] 6102
representation in the government of these
schools. Another very important point is
this: We find that these Roman Catholic
schools are almost entirely under the control
of church orders. That undoubtedly closes
many avenues of life to young men and
young women of the Roman Catholic faith.
These people have not the same privileges
in the way of rising in the world as
their Protestant fellow—citizens. We find our
Protestant young men and women engaging
in the teaching profession and becoming
ornaments of society; while in almost all
these Roman Catholic schools the teaching
is done largely by members of church
orders, and this closes that important avenue
to young men and young women of that
faith. I could go further; but I will not
take up the time of the House with any
more arguments on this subject. I am well
aware, Sir, that any man who stands up
and differs in the slightest degree from those
who favour separate schools, or attempts to
put the brake on theological interference
in the control of the community, will
be called intolerant, and have the finger of scorn pointed at him. However, although
I do not expect, I may
inform the House my amendment to carry
just at present, I am satisfied that the day
is not far distant when the question of
the separation of State and Church will be
one of the live issues of this Dominion. I
am satisfied that the people will rise above
all petty matters and advantages that are
now flung around this, and will recognize
no man's creed but look on him simply as
a citizen of Canada. That is the only true
basis here, I care not what a man's creed
may be, but only what his politics are. I
have set an example of this in my political
career. So long as a man stands forth
and takes a straight line in relation to public affairs, I shall support him. irrespective
of what religious creed he may profess in
his private life. But once I find a community governed by theological opinions.
or questions of state made subservient to
questions of theological concern. then I must
respectfully beg to express my opposition to
that state of affairs. We are all citizens of
Canada and should stand forth as such,
and place ourselves on record before the
country as public men, and not as members
of any religious organization. I therefore
beg to move the following amendment :—
That all the words in the amendment be struck
out and the following inserted instead thereof :
" That the said Bill be not now read the third time,
but : recognizing, that the fullest powers relating
to education, consistent with the well-being of the
Dominion of Canada as a whole should be conferred
on the provincial and territorial Legislatures ; and
that those powers should involve the training of
the youth :—
(1.) Intellectually, that each one may know how
to read, write, cipher and be instructed in geography, history, language and literature.
(2.) Physically, that- t-here may be sound bodies
for sound minds.
(3.) Politically, that each one may understand
the duties and rights of citizenship, and be familiar
with the various educational, judicial, municipal,
provincial and federal forms, powers and functions
of government in Canada.
(4.) Ethically or morally, that each may know
right from wrong, and understand man's duty
towards his fellow man.
And further recognizing that from a national
view-point it is wrong and contrary to the spirit of
responsible government to confer upon a provincial or territorial Legislature, authority
to establish
or to enact to establish a system of separate or
denominational schools wherein theology or creed
may be taught.
That the Bill be referred back to the Committee
of the Whole House with instructions to amend
section 14, subsection 1, of the North-west Territories Act by omitting all the words
in the subsection after the words " provided that " in line 3,
and inserting the following : " No authority shall
be vested in the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
or the Legislative Assemhly of the Territories to
pass ordinances or to enact laws permitting or
authorizing or recognizing the teaching or the
ractising of any creed, or theology, or sectarian
orms in any educational institution receiving
public support, and that separate or denominational schools supported in whole or
in part by
public taxation or receiving any support from
national, provincial, territorial, municipal or local
taxation may not be established."
In moving that amendment I do not for a
moment profess that I will receive much
support: in this House. I would be very
much surprised if I did. But whoever lives
to stand on the floor of this House in the
near future, will find that the sentiments
embodied in that resolution, are the sentiments that will carry, not only on the floor
of this House but in the Dominion of Canada.
House divided on amendment to amendment of Mr. Hughes :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Hughes, McDonald (Assiniboia).—2.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Allan. Henderson,
Amyot, Ingram,
Bain (Soulanges). Innes,
Baker (Wentworth), Ives,
Beausolcil, Joncas,
BĂ©chard, Kenny,
Beith, Lachapelle,
Belley, Langevin (Sir Hector) ,
Bergeron, LanRiviere,
Bernier, Laurrer,
Blanchard, Leclair,
Boston, Leduc,
Boyd, Legris
Brodeur, Lippé.
Brown, Â Macdonald (Huron),
Bruueau, McCarthy, Â
Bryson, McDougald (Pictou).
Calvin, McDougall (Cape Breton),
Carignan. McLennan.
Carling (Sir John), McMillan,
Caron (Sir Adolphe), McMullen,
Carroll, Mcheill,
6103
[COMMONS] 6104
Cartwright (Sir Richard), Madill,
Casey, Mara,
Charlton, Marshall,
Chesley, Masson,
Choquette, Metcalfe,
Christie, Mignault,
Cleveland, Mills (Bothwell),
Costigan, Monet,
Craig, Montague,
Curran, Mulock,
Daly, Ouimet,
Davin, Patterson (Colchester),
Davis, Patterson (Huron),
Dawson, Pelletier,
Delisle, Pope,
Denison, Prior,
Desaulniers, Proulx,
Devlin, Rider,
Dickey, Rinfret ,
Dugas, Robillard,
Dupont, Rosamond,
Earle, Ross (Dundas),
Edgar, Ross (Ligar),
Fairbairn, Rowand,
Featherston, San born,
Ferguson (Leeds & Gren.), Semple,
Ferguson (Renfrew), Simard,
Flint, Smith (Ontario),
Foster, Somerville,
Fréchette, Sproule,
Fremont, Stairs,
Geoffrion, Sutherland,
Gillies, Tarte,
Girouard (Jacques Cartier), Taylor,
Girouard (Two Mountains), Thompson (Sir John),
Godbout, Tisdale,
Grandbois, Tupper (Sir C. Hibbert),
Grant (Sir James), Turcotte,
Guay, Tyrwhitt,
Guillet, Wilmot,
Haggart, Wood (Brockville),—l31.
Harwood.
Amendment negatived.
And the question being put on the amendment.
Mr. AMYOT. I shall only detain the House
for a very few moments. The hon. member
for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) asks that
full liberty be given to the North-west Territories to legislate in the matter of
the
schools. I am glad he has put the question
so clearly and distinctly. The hon. gentleman quoted section 93 of the Confederation
Act, and I admit the interpretation he gave
to it. He has admitted that that clause
gives forever to the provinces, which will
enter into the Dominion, the right to separate
schools. But he says that since we have
given to the North-west Territories nearly
all the rights which we have given to
the other provinces, we ought also to
give it the control over education. That
is, if I understand it rightly, the stand
the hon. gentleman has taken. The
reason, Mr. Speaker, is this—and I
am surprised that it is not more generally
understood by the adversaries of separate
schools—that when we established Confederation we established the autonomy of the
provinces, guaranteeing to the provinces exclusive right and control of all matters
assigned to them. But, so far as education
is concerned, we have extended the principle of autonomy further yet, we have extended
it to the father of the family, and
have virtually declared that each father
of a family shall be the supreme master of
his children, and may send them to the
school that pleases him. To make certain
that the Local Legislatures shall not use
their majorities to infringe upon the privilege of the father of the family, we, the
Parliament of Canada, have remained the
trustees and guardians of his rights. We
cannot interfere with the provinces in matters assigned to them, but in relation to
education, the principle is extended further
and it is for us to see that the rights of
the father of the family are protected. Does
the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) understand me ?
Mr. AMYOT. In matters of education, for
fear some ill-advised people, bigots or fanatics, moved by whatever motives, should
try to deprive the father of the family of
his sacred right to educate his children as
he pleases, we have constituted the Parliament of Canada the protector of that right.
So that upon us is thrown the moral obligation and duty of preventing the provinces
from taking the money of the parents to
teach their children in any other language
or religion than that which the parents desire. I am glad the hon. member has admitted
that this section applies to the whole
of the Dominion not only as it was originally constituted but as it was intended to
be constituted later on, and will even apply
to Keewatin district when it is made a province. The preamble of the Act says :
And whereas it is expedient that provision be
made for the eventual admission into the Union
of other parts of British North America.
And if the hon. gentleman reads section
146 he will see that provision was made
for the admission of Rupert's Land and the
North-west Territories, which included the
present province of Manitoba, and it was
provided that this should be on such terms
and conditions in each case as are in the
addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks
fit to approve, subject to the provisions of
this Act. I will add only one word. The
hon. member for North Simcoe must remember that by this House and by the Senate
of Canada it was promised most faithfully
that the Parliament of Canada would be
ready to provide that the legal rights of any
corporation, company or individual within
the same shall be respected and placed under the protection of courts of competent
jurisdiction. One of these rights was the
right of education and another was the
right to speak French or English. The hon.
gentleman knows that all the Acts concerning Manitoba and the North-west have
referred to the British North America Act
and to that address of both Houses. I remember that at that time some doubts were
expressed as to the meaning of the phrase.
but does the hon. gentleman not remember
the interpretation that Lord Granville gives
it in his letter to Sir John Young? I need
not take the time of the House to read
the letter I speak of. The hon. gentleman
6105 [JULY 16, 1894] 6106
knows that in that letter it was solemnly
affirmed that the language and the separate
schools would be protected. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) is an honest man I
am assured ; he is a sincere man, and understanding that Confederation took place
on
that condition will he say now that it is
fair that the majority, merely because they
are a majority should refuse to be bound
by the condition ? Would we have induced
these provinces to join the Confederation
under false pretext ? Let Canada not
repeat here at Ottawa the miserable
and contemptible tricks by which, in
the province of Manitoba they have
succeeded in abolishing for the present
—for the present, but not for long—the
separate schools and the French language.
If Canada wants to be peaceful and prosperous let her give justice and due protection
to every one. After all, of what
does the hon. gentleman complain ? He says
the separate schools costs $100,000 a year.
How much does it cost him ? It costs us
as much as it costs him. Does he think we
would be glad to send our money there to
educate the children in a manner contrary
to the wishes of the parents ? Are not the
French-Canadians loyal ? We want the
British Empire to be prosperous, grand, to
dominate the world ; we want Canada to
remain joined with England. We have the
right to say that our forefathers assisted
in keeping this domain for the Queen, and today we pretend to be the most devoted
subjects of Her Majesty. Sir George Etienne
Cartier declared that the last gun fired in
defence of British supremacy in Canada
would be fired by a French-Canadian. We
are loyal subjects of the Queen, and we
have the right to remain loyal as French-
Canadians and as Catholics. The hon. gentleman need not be afraid ; he will not find
any traitors amongst us; he will never
find us working against the Queen, because
the Pope teaches us to respect constituted
authority and to be faithful to the Queen.
But we have these treaties and guarantees
that these institutions shall be preserved ;
we have the honour of the Dominion pledged.
Can we not depend upon that ? The hon.
gentleman says he approaches this question
in a cool way. I may set fire to my neighbour's house in a cool way, but that does
not justify my act. I shall not go into details or take the time of the House. but
I
say that in matters of education autonomy
has been granted to the father of the family,
that the provinces have no right to interfere with him, and, if they do, the Parliament
of Canada is bound under the treaty,
in honour and, I might say in conscience,
to interfere and protect him. Then let us
not for a moment enact a law that will
deny those vested and sacred rights.
Mr. LAURIER. This is a subject which,
as we all know from past experience whenever it has been brought before the House,
is
liable to create a great deal of excite
ment and even of bitterness. I am sure that
the House must feel happy that the hon.
member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), in introducing this subject to our attention today,
has done so in a speech certainly remarkable
for its moderation and its temperate tone.
For my part, while differing in toto from the
hon. gentleman in the conclusions to which
I arrive upon this question, I may say that
I shall try and emulate the moderation with
with which he has approached it. The
hon. gentleman, in his opening remarks, said
that the legislation which is now on the
Statute-book concerning the subject of education in the North-west Territories, is
extraordinary and unprecedented, I admit at
once that it is extraordinary, but I do not
at all admit that it is unprecedented. It is
certainly extraordinary, and I agree with
him in his statement that the subject of
education is one which, by its very nature,
should pertain to the Local Legislatures. This
was the case at the time Confederation was
discussed in 1864, and it is equally the case
in 1894 ; and we may ask ourselves why
was this extraordinary legislation adopted
in 1875. We may well ask ourselves, what
is the reason which induced the Parliament
of Canada, when dealing with the question
in 1875, while granting local powers to the
North-west Territory, to deprive the Legislature which was then created of a power
which must be admitted is essentially
of a local nature ? Here comes the
precedent. The legislation, as my hon.
friend knows, was not unprecedented.
The Legislature was deprived of its supremacy in matters of education in order to
make that Legislature conform to the other
provinces in respect to the powers relating
to the subject of education ; it was made
to conform to the two largest provinces of
the Dominion in respect to that matter.
My hon. friend knows as well as I do that
in that respect the Legislature of the Northwest Territories was placed unon absolutely
the same footing as the Legislature of Quebec and the Legislature of Ontario. Again,
we may ask the question why the Legislatures
of Upper and Lower Canada were deprived,
at the time Confederation was discussed. of
their control over the matter of education.
The reason everybody knows. It is a matter of
history that when in 1864 the idea of Confederation, which up to that time had been
a
misty and hazy one, at last took something
like a practical and tangible shape, the old
provinces of Upper and Lower Canada had
been convulsed by an agitation over the question of separate schools. True it is,
that the
Protestant minority of Lower Canada had enjoyed for more than thirty years the privilege
of having its own schools without
any interference from the majority ; and it
was only in the year before that the long
agitation had been settled in Upper Canada
by granting to the minority of that province
the same privileges which had been granted
to the minority in Lower Canada more than
6107 [COMMONS] 6108
twenty years before. It is also a matter
of history that of all the leaders of public
opinion at that time. Mr. George Brown was
among the most uncompromising opponents
of separate schools. It is also a matter of
history that if there was any man who, more
than another, contributed to shape the events
which made Confederation possible, that man
was Mr. Brown ; but it is also a matter of
history that in his anxiety to make Confederation a success, and to anchor the new
scheme in the affections of the people, Mr.
Brown did not hesitate at that time to sink
his own opinion on the question of separate
schools, and consented to deprive the Local
Legislature of his own province of supremacy over the question of separate schools.
Let me here quote the language of Mr.
Brown in regard to that question. The quotation may be a little lengthy. but I believe
it is quite apposite to the subject we have
in hand. After showing the advantages
which Ontario was to obtain from having
control over its own local affairs, Mr. Brown,
in the Confederation Debates, spoke as follows :—
But, I may be told, that to this general principle
of placing all local matters under local control, an
exception has been made with regard to common
schools.
Mr. Brown here quoted the clause about
education in the resolutions of the Quebec
Conference :
Education : saving the rights and privileges
which the Protestant or Catholic majority in both
Canadas may possess as to their denominational
schools, at the time when the Union goes into
operation.
Then, Mr. Brown goes on to say :
Now, I need hardly remind the House that I
have always opposed and continue to oppose the
system of sectarian education so far as the public
chest is concerned. I have never had any hesitation on that point. I have never been
able to see
why all the people of the province, to whatever
sect they may belong, should not send their children to the same common schools to
receive the
ordinary branches of instruction. I regard the
parent and the pastor as the best religious instructors-and so long as the religious
faith of the children is uninterfered with, and ample opportunity
afforded to the clergy to give religious instruction
to the children of their flocks, I cannot conceive
any sound objection to mixed schools. But while
in the Conference and elsewhere I have always
maintained this view, and always given my vote
against sectarian public schools. I am bound to admit, as I have always admitted,
that the sectarian
system, carried to the limited extent it has yet
been in Upper Canada, and confined as it chiefly is
to cities and towns, has not been a very great
practical injury. The real cause of alarm was that
the admission of the sectarian principle was there,
and that at any moment it might be extended to
such a degree as to split up our school system altogether. There are but a. hundred
separate schools
in Upper Canada, out of some four thousand, and
all Roman Catholic. But if the Roman Catholics
are entitled to separate schools and to go on extending their operations, so are the
members of the
Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and all other sects. No candid
Roman
Catholic will deny this for a moment ; and there
lay the great danger to our educational fabric, that
the separate system might gradually extend itself
until the whole country was studded with nurseries of sectarianism, most hurtful to
the best interests of the province and entailing an enormous
expense to sustain the hosts of teachers that so
prodigal a system of public instruction must inevitably entail. Now, it is known to
every honourable member of this House that an Act was
passed in 1863, as a final settlement of this sectarian controversy, I was not in
Quebec at the time,
but if I had been here. I would have voted against
that Bill, because it extended the facilities for
establishing separate schools. It had, however,
this good feature, that it was accepted by the
Roman Catholic authorities, and carried through
Parliament as a final compromise of the question
in Upper Canada. When, therefore, it was proposed that a provision should be inserted
in the
Confederation scheme to bind that compact of
1863, and declare it a final settlement, so that we
should not be compelled, as we have been since
1849, to stand constantly to our arms, awaiting
fresh attacks upon our common school system, the
proposition seemed to me one that was not rashly
to be rejected.
I admit that, from my point of view, this is a
blot on the scheme before the House, it is confessedly one of the concession from
our side that
had been made to secure this great measure of
reform. But assuredly I for one have not the
slightest hesitation in accepting it as a necessary
condition of the scheme of union, and doubly acceptable must it be in the eyes of
hon. gentlemen
opposite, who were the authors of the Bil1 of 1863.
But it was urged that though this arrangement
might perhaps be fair as regards Upper Canada, it
was not so as regards Lower Canada, for there
were matters of which the British population have
long complained and some amendments to the
existing School Act were required to secure them
equal justice. Well, when this point was raised
gentlemen of all parties in Lower Canada at once
expressed themselves prepared to treat it in a frank
and conciliatory manner, with a view to removing
any injustice that might be shown to exist ; and on
this understanding the educational clause was
adopted by the Conference.
And here I am pleased to say that so far as
the Protestant minority of Quebec are concerned, the pledges given at the Quebec Conference
have been amply and fully redeemed since Confederation has been established.
One of the first acts done by the Local
Legislature in 1861 was to pass a law, which
has proved satisfactory to the Protestant
minority ever since. I call my hon. friend's
attention to this. Mr. Brown was no more
than is my hon. friend an advocate of a
separate school system—Mr. Brown was just
as thoroughly an opponent of that system.
He said, just as does the hon. gentleman, it
is a blot on our system. But for all that,
strong as was the objection of Mr. Brown to
6109 [JULY 16, 1984] 6110
the separate school system, in order to secure
peace and harmony, and in order to carry out
this great scheme of Confederation, he consented to sink his own personal views on
education, and I ask why not every patriot,
with a view to secure the same result, adopt
the same course as Mr. Brown did then ?
Such was the position in 1875, when the Territories were organized. The question
then
sprung up, and I well recollect what took
place at that time. When Mr. Mackenzie
introduced the Bill there were no provisions
in it regarding the question of education. As
soon as the Premier sat down. Mr. Blake.
who was not a member of the Government
at that time, but was a prominent supporter
of the Administration, rose and made some
remarks. Speaking of the general power of
the Legislature, he went on to say :
It give the Council all the powers practically enjoyed by this Parliament and the
Local Legislatures
together ; and it would be proper to restrict and define their powers in all matters
connected with municipal government, and provision should be made at
the earliest possible moment for municipal institutions, local taxation, and improvements.
He
regarded it as essential under the circumstances
of the country, and in view of the deliberation
during the last few days (referring to the New
Brunswick school question) that a general principle
should be laid down in the Bill with respect to
public instruction. He did believe that we ought
not to introduce in that Territory, the heart-burnings and difficulties with which
certain other portions of this Dominion and other countries had
been afflicted. It seemed to him, having regard
to the fact that, as far as we could expect at present, the general character of that
population
would be somewhat analogous to the population of
Ontario, that there should be some provision in the
constitution by which they should have conferred
upon them the same rights and privileges in regard
to religious instruction as those possessed by the
people of the province of Ontario. The principle
of local self-govormnent and the settling of the
question of public instruction, it seemed to him,
ought to be the cardinal principles of the measure.
This proposition was introduced by Mr.
Blake. How was it accepted by the House
at that time ?
Mr. LAURIER. In 1875, at the time that
the Bill for the organization of the Territories was introduced. Mr. Mackenzie, who
was in charge of the measure, rose immediately after Mr. Blake, and answered
him in the following terms :—
As to the subject of public instruction, it did
not in the first place attract his attention, but
when he came to the subject of local taxation he
was reminded of it. Not having had time before
to insert a clause on the subject, he proposed to do
so when the Bill was in committee. The clause
provided that the Lieutenant Governor, by and
with the consent of his Council or Assembly, as
the case might he, should pass all necessary ordinances in respect of education, but
it would be
especially provided that the majority of the ratepayers might establish such schools
and impose
such necessary assessments as they might think fit,
and that the minority of the ratepayers, whether
Protestant or Roman Catholic, might establish
separate schools, and such ratepayers would be
liable only to such educational assessment as they
might impose upon themselves. This, he hoped,
would meet the objection offered by the hon.
member for South Bruce.
I may say that these observations were received without a word of dissent from any
hon. member on either side of the House,
and when the Bill was in committee, Mr.
Mackenzie introduced the following amendment :—
Provided further that when and so soon as any
electoral district shall be established as hereinafter
provided the Lieut.-Governor, by and with the
consent of the Council or Assembly as the case may
be, shall have power to pass ordinances for raising
within such district by direct taxation or by shop,
saloon, tavern, or any other licenses, a revenue for
local and municipal purposes for such district and
for the collection and appropriation of the same.
When and so soon as any system of taxation
shall be adopted in any district or portion of the
North-west Territories, the Lieut.-Governor and
Council or Assembly as the case may be, shall pass
all necessary ordinances in respect of education,
and it shall therein always be provided that a
majority of ratepayers in any district, may establish such schools therein as they
may think fit and
make the necessary assessment and rates therefor,
and further that the minority of ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic,
may
establish separate schools therein.
This provision was introduced at that time.
Not a word of dissent was expressed. It
became the law of the country, and is the
law of the country to-day, and this is the
provision which the hon. gentleman desires
to remove from the Statute-book. I will
not discuss with the hon. gentleman here
or anywhere else at present, at all events,
the subject of separate schools. There are
different views as to those schools. This
question does not, however, come up for
discussion on the floor of this House to-day.
I have noted all the objections brought forward to the separate school system in the
North-west. It is alleged that it is very expensive, more expensive than the system
of
public schools. So be it—I will not discuss
the matter with the hon. gentleman. Let
me, however, observe this, that if the system
of separate schools is more expensive than
the system of public schools, the minority
will suffer, and not the majority, in fact, it
will be so much worse for the minority ; but
if the minority are willing to pay that price
in order to have their own schools and their
own system of education, why should this
be a matter of offence, or a subject even of
objection on the part of the majority ? But
I will not discuss the question with the hon.
gentleman, and I will not discuss the objections he has raised. I ask : is it advisable,
let separate schools he objectionable,
6111
[COMMONS] 6112
they cannot be more objectionable today
than they were in 1876, or in 1864, when
Confederation took place—they are just the
same now as they were then—is it advisable,
in view of our present condition, in the hope
we entertain of forming a nation on this continent, because after all that is the
hope we
entertain to-day—is it advisable. entertaining, as we do that hope, to go back to
the old
heart-burnings, which Mr. Brown declared
to exist in 1864, and open up again the
question to agitation which we had hoped
was finally closed at that time ? I know
very well there are men, I will not say in
this House, but in the province of Ontario,
and perhaps elsewhere, who would be pleased to have the door opened to that agitation
and have the whole system of separate
schools discussed again, not as regards the
Territories, but also as regards the provinces
of Quebec and Ontario. Well, there may
be two sides to this question. Looking at
the press of Ontario we find this idea expressed : but the question was discussed
before,
and when it came to be discussed practically
by practical men, it was found advisable to
allow matters to remain as they are at the
present time, and allow a minority to have
separate schools where they desire them. My
hon. friend has surely not forgotten the convention of the Equal Rights Association,
which sat in Toronto in June, 1889. Among
the other subjects that were discussed there
was this very question of separate schools.
Mr. J. L. Hughes moved the following resolution :—
Mr. EDGAR. He is a brother of the member for Victoria.
Mr. LAURIER. I did not know he was
related. However, Mr. J. L. Hughes is well
known in the city of Toronto, and he moved
the following resolution :—
We record our approval of our national system
of free education in this province, and we insist
that every ratepayer should be deemed a supporter
of the public school, unless he himself, of his own
free will, signifies his desire to be ranked as a
supporter of separate schools, and that the Act
should be so amended as to be explicit on this
point.
This resolution, moved by Mr. Hughes, was
not satisfactory to a certain number of delegates there, and Mr. D. W. Clendenning,
seconded by Mr. Holmes, moved an amendment to the resolution, as follows :—
That the system of separate schools was a
standing menace to the civil and religious liberties
of Canada.
That the separate Schools system was not an
institution which it was desirable to allow to
grow up in the country.
I have just heard these very words from
my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy), who has told us that separate
schools were a menace to the country. The
subject came to be debated, and there was
in that convention a gentleman whose name
is a household word to the province of
Ontario, I mean Professor Cavan, a man of
sterling worth, a man of unspotted character
and of great breadth of thought. Principal
Cavan, speaking on the amendment and sub-
amendment, used the following language :—
Principal Cavan said that he was entirely in
sympathy with those who opposed separate schools.
The separate schools, most unfortunately, were
guaranteed by the Act of Confederation, when this
question had been thoroughly taken into account.
There was another thing. Their Protestant brethren
in Lower Canada had also in some sense the
system of separate schools, and they must take
extreme care they did " not take ground that
would be injurious to their brethren in the province
of Quebec. The resolution before the chair was
framed by gentlemen every one of whom was
opposed to separate schools, in Ontario, and he
would never vote for it if it expressed by implication acquiescence in the separate
schools, but they
could not undertake at one stroke the entire reform
of the Dominion. They had concentrated themselves upon one great and flagrant violation
of the
law of equality and they had better get that
righted before attacking any bad feature in the
constitution.
There was a representative from the province of Quebec also present at that meeting,
Mr. Lee, of Sherbrooke, and he used the
following language :—
Mr. Lee, Sherbrooke, said that the name proposed for this association was Equal Rights
to all.
In this agitation, what they asked for themselves,
they must be willing to grant to others. He did
not believe the separate schools system was a good
one, but thought that if separate schools were
taken from the Roman Catholics in Ontario, the
majority in Quebec would demand that the Protestant schools be taken from the minority
in that
province. He did not think the convention could
demand the abolition of separate schools in this
province and ask that they be retained in
Quebec.
Thereupon the question of separate schools
was dropped by the convention. Now,
Sir, I have no fear, for my part, that
there should ever arise an agitation in the
province of Quebec for the removal of the
separate schools of the Protestant minority ;
but, certainly, it is only fair to ask that
what is granted in Quebec to the minority
should also be granted to the minority elsewhere. It is not unfair to ask that the
one
measure of justice which prevails in one
province should also prevail in the other provinces and territories. And so long as
we
agree to have separate schools anywhere,
I see no reason why we should not agree
to have them everywhere as they exist at
the present time. It may be that the system
of separate schools is not acceptable to the
hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy), but does he,
or does anyone, expect that it is possible
to form this nation it each one of us insists
6113 [JULY 16, 1894] 6114
upon what he conceives to be the right, in
any matter whatever ? Is it possible to
form a nation upon any other basis than the
surrender of prejudice, of passion, of sentiment, or even of conviction, for the general
good ? The system which now prevails in
this country may not be acceptable to the
hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy), but I would
call his attention to the words which were
pronounced upon the floor of the British
Parliament upon one occasion by that master of political thought. Edmund Burke, an
authority which ought to be acceptable
everywhere. Burke once spoke these words :
In most questions of state there is a middle.
There is something else than the more alternative
of absolute destruction and undeformed existence.
This is, in my opinion, a rule of profound sense,
and ought never to depart from the mind of an
honest reformer. I cannot conceive how any man
can have brought himself to that pitch of presumption, to consider his country as
nothing but carte
blanche upon which he may scribble whatever he
pleases. A man full of warm, speculative benevolence may wish his society otherwise
constituted
than he finds it ; but a good patriot and a true
politician always considers how he shall make the
most of the existing materials of his country. A
disposition to preserve and an ability to improve,
taken together would be my standard of a statesman. Everything else is vulgar in the
conception,
perilous in the execution.
Now, Sir, these words seem to me to apply
to our country more than ever they applied
to the United Kingdom. We have here a
mixed community. As has been well expressed by the member for Bellechasse (Mr.
Amyot)—although I do not share his manner of expressing his views—we want to
form a nation on this continent. I appeal
to my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy). He is English, and I am French;
he is Protestant and I am Catholic. I call
upon him and I call upon all Canadians,
French or Catholic, Protestant or English,
to sink a little of their preferences, of their
prejudices, of their passions, of their sentiments, upon the altar of our common country.
I will not detain the House at any
length at this period of the session, and I
believe it would be injudicious on my part
to protract the discussion, although the subject is a tempting one. Again, I repeat
:
it is not the question of separate schools that
I am discussing at this moment, it is simply
the question of carrying on our system of
Confederation upon the basis which was
adopted in 1864, and maintained in 1875.
Mr. DALY. I do not intend to detain the
House at any length, but possibly it is right
that I should take some part in this discussion, seeing that the matter before the
House is an amendment moved by the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
to a Bill which I have charge of, and more
particularly from the fact, that I am the
member of the Government representing the
people of the North-west Territories in this
House. I wish, Sir, to give the House a
little history in connection with the government of the North-west Territories. Since
these Territories were acquired by Canada,
I find that the first Act for the temporary
government of the North-west Territories
and Rupert's Land, was passed in 1869. In
that Act there is nothing as to schools. It
would appear that a doubt arose after the
passing of that Act as to whether or not
its provisions were in the power of this
Parliament, and subsequently in order to
meet the objections which were raised, and
to settle the question whether or not that
Act of 1869 was within the power of this
Parliament, legislation was obtained from
the British Parliament, and the Act respecting the establishment of provinces in
the Dominion of Canada was assented to
by the Imperial Parliament on the 29th
June, 1871. Section 1 of that Act says :
This Act may be cited for all purposes as the
British North America Act of 1871.
Section 2 reads as follows :-—
The Parliament of Canada may, from time to time,
establish new provinces, in any of the territories,
forming for the time being, part of the Dominion
of Canada, but not included in any province thereof ;
and may, at the time of such establishment, make
provision for the constitution and administration of
any such province and for the passing of laws for
the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation
in the said parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you will see from the
provisions of that law, that this Parliament
has been given power by the British North
America Act of 1871 to, from time to time,
establish new provinces in the Territories,
and at the establishment of those provinces
in the Territories make provision for the
constitution and administration of such provinces. Up to the present moment, with
the
exception of the province of Manitoba, which
was given its constitution by the Act known as
the Manitoba Act of 1871, no provinces have
been carved out of that vast territory. But
no doubt the time will come—it may come
very shortly—when the people of that country will come to this Parliament and say
that the time has arrived when one or
more provinces should be carved out of
what is now known as the North-west Territories. Those Territories are now governed,
as the House knows, under the laws passed
by this Parliament from time to time, by
a Territorial Legislature. Now, the British
North America Act of 1871 confirms and
makes valid the Act of 1869, which I have
quoted. The next Act relating to the government of the Territories is an Act to
make further provision for the government
of the North-west Territories, chapter 16,
34 Victoria, 1871. There is nothing in that
Act as to schools. Then, we come to chapter
5 of 36 Victoria, 1873, and there is nothing in
that Act as to schools. The next is chapter
34 of 36 Victoria, 1873, an Act further to
6115
[COMMONS] 6116
amend the Act to make further provision
for the government of the North-west Territories ; and there is nothing in that Act
as to schools. Then, the next Act is chapter
49 of 38 Victoria, 1875, upon the introduction of which by the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie,
the debate arose from which the
hon. leader of the Opposition has quoted.
Now, I may say for the information of the
House, that the Bill introduced by Mr. Mackenzie was entitled "An Act to consolidate
and amend the laws respecting the Northwest Territories." On that occasion, Mr.
Blake preceded what the hon. gentleman has
read with the following language :—
The task which the Ministry has set for itself
was the most important it was possible to conceive.
To found primary institutions under which we
hope to see hundreds of thousands, and the more
sanguine among us think millions of men and
families settled and flourishing was one of the
noblest undertakings that could he entered upon
by any legislative body, and that it was no small
indication of the power and true position of this
Dominion, that Parliament should be engaged to-day
in that important task. He agreed with the hon.
member from Kingston that the task was one that
required time, consideration and deliberation, and
they must take care that no false steps were made
in such a work. He did not agree with that right
hon. gentleman that the Government ought to repeal his errors. The right hon. gentleman
had
tried the institutions for the North-west Territories
which he now asked the House to frame, and for
the same reason as he had given to-day—that it
would be better for the Dominion Government to
keep matters in their own hands and decide what
was best for the future. He (Mr. Blake.) believed
that it was essential to our obtaining a large immigration to the North-west that
we should tell
the people beforehand what those rights were to he
in the country in which we invited them to settle.
It was interesting to the people to know that at
the very earliest moment there was a sufficient
aggregate of population within a reasonable distance, that aggregation would have
a voice in
the self-government of the territories, and he
believed that the Dominion Government was wise,
(although the measure might be brought down
very late this session and it might be found impossible to give it due consideration)
in determining in advance of settlement what the character
of the institutions of the country should be
in which we invite people to settle. He did not
agree with the policy of asking people to settle in
that western country, and tell them that a paternal government would look after them,
and would
give them such institutions as the Government
thought suitable. We had better let the people
know their fate politically and otherwise before
they settle there. The task to be discharged now,
or at some future time, was one of considerable
importance. And amongst the difficulties was the
determining of what the range of power the council would be in the first place, assuming
that its
character would be that of a mixed nominative
and elective council, as he understood it would be,
of the First Minister; the Council at a subsequent
period assuming the position of a Legislative Assembly when the population was sufficient
to en
title it to assume that position. He did not hear
from the Honourable First Minister any distinct
enunciation of the powers cbmmitted to the Council and afterwards to the Assembly.
Looking
over the Bill hastily, it seemed that the powers
were amongst those of the British North America
Act with respect to the peace, order and good government.
Then, in order to make my narrative complete, I would like to read the quotation from
the same speech which has been read by
the hon. leader of the Opposition :
He regarded it as essential under the circumstances of the country, and in view of
the deliberation during the last few days that a general principle should be laid
down in the Bill with respect
to public instruction. He did believe that we
ought not to introduce into that territory the
heart-burnings and difficulties with which certain
other portions of this Dominion and other countries had been afflicted. It seemed
to him, having
regard to the fact that, as far as we could expect
at present the general character of that population
would be somewhat analogous to the population of
Ontario, that there should be some provision in the
constitution by which they should have conferred
upon them the same rights and privileges in
regard to religious instruction as those possessed
by the people of Ontario. The principles of local
self-government and the settling of the question of
public instruction it seemed to him ought to be the
cardinal principles of the measures.
Then, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, replying, said:
As to the subject of public instruction, it did not
in the first place attract his attention, but when
he came to the subject of local taxation he was reminded of it. Not having had time
before to insert a clause on the subject, be proposed to do so
when the Bill was in committee. The clause provided that the Lieutenant-Governor,
by and with
the consent of his council or assembly, as the case
might be, should pass all necessary ordinances in
respect of education, but it would be specially provided that the majority of the
ratepayers might
establish such schools and impose such necessary
assessment as they might think fit ; and that the
minority of the ratepayers, whether Protestant or
Roman Catholic, might establish separate schools ;
and such ratepayers would be liable only to such
educational assessments as they might impose upon
themselves. This, he hoped, would meet the objection offered by the hon. member for
South Bruce.
That took place on the 12th of March, 1875.
The debate continued, and amongst others
who spoke on the subject was the hon, member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) ; but I see
that
no reference whatever was made by any
of the other speakers to this question of the
wheels. On the 1st of April, 1875, we find
that Mr. Mackenzie, when the Bill was in
committee, with Mr. Moss in the Chair, introduced the resolution that was read by
the hon. leader of the Opposition :
When and so soon as any system of taxation
shall be adopted in any district or portion of the
North-west Territories the Lieutenant-Governor
6117 [JULY 16, 1894] 6118
and Council or Assembly, as the case may be, shall
pass all necessary ordinances in respect of education, and it shall therein be always
provided that
a majority of ratepayers in any district may establish such schools therein as they
may think fit
and make the necessary assessment and rates
therefore, and further that the minority of ratepayers therein whether Protestants
or Roman
Catholics may establish separate schools therein.
There was no other important amendment
made, and the House sat in committee till
six o'clock. After recess the discussion continued, it appears from the record, upon
other matters. The Bill was reported and
received its third reading on the following
day, namely, the 2nd of April, without discussion. Now, Sir, from the reading of the
language used by Mr. Blake on that occasion and the reply made to him by the then
leader of the Government, Mr. Mackenzie,
and considering that there was no dissenting
voice in the House at the time that this
amendment was proposed by Mr. Blake and
accepted by Mr. Mackenzie, and subsequently embodied by him in legislation, it is
clear
that it was made deliberately and designedly,
because, as Mr. Blake said in his speech,
"it was essential to our obtaining a large
immigration to the North-west that we should
tell the people beforehand what those rights
were to be in the country in which we invited them to settle." Now, it might be well
to read what the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie's views were on the subject of separate
schools. In the debate which took place on
the motion of the hon. member for Victoria
in reference to the New Brunswick School
Act on the 10th of March, 1875, Mr. Mackenzie said :
In this particular instance, I may say, I believe
in the secular system—I believe in free schools, in
the non-denominationa1 system, and if I could persuade my fellow countrymen in Ontario
or Quebec,
or any other province to adopt that principle, it is
the one I would give preference to above all others ;
but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact, that in all
the provinces there is a very considerable
number of people—in the province of Quebec
indeed, a very large majority, who believe
that the dogmas of religion should be taught
in the public schools—that it has an intimate
relationship with the morality of the people—
that it is essential to their welfare as a people,
that the doctrines of their church should be taught,
and religious principles according to their theory
of religious principles be instilled into the minds
of their children at school. For many years after
I held a seat in the Parliament of Canada I waged
a war against the principle of separate schools. I
hoped to be able, young and inexperienced in
politics as I then was, to establish a system to
which all would ultimately yield their assent. Sir,
it was impracticable in operation and impossible
in political contingencies ; and consequently when
the Confederation Act was passed in 1867, or
rather when the Quebec resolutions were adopted
in 1864 and 1865, which embodied the principle
should be the law of the land, the Confederation
took place, under the compact then entered upon.
I heartily assented to that proposition, and supported it by speech and vote in the
Confederation
debates. And, sir, the same ground which led me
on that occasion to give loyal assistance to the
Confederation project, embracing as it did the
scheme of having separate schools for Catholics in
Ontario, and Protestants in Quebec, caused me to
feel bound to extend at all events my sympathy,
if I could not my active assistance, to those in
other provinces who believed they were labouring
under the same disability and suffering from the
same grievance that the Catholics of Ontario complained of for many years.
In that extract Mr. Mackenzie lays down
the views that were held, not only by himself, but by Protestants in Ontario then,
and by Protestants, not alone in the Legislative Assembly, but in the House of Commons.
and which are, I am sure, held today by people who are Protestants as Mr.
Mackenzie was. Now, the question before
the House is as to whether or not we
should, by legislation at this time, by the
amendment to the Bill now before the
House, take away from the minority, or
from the people of the North-west, who
went in there and settled on the understanding and with the expectation that they
would enjoy the rights given them by Mr.
Mackenzie in 1875, and I confess my opinion is that it would not be right or just,
so long as the territorial condition exists
in that territory, so long as this Parliament governs that country as it does
to-day, so long should the law remain
as it is. But when the time comes, as
it must come shortly—because the provisions of the Act of 1871, gives us the authority—for
this Parliament to give a constitution to any province, or to any two
provinces carved out of those Territories,
then, and not till then, will the time come
for this House to deal with this question
of education. Nor would it be right or just
that we should repeal clause 14 of the Act,
as it now stands, giving the powers that
were given by Mr. Mackenzie. The hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
tried to argue that by the legislation which
was passed by this House in 1875 and by
the continuation of that upon the statutes,
we were riveting upon the people of the
North-west Territories a separate school
system for all time ; and by way of strengthening his argument, the hon. gentleman
quoted section 93 of the British North America Act. With deference to the hon.
gentleman's opinion, I cannot see the application of section 93 in the way the hon.
gentleman suggests. That section says :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect
any right or privilege in respect to denominational
schools which any class of persons may have by
law in any province of the Union.
Now, we are not discussing law affecting any
province of the Union at this time, but laws
that were given by this Parliament by virtue
of the Imperial Act of 1871, to the Territorial
6119
[COMMONS] 6120
Assembly ; and so far as section 3 of section 93 is concerned, in my opinion, the
same argument would prevail. What do we
find is the condition of things now? We
find that, under the authority of the Northwest Territories Act, section 14, Ordinances
have been passed by the territorial legislature
in reference to education. and we find that on
the 3lst December, 1892, an Ordinance was
passed by that legislature which made considerable changes in the matter of education
there. Up to that time, under the
Ordinance immediately preceding, namely,
the Ordinance of 1888, education in that
country was governed by a Board of Education, which was composed of men representing
both the majority and the minority.
Under the Ordinance, the inspection of the
different schools was made by inspectors
appointed by the different sections of the
Board of Education. But in 1892, by the
Ordinance passed then. we find that the
system of inspection now is similar, so far
as all the schools are concerned. The inspectors are appointed by the Council of
Public Instruction, or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. and they are appointed
irrespective of their religion, to inspect all
schools, whether separate or otherwise. in
any portion of the district for which they
are appointed. Objection was taken here.
in a previous debate, to that Territorial Ordinance on the ground that by it separate
schools were taken away from the minority.
On the contrary, it is stated, and I think on
good foundation. that, so far as separate
schools are concerned, they continue to
exist in that country to-day, to all intents
and purposes, and it is only with regard to
their inspection that any change has been
made. And I think, in justice to the people who have gone into that country, under
the Ordinance passed by virtue of section 14 of the Territories Act, and who
established schools under that Ordinance,
and subjected themselves to taxation for
that purpose, believing that that law would
prevail for all time to come, it would not be
just or right for this Parliament now to
take away, by one stroke of the pen, the
rights of these people. But, when the time
comes. as it may come soon, when the people of that country desire that one or more
provinces shall be carved out of their territory, then it will be necessary for us
to
give a full constitution to such provinces,
then, and not till then, will we be called on
to deal with this question of education.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). It is not my intention to detain the House but for a brief
period. I am not called upon, of course,
to address myself to the subamendment of
the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr.
Hughes). because that has already been disposed of, and I think that the vote of this
House has shown that it is not easy to embrace eighteen hundred years' history of
the
world in a motion, and get for that motion
the support of a very large number of repre
sentative men. Now. I have a few observations to make with regard to the speech
of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy). I do not agree with the hon.
gentleman in the view he has put forward
as to the importance of conferring upon
the people of the North-west Territories all
the powers of self-government that are possessed by the people of the provinces. Such
a course would be altogether at variance
with what has transpired under representative institutions, wherever the English race
has spread, and wherever English institutions prevail. We know that new colonies
are being established and governors appointed to them, the instructions which are
given
these governors embrace a very much more
limited area of legislation than in the case
of colonies where there is a larger population existing,where society has become more
complex and where there is a greater variety
of interests to be dealt with. In fact, Sir.
the growth of society does not differ very
much from the growth of the individual. No
one undertakes to put a minor in the full
possession of his property and allow him to
dispose of it just as he pleases, and, in the
same way, no one undertakes to confer upon
a new society all the powers that belong
to a sovereign body. In these matters
experience shows the wisdom and necessity
of proper regulation. We must remember
that the Territories are being peopled. so
that, in a five-years term those interested in
the government of the Territories are often
very much smaller in number at the beginning of the term than at the close. And
those who in the future, at no distant day,
will be interested in the Territories, are
under the jurisdiction of this Legislature
and have a voice in moulding the legislation
here. so that the interests and wishes of
those who are to become inhabitants of the
Territories are better represented than they
would be if the matter was put into the
control of those who are the first occupants
of the Territories. It is for that reason
that the House wisely kept control of this
very important question when government
was bestowed upon that country. If you
look at that country to-day you will find
they have not responsible government. In
fact I am told by a number of the members
from the Territories that the majority of
the people would be opposed to responsible
government. They confess their immaturity ; they confess that their circumstances
are such that it will not always be the case
that, with responsible government, their control of larger matters would not be as
great
as through this House, in which they
are represented in proportion to their numbers. So. I think, there was no ground
of complaint as put forward by the hon.
member for North Simcoe, that this House
had retained for itself control over the subject of education, when, in 1875, the
principle of representation was, to a limited
extent, introduced into that country. Then,
6121 [JULY 16,1894] 6122
Sir, the hon. gentleman might look to the
experience of our neighbours. Take the
case of the territories of the United States
that have not sufficient population to entitle
them to become states of the union, you
will find that what they possess is determined by Congress and Congress is authorized
to make all needful rules for the government of the territories. And the assumption
throughout the territories and elsewhere ever since the Union has been that
Congress could be more safely entrusted with
the superintending control of that government than could the first settlers in the
territory. Then, Sir, you have the fact that
the Territories are the common property of
the Dominion. They are held in trust, if
I may use the expression, on behalf of
all the provinces ; and, that being so, this
House has undertaken, in so far as it possesses control, to use that control with
a
view to producing as little friction as possible either with the interests or with
the
prejudices of the people, no matter what
those interests or prejudices may be. Now,
Sir, when you look at the subject of education prior to the union, you will find not
that any system was expressly imposed upon
the province, not that the principle of
separate schools was virtually established,
but the rule was established that where
separate schools were established and had
been established before the Union, they
should remain, and where they were not
established, the province should retain control over the subject to introduce them
or
prevent their introduction, as seemed proper to the people. We have a practical
illustration of this fact in the position of
things in the Maritime Provinces and the
provinces of Ontario and Quebec. So far
as the Territories were concerned—I do not
at all admit that the introduction of separate schools there stands upon the same
footing as the introduction of separate schools
in the province of Ontario, or of dissentient
schools in the province of Quebec. In these
provinces they are protected under the constitution ; they cannot be interfered with
by the Local Legislature. But in the Northwest Territories, as the hon. Minister has
said, it has been a matter not of right, not
of guarantee to any particular class of
the population, but a matter of policy. They
were introduced with a view of preventing
conflict in this House upon the subject of
separate schools and for the reason that
they were introduced there they should be
maintained as long as these Territories are
under the control of this Parliament. When
this Parliament has discharged its duties
and when the people of these Territories
have received the population to entitle them
to enter the union they must assume the
responsibility of deciding for themselves
under the British North America Act how
far they shall maintain the principle of
separate schools or maintain the non-denominational system. Any attempt on our
part whatever our inclinations of feelings
may be to anticipate what ought to be done
in that particular, by the province after
its autonomy is established, instead of being a source of security to its institutions
would be a source of the greatest danger.
The hon. member for North Simcoe has referred to the fact that these separate
schools in the North-west Territories are expensive, that it costs a very considerable
sum to educate children in these schools.
If the hon. member had looked at the returns of the schools of the whole North-west
Territories, he would have found that there
was very little difference in that respect
between one class of schools and the other.
I took the trouble of going into the accounts
of the North-west Territories. I was anxious to get some information before the
Public Accounts Committee on the subject,
but have been unable to do so. Any one
can see that the expenses have been very
large, and I do not think it is because separate schools and public schools exist
there,
but it is that the people of that country
had the means of education provided by
grants from Parliament, and, therefore,
they are not as economical as they
would be if the money had been
raised in the ordinary way through taxation of the people themselves. Now,
the hon. member has said, and others
hold that view, that it would be well if
we could educate all our population in the
same public schools. I at once accept
that proposition, I say that, too, and I would
be rejoiced if all our people could see alike
and all accept the public schools as the
only schools for the elementary education
of our people. But, Sir, that is not the
view taken by all the population. A very
considerable number of our people wish to
accompany secular with religious instruction. They believe that it is a matter of
immense consequence, they hold strongly
to that view, and they hold to that view so
strongly that wherever they are able, they
will establish parish schools instead of
separate schools, if these are denied them ;
and they will educate their children in those
schools and pay for their maintenance, besides contributing their portion of taxation
to the maintenance of the public schools.
Well, Sir, that is an expression of very
strong feeling. Practical results show how
strong that feeling is. Inquiry into the
subject satisfies me, as I think it will
satisfy any one who makes it, that if you
take the centres of population in the United
States, where a system of secular instruction prevails, and where there are no provisions
for denominational schools to any
extent as they exist with us in the province of Ontario, you will find that the percentage
of children attending. the parish
schools in proportion to the number of that
faith by whom those schools are supported,
is greater than the percentage of children
in the province of Ontario who are attend
6123
[COMMONS] 6124
ing the separate schools, showing that you
do not secure the object which you profess
to have in view when you do away with
separate schools and undertake to introduce
the entire population into the public schools
under a secular system. You do not accomplish that object ; you do not accomplish
another object. Under our separate
school system in the province of Ontario
we have the same examination, the same
system of inspection, for the separate as
for the public schools : and in that way
we secure a fair standard for imparting that
education which the community thinks the
interests of the state, under a system of
popular government, demand. Under the
system of parish schools which must prevail where you have such institutions as
those that are established in the United
States, you have no such inspection, you
have no such examinations. You cannot
have ; you cannot undertake to interfere
with the affairs of the household and to
say how well qualified the private teacher
employed by the voluntary contributions
of the parents, shall be to discharge the
work in which he is engaged. So far as I
have been able to examine those institutions,
the great majority of the parish schools,
say in the state of Michigan, where they
exist, are altogether inferior in point of
efficiency to the separate schools that are
established in Ontario. Now, that being so,
I think we ought, as public men, to look
at practical results rather than at ideal
notions of theoretical perfectibility, which
we are not likely to attain, and which certainly has not been attained, but has proved
a very great failure where an opposite
system has been tried. But, however that
may be, I think this is perfectly plain, that
if we are not to make this House and this
Parliament the arena of religious contention, if we are not to raise religion against
religion and race against race in the national
assembly of Canada, we must abstain from
undertaking to make this a battle ground
for a decision of the question as to whether
in the Territories there shall be a system
of wholly secular education or not. We
leave that question, under the restrictions imposed by the Act of 1875, to the people
of
the Territories ; and when they have obtained the maturity entitling them to representation
as a province, then the Legislature of that province, subject to the provisions of
section 93 of the British North
America Act, subject to the restrictions
which that Act imposes, must decide for
themselves what system of education will
be established there. I believe myself, if
I were a voter, I would vote to establish
the Ontario system in the Territories ; but,
not being a resident of the Territories. not
expecting to be when they become a province. I must leave that question to them,
because they are the parties who will be
chiefly affected by the decision to which
they come. Now, my hon. friend from
Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot) has spoken about
the provisions of section 146 of the British
North America Act, arguing, as I understand him, that the question has already
been decided in that Territory, not by this
Parliament, but by the terms of the British
North America Act itself. I do not see that,
By section 146 of the British North America
Act it was open to us when we acquired
that Territory, and when we acquired the
Territory now constituting the province of
Manitoba along with it—I say it was open
to us to set out in our application for the
acquisition of the territory, the terms and
conditions upon which it was to be governed. The Act contemplated our doing so,
the Act contemplated our stating with what
population any portion of that territory
should become a province. We did not do
that, we acquired the territory without setting out any terms and conditions within
the meaning that it was necessary to put
upon these words in the Act. And while
we may have power to govern it as colonies,
as provinces of the Dominion, we had no
power to constitute a province or to admit
that province to the Union, we had no power
to make a federal union with provinces that
were already united. And so when Manitoba was admitted to the Union, that was
so apparent, so obvious to every person
who had carefully inquired into the matter, that Imperial legislation was necessary
to consummate that object; and then amendments were sought to the British North
America Act by the Act of 1871 for the
purpose of enabling us to do in the future
what we had not power to do at that time,
what we had power to do if we had exercised the power when we obtained the admission
of the territory, but not having done
so, then our opportunity had passed altogether. Now, how is that territory to be
governed when it is admitted to the Union ?
We cannot make terms and conditions that
will alter the distribution of power, that is
not the meaning of the terms and conditions.
The terms and conditions mean the financial
terms and conditions; but as to the distribution of power, that is determined by the
Act, and the very words which provide that
the Queen may by an Order in Council admit
other territories, also provides that they
shall be not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The distribution of power
must be the same, the power to legislate
on the subject of education must be the
same in a province admitted from that territory that it is in a province already within
the Union. If a province already within
the Union had established separate schools,
it has no power to take them away ;
but the Act does not contemplate applying that rule to a territory. When
Ontario decided to adopt the school
system it was established by her own act.
The system of separate schools established in
Quebec was established by her own act ;
it was done deliberately by the province,
6125 [JULY 16, 1894] 6126
and when a province decided to establish
a system of separate schools that system
could only be got rid of by the act of the
province.
Mr. AMYOT. Does the hon. gentleman
attach no importance to the promises given
by Lord Granville and Sir John Young ?
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I attach no importance to any one's promises; I attach
importance to the constitution itself. What
the constitution decides is to govern us. We
have decided at diiferent times that this is
the best means of securing the settlement
of the country and its contentment, and of
avoiding the differences and conflicting
opinions on the subject of religion in this
Parliament, and I believe we decided rightly. I see no reason why we should change
that policy , I believe it is the proper policy
to pursue; but it is not a compact under
the terms of the British Neith America Act,
as the terms entered into with the provinces
of Ontario and Quebec constitute a compact. It is a matter of policy, as a matter
of policy we have supported it, and as a
matter of policy it is attacked by the resolution which the hon. gentleman has presented
to the House to-day. If it was a
constitutional rule irrepealable by this House
the motion of the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) would amount to
nothing; but everybody knows that if the
motion of the hon. gentleman were adopted
it would alter the policy we have pursued
heretofore, which I believe we adopted in
the public interest. When the people of
the Territories or any portion of the Territories are sutficiently numerous to constitute
a province, when in fact, they attain thei1
majority in regard to local matters and
when they propose to set up for themselves,
this Parliament has no right to exercise control over them, no right to exercise any
authority; it can give good advice, but it
has no right to give commands. But we are
not dealing with the future. When the
Territories have a sufficient population to
entitle them to become a province, they
must decide for themselves whether they
will have separate schools or not. I have
my view as to what will be the best decision
for them to arrive at, but I must not impose on them my view as regards the present
time as to how they should be governed
after they have attained their majority. I
think what we have before us is the Act of
1875. Shall we amend it in this particular—
shall we go on as we are ? Mr. Speaker, I
think we have difficulties enough without
undertaking to create more, and I am perfectly sure this will be an additional one
if
we adopt the amendment of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). I
am satisfied we would govern this country
with less success. We would have additional toad's heads in the witch's cauldron.
I
do not know what might come of it, but
certainly something more serious than we
have at the present time. I differ widely
with the Government on questions of public
policy; I differ with them on questions of
tariff, on public expenditures, on schemes by
which large sums of money are expended, on
which I believe to be profitless enterprises,
and I would like the people to have an opportunity of pronouncing their opinion upon
these questions, and of dealing with them
before we introduce other subjects, for my
personal view is that an expression of public
opinion upon them is very important. Talleyrand has said that this world comes before
the next, and I agree with that opinion,
and I prefer to settle those questions which
affect our material well-being at this moment
without interfering with other questions
that might end in a cyclone.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I am sure those
who have followed the debate must realize
that there is very little left to say, and
I shall act taccordingly by curtailing my observations. I listened attentively, as
no doubt
we all did to the 1e111arks of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCalthy) because
this is one of the few occasions when we have
had the opporttmity to listen to the line of
argument by which the hon. gentleman will
endeavour to support his measure. I
gathered from the observations of the hon.
member that he assumed that the conferring
of powers upon the Legislative Assembly
of the North—west was entirely an arbitrary
act. that we selected one or more powers.
and added occasionally from time to time
other powers, and the hon. gentleman therefore thought he felt justified in calling
upon
us to say what reasons should be given as to
why this power. as to education, should not
be added. I think, when we examine a little
and reflect on the observations already made
in the. course of this debate, we shall see.
that it is for the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarathy) to establish a reason
why we should make the change. and that he
is not in a position to ask us why this
power ought not to be added. A my one
who reads the powers which have been
given to the provinces by the British North
America Act and contrasts them with the
powers which have been given by this Parliament to the Legislature of the North-west
Territories will perceive at a glance the
diiference which exists in the treatment of
the two cases, the different provinces as
compared with the Territories. In the
British North America Act the British Parliament was dealing with provinces having
provincial autonomy before the Act of
Union, and the distribution of powers was
simply to be a redistribution, in view of are
fact that this Parliament was to he created
and the Federal system to be established.
In dealing with the Territories we were
legislating from time to time for a country
which was to remain, until provinces should
be established under the legislative control of this Parliament. And what share
did we give to the Territorial Legislature in
regard to the matter of legislation ? We
6127
[COMMONS] 6128
gave it a number of powers—a large number of the powers given by the British North
America Act to the Provincial Legislatures.
But mark the broad line of distinction which
was drawn by this Parliament. Matters referring to the constitution of the Territories
it was not to be in their power to change,
for the reason that the constitution was to
be in the hands of this Parliament to change
from time to time. A province from the
outset had the right of autonomous government. It had a responsible system of government.
The Territories were not to have
responsible government, they were not to
have autonomy in that sense, but were to
remain from day to day to be controlled by
the Legislature here, and by Orders in
Council issued by His Excellency and his
advisers. Again, the provinces were to
have the right to increase their debt from
time to time. But, because of the very
guardianship which we have over those Territories, the Legislature there were not
allowed to incur any debt. One other important
characteristic was to be considered in regard to the Territories while they were to
remain in the Territorial condition, and that
was in view of the peculiar circumstances
of the Territories, the fact that we were inviting there all races, creeds and denominations,
there was to be the widest toleration
while the Territories existed. That was
the corner-stone of the whole; the corner-stone
which the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) proposes to remove, on the ground
that there can be no good reason given for
its existence. As the hon. leader of the
Opposition has said to-night: no men knew
better than those who were engaged in
framing the Act of 1875, the difficulties
which, sectarian disputes might create in
that new country. No one realized better
the fact, that in so far as the population was
to be gathered into the Territories from
the older provinces, it was to be gathered
from different races, and from amongst men
who had strong lines of difference as regards religious belief. While the population
should be going in there, and while
the Territories should remain under our control, at least, there was to be the broadest
toleration for every belief, and for the
races, as regards worship, and as regards larguage and as regards instruction
in the schools. Is it anything new for us
to be told to-day that toleration was expensive, and that therefore we should not
determine as our predecessors in 1875 determined, that the settlers should be allowed
in
that country to educate their children ac.
cording to their religious convictions ? Education new is not more expensive than
it
was then. They understood perfectly that
as regards the welfare of these people, and
the development of these Territories, there
would be nothing so expensive and burdensome to Government as the want of ample
toleration everywhere, whether as regards religions worship, religious education,
or the
language which the people should speak and
in which they should legislate. That was
the whole Territorial scheme. It was not
therefore, an accidental and haphazard manner in which certain powers were dealt out
indiscriminately from time to time; but
there was a deliberate scheme framed for
legislation with regard to the Territories
which should—while they were in the 'Territorial condition—keep them not only under
the control of this Parliament, but keep them
governed upon principles consistent with the
policy of this Parliament, a policy which this
Parliament conceived to be the best adapted
for the peopling of the Territories. The hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy).
after having challenged us to give the reasons why these powers shduld not be conferred,
stated some reasons which would
seem in his opinion to have justified a proposal to break up the system of the past.
The first was: that while the population of
the Territories only consisted of 66,000 persons, a little more than 13,000 of these
pro'
fess the Roman Catholic belief, and his
deduction from that is—if the fact admits
of any deduction at all and if the hon.
member will apply that fact to his proposal—that because only 13,000 persons have
accepted the pledge and the good faith of
this Parliament as to the maintenance of
certain institutions there, namely, the right
to enducate their children according to their
religious belief, it is a matter of no importance that we should break faith with
these 13,000 people. It is just as much a
matter of sound policy now as it was in
1875, that teleration should exist there, and
that we should extend the broadest invitation to the people of different races and
religions to come and settle there with a per-
feet sense of toleration ; and it matters not
how many people in the past have availed
themselves of our invitation. The bad faith
this Parliament would show in repealing a
provision of that kind, while the Territorial
system existed at least, would be just as
great as if the population who availed themselves of our pledge and relied on that
system today, were only thirteen, instead of
13,000. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy)
in the next stage of his argument said that
it was an expensive thing to keep up a
system of toleration, that it was an expensive thing to maintain separate schools.
I have suggested to the House that the
statesmen who framed the Act of 1875 knew
as much, from their experience of the older
provinces, about the expense of separate
schools as we do now. The hon. gentleman's
argument, if anything, was this: that the
Roman Catholic schools of the North-west
Territories are more expensive than the public and Protestant schools. The hon. gentleman
did not complete his argument because he did not complete his facts by
showing us what the facts are as regards
the schools taken as a whole. He went on
further to say that in consequence of the
6129 [JULY 16,1894] 6130
Catholic schools being attended by a smaller
number of pupils, the average cost per head
of the pupils was greater than in the Protestant schools. Where I thought the hon.
member (Mr. McCarthy) did the greatest
injustice to the question was, that he undertook to compare the cost, with the cost
of
education per pupil in the province of Ontario where conditions are as widely dif—
ferent as they possibly can be. Every one
knows that spareness of the settlement in
the Territories, the high price which teachers
have to be paid there, and other such conditions are peculiar to every community
of the like kind. If the hon. gentleman
had taken for example the statistics, not
of the province of Ontario, but of the
province of Brtish Columbia, in parts where
the like conditions exist, he would find
that he had no word of reproach to utter
as regards the cost of the separate schools
in the North-west Territories. One of my
hon. friends here has furnished me with the
figures as regards the cost of education per
pupil in the outlying districts of British
Columbia, and just observe these results as
compared with the results which the hon.
member (Mr. McCarthy) read :
| School |
Enrollment. |
Average Attendance |
Cost of each pupil on enrolment. |
Cost of each pupil, average attend ance. |
|
|
|
$ cts. |
$ cts. |
| Williams Lake... |
12 |
7.30 |
68 50 |
110 93 |
| Yale........... |
33 |
18.33 |
21 71 |
41 41 |
| Whonnock...... |
34 |
12.07 |
17 92 |
50 48 |
| Sumas....... |
26 |
13.87 |
26 92 |
50 46 |
| Spence's Bridge.. |
12 |
7.48 |
50 00 |
80 21 |
| Shuswap...... |
20 |
11.86 |
38 00 |
64 08 |
| Sathlaw........ |
11 |
6.07 |
43 63 |
79 09 |
| Round Prairie... |
27 |
11.47 |
28 14 |
66 25 |
| Quesnelle...... |
23 |
12.00 |
38 26 |
72 78 |
| Port Kells..... |
23 |
9.53 |
25 00 |
67 15 |
| North Thompson. |
21 |
10.35 |
35 41 |
71 85 |
| Barkerville...... |
22 |
10.06 |
64 54 |
74 50 |
That is a comparison with a province
where education is economically managed,
and managed regardless of the separate
school lines which are complained of as
having introduced a want of economy
in the North-west Territories. But,
as pointed out by the leader of the Opposition, within the lines of our constitution,
which provides that separate schools
may be established and must be provided
for there, we know that the regulation of
the schools, as regards expenses and as regards management, is under the control of
the Territorial Legislature, to-day, and if
the schools are expensive under the present
system, they are no more expensive than
the Territorial Legislature has thought fit to
make them. Now, there was one argument
advanced by the hon. memebr for North
Simcoe which has already been answered,
but with respect to which I wish again to
put the view we take ; because it would be
a point of the greatest importance if the
argument of the hon. gentleman were well
founded. The hon. gentleman stated that
one important reason why the system of
separate schools in the Territories should
be abolished, and abolished at once, was that
by allowing it to remain we were riveting
the system on the future provinces : and the
hon. gentleman relied on the provision of
the British North America Act, which says :
that nothing in the Act of any province—
and he was referring to the provinces which
might hereafter be established—should take
away or prejudicially affect any right or
privilege with respect to denominational
schools which any class of persons have, by
law, in the province at the time of the Union.
The hon. gentleman's argument, of course,
was that if this system were allowed to
stand until provinces are created, we would,
by force of the British North America Act,
be unable to withdraw that system, and that
it would be riveted on the provinces. As has
been shown by the hon. member for Bothwell, the provisions of the British North
America Act relate only to the provinces
which were entering into the Union at that
time, and to the provinces which were named
in the last section of the Act as entitled
to be admitted into the Union, and have no
relation whatever to the provinces which are
to be created out of the Territorial district
of the country. That is clearly seen when
we come to the British statute of 1871,
which, for the first time, conferred the power on this Parliament to create provinces
out
of our territories, and, as the hon. Minister
of the Interior has said, enables this Parliament to decide what the constitutions
of
those provinces shall be. We claim, therefore, that the constitutional system which
was established with regard to schools and
with regard to language in 1875 ought to
be maintained for the same reasons as
those which dictated its creation, and that
this condition of affairs should last, at least.
while the affairs of the Territories are under
the control of this Parliament. What the
constitution of the future provinces shall
be, in view of the pledges which have been
referred to, or in view of any other set of
circumstances, will be for Parliament to
decide when it decides to create those provinces. I hope, therefore, that the House
will be careful to-day not to disturb the
arrangement so wisely made in 1875, and
which is as useful to the Territories now
as it was then.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, I would ask
the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I state my views on this question.
I am the more anxious to do this, as
a few days ago I paired with a member
of the Opposition, and so am not able to
record my vote. I do not intend to try to
6131
[COMMONS] 6132
answer any of the arguments which have
been offered, or to defend any of the positions which have been taken : I merely wish
to state my own position on the question,
and to give my reasons for holding that
position. If I did vote to-night, I would
support the amendment moved by the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy).
One of my reasons for doing so would be
that the amendment proposes, as we have
heard tonight, to leave this question entirely
to the Legislature of the North-west Territories. Now, it has been taken for granted
by a great many speakers that if this were
done, separate schools in the Territories
would be abolished. Of that I know nothing
at all ; but it does seem to me that if the
members of that Legislature are competent
to deal with the subjects which are committed to their care, they are equally competent
to deal with the subject of education ; and, for my part, I would vote to
give them that authority. Now, why should
this Parliament interfere in this matter at
all ? I think there is one very good reason, and that is that Parliament has interfered
already. Parliament has imposed on
those Territories, separate schools, and I
think Parliament is the body to remove
them. But it is said by some, and this is
supposed to be a very strong argument ;
wait until a province is created. It has
been replied to that by those who favour this
amendment that if separate schools are
allowed until that time, they will be forever fastened on that province by the constitution.
That point I do not pretend to
know anything about ; but it did occur to
me, in thinking on this question, that if
separate schools were allowed by the constitution to remain in the Territories until
that time, then the question of vested rights
would be set up. I am satisfied of that in
my own mind. Those who favoured separate schools, while they might have no legal
right to set up that contention, would, no
doubt, set it up, and I would not blame
them for doing so. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing ; and if
the separate schools were allowed to remain
until that time, their case would be a strong
one. So that, apart from the question of
law or the question of the constitution altogether, it appears to me that that is
one
strong argument why Parliament should
act now. Then, it is said by some that,
after all, everything that is wanted has, in
effect, been accomplished by the Ordinances
passed a year or two ago by the Legislature
of the Territories. But I would point out
that the right of that Legislation to do even
that was questioned by those who are in
favour of separate schools. A strong position was taken against the power of the
North-west Legislature to enact those Ordinances, and the Government have been appealed
to to veto them. And right here I want
to say this : I give the Government great
credit for the position they have taken on
that question, and on the question of separ
ate schools in Manitoba. I believe the
Premier has done what he said he would
do ; he has stood by the constitution, and I
admire him for doing it. There is no doubt
that great pressure was brought to bear upon him to veto those Ordinances, and he
has resisted that pressure, because on looking into the matter, he decided that the
Legislature, in adopting them, was acting within its constitutional rights. So I give
the
Government credit for that ; and, for myself, I may say that I have confidence that
they will act in the same manner in the
future. One reason why I would like the
Government to act at present on this matter is that the longer they delay the more
the difficulties increase. It is said by some
—and I admit that there is a good deal of
force in the argument—that the rights of
minorities ought to be protected. But I ask
myself, what are those rights ? They are
rights to what ? And in asking that question I have to ask another, what does the
state owe to the minority ? To my mind,
the answer is : a good, fair, secular education—that and nothing more. Would the
minority lose that if this amendment were
adopted ? I answer no, if the public schools
supported in part by the state were confined
to their true object, in my mind, a secular
education. I hold—I know I differ from some
in this—that it is not the duty of the state
to teach religion ; that it is not the duty of
the state to use the funds of the state to inculcate any particular tenets ; and I
apply
that to all bodies. The duty of teaching religion, in my opinion, belongs, not to
public schools, or to any schools supported in part by the state, but belongs to parents
and churches. But, in
any case, we know that the state would not
prohibit separate schools. I merely mention this, because it is thought by some that
in advocating the passage of this amendment, we say that there should be no
separate schools. But the fact of the
case is, not that the state would
prohibit separate schools, but that
the state would decline to aid them.
As I said, I have no intention of taking up
the time of the House at any length, but
merely wish briefly to state my views. I
want to say in conclusion that, in advocating
the passage of this amendment, I am not
prompted by any hostility to the Roman
Catholic religion or to Roman Catholics.
All who know me and know my course in
this House, know that, without my saying
it ; but as there is a feeling abroad in some
parts of Ontario tending in that direction,
I want to say publicly that I have no sympathy at all with any society which would
ostracise a man because of his religion. That
is my position. I am perfectly free from all
bigotry. I do not ask whether this man or
that is a Catholic or a Protestant, but whether he is a respectable fellow-citizen,
and
I advocate the passage of this amendment,
not from any hostility to any sect or body
of men, but because I believe it would he
6133 [JULY 16, 1894] 6134
for the good of the country. These are my
views. I wish to take this question out of
the domain of Dominion politics. I would
like to see these matters of separate schools
and religious matters banished for ever from
our policy. I do not know that that time
will ever come, but I shall do my part to
bring it about; and I would be glad to see
the time when our schools would be all public schools and our children not separated
into two different sections, but growing up
in public schools all over the country. I do
not know whether it is possible to have that
time come, but I hope it will, and will do
what I can to bring it about.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I will just begin with
the last words from the last speaker. What
rights have minorities ? When this Parliament gave a constitution to Manitoba, the
minority there, which was Protestant at the
time, was protected in a broad and statesmanlike manner. At that time, the minority
was comprised of Protestants for the majority was composed of Catholics. Again, when
in 1875 these school provisions were introduced into the Canadian North-west Territories
Act, the same state of things existed, and,
therefore, this Parliament passed those provisions protecting the Protestant minority.
But things have changed since. In Manitoba
and the North-west Territories the minority
has become the majority; and because this
not any longer, as my hon. friend who has
just spoken has said, any claims to protection. I was exceedingly pleased with the
moderate speech made this evening by the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Mc(Carthy). On the first occasion he brought
this question before the House, we all remember the very obnoxious preamble which
headed his Bill: and in his speech the hon.
gentleman then made was very obnoxious to
those who did not entertain the same views.
I have since then noticed with pleasure that
he has moderated his antagonism. and on
this occasion he has been more moderate
still, and I join with the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Government
in
complimenting him on the very moderate
way in which he introduced his resolution.
The hon. leader of the Opposition, in the
course of his remarks, read a copy of a
resolution of proceedings that took place before the Equal Rights Association in Toronto.
I have before me a few extracts from the
speech which the hon. member for North
Simcoe made before the same association in
the city of Ottawa about the time it was
started, and with the permission of the
House I will read a few quotations from
it. The hon. gentleman then said :
We have a record for eight months which no political party could boast of in a decade
of years and if
there are men among us now who want to go back
to their old political alliance, I say shame on them.
They ought to be satisfied with what we have accomplished in so short a time. What
have we a
complished ? Go to Manitoba, and what do we see
there? Why, that province of Manitoba is going
to deal, not only with the dual language question
and the iniquitous Act which would fasten it upon
them but with the separate schools. Do you tell
me that the Equal Rights Association had nothing
to do with that? Of course the feeling was there,
the greivance existed, peoples minds had only to
be directed to it, and the moment attention was
drawn to it, the province of Manitoba rose to a
man and declared : we want no dual language and
away with separate schools. * * * I am glad
to notice the Protestant minority of Quebec had
waked up, and at an early day I hope to have the
pleasure of addressing them in Montreal on that
question. They all had their hands full. In
Ontario they would have to do with the question
of French teaching in the schools: in Manitoba
they had the dual language to deal with ; and in
the North-west they had the same question. As
soon as the work had been accomplished, they
would then be in the same position to master the
same difficulties in the province of Quebec.
This shows the animus that exists in raising
this question from session to session. But
that is not all. These remarks and those
speeches that ar erepeated over and over
again have their echo; and if to-day the
people in the North-west Territories, who
are anxious to retain their own separate
schools, insist on being protected by the
constitution, it is just because they are often
and often again threatened with persecution.
I will only cite as an instance an article that
was published in the Moosomin ' Courier,' a
paper published in Moosomin, N.W.T. This
is entitled : ' One people. one language."
Speaking of Roman Catholics it says :
Are they a superior kind of people from the Protestants that they hold themselves
aloof by having
separate schools. To private schools, no one can
object, but we must emphatically protest against
separate schools being maintained by the Government for any denomination other than
Protestants. Our motto is " One people, one country, one
religion."
When such articles are published in the
public press, is it a wonder that a minority
so small as this is represented to be by the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) should be alarmed and should look
to this Parliament for protection, protection
which we are in duty bound to give them ?
It has been contended that the British
North America Act, the constitution under
which we are governed, does not give as
separate schools. It is true the constitution
does not impose the system of separate
schools, but it protects that system whereever- it has existed prior to the entry
of a
province into Confederation or wherever it
is afterwards created by the province.
Therefore, I say that according to the spirit
of the constitution such a system should
exist, because the constitution protects it
and, in fact, maintains it and renders it
unassutilable from the moment it has been
established. It is true that there is a pro.vision in the Constitutional Act whereby
the
6135
[COMMONS] 6136
constitution of a province can be amended
by that province, but I claim that that provision does not apply to section 93, which
deals with education, because that section is
outside of the series of sections which come
under the title " Constitution of the Provinces." The only amendments that a province
can make to its constitution would be
with respect to such clauses as come under
the title of " Constitution of the Provinces."
I do not wish to detain this House at this
late hour of the night. I had made up my
mind to extend my remarks much further.
but I am something like the traveller whose
satchel was stolen by some other passenger—
all the arguments and good ideas that I had
have been stolen from me by those who
have previously spoken, and, therefore. I am
left with nothing fresh or new to be offered
to the House.
Mr. DENISON. I had no intention of
speaking on this question, and should not
have done so but for some remarks of the
last speaker (Mr. LaRiviere), and I intend
to occupy" but a short time. The hon. gentleman spoke of the Roman Catholics
being in the majority in Manitoba some
years ago. It so happened that I spent about
a year of my life in Manitoba in 1870, and
my recollection of the matter at that time is
that the two classes, the Protestants and the
Roman Catholics were about equal in number. At any rate we must not forget that
up to that time the country had been ruled
by the Hudson Bay Company, that it had
been ruled as a Crown colony and that there
were no rights such as it has been intimated
they possessed by the member who last
spoke. There was no such thing officially as
the French language. Of course many of
the people spoke it among themselves, and
there was no wish to interfere with them in
doing so, but the language was not recognized officially at least. It is true that
in
the case of rules that it might be necessary
the. French should understand, they were
often published in French, but further than
that the Hudson Bay Company paid no
attention whatever to anything of that sort.
The only rights the French people obtained
were obtained subsequent to that, and were
obtained through the Bell rebellion. and
what followed. The hon. the leader of the
Opposition. in reading from some of the
remarks of the Hon. George Brown, tried to
make a point of Mr. Brown's abandoning his
contentions with regard to separate schools
because he was in favour of carrying Confederation. No doubt that was a very good
reason why the Hon. George Brown should
abandon these views, to lose sight of this
question in the greater question of bringing
about the Confederation of this great Dominion. But this is an entirely different
question.
The question is not one of making a great
Dominion ; the question is what shall we do
with these provinces we are about forming
in the North-west, shall we start them with
all the paraphernalia we have in Ontario
and Quebec, or shall we start with a clean
sheet and allow them to do as they please.
As regards the language question, for my
part—though it does not come in properly
here, but what I shall say now may save me
getting on my feet later—I should like to
see the mover go even further than he has
done, and, instead of leaving it to the people,
declare that no other language shall be used
except the English language. The reason is
because we have there vast empty prairies,
the population being sparse. If we allow the
French language to be made an official language on account of 2 per cent of the population
there is no earthly reason why we
should not allow the same right to the
German population who represent. I believe, more than 2 per cent. Then
if so, the Scandinavians, who are nearly equal to the French in numbers, might
fairly come to this House and ask us to give
them the right to have the Swedish tongue
spoken up there.
Mr. DENISON. I am not referring to Quebec, because the French in Quebec have the
right to speak their language by the constitution, and no one is talking of interfering
with that. I am talking now about
empty prairies, equal almost in size to
Europe; and the question is, how are we
going to start them out. Are we going to
start them out as provinces speaking one
language, or as provinces speaking perhaps
half a dozen languages ? I would like to
say that I have received a telegram from
Mr. W. F. Maclean, of East York, in which
he asks me to state: " If present, I would
vote with Mr. McCarthy. I am detained
here."
Mr. McNEILL. I wish to say but very
few words on this subject. I think the fact
to some extent has been overlooked that we
are dealing not only with the amendment
of my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) but also with the expressed wish
of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. Those who are opposed to
the amendment, I think, have carefully
avoided any reference to that fact : but it is
an important fact, and I think that those
who are asking tonight that the representatives elected by the people of the North-west
Territories should be allowed the privilege
of managing their own affairs in reference
to education, as well as in reference to
other matters, should not at all events be
accused of intolerance. I confess I was a
good deal surprised and a good deal hurt
to hear the right hon. gentleman who leads
the Government, speaking of those who advocate. the views that he advocates, as
those who are in favour of tolerance, thereby implying that the people of the provinces
of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British
Columbia, who have not granted separate
schools, "have been intolerant, and that the
6137 [JULY 16, 1894] 6138
people of the province of Ontario who disapprove of separate schools on principle,
and who are in favour of the resolution of
my hon. friend from North Simcoe, are also
by implication intolerant. Now, I confess
I was surprised and pained to hear the right
hon. gentleman speak in that way, I think
that those who conscientiously believe that
separate schools are not for the benefit of
the people of the North—west Territories.
and who think that the people of the Northwest Territories ought to have the right
to
say whether they wish for separate schools
or not, should at all events he considered
as tolerant as those who desire that separate
schools should exist there, and are unwilling
to let the people of the Territories decide
for themselves. For my part I cannot
see that there is any more intolerance
in the former than in the latter view.
My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills)
has spoken of our desiring to make this
Parliament a battle ground for sectarian
differences, and he spoke of our desiring to
settle the question here whether there were
to be separate schbols in the North-west
Territories. Now. surely my hon. friend was
unintentionally unfair when he said so, because I am sure he did not wilfully mean
to
be unfair. There is no proposal that separate schools should be forced upon the people
of the North-west Territories. No one
is saying by this resolution whether there
should be separate schools in the North-west
Territories or not. The proposal of my hon.
friend from North Simcoe is that the people
of the North-west Territories should have the
right to decide that matter for themselves,
and that the petition of the Legislative Assembly should be granted by this House.
Mr. AMYOT. And deprive the minority
of their privilege ?
Mr. McNEILL. The hon. gentleman knows
perfectly well that the right the people of
the North-west Territories are asking for
has been exercised. as the hon. member for
Bothwell himself admits, by the province of
Quebec, has been exercised by the province
of Ontario, by the province of Nova Scotia,
by the province of New Brunswick, and in
point of fact by all the provinces in the
Dominion, because the province of Manitoba,
so far, at all events, as the courts have decided, exercises the same privilege legally.
Now, I think under these circumstances it
is a little hard that we should be described
as an intolerant party, or intolerant individuals. Now, one word with regard to my
hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and
if he will forgive me for what he may consider an impertinence, I will say that I
exceedingly admired the speech that he delivered in the House to-night on this subject.
But I wish to join issue with him on one
point. Be very eloquently told us what in
his view was necessary to the building up
of a nation; he thought that in order to
build up this nation we should have separate
schools in the North-west Territories. His
argument went so far as to say that there
should always be separate schools there. I
see my hon. friend is inclined to dissent. If
I am not correct, I will withdraw the statement.
Mr. McNEILL. But I understood very
distinctly that his argument was that there
should always be separate schools in the
North-west. Now, I cannot agree with my
hon. friend in thinking that that is the way
to build up a nation. In the first place. I
cannot agree with him in thinking that the
best way to build up a nation is to have our
children separated from one another and
divided into classes, one being a Roman
Catholic and the other a Protestant class.
I am quite satisfied that the friendships of
childhood, the friendships acquired by children working together in the same school
and
playing together in the same play-grounds.
would in the course of a very few generations do more to cause sectarian feeling in
this country to disappear than any other one
thing that could he mentioned. I believe
that I could point to sections in our own
muntry to-day where the system pursued of
educating these children together has done
a great deal already to do away with these
bitter sectarian feelings which unfortunately
in some parts of the country do exist today. I would say further to my hon. friend
that not only do I not believe that the dividing of children into separate camps in
this
way is a good means of building up a nation. but I can not agree with him that the
policy of depriving the people of the Northwest Territories, or the people of any
province in this country, of the right to
manage their own educational affairs, is
one which, if persevered in, would effectually
build up a nation in Canada. I think it
would be a policy to cause heart-burning,
to cause dissension, and thus to cause very
great evil in this country.
Mr. DAVIN. I shall not at this late hour
discuss at any length a subject which now
has been exhaustively discussed. I wish to
state, however, what I consider to be the
question before the House. I do not think
we have before the House the question of the
relative merits of separate or public schools ;
the question is whether it shall be left to
the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest to deal with the school question,
to deal with what remains of the ques
tion as respects the use of the French language in the North-west Territories, which
I may say here, as I have said once or
twice before, is no question at all in the
North-west Territories to-day. Suppose the
hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
succeeds in carrying his amendment, not
one iota of result will be accomplished as
regards the use or the disuse of the French
language in the North-west Territories; so
we may pass that by as only a bubble question. However, that question has been raised
6139
[COMMONS] 6140
outside this House, and put before the minds
of the people, exciting with apprehension
the minds of one class of the subjects of the
Queen in one province, and filling the minds
of another class of the subjects of the Queen
in another province, with enthusiastic feeling or enthusiastic passion, more properly
speaking, and making them think that they are engaged in a magnificent crusade, breaking
down an awful arrangement that menaces the peace, and prosperity, and the very dignity
of Canada. Now, the practical question is, whether or not the Legislative
Assembly of the North-west Territories shall have power to deal with the schools. I entirely
repudiate the assumption of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Denison), and the
hon. gentleman who spoke at an
earlier period, both of whom assumed that
if the hon. gentleman's amendment were
carried, the North-west Assembly would at
once proceed to pass legislation doing away
with separate schools. I exceedingly doubt
whether the North-west Assembly would do
anything of the kind, and, therefore, those
hon. gentlemen who would vote for the
motion of my hon. and learned friend
to go into committee and pass these
amendments, believing that thus they
were doing away with separate schools. I
say to them, and I know something of the
temper of the North-west, and of the temper of the North-west legislators, they may
as well spare themselves the pains. It will be very gratifying to a large number of
people
in the North-west in case this House should
decide not to accept the motion of the hon.
member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), to have such an authoritative declaration on the
part
of the Prime Minister, on the part of the
Minister of Justice, a man who can speak
on legal subjects with authority, to this
effect that even if five, six or ten years
hence the Territories should remain in their
present state, yet when they come here,
they will have the fullest freedom as to
whether separate schools shall or shall not
exist. Not only has the Prime Minister
made that statement. but the hon. member
for Bothwell (Mr. Mills), who can also speak
on a subject like this with authority, has
also made a similar statement to-night, and
if on a future occasion this question is
brought up, if to-morrow, or years hence we
come to this Parliament assembled for the
purpose of securing the admission of the
Territories in the character of a province,
it will not be possible, but that the dicta
of those hon. and learned gentlemen shall
have great weight.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I think the hon.
gentleman misunderstood me. I merely said
that this Parliament would have complete
control of the subject.
Mr. DAVIN. I apparently miunderstood
the Premier. I understood the right hon.
gentleman, as I have stated to the House,
We have to consider this question, whether
or not the Legislative Assembly of the Ter
ritories shall deal with this subject. I made
a point of calling on an eminent ecclesiastic,
whose recent death I deplore, to talk with
him on this very subject ; and I stated to
him then, what I state here, that I believe
that to give the Legislative Assembly of the Territories power to deal with this question
would be far safer for the existence of
the separate schools than to deprive it of that power. His Grace said to me that if,
as regards the schools of Manitoba, they had thrown themselves on the Local Government
and the Local Legislature, they would have been better off. I do not think there
exists in the Territories any such feeling against separate schools as there is against
being deprived of the
power to which they believe they are entitled in accordance with the spirit of the
British North America Act. It is not merely
this Parliament depriving them of this power,
but when they are impressed with the idea
that they are deprived of that power, not
because the wisdom of Parliament suggests it, and that it is well they should be
deprived of it, but because of an influence
and force used by other branches of our
federation, this irritates the Territories, just
as it would irritate any province if menaced
with the sentiments of another province.
With respect to the argument of the hon. gentleman for St. Boniface (Mr. LaRivere),
I may mention that Mr. Mercier used the same argument some years ago. He said :
Beware as to what you do in the North-west,
because we are deeply interested in that part
of the Dominion —take care least we do not squeeze you Protestants in the province
of
Quebec.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I did not use that as an
argument at all. I only made that, as a remark when the hon. gentleman opposite was
speaking when he stated what should be
done in the provinces, I asked what he would
do in Quebec, applying his own argument.
Mr. DAVIN. If the hon. gentleman did
not use the argument, Mr. Mercier used it.
Mr. DAVIN. If this argument was never
used, what was the meaning of the phrase
"look at the minority in the province of
Quebec ?" The position as regards the minority in Quebec was brought about in accordance
with legislation in which they themselves were concerned, and by which
they have certain rights and are protected. The minority also in Ontario have
certain rights in accordance with legislation
in which they had something to say. But
what has that to do with the question we
have to consider in regard to the North-west
Territories, namely : the time has now come
to ask whether, looking at the number of
our population and their intelligence, this
provincial right to say what is desirable as
to the character of our school" system, should
not be placed in the hands of the
6164 [JULY 16, 1894] 6142
Legislature. There have been many
questions raised here to-night which I would
like to answer. if this were the time and the
place. questions raised by the hon. gentleman
in moving the amendment to the motion of
the hon. member for Simme (Mr. McCarthy).
questions of vital importance. and I am
bound to say that it would be very interesting and might be even instructive to
hon. gentlemen if we were to discuss some
of those questions. That motion. if I may
refer to it in passing. proposes to force on the
Territories a denominational system. although
the hon. gentleman spoke against that.
and deprive them of every right which they
claim on this question. The Territories do
not want to be told that they must have a
certain description of education. one that
does not teach them anything about God but
simply questions of duty between man and
man. If there was time I should like to ask.
where do you get the idea of duty if you
banish the idea of religion? I do not think
we could get the idea of a morality
worthy the name unless it is founded
on religion. But we must not go in
to these large questions. It would
be interesting also to go into the whole
educational question as regards purely secular education on which so much store is
laid, and also with regard to the value of
the education given in separate schools.
I do not know what kind of education is
given in the separate schools of the Catholics.
or in the separate schools of the Protestants.
for l have not had an opportunity of investigating it. But if a real religious education
is given by either of them. side by
side with a good secular education. I would
infinitely prefer it for myself. or for any
relative in whom I was concerned. to a mere
secular education. I cannot, with any little
knowledge I have of the curriculum. understand how any of the great questions that
a man of any education has to grapple with
can be met without facing at every
step the propositions of religion. You cannot
climb the starry spiral of science without
on every stair being confronted with the
great postulates of religion. You cannot
have a thorough education. in my opinion.
without its having been also a religious
education. But it may be said to me : holding the opinions that you do as to schools
where no religion is taught. abhorring. as
every man listens to me knows I abhor.
these prejudices of race and religion. which
so far as I have been able to judge from
observation. excite people in proportion to
their want of all depth in religion. and to
their want of all knowledge of the race that
they so spontaneously dislike or hate—if 1
abhor all that. why is it that I am re: dy to
give over to the Legislative Assembly the
power of dealing with the educational question? I will tell you. Sir: We live in
an
age of a wide suffrage: we live in a democratic community; we live in a time when
the people rule; we live in a time when the
majority is sacred, and when vox populi is
actually vox dei. I do not say I would
have preferred to have lived in another age.
but finding myself in such a time I must live
up to it. I live in a country and at a time
where these things prevail. and I represent
a constituency to whose opinions I am bound
to pay some attention. I know nothing
whatever about the teachings in the separate
schools. Looking at the men I have seen
coming from Protestant separate schools,
and looking at the men I have seen coming
from Catholic separate schools. I find a commensurate and correlative prejudice in
the
minds of each. I find, as I have found, a
Protestant taught to believe. for instance.
that anybody holding Catholic tenets was
predestined to eternal ruin. and I have found
as strong prejudices in the minds of Catholics. 1 know nothing whatever about the
schools. but the chief thing is that I stand.
as Mr. Lowell makes one of his charactets
say : "I stand upon the constitution."
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Suppose both
should be right ?
Mr. DAVIN. Well. now, my hon. friend
must not give me riddles at five minutes
past one in the morning. The question is
simply this: whether or not we should give
the Territories the power of dealing with
this matter of schools. There is no question about language here at all. The added
power would be welcome to the North-west.
I shall, therefore. vote for the motion. but in
voting for it I wish it to he distinctly understood that I am voting merely to place
in
the hands of the Assembly the power to deal
with this question. I am not voting for or
against separate schools. and as I explained
to the House. I am not what you would call
very strongly in favour of a public school
education. Let me correct my hon. friend
from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) in one
thing. In his speech he talked the whole
time about the Protestant public schools.
Sir. we have no Protestant public schools in
the Northwest Territories.
Mr. McCARTHY. Allow me to explain
what I meant by that. I find that the Act
says: the majority may establish a school.
and I find that that majority may be either
Protestant or Catholic, and consequently I
used it in this sense: that if the majority
were Protestants. and did establish a public
school. it was a Protestant public school.
just in that sense. as distinguished on the
other hand from the majority who happened to be Roman Catholics and who establish
a public school which would be a Roman
Catholic public school.
Mr. DAVIN. There are two reasons why
it is desirable to correct my hon. and learned
friend. The first reason is that under the
Act of Parliament and under the Ordinance
founded on that Act of Parliament the phrase
is incorrect. and the next reason is that the
phrase is misleading. It gives the idea that
at a public school. Protestant tenets that
weald be objectionable to Catholics were
6143
[COMMONS] 6144
taught, and that a Catholic could not attend
the schools without menace to his faith,
whereas in Regina, Moose Jaw, Medicine
Hat and Moosomin, there are no separate
schools. Yet at all these places Catholics
attend the public school, and I have never
heard a Catholic in my constituency or anywhere else in the North-west Territories
object to anything that took place in the public
schools, complain that their faith was interfered with or that anything objectionable
either in book or otherwise was heard. I
merely rose to state what I consider to be the
question on which we were voting. We
are not voting on this education question at
all; we are voting on the powers of the
Territorial Assembly as to whether we shall
enlarge these: powers or not. That is the
sole question, and voting on that question
I shall vote in favour of enlarging the powers
of the Assembly.
Mr. McMULLEN. I do not wish to give
a silent vote upon this question. The Bill
introduced by the hon. member for- North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) in 1890 had two
clauses linked together, one being with regard to the abolition of the dual language
in the North-west Territories, and the other
with reference to separate schools. On that
occasion I supported the Bill, with the intention when we got into committee of supporting
the clause with regard to the dual
language simply and solely on the ground
of economy. It was not because I have any
feeling whatever against the French population of the Dominion, or not because I
wish to deprive them of any rights; but
because I was led to understand that the
French population in the North-west Territories understood English as well as
French, and that to continue the printing
of the ordinance in French as well as English was in my opinion imposing an unnecessary
expense on the country. With
regard to the question of granting to the
North-west Territories the power of dealing
with education, I am strongly inclined to
respect the stand taken by the Hon. Alex.
Mackenzie when the Bill was passed granting the privileges the Roman Catholic
minority now enjoy, and I am also in
favour of the views expressed by the
Hon. Edward Blake on that occasion. For
my part, I am not an advocate of separate schools. At the same time. I do not
Wish by force of law to take from any
Catholic minority the right to have separate
schools if they desire to exercise that right.
I would like very well that they should
agree with us to have our children all educated together in the same school : and
for
that purpose I would quite willingly eliminate anything in the curriculum of our
schools at all offensive to them. I would
not agree to make the schools absolutely
secular schools. I would rather have a
continuation of the separate schools as they
now exist in Ontario than to have an entirely secular system of education. I be
lieve that in the present age we are altogether drifting too much into secularism,
and are not devoting that attention,
even in our common school education,
to the doctrines of Christianity which
we ought to devote. The hon. member for North Simcoe says that we have
in the North-west Territories a population
of about 66,000. If that Territory contained
a population sufficient to have full provincial rights granted to them. I would be
quite willing to grant them power to deal
with education as well as the power to
charter railways, to borrow money, and to
levy taxes. If any hon. member in this
House thinks that with their present limited
population, it would be well to confer that
power upon them, I am willing to debate that
question with him. In my humble opinion it
would be premature. We have been spending large sums of money to try to bring
immigrants to that country Would we not
be glad to see the surplus population of the
province of Quebec, French and Catholic as
it is, go to the North-west rather than to
the United States ? We would rather see
the congested population of Ireland, where
there is a very large Catholic population,
come to settle in our country, than go to
the United States. Our object is to fill up
that Territory with population, and as soon
as there is the necessary population to he
formed into a province, I am quite willing
that they should have full power to deal
with education and every other question.
To those who are strongly opposed to separate schools and are in favour of granting
the Territory the power of dealing with the
whole question now, I would say, supposing
that the population of the North-west were
different from what it is at present—suppose there were 45,000 Catholics and only
15,000 Protestants—would they then as enthusiastically and determinedly advocate
granting to the Territory the right to legislate on school questions ? I do not think
they would. I think they would say that it
is better to wait until the country fills up ;
the population may partake of a different
character from what it has at present, and
might reverse thevery Act that they might
now pass. I think that this Parliament. with
the experience it has had since. Confederation on these questions, is in as good a
condition, and perhaps better, to deal with this
question than the North-west Assembly. I
think we understand the question perfectly,
we have made the history of this country
on this question, and I think the intelligence
of the whole Dominion assembled in this
House is quite as capable of dealing with
this question in its present position as the
North-west Assembly. The hon. member for
North Simcoe advanced another argument
which, if it were based upon an unquestionable fact, would make me feel disposed
to support his resolution; that is, that in
voting to continue the present condition of
things, we are riveting upon the North-west
6145 [JULY 16, 1894] 6146
irrevocably, either on our part or their part,
separate schools. But in opposition to the
opinion expressed by the hon. member for
North Simcoe, we have the opinion of my
respected leader, the opinion of the hon.
member for Bothwell, and the opinion of
the hon. leader of the Government, all of
whom challenge and deny the hon. gentleman's contention. They say there is nothing
in the constitution to prevent the Local
Legislatures controlling the whole matter
when the Territories come to be formed into
provinces. Perhaps I hold views on education different from those of a good many.
I am not in favour of such an absolutely
secular system such as that established in
Manitoba ; I believe it is wrong to abolish
from our schools every vestige of religious
education. I find from the statement given
to us by the hon. member for North Simcoe that there are in the North-west two
hundred and ten Protestant public schools
and only thirty-four Catholic public schools.
Well, surely the people of the Territories
can tolerate that number of Catholic schools
until they find what the Territory is going
to develop into. The hon. gentleman points
out that some of those schools cost more
per capita than the Protestant schools. That
is not the fault of the law; it is the fault
of the system of administration. If the
Government were to administer the system
so as to grant a per capita allowance, we
would not have that condition of things.
We are contributing large tracts of land
for the construction of railroads for that
country, and are doing everything in our
power to develop it; and it is to be hoped
that the influx of population will be so
rapid that it will before many years be entitled to full provincial powers; and when
that time comes, if I hold a seat in this
House, I will undoubtedly vote to give them
all the powers provided for in section 93
of the constitution. My hon. friend said
something with regard to the request of
the North-west Assembly. There is no
doubt that that Assembly have asked
to be allowed to deal with the question
of schools; every Assembly likes power,
and we know there has been considerable
trouble up there in the last year or two on
this question. But what is the system at
present existing in the Northwest ? It is
exactly the system we have in Ontario.
Our Ontario readers are the readers that
have been established there by the Northwest Council as the books that are to be
used. If a teacher from Ontario goes to
the North-west holding a second or first-class
certificate, that certificate is admitted as a
certificate of qualification to teach, and if he
does not hold such a certificate, he has to
procure one. We have virutally the same
system. We have two inspectors, a Catholic
and a Protestant, The Catholic inspector
does not only inspect Catholic schools, but
all the schools in his district, and the Protestant does the same. We have not a Cath
olic inspector paid simply for inspecting 34
Catholic schools, and a Protestant paid for
inspecting 210 Protestant schools. They
divide the work between them, and inspect
them all on one common system. In that
regard, the practice is just about the same
as in the province of Ontario. I contend
that it is the duty of this House to legislate
in the direction of peace and harmony, in
order to develop rapidly this entire Dominion. That can best be done, peaceably and
quietly, by granting all rights and privileges,
within reasonable bound, to any class that
comes into our country and settles in any
portion of it. If we are going to extremes
in any direction. we are going seriously to
retard the peaceful and successful development of the Dominion. I should rejoice to
see
thousands of Catholics from any part of the
British dominions come in and take up locations in our 'Territories and develop them,
and should be glad to give them the enjoyment of the privileges enjoyed by the Catholic
minority in the province of Ontario. You
can never drive people out of a conscientious
right by legislation. You may gain them
over by kindly treatment into a different
groove, but you cannot force them by coercion. I do not know of any part of the
British dominions in which such a policy
has been successful. They tried to coerce
Ireland by legislation for eighty years, and
the policy has been declared by the best
English statesmen to have resulted in utter
failure. We do not want to coerce people by
legislation. We want to treat them kindly
and generously. We want to respect their
conscientious feelings and religious beliefs
Whatever you may be able to do by kind
and generous treatment, you will never, by
means of coercive legislation succeed in
accomplishing your object.
Mr. SPROULE. I wish to say a few
words in explanation of the vote I intend to
give. We have now seven provinces in
the union, five of which have the undisputed right to control their own education
and to every successive province that has
been brought into Confederation since 1867,
we have given that right. It was disputed in
the province of New Brunswick, but the
courts ultimately upheld the right of the province to control its own education. It
was
disputed in Manitoba, but the courts also, in
the case of that province. upheld that provincial right. In the North-west Territories,
when the Act of 1875 was passed, there was
no Legislative Assembly there having power
to regulate or control education, and therefore it was quite in order for this Parliament
to pass legislation governing that territory. But since then we have given the
no Legislative Assembly there having power
Legislature. We have given them certain
powers within their own control, and
amongst those they are dealing with. the
subject of education. Whether they are
so dealing legally or not, that right has
not been refused them, and, in view of the
6147
[COMMONS] 6148
fact that it Seems to be an undisputed right
of the provinces to deal with the subject of
education. and in view of the fact that there
is now a legislature there. it does not seem
to me out of harmony with provincial rights
to cede to that: Legislature the power of
dealing with this question. It is dealing with
it to-day. and it must be dealing with it
either in accord with its legal rights or the
reverse. If illegally, it ought to be stopped ;
but if under the sanction of the law. we
ought to extend to that Legislature the full
rights we have given the other provinces.
Some hon. gentlemen speak of this as taking away the rights of the minority. I do
not think that assertion is warranted. All
we have a right to assume, if we give the
power into the hands of the Legislature, is
that it will protect the minority in any
rights they possess to-day. We all
know. as far as I can judge. that the regulations which the Board of Education there
has made for controlling education, are of a
very liberal character. Therefore, we have
the right to assume that there is no disposition on the pa 't of the North-west Assembly
to do injustice to the minority. in
voting as I intend to to-night, it is not because I apprehend there is any danger
of
our refusing provincial rights to the provinces after they are fully organized. whether
the present leader of the Government
be in power or the leader of the Opposition,
because I think both recognize what would
be the rights of the province then. But I
must confess that I agree with the
assumption advanced that if we allow usages to grow up for a length of time, in
proportion to their duration, they will be
difficult to remove. They were given. by the
Act of 1875 the right to establish separate
schools there. It might happen, afterwards,
when we establish a province there, and
give the Legislature the full autonomy of a
Provincial Legislature. that we could not
do away with the order of things then existing. There was one part of the speech of
the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. .McCarthy) with which I disagree. and I am
glad to say that, on speaking to him privately. he expressed an opinion that he intended
to convey a different impression. I understood him to say that because by the Act
of 1875 we gave the right to the North-west
Territories to have separate schools, if we
allowed that to go on, when we came to
establish the province, we would find it
riveted upon the Provincial Government, by
usage, so that it would be difficult, in fact,
illegal, to make a change. That: was the impression his remarks left on my mind. However,
I am glad to notice that the hon. gentleman states that was not the impression he
intended to convey. What he meant to state
was not that there would not be a legal
right vested in this Parliament to give the
full power of controlling education to the
Provincial Government, when that Government was established there. That would go
a long way towards satisfying the minds of
many hon. gentlemen with reference to
allowing the present condition of things to
remain as they are, and, for my part, I
would feel that there was no injustice done
to the Territories or Council, provided
things did remain as they are. But as
the question is forced on us now. and as
the amendment is in harmony with the
principle I have always held of the undisputed rights of the provinces, with the
exceptions of Ontario and Quebec, which
were governed by legislation introduced and
passed before Confederation, and as it is
the undisputed right of every province outside of those two, and of every other province
that may come into the confederacy,
to deal with its own education. I believe
they should have that right. Knowing that
the Legislature out there is discharging
many of the functions of a Provincial Legislature. I think we should give them this
right, and put them on a par with the other
provinces.
Mr. MACDONALD (Huron). In order to
give an opportunity to an hon. member who
has already Spoken upon this question, but
who desires to answer some of the objections
which were brought against his arguments,
I move the adjournment of the House.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, at this
late hour I am not going to trespass upon
the indulgence of the House by any lengthened argument. But I would like to put
myself right upon a subject that seems to
be misunderstood as to the legal question
involved, and to answer some arguments
put forward upon the general proposition.
Now, my hon. friends around me understood
me to say—and perhaps I used language
that would convey that impression—that, as
a matter of positive law, when we created
provinces in the North-west, we should be
obliged to restrict the power of the new
provinces in respect of education by the
clause to which I referred as limiting the
clause 93 of the British North America
Act. Now, Sir, I did not, and I do not
desire to convey that impression, and it is
only right that I should explain, because it.
may have an effect possibly upon some hon.
members, and I wish to make myself perfectly plain. What I was thinking of was
not the dry question of law to which my
hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) has
devoted some attention, and upon which the
right hon. First Minister has also given his
views. That is, that according to the system that we find embodied in the British
North America Act, the provinces, the admission for which was provided for in the
Act were to come in subject to these general
clauses in the Act, and amongst them was
this clause No. 1. So when British Columbia was admitted to the Confederacy and
when Prince Edward was admitted, the
terms embodied in the Order in Council—
which, the Act provides under section 146,
were to be equivalent to an Act of Parlia
6149 [JULY 16, 1894] 6150
ment—were that all the provisions of the
Act not solely applicable to one province.
in other words, the general provisions of the
Act were to be applicable to the new provinces brought in. At the moment I had not
in my mind that this provision applied to
provinces created out of the Territories.
may be that the view of the hon. gentleman
from Bothwell is right in that respect, and
that the clause 2 of the Act of 1871 does
not give to this Parliament the power, in
creating provinces, to confer any constitutional rights. other and different from
those
mentioned in the British North America
Act. That may possibly be the correct view.
I am free to say that I had not that in my
mind when I addressed the House. I did
not consider it, and I am not prepared to
say that it is or is not the proper one. Section 2 says:
The Parliament of Canada, may, from time to
time, establish new provinces in any territories
forming for the time being part of the Dominion of
Canada, but not included in any province thereof,
and may, at the time of such establishment, make
provision for the constitution and administration
of any such provinces.
I understand the hon. member for Bothwell
to limit the meaning of this to such questions as whether they are to have one or
two chambers and matters of that kind,
and not as to the scheme of the division of
legislative authority and power.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). It refers to the
constitution as it covers the first article of
section 192 of the Act.
Mr. McCARTHY. I was not thinking of
that. These words are very general, " and
for the passing of laws for the peace. order
and good government of such provinces,"
and it seems to me they enable this Parliament to enact in the constitution of any
province such laws as this Parliament may
see fit. I think it is open to that construction, but I have not considered it, and
I do
not want to express an opinion one way or
the other. My argument was, and is now
—if we hand this matter over to the control
of tne Territories there will be no harm
done. If the people in the North-west adopt
a scheme of separate schools and afterwards
apply for admission into Confederation there
will be no great harm done to say: Very
well; nothing in any law we can give you
shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with reference to denominational
schools. But, if we do not give them power
to choose, if we deny them the right to select
for themselves, then, when the day comes.
as it must before long. when some part of
the Territories will ask for admission and
be entitled by their population and position
to have this clause enacted, then, this Parliament would be bound to repeal the law,
otherwise we should be, as I say. riveting
the system of separate schools upon them.
This point I think a most important one.
The right hon. Prime Minister, when challenged by the hon. member from West Assiniboia
(Mr. Davin, repelled the assumption that they would not be so bound. He
said of course it would be open to Parliament, but the First Minister, as I understood,
in his answer to the hon. member
for West Assiniboia—perhaps I was wrong,
but I should like to be corrected if I was
wrong—rather insisted upon the view I am
putting, which is that if separate schools
are continued until the North-west Territories are given provincial autonomy, they
will have the right of insisting upon that
being continued when provincial autonomy
is conferred upon them.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Then I fail to understand the views which the First Minister
holds. He seems to be on both sides of the
question.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Not at all. If
I spoke ambiguously before, I was not at all
conscious of it; but I cannot be said to be
ambiguous after the explanation I made to
the hon. member for Assiniboia. I appealed
to the House to continue the present system
while the Territorial system continued, and
I declared that in my opinion the whole
subject would be open and free to Parliament as to what constitution we would give
to the provinces when the provinces were
created.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am very glad the
right hon. gentleman has explained it in
that way, and perhaps I was wrong in my
understanding of his remarks. Of course it
is an important declaration from the First
Minister. Now, the House will have to use
its own judgment on this question. What
I say is this : that if this question of separate
schools is to remain in its present position
until we grant provincial autonomy to any
portion of the North-west, it will be practically impossible, unless there is an enormous
change in public opinion, to deny them what
every other province that has joined the
Confederation has been entitled to, what
Manitoba was entitled to, and what I submit under the circumstances every province
would be entitled to. Now, let me draw
attention to the constitution conferred upon
Manitoba, in that regard. I have not got
it under my hand, but it will be found on
consulting it that when we conferred autonomy upon the province of Manitoba we
did it by reference to the British North
America Act. What we declared was, that
where not otherwise provided for in the Act,
all the provisions of the British North America Act should apply to the province of
Manitoba, and I think the very same words
were contained in the resolutions which were
passed at the time British Columbia and the
province of Prince Edward Island came into
the Union. So that we have got that precedent before us : that was the promise upon
6151
[COMMONS] 6152
which we admitted Manitoba, and looking
at the character of the legislation, I do not
think there can be any doubt that the same
rule must apply when we come to admit
the provinces to be created out of the Northwest Territories. So much for that point.
I might say more, but it would be unreasonable at this late hour to occupy the time
of the House by any attempt to criticise this
long and very important debate. I desire
to say this, however, which I think ought to
be said : that I am not the one who is breaking faith in moving the passage of this
amendment. Because in 1875, in the condition
things were at that time, this separate school
enactment was passed, on what principle
can it be said that in 1894 the repeal of that
clause will be a breach of faith ? Surely
that is not a fair way to put it. This Parliament has power and authority to revise,
and did year after year alter and change the
powers and the authorities that were granted
to the North-west, and the change in any
one of these enactments cannot by any fair-
minded man be characterized as a breach
of faith. Can any great harm be done to
any class of people who have gone in there
and who are permitted to deal with this
subject in their own Local Legislature ? 1
am not seeking to deprive any person of
separate schools ; I am not going into that
argument. I have my own views about
them, and though I would agree with the
hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. McMullen) in saying that I would sooner see
a
separate school system than a secular
system, I see no necessity at all for a secular
school system displacing a separate school
system. I am free to say that, but it does
appear to me to be an abuse of language to
say that we should not give this power to
the people of the North-west, who have enormous powers from us already, who are not
abusing those powers, who are quite as intelligent, I think, as the ordinary constituents
that we represent here, and to give them
power to decide and dispose of this question
amongst themselves, can hardly be treated
as a breach of faith. Why, the hon. member for West Assiniboia, with the knowledge
he has of the people of the North-west, with
the knowledge he has of the autonomy of the
Legislative Council, tells us that he doubts
very much whether the separate school
system will be abolished. But is there any
reason why, in a matter of that kind, they
should not have the power ? Are they not
quite as competent to deal with their schools
as British Columbia was at the time of the
Union, as British Columbia is to-day ; as
Prince Edward Island was, as Prince Edward Island is, and so with the other provinces
? When you talk about heart-burnings, and when you talk about peace, do not
forget, none of us can forget, or ought to
forget, that we have no trouble in respect of
those provinces which have complete power
over their schools. The trouble that is constantly occurring does not come from those
four provinces. but it does come from the
province that we are attempting to control
and coerce by our legislation here. Nor can
we forget that the difficulties that are arising in my own province arise because
the
people feel there that the separate school
system was imposed upon them against their
will, and there is continual ferment, and
continual agitation, and continual unrest
with regard to that subject cropping up at
almost every election and on every occasion.
Sir, it is because I desire the peace and welfare of the Dominion, because I believe
that
will be best promoted by giving this power
to the proper authorities, by adjourning to
the proper quorum the matter belonging to it,
that I have moved the amendment I have
had the honour to place in your hands.
Mr. MACDONALD (Huron). I ask leave
to withdraw my motion to adjourn the
House.
Motion withdrawn.
House divided on amendment of Mr. McCarthy :
YEAS:
Messieurs
Allan, McMillan,
Bain (Wentworth), McNeill,
Bolth, Madill,
Boston, Marshall,
Carscallen, Mulock,
Charlton, Rowand.
Davin, Smith (Ontario),
Denison, Somerville,
Innes, Sproule,
Macdonald (Huron), Tyrwhitt.—21,
McCarthy,
Nays :
Messieurs
Amyot, Harwood,
Bain (Soulanges), Henderson,
Baker, Hughes,
Beausoleil, Ives,
BĂ©chard, Jeannette,
Belley, Joncas,
Bennett, Kaulbach,
Bergeron, Kenny.
Bernlcr, Lachapelle,
Blanchard, Landerkin,
Boyd, Langevin (Sir Hector),
Boyle, LaRiviere
Brodeur, Laurier,
Brown, Lavergne,
Bruneau, Leclair,
Bryson, Leduc,
Calvin, Legris,
Carignan, Lippé,
Carling (Sir John), Lowell,
Caron (Sir Adolphe), McDonald (Assiniboia),
Carroll, McDougald (Pictou),
Cartwright (Sir Richard), McDougall (Cape Breton),
Casey, McLennan,
Chesley, McMullen,
Choquette, Masson,
Christie, Metcalfe,
Cleveland, Mignault,
Cochrane, Mills (Bothwell),
Costigan, Monet,
Curran, Montague,
Daly, Ouimet,
Davis, Patterson (Colchester),
Delisle, Patterson (Huron),
Desaulmers, Pelletier,
Devlin, Pope,
Dickey, Prior,
Dugas, Proulx,
Dupont, Rider,
Dyer, Rinfret,
Earle, Robillard,
6153 [JULY 17, 1894] 6154
Edgar, Rosamond,
Fairbairn, Ross (Dundas),
Ferguson (Leeds & Gran.), Ross (Lisgar),
Ferguson (Renfrew), Sanborn,
Flint, Simard,
Fréchette, Stairs,
Frémont, Tarte,
Geoffrion, Taylor,
Gillies, Temple,
Girouard (Jacques Cartier), Thompson (Sir John),
Girouard (Two Mountains), Tisdale,
Godbout, Tapper (Sir C. Hibbert),
Grandbois, Turrcotte,
Grant (Sir James), White (Shelburne),
Guay, Wilmot,
Guillet, Wood (Brockville),
Haggart, Wood (Westmoreland).—114.
Pairs
For. Against.
Messieurs
McKay, Fauvel ,
Hutchins, Lavergne,
Ingram, Foster,
White (Cardwell), Préfontaine,
Roome, McGregor,
Craig, Featherston,
Wilson, Mara,
Carpenter, Vaillancourt,
Sutherland, Bourassa.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. TAYLOR. The hon. members for
Cardwell, East Elgin and West Durham
have not voted.
Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). I am paired with
the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Préfontaine .
Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). I would have
voted as I voted on this question on a previous occasion.
Mr. INGRAM. I am paired with the hon.
member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Foster).
Mr. GUAY. The hon. member for South
Essex has not voted.
Mr. McGREGOR. I am paired with the
hon. member for West Middlesex. If I had
voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
On the main motion,
Mr. McCARTHY. The other matter I desire to bring to the attention of the House
is in regard to the dual language.
Mr. MCCARTHY. There can be no dispensing with this matter. Hon. gentlemen will
have to vote.
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman has
already spoken to the third reading of the
Bill, and, therefore, he cannot move an
amendment.
Bill reported, and read the third time and
passed.
FIRST READING.
Bill (No. 167) further to amend the Post
Office Act—(from the Senate)—(Sir Adolphe
Caron).
Motion agreed to; and House adjourned
at 2.05 a.m.
This individual participated in:
