PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved for
leave to introduce Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the
government of the province of Alberta. He said: Mr. Speaker, the Bill which
I have now the honour to present is for the admission of
another member into the Canadian family of provinces. As the
House, no doubt, has noticed, this Bill is to be followed
immediately byranother for the same purpose, in relation to the province of
Saskatchewan. These two Bills are intimately connected;
they form part of the same subject; and, by your leave, Sir, the explanations which
I shall have the honour to give to the
House, will apply to both. They will apply likewise to the resolutions which
will be introduced as the basis for the financial clauses of
these Bills.
It has been observed on the floor of this House, as well as outside of. this
House, that as the nineteenth century had been the century of the
United States, so the twentieth century would be the century of
Can
1422ada. This opinion has not been deemed extravagant. On this continent and across the
waters, it has been accepted
as the statement of a trurh, beyond controversy. The
wonderful development of the United States during the space of scarcely more
than one hundred years may well be an incitement to our efiorts and our
ambition. Yet to the emulation of such an example there may well be
some exception taken; for if it be true that settlement of the western
portion of the American union has been marked by almost phenomenal
rapidity, it is also true that every other consideration
seems to have been sacrificed to this one consideration of rapid growth.
Little attention was given, up to the last few years, to the materials
which were introduced into the republic; little regard was paid
among the new settlers to the observance of the law; and it is not a
slander upon our neighbours—for, indeed, the fact is admitted in their current literature—that
frontier civilization was with
them a byword for lawlessness. We have proceeded upon
different methods. We have been satisfied with slower progress. Our
institutions in our own Northwest have been developed by
gradual stages, so as to ensure at all times among these new communities
law and order, and the restraints and safeguards of the
highest civilization.
The time has arrived when we are all agreed, I believe, nay, I feel sure,
upon both sides of the House, that another step, and the last, can now
be taken to complete the passage of the Northwest Territories from
what was once necessary tutelage, into the fulness of the rights which,
under our constitution, appertain to provinces.
I may remind the House, though the fact is well known to every body, that
when confederation was established in the year 1867, the Canada of
that day was not at all what is the Canada of the present day. The
Canada of that day did not extend beyond the western limits of the province
of Ontario. On the other side of the continent, on the
shores of the Pacific ocean, there was a British colony, British Columbia.
absolutely isolated; and between British Columbia on one side and
Ontario on the other side there was a vast extent of territory, the fairest
portion perhaps of the continent, which was under British sovereignty,
but in which British sovereignty had always been dormant.
That vast extent of the continent, the fairest, as I said, and the most
fertile, was administered, loosely administered by the Hudson Bay
Company, under a charter which the company claimed, gave her almost
sovereign sway, and which she used to keep this vast extent of country as a
close preserve for her immense operations in the fur trade.
I need not tell
you, Sir, the fact is well known and present to the memory of
all, that it was the intention of the fathers of confederation not to
limit it to the comparatively narrow
1423
COMMONS
bounds in which it was included in 1867, but to
extend it eastward and westward between the two oceans. I need hardly tell
you, Sir, the fact is known to all and well remembered by
every one, that provision was made in the instrument of confederation
itself, for the admission into confederation of British Columbia,
Prince Edward Island, and even Newfoundland, and especially for these territories
which at last have come in to-day as part of the
Canadian family. In the very first year of confederation, the very first
session of the first parliament, resolutions were introduced into this
House and adopted unanimously for the acquisition of Rupert's Land and
the Northwest Territories. and the extinguishment therein of the title of
the Hudson Bay Company. This was accomplished in a very
short time, and as soon as accomplished, the government of that day,
the government of Sir John Macdonald, proceeded to carve the new
province of Manitoba out of the wilderness. and without any
preliminary stage endowed it at once with all the rights and privileges of a
province.
If we go back to the history of those days, perhaps the opinion will not be
unwarranted that it would have been a wiser course, if instead of
bringing Manitoba at once into the confederation full fledged and fully
equipped as a province, that maturity had been reached by gradual stages
extended over a few years. If that course had been adopted, perhaps
some mistakes would have been avoided from the effects of which we
have not yet completely recovered.
Very different was the course and policy of Mr. Mackenzie when he came into
office with regard to the Northwest Territory. Up to the year 1875 the
Northwest Territories had been administered under no special form of government. But
in 1875 Mr. Mackenzie, being then
Prime Minister of Canada, introduced into this House and carried
unanimously a measure, a very important measure, the object of which,
as he said himself, was to give to the Northwest Territories an 'entirely
independent government.' This measure has been the charter
under which the Northwest Territories have come to their present state
of manhood. It has never been repealed. Additions have been made to it from
time to time, but it has remained and is to this day the rock upon
which has been reared the structure, which we are about to crown with
complete and absolute autonomy. By this measure it was provided that a
Lieutenant Governor should be appointed for the Northwest
Territories. The Lieutenant Governor was to be vested with executive power,
and he was to administer that power with the assistance of a council
to be composed of five members, the Lieutenant Governor and his
advisers to be appointed by the Governor in Council. Apart from these
administrative powers the Lieutenant Governor was also
invested with large legislative authority. He could make laws for taxation,
for local and municipal purposes, property and civil
1424 rights,
the administration of justice, public health, police, roads, highways and
bridges- generally all matters of a purely local and private nature.
There was also an enactment in that measure to the effect that
when any district, not exceeding 1,000 square miles, contained a
population of not less than 1,000 people of adult age, exclusive of
aliens and unenfranchised Indians, it could be erected into an electoral
district which should thenceforward be entitled to elect a member to
the council. There was also an important enactment with regard to
education, introducing into that country the system of separate schools in
force in the province of Ontario. But I shall say nothing at the
present time of this important part of the law of 1875, as I propose to come
again to it at a later stage of the observations which I
desire to offer to the House. This Act remained in force without any important modifications
up to the year 1886, when the Territories
were given representation in this parliament. Two years later
an important step in advance was also taken in their development, that
is to say, in 1888. The executive council was abolished, so far, at
all events, as its powers of legislation were concerned, and a legislative
assembly was created, to be composed of twenty-five members, twenty-two
of which were to be elected by the people and three to be known as
legal experts, to be appointed by the Governor in Council; and a new
executive council was to be appointed under the name of advisory council to
advise the Lieutenant Governor upon all matters of finance. In 1891
another step forward was taken, and a very important one. The
legislative assembly of the Territories was given additional powers; and if
you take section 92 of the British North America Act and compare it
with the powers which were then given to the legislature, you will find
that that legislature was invested with powers almost as complete as those
which are vested in the provinces under the British North America Act.
In fact, with the exception of borrowing money most of the essential
powers which are now given to the provinces were given to the
legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories. In 1894 another
departure, another change, was made—I call it a departure.
The change which was then made was not, in my estimation, quite in
accordance with the spirit of our constitution. It was that the
legislative assembly could select four members of its own
body to be called an executive committee to advise the Lieutenant Governor.
This is not, as I say, in accordance with the principles of
the British constitution. It is not in accordance with the principles of
British constitution that parliament itself should elect the members
who are to advise the Crown. The principle of the British constitution is that the
Crown, or the representative of the
Crown selects, him 1425 FEBRUARY 21. 1905 self, his own advisers ; and under our own well known practice in
these modern days, the only restriction put upon the executive, the
Crown, or the sovereign, is that he must select advisers who have the
support of a majority of the elected body. This new departure introduced in the
statute of 1894 did not last long, and at this I
am not surprised. In 1897 another and a final change took
placeffn 1897 an Act was passed in this House whereby it was provided that
there should be an executive council to be chosen by the Lieutenant
Governor from the members of the House, and practically having
the support of a majority of the elected members of the legislature.
This was in fact the last and final concession and it was the
application of the principle of ministerial responsibility. This
has been the law ever since; it is the law to-day. So that, Sir, it is
manifest that at this moment the people of the Northwest Territories are
in the enjoyment and have been for several years, not only of full
ministerial responsibility, not only of full constitutional government. but also of
a large measure of local autonomy. A great
deal has been done, in fact, more has been done than we have to do
to-day. We have to take the last step but it is easy and comparatively
unimportant in view of and in comparison with what has already been
accomplished. The metal has been in the crucible and all we have to do
now, is to put the stamp of Canadian nationality upon it.
The House is aware that some two years ago or thereabouts there came to us
a very general desire from the Northwest Territories for
immediate admission into the confederation as provinces. I did not believe at the
time for my part, that this request,
respectable as it was, proceeded so much from an actual need as from a
sentiment. It was to me the expression of a sentiment, a
sentiment most honourable, a sentiment most worthy because it was an
expression of the self-reliance of young and ambitious communities. The
House is also aware of the answer which we gave to the Territories at
that time. We represented to them that in our judgment, the
time was inopportune for taking this question into parliament,
that as we were on the eve of a general election, the time and
occasion would be more propitious and more fitting after that event when
the Territories would have the benefit on this floor of a larger
representation. These views were generally accepted. The elections have taken place
and immediately after the elections, or
as soon as was practicable thereafter, we invited the executive
of the Northwest Territories to send delegates here to
confer with us upon the measure which was to be introduced so as
to admit them into the confederation. We have had the benefit of the
presence of Mr. Haultain, the Premier of the Northwest Territories and
of Mr. Bulyea, one of his
1426 colleagues, and we have had the advantage
of several conferences with them. We have had the advantage also of
the presence and advice of several of the members from the
Territories, and now, Sir, it is my privilege and my honour—I deem it indeed
a privilege and an honour—to offer this Bill to the House.
When we came to consider the problem before us it became very soon apparent
to me, at all events, that there were four subjects which dominated
all the others; that the others were of comparatively minor
importance, but that there were four which I was sure the parliament of Canada and
the Canadian people at large
might be expected to take a deep interest in. The first was: How many
provinces should be admitted into the confederation coming from the Northwest Territories—one,
or two or more? The next question was:
in whom should be vested the ownership of the public lands? The third
question was: What should be the financial terms to be granted to these
new provinces? And the fourth and not the least important by any means
was the question of the school system which would be introduced—not
introduced because it was introduced long ago, but should be continued in the Territories.
Now, Sir, I will proceed to examine one after the other, all these
questions. The first, as I have just said is: How many provinces should
be admitted into the confederation ? There is considerable variety, as everybody knows,
in the area of the different
provinces of the confederation. Prince Edward Island has an area of
2,184 miles, Nova Scotia 21,428 miles, New Brunswick 27,985 miles, Quebec
351,873, Ontario 260,862, Manitoba 73,732, and British Columbia
372,630, or a total area for the seven provinces of confederation of 1,110,694 miles.
Now, the Territories which are to-day
under the control and jurisdiction of the local legislature have
exactly the same area as that of the seven provinces of the Dominion. The
total area of the seven provinces, as I said a moment ago is 1,110,694
miles and the area of the different territories is as follows:
|
Miles. |
| Assiniboia.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
88,879 |
| Saskatchewan.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
107,618 |
| Alberta.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
101.883 |
| Athabaska.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
251,965 |
| Mackenzie.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
562,182 |
| Total.. .. .. . . .. |
1,112.527 |
Or, an area a little greater than the total area of the seven provinces of
the Dominion. Now, as I have said there is a great variety
in the sizes of our provinces; in fact, it is very much with the
Canadian Confederation as with the American Union. There are
in the Canadian Confederation provinces of; unequal sizes as 1427 there
are in the American Union states of unequal sizes. It is not a fatal fault
as has been proved by the history of the American Union, but I believe
that when provinces are not the result of historic tradition, when
they have not come to us formed and when we have the control of events, it
is preferable that the provinces should be as near as
possible about the same size. Therefore, it is impossible to suppose that
this immense territory of 1,112,527 miles should be formed
into one single province. There is another objection. The territories are
naturally divided into two portions from the point of view of
agriculture, climate, and productions generally, the northern portion
and the southern portion, and I would place the boundary of these two
sections a little south of the boundary which now divides the provisional
district of Mackenzie from the provisional district of Athabaska. This
northern portion of the continent has not yet been fully explored, but still we
know enough of it, there has been enough exploration
or it and it has been travelled over sufliclently, to make us sure that
it is absolutely unfit for agriculture. The climate is too cold and the
soil is too poor. There are, however, very excellent and very
promising indications of mineral wealth in that district. There are indications to-day
of petroleum, coal, gold,
copper and other minerals, and perhaps some day we may have
in What is to-day a barren section, another Yukon. But we know by
the experience of the past that mineral wealth, when not
coupled with agriculture, is but a precarious ground on which to found the
hope of thick and permanent settlement. Therefore, we put aside this
northern section; but the southern section is of an absolutely different character.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What does the right hon. gentleman
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) refer to exactly ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I would divide the two sections at
about the line which now divides the provisional district of Mackenzie and the provisional
district of Athabaska,
about the 60th parallel of north lati tude.
The southern section is of a difierent character. it is absolutely an
agricultural country, and I need not say that it is one of
the finest in the world today. It is traversed by large rivers
flowing from the Rocky mountains to Hudson's bay, and the
valley of the Saskatchewan is, as every one knows. equal in fertility to
the valley of the Red river. Everybody knows also that the valley of
the Red river and the valley of the Saskatchewan are today
the most fertile wheat fields under the sun. We propose to give autonomy, not
to the whole of the Territories, but to that section which extends
from the American
boundary up to
the boundary line between the provisional district of Mackenzie and
the provisional district of Athabaska, that is the 60th parallel of north
latitude.
When we were first approached on this subject, it was proposed to us that we
should make a province extending from the American boundary
up to the 57th parallel, that is to say, somewhat to the south of the
provisional boundary between the provisional districts of
Mackenzie and Athabaska, but we thought it preferable to take in the
whole district of Athabaska. The reason for this is, that although Athabaska
is not considered to be a fertile country, and the eastern portion of
it is barren, the western portion, the valley of the Peace river, is
equal to the valley of the Saskatchewan and settlement there is already
proceeding rapidly. There are to~day on the Peace river two
grist mills, provided absolutely from wheat grown in the Peace river valley,
and therefore we have decided to include within the new
provinces the provisional district of Athabaska. The area of these two
provinces together will be about 550,345 square miles. This
is, in our estimation, altogether too large an area to be made into one
single province according to the size of the other provinces, the
largest of which is British Columbia, and the next largest Quebec,
British Columbia with an area of 372,000 square miles and Quebec with an
area of 351,000 square miles. By dividing it into two you have two
provinces of 275,000 square miles in round numbers, each about the
size of the province of Ontario. If any of the members of the House will
care to look at the map, they will see that We have put the
provisional boundary on the fourth meridian and according to our present
information, this will give about the same area and also the
same population to the two provinces. It is estimated that the population to-day
in these two provinces is about 500,000 souls. We
have no accurate data, but we can proceed pretty confidently upon this
information. The census in 1901 gave to these Northwest Territories a
population of a little over 160,000 souls. Since that time, during the
seasons of 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1904, the population, by immigration
alone, has increased by over 100,000 a year, so that to-day we feel we are
on pretty safe ground when we say that there is in those two provinces
a total population of 500,000 souls, and we calculate that this population
is about equally divided between the two prefiinces, giving a
population of 250,000 to each.
Since I am upon the question of boundaries I shall also come to another
question, connected therewith, that is to say, the demand
which has been made upon us by the province of Manitoba for an
extension of its boundaries, westward, northward and eastward. Yesterday a morning
paper in this city published an interview given
by the Hon. Mr. Rogers, a member of the govern 1429 FEBRUARY 21. 1905 ment
of Manitoba, upon this subject. I shall take the liberty of referring to
that interview of Mr. Rogers, so that the House will better understand
the point to which I am about to direct its attention. Mr. Rogers said
in this interview:
It is not a matter of agreement. We are simply presenting the unanimous request of
the people of our
province for the extension or our boundaries at least as far west as Regina
and north as far as the northern boundary of Athabaska,
which would include Fort Churchill, the Nelson river and the territory
tributary thereto. This is no new request on behalf of Manitoba. In 1901 a resolution
was introduced in the legislature by
Mr. T. A. Burrows, then a member of the legislature and now a
member of the Dominion parliament. This resolution was supported by Mr. Greenway,
who was then leader of the opposition, now a
member of the House of Commons. This was accepted and supported by the
government of the day and voted for by every member of the House. A similar
resolution was introduced by Mr. Roblin, leader of the
government, and unanimously carried in 1902. A further resolution was
introduced at the recent session and voted for by every member of the legislature,
in which action they reflected the
unanimous desire of all Manitobans. Mr. Campbell and myself have been
appointed to come here to plead for what is considered by Manitoba to
be her just claims, before the government who are the tribunal in the case
and whose decision must be final.
I may observe that Mr. Rogers might have gone back much further than 1901
for records of the presentation of the claims of Manitoba for an
extension of territory. Indeed as far back as 1884 a similar
request was presented to the government of Sir John Macdonald. At that
time the Privy Council dealt with this question in these words :
The boundaries of Manitoba were originally fixed at the instance of the
delegates from that province who came to Ottawa in 1870 to adjust
with the government of Canada the terms upon which Manitoba was to enter
the confederation of Her Majesty's North American provinces.
The limits then agreed to embrace an area of about 9,500,000 acres. In
the year 1881 these limits were enlarged and territory added to the
west and north. making the total area of the province 96,000,000 acres or
150,000 square miles.
The further enlargement now asked for by Manitoba would add about
180,000 square miles to the already large area of the province, and
would be viewed with disfavour as well by the old provinces as by the new
districts of Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Athabaska,
which have been created in the Northwest Territories, and
which will ultimately become provinces of the Dominion. It
would largely add to the expense at the government, without increasing the resources
of Manitoba, already pronounced by the
government of the province to be insufficient to meet its normal and
necessary expense.
The committee, under these circumstances. humbly submit to Your
Excellency, that it is inexpedient to alter the boundaries of the province as prayed
for.
This answer to the request of Manitoba was a categorical refusal. I may say
that there is an error in this Order in Council.
1430
It states that the area of the province of Manitoba at that time was
150,000 square miles, whereas it was only 73,000. That, however, is
not very material. But I want to point out that the request of Manitoba
now is one which could not be granted except with great difficulty. It
would have been far more easy for the government of that day, twenty
years ago, to have extended the limits of Manitoba than it would
be to-day. At that time the Territories were still in their infancy ;
but to-day they have grown to manhood, and how can it be expected that we shall
take from them a portion of their territory
to give it to Manitoba ? If this could not be done in 1884, I
submit that there is still less reason for doing it in 1905.
Mr. SPROULE. Might I ask the right hon. gentleman if in
that calculation was not included the disputed territory between
Manitoba and Lake Superior?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. No, I think not. It was in
dispute at that very moment. But even if it had been included, what
would it have mattered ? We want to deal as fairly as we can with Manitoba
and to give it all the consideration which is due tom her. But is
there a member of this House who would advise us that we should carve
out of the Territories which for thirty years have been under the
jurisdiction of their own legislature, which are to-day represented by ten members
in this House, any portion of what belongs to them
and hand it over to the province of Manitoba against the consent of
the people of thos territories? If they agreed to it, well and
good; I would have nothing to say. But the legislature of
the Territories has more than once declared that they would not under any
circumstances consent to any portion of their territory westward of
the province of Manitoba being taken from them.
There is another consideration. For my part, I am prepared to give a full
hearing to the province of Manitoba. When that province asks
to have her limits extended westward, I am bound to say that
We cannot entertain that prayer, for this simple reason, that the
Territories, through their legislature, have passed upon it and have
pronounced against it. But I understand that as to a certain
portion of territory north of Lake Winnipegosis and Lake
Manitoba, the Northwest legislature has declared that it has no
pronounced views, and I that that might be given to the province of
Manitoba. But even this I am not prepared for my part to grant at this
moment; because members representing that section to-day sit
on the floor of this House, and they and their people have the right to be
heard on that question; and if they do not agree to it, I do not think
the parliament of Canada should make the grant against their wishes.
But, Sir, there is another demand of the 1431
COMMON province of Manitoba which
I think is entitled to fair consideration. Manitoba has
asked to have her territory extended to the shores of Hudson's bay; and this
is a prayer which seems to me to be entitled to a fair hearing. The
province of Manitoba is not, however, the only one whose territory could be extended
towards Hudson's bay. The province of Ontario would
have the same right; the province of Quebec would also have that
right; and the new province of Saskatchewan also. Therefore, in the
project which we have to present to the House to-day, instead of including
in the province of Saskatchewan that portion of territory lying north
of Lake Winnipeg osis and Lake Manitoba, we propose to leave that
outside, to be included neither in Saskatchewan nor in Manitoba,
but to be dealt with at a future day. And I may say at once, and I
have the authority of my colleagues to make the announcement, that
we propose to invite the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec,
the province of Manitoba and the province of Saskatchewan to
meet us here to decide whether or not it is advisable that the limits of any
of these provinces should be extended to the shores of Hudson's Bay,
and if so, in What manner it should be done. We have not considered
the matter yet, but perhaps it may not be unadvisable even to consult
the other provinces. I venture to think that the proposal which I now make
to the House with reference to the province of Manitoba is a fair one,
which will commend itself to the approval of all those who have given
the matter fair and impartial consideration.
The new provinces shall, as a matter of course, be represented on the floor
of this House, and, until another election takes place, they shall
continue to be represented as they are today. There will be in each
province a legislative assembly, of which it is proposed that the number of
members shall be twenty-five.
A question which has given some difficulty to the members of the
committee who had the preparation of this Bill, has been the selection
of the capitals of the respective provinces. As to the capital of
the province of Saskatchewan, the difficulty is easily solved, it will
be, as it is at present, Regina. But as to the capital of
Alberta. the selection was not so easy. There were three claimants for
it—Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton, each of which had a good claim. We
have decided that we would not make any final selection, leaving the
final selection to the province itself. In the meantime, if you look at
the map, you will see that Edmonton seems to be the most central point, and
therefore we propose to make Edmonton the capital for the present.
Beyond this, I have only to say that it is the intention to have this Bill
come into force on July 1 next.
1432
The point being settled as to the number of provinces to be admitted into
confederation, the next question is that regarding the
public lands. In whom should the ownership of the lands be vested
? Should they belong to the provinces or to the Dominion? A strong
plea was presented to us on behalf provinces. It was represented that
as a matter of law and of equity, the public lands in these two provinces
should belong to their governments. This plea was no doubt suggested
by the fact that at the time of confederation, all the parties to the
original contract, that is to say, the provinces of Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, each retained her own lands ; and
when at a later day the province of British Columbia was admitted to the
Dominion, she also retained her lands. But, Sir, the cases are not at
all parallel. When the provinces which I have named came into
confederation, they were already sovereignties. I use that term,
because barring their dependence as colonies they were
sovereignties in the sense of having the management of their own affairs.
Each had a department of government called the Crown Lands Department,
which was entrusted with the power of dealing with those
lands, either for revenue or for settlement. But the case of these
new provinces is not at all similar. They never had the
ownership of the lands. Those lands were bought by the Dominion government,
and they have remained ever since the property of the
Dominion government, and have been administered by the Dominion
government. Therefore I say the two cases are not in any way parallel; they
are indeed absolutely different. When the provinces which I have named
came into confederation they retained the ownership of their
lands; but when the two new provinces come into the Dominion, it cannot be
said that they can retain the ownership of their lands, as they never
had the ownership.
Therefore, the proposition that in equity and justice these lands belong to
the provinces is not tenable. But for my part I would not
care, in a question of this importance, to rest the case on a mere
abstract proposition. We must view it from the grounds of
policy; and from the highest grounds of policy, I think it is advisable
that the ownership of these lands should continue to be vested in the
Dominion government. We have precedents for this. This is a
case in which we can go to the United States for precedents. They are
situated very much as we are regarding the ownership of
lands and the establishment of new states. Whenever a new state has been
created in the American Union, the Federal government has always
retained the ownership and management of the public lands.
And when we take the records of our own country, we know that when Manitoba
was brought into the Dominion, that province was not given the
ownership of her lands, 1433 FEBRUARY 21. 1905
but it remained in the Dominion government. True it is that
Manitoba made several efforts to acquire the ownership of the lands
within her boundaries. She applied more than once to the
successive governments of the Dominion, but her application was always met in the
same way. It was always met by the
statement that it was impossible to grant her request. The matter was
finally closed in 1884 when the government of Sir John Macdonald, which
had been approached on the subject, gave very forcibly and clearly the
reasons why the prayer of that province could not be entertained. I
may be allowed to quote to the House the language used by the government of Sir
John Macdonald on the occasion. It will be found
in an Order in Council of the 30th May, 1884 :-
The success of the undertakings by the Dominion government in
and for the Northwest. depends largely upon the settlement of the
lands. Combined with a great expenditure in organizing and maintaining an
immigration service abroad and at home, parliament pledged
its faith to the world that a large portion of those lands should
be set apart for free homesteads to all coming settlers, and
another portion to be held in trust for the education of
their children. No transfer could, therefore, be made, without exacting
from the province the most ample securities that this pledged
policy shall be maintained ; hence in so far as the free lands extend
there would be no monetary advantage to the province, whilst a
transfer would most assuredly seriously embarrass all the
costly immigration operations which the Dominion government is making
mainly in behalf of Manitoba and the Territories.
The great attraction which the Canadian government now offers,
the impressive fact to the mind of the men contemplating immigration is
that a well known and recognized government holds unfettered in its
own hand the lands which it offers free, and that that government
has its agencies and organizations for directing. receiving, transporting
and placing the immigrant upon the homestead which he may
select. And if the immigration operations of the Dominion, which involve so large
a cost, are to have continued success
and to be of advantage to Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, your
sub—committee deem it to be of the utmost importance that
the Dominion government shall retain and control the lands which it has
proclaimed fr-ee to all comers. Were there other
considerations of sufficient force to induce them to recommend their
transfer to Manitoba, and as a consequence and by precedent the surrender to the
provinces to be created from the Northwest
Territory, all the lands within their boundaries, then they would advise
that the provinces holding the lands should conduct their own
immigration operations at their own expense.
These reasons, strong and forcible as they were in 1884, are even stronger
and more forcible in 1905, because the current of immigration is now flowing, into
these Territories in an
unprecedented volume, on we are therefore compelled to say to the new
provinces that we must continue the policy of retaining the ownership and
control of the lands in our own hands. It is
1434
conceivable that if these lands were given to the new previnces, the policy
of either one of them might differ from ours and clash with our
efforts to increase immigration. It might possibly render these efforts
nugatory. For instance, if either of the new provinces,
under the strain of financial difficulty, were to abolish the free
homesteads, which have proved so beneficial and so great an inducement
to immigration, one can readily understand what a great blow that
would be to our immigration policy. Or if the price of government lands for
sale were to be increased over the present very moderate
rate, that would also be another blow to that policy. But I frankly admit,
and we must all recognize, that the provinces in the west, in being
deprived of the public lands. are deprived of a valuable source of
income. And in that way they complain that they are put on a footing of
inequality as compared with the older provinces of the Dominion.
Realizing that fact, it is the duty of parliament to make ample, even generous,
provision which will compensate the provinces for the
retention of the lands by the Federal government, and I believe that
in makng this provision we shall have the full support of hon. members
whether on one side or on the other.
Now I come to the financial terms which should be given to the new
provinces. Our constitution, which is to be found in the British North
America Act, contains a very remarkable provision. It contains the provision that
out of the Federal treasury there shall be paid to
the provinces a large amount of money in the shape of subsidies to
assist them in carrying on their business. This, I say, is a very extraordinary
provision. It is, I believe. unique. At all events, so
far as my information goes, I do not know that any similar provision is
to be found in the constitution of any other federal government. It is
a sound principle of finance, and a still sounder principle of
government, that those who have the duty of expending the revenue of a
country should also be saddled with the responsibility of
levying and providing it. That principle has been departed from in our
case, and no doubt was departed from with some object. What can have been
the reasons which induced the fathers of confederation in 1867 to depart from so obvious
a principle of finance and
government. The reasons are simply these. Confederation was the result
of several compromises. It would have been impossible to establish it
if there had not been a policy of give and take adopted among all the
constituent bodies. And I am quite sure, I am speaking
absolute historical truth when I say that neither Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Ontario nor Quebec would ever have consented to
part with their revenues, to give up their powers of taxation in customs and
excise. if they had not been promised that out of the federal revenues
they would be 1435 allowed a certain
sum every year to defray the expenses of their own local governments and administrations.
This is the reason why this provision
is to be found in the British North America Act. It is there. I do not
think it is sound, but though in my judgment unsound, it is the duty
of everybody in this House and in this country to take confederation as we
find it, with its good points and its blemishes, and carry it to the
end on the principle upon which it was established. Therefore upon
this point I believe it is the duty of the Canadian parliament to continue
that policy in this instance and make a liberal provision for these
two new provinces which we are about to admit into the Canadian family.
But before I come to the revenue to be given these provinces, it will
perhaps be preferable that I should give an idea of their present
requirements. Last year there was expended out of appropriations by this
parliament for the use of the local legislature and by the
local legislature itself.
| Civil government .. . .. |
$101,540 |
| Legislation .. .. .. .. .. .. |
21,375 |
| Administration of Justice .. |
29,000 |
| Public Works .. .. .. .. .. |
680,000 |
| Education.. . .. .. .. .. |
345,125 |
| Agriculture and Statistics .. .. |
47,680 |
| Hospitals, charities and public health.. .. .. .. . .. .. |
20,000 |
| Miscellaneous .. .. .. . |
68.175 |
To these must be added sums which were spent by this government on services
which in the future will have to be carried on by the governments of
the provinces:
| Public Works. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
$100,000 |
| Justice .. .. .. .. .. .. |
100.000 |
| Miscellaneous.. .. .. . |
124,310 |
And this item of 'miscellaneous' was composed as follows:
| Lieutenant-Governor's office.. .. |
$ 3,880 |
| Incidental Justice .. .. .. .. .. |
32,000 |
| Insane patients .. .. .. .. .. |
70,000 |
| Schools in unorganized districts |
6,500 |
So that, last year there was provided for and expended by the Northwest
Territories a total sum of $1,630,000.
Mr. FOSTER. Was that provided by this government ?
Mr. FOSTER. Does the right hon. gentleman
know what was raised by the government itself ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Included in this was what was
raised by the local government, which, was I believe in the
neighbourhood of $150,000. So. this year, if the
conditions were to remain as they are, without any increased
demands, we should have to provide about $1,636,000, or an average of
$818,000 for each province. or course, there are some items of this
expenditure
1436 which, under the new conditions, must be duplicated, because there
will be two governments instead of one. Besides, as every
one knows immigration is flowing rapidly into the Territories, and it is no
wonder if the present requirements of the Territories are not
sufficiently represented by these figures. More liberal provision must be
made for their expenses.
So, I come to the terms which we have made with the provinces—the terms we
propose to give them. As the House knows, we are guided in
this by the terms of the British North America Act. Section 118 of
that Act reads as follows:
The following sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the several provinces
for the support of their governments and legislatures :
| Ontario .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
$80,000 |
| Quebec . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
70.000 |
| Nova Scotia. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
60,000 |
| New Brunswick .. .. |
50,000 |
Two hundred and sixty thousand,—and an annual grant in aid of each province
shall be made, equal to eighty cents per head or the population as
ascertained by the census of one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one. and
in case of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by subsequent decennial
census until the population of each of those two provinces amount
to four hundred thousand souls, at which rate such grant shall
thereafter remain. Such grants shall be in full settlement of all future
demands on Canada. and shall be paid half— yearly in
advance to each province; but the government of Canada shall deduct from
such grants, as against any province, all sums chargeable as interest
on the public debt of that province in excess or the several amounts
stipulated in this Act.
Now, we propose to make the following terms, keeping as close as possible
to the British North America Act. I cite from the Bill :
The following amounts shall be allowed as an annual subsidy to the
province of Alberta and shall be paid by the government of Canada
by half-yearly instalments in advance: Support of government
and legislature, $50,000,-
That is the sum paid to New Brunswick, when the population of that province
was about the same as that of Alberta.
—on an estimated population of 250,000 at eighty cents per head
$200,000, subject to be increased as hereinafter mentioned, that is to
say: The census of the province shall be taken every fifth year,
reckoning from the general census of 1901, and an approximate
estimate of population shall be made at equal intervals between each
quinquennial and decennial census, and, whenever the population, by any such census
or estimate should exceed 250.000, the
allowance shall be increased accordingly until the population
has reached 800,000.
Now, the House has observed that in clause 118 of the British North America
Act, which I have just read. the capitation allowance of the
provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was fixed at a maximum 1437 FEBRUARY 21. 1905 of 400,000 population. This rule was applied also to Manitoba and
British Columbia. The reason why the maximum was fixed at 400,000 population is
not very apparent, but I imagine that it was supposed at
that time that the population of these provlnces was not likely to
reach a very much higher figure than 400,000. And this calculation has proven true.
It took years for Nova Scotia to reach that maximum;
New Brunswick has not reached it yet, nor has Manitoba nor British
Columbia. But it would be manifestly unfair to these new provinces
to limit their maximum to 400,000. Already the population is about
250,000. Therefore, instead of fixing the maximum at 400,000
population. we have fixed it at 800,000.
A more important allowance is the allowance for debt. And this is
what we propose:
Inasmuch as the province is not in debt, the
said province should be entitled to be paid and to receive from the
government of Canada by half-yearly instalments, interest at the rate
of 5 per cent on the sum of $8,107,500.
The reason of this is familiar to everybody, but perhaps, it is
not unimportant that I should review it here, and present it again to
the House. In 1867, when confederation was established the debts
of the provinces were assumed by the Dominionthe debts of
Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Now, the debt at that
time of Old Canada, that is the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. amounted to
$67,000,000 in round numbers. The debt of New Brunswick was
about $7,000.000 and that of Nova Scotia about $8,000,000. It so happened that the
debt of New Brunswick represented an
average of about $25 per head of the population. and the debt of Nova Scotia
of about $8.000,000 was nearly the same per head of her population.
The debt of Old Canada was a little greater per head. Therefore, when allowance
was made for the debts of the provinces, the debt of
Ontario and Quebec was taken not at $67,000,000, but at $02,000.00.
That is, Ontario and Quebec were each relieved of about
$31,000,000, Nova Scotia of $8,000,000. and New Brunswick of
$7,000,000. The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick entered confederation
without debt, while Ontario and Quebec had between
them a debt of about $5,000,000. Later on. new arrangements were made.
new debts of the provinces were assumed by the Dominion, and the provinces
were freed from such liabilities. By this means the capitation
allowance for debt was increased from $25 to $32.43 per head. This is
the last allowance that was made for debt, and, if I remember well this was
made by statute passed in 1884 or 1885. Therefore, we make
this allowance of $34.43 per head to these new provinces. They have a
population of 250.000 souls each. This makes a total of $8,107,500.
1438
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. On the basis of $32.43,
$8,107,500. Upon this we allow the large rate of interest which has been
given to all the provinces of 5 per cent. We now come to the allowance
for land.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Before the right hon. gentleman
touches the land—he has spoken of the population of the Territories as
amounting, at the present time, to 500,000 souls, and the
allowance both for debt and subsidies based on that; would he be good
enough to give us any information in his possession as to that question ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. As I stated a moment ago, by the
last census the population of the Northwest Territories was
105,555 souls. Since that time increases have been made, and the population
now amounts, according to the last returns placed in my hands, to
417,956 souls. The population is increasing rapidly.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The returns mostly of immigration,
but I will give the exact basis as we have it correctly from the
Interior Department. Total population as per census of 1901,
165,555 souls; increase of population by homesteaders since the census
of 1901, 221,251 souls.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I do not know that they are actual
entries, but we calculate the population upon entries for homesteads.
I will read the figures:
Population at present of Northwest Territories
(estimated) 417,956.
| Total population as per census of 1901.. |
165,555 |
| Increase of population of homesteaders since the census of 1901..
.. .. .. .. .. |
221,251 |
| Increase of population other than homesteaders since
census, 1901, say.. .. .. (Estimated from Waghorn's Guide.) |
16,000 |
| Estimated natural increase of the population at 1901 to
date is.. .. . |
9,900 |
| Estimated natural increase of the increase of population
in 1902 to date is |
1,935 |
| Estimated natural increase of the increase of population
in 1903 to date is |
2,370 |
| Estimated natural increase of the increase of population
in 1904 to date is |
945 |
|
417.956 |
Now, this Act is not to come into force until the 1st of July, and we
estimate that by the 1st of July the population will have increased to
500,000 souls. This is the basis of our calculation. Now, I said a moment
ago, and the House seemed to agree with me, that as we retain the
lands in our own hands, it is natural and to he expected that
government and parliament would be liberal in their allowance to the new
provinces for compensation in that respect. Manitoba. which has an
area of 73.000 square miles, received as compensation for her lands some
fifteen or twenty years ago an annual grant of $100,000. Apart from
that, Manitoba has 1439 COMMONS received the
swamp lands. The swamp lands are perhaps the most valuable lands in
the province of Manitoba. They require some preliminary work for drainage,
but when drained there are no better lands in the Whole province. When
the late government gave to the province of Manitoba the
swamp lands, they made her a valuable gift, and it has proved to her a most
important asset. But the Northwest Territories
have no swamp lands, we could not do for them what the government did for
the province of Manitoba. We have, therefore, made the
following arrangement, which we commend to the favourable consideration of the House:
As the public lands in the said provinces are to remain the property of
Canada, there shall be paid by Canada to the said provinces annually by way of compensation
therefor a. sum based upon the
estimated value of such lands, (namely, $37,500,000) : the same being
assumed to be of an area of 25,000,000 acres and to be of the value
of $1.50 per acre, and upon the population of the said
provinces as from time to time ascertained by the quinquennial census
thereof, such sum to he arrived at as follows:—
The population of the said provinces being assumed to be at present
250,000, the sum payable until such population reaches 400,000
is to be one per cent on such estimated value, or $375,000.
Thereafter until such population reaches 800,000, the sum
payable is to be one and one—half per cent on such estimated value, or
$562,500.
Thereafter until such population reaches 1,200,000, the sum payable is
to be two per cent on such estimated value, or $750,000.
And thereafter such payment is to be three per cent on such estimated
value, or $1,112,500.
In additional compensation for such lands, there shall be paid by Canada
to such province annually for five years from the time this Act
comes into force to provide for the construction of necessary
public buildings, $62,500.
Let me now recapitulate to see the minimum each province is to
receive. At present, this year, the province is to receive
for civil government $50,000; for capitation allowance, $200,000,
which is going to increase until the population has reached 800,000
souls. It will receive for debt allowance $405,375, and this year
it will receive also for land compensation $375,000; total,
$1,030,375, to which sum must be added, for five years, $62,500, in order to
allow the province to provide for her buildings and public
works generally.
This is the minimum which will be paidI to the province. The only thing new
in these arrangements is in respect to the lands. The maximum which
will be paid to the province at any time when the population
shall have reached 1,200,000 souls is $1,125,000; that is to say, we pay to
each of these provinces the maximum sum of 51.125.000 as compensation
for the lands which We retain in our possession. I submit to
the House that this is a very fair, a very moderate and very equitable
adjustment indeed; at all events, I so present it
1440 to the
House, and I think it will be so regarded.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The maximum of the subsidy to the
provinces will be reached, as I understand it, when the population
reaches the number of 1,200,000. The total annual payments of all kinds
reach their maximum when the population reaches the number of
1,200,000, that is, including both the per capita allowance and the
allowance for land. Would the right hon. gentleman be good enough to
tell us just what that maximum sum will be, including both the subsidy
and the allowance in respect of land
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. But the total of all kinds. Perhaps
it the right hon. gentleman has not the figures it is not important.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The total .of all kinds would be
in the neighbourhood of a little more than $2,000,000.
Now, Sir, it is my duty to advert to a special feature of this Bill, a
feature which I wish we could have averted, and which we introduced
with great respect. The special clause which I now call the attention
of the House to is as follows :-
The territory comprised in the said province
shall be and continue to be subject to all such provisions as shall have
been enacted respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
It is within the memory of the House, I have no doubt, that the contract
which was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway contained a most
extraordinary provision. It was the 16th section:
The Canadian Pacific Railway and all stations and station grounds,
workshops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances
required and used for the construction and
working thereof and the capital stock of the company shall be for ever free
from taxation by the Dominion, or by any province hereafter to be established or by
any municipal corporation therein.
Thus it happens that in 1881 the then parliament deliberately
gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which it was incorporating, an absolute
exemption from federal, provincial and municipal
taxation. It was an extraordinary contract, but the fact stares us in
the face, and it is in accordance with British precedent and
British policy that contracts have to be executed whether they are
good or bad, whether they are advantageous or disadvantageous. In 1884
or 1885, when the limits of the province of Manitoba were extended westward,
a similar provision was introduced into the Act of that time to exempt
the company from taxation by that province in the territory
thus added to her limits. We have to do the same thing to-day. It is a most
lamentable condition of things, but all I have to say to the
provinces, is that they have to abide 1441 FEBRUARY 21. 1905 by
the conditions which exist. In this respect, however, they are in
no worse position than the Dominion government itself. We stand
to-day, to use a common phrase in the same box. If the Minister of Finance
were to introduce a budget wherein he thought it advantageous for the
Dominion of Canada to impose taxation upon big corporations, upon the
Grand Trunk Railway Company, upon the Bank of Montreal, upon all the
other banks and corporations we could do so, but we could not lay a farthing
of taxation on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That is the result of the condition
of things which was enacted by
this parliament twenty-four years ago. At that time the
opposition led by Mr. Blake protested vigorously against that provision. Mr.
Charlton moved the following amendment :-
That the contract respecting the Canadian
Pacific Railway exempts perpetually the railway and all stations and station
grounds, workshops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock
and appurtenances, required for the construction and working
thereof, and the capital stock of the company, from taxation by the
Dominion or by any other province hereafter established. or by any municipal
corporation therein. That the property of the corporation shall be in
substance a gift from the public; and its exemption from taxation is unjust,
creates an unfair incidence of taxation, and gives an undue
advantage to the company over other railway companies, calculated to prevent
the construction of competing lines, and the contract is, in
this respect, objectionable.
Unfortunately this amendment was defeated and that clause of the
contract was carried into effect. We have to deal with it to-day as we
find it and the provinces as well as the Dominion have to abide by it.
All I can say at this moment is that if our eflorts and their efforts could
rid the new provinces of this incubus, we would be only 100 glad to
give them all the help and assistance in our power, but it is not
possible to do so, except by some method that I am not able at the
present time to find out. It might be by the way of legislation, it might
be through a mutual agreement, or by expropriation. There
are some of these methods perhaps open to us, but I have only to say
at this moment, that, regrettable as it is, the Dominion and the provinces
the provinces and the Dominion must abide by it loyally
until such time as it may be possible to find a remedy. That is all I have to
say upon the financial clauses of the contract.
I now come to the question of education, and this question is perhaps under
existing circumstances the most important of all that we
have to deal with There are evidences not a few coming to us from
all directions, that the old passions which such a subject
has always aroused are not, unfortunately, buried ; indeed,
already, before the policy of the government has been known, before
the subject is fairly before the people the government has been warned
as to its duty in this matter, and not only
1442 warned but threatened as well. The government has been
warned, threatened from both sides of this question, from those who believe
in separate schools and from those who oppose separate
schools. These violent appeals are not a surprise to me, at all events, nor
do I believe they are a surprise to anybody. We have known by the
experience of the past, Within the short life of this confederation, that public
opinion is always inflammable
whenever questions arise which ever so remotely touch upon the religious
convictions of the people. It behooves us therefore all the more at
this solemn moment to approach this subject with care, with calmness
and deliberation and with the firm purpose of dealing with it not only in
accordance with the inherent principles of abstract justice, but in
accordance with the spirit—the Canadian spirit of tolerance and
charity, this Canadian spirit of tolerance and charity of which
confederation is the essence and of which in practice it ought to be
the expression and embodiment. Before I proceed further, before I pass the
threshold of this question. I put at once this inquiry to the House:
What are separate schools ? What is the meaning of the term ? Whence
does it come, what was its origin and what was its object? Perhaps somebody
will say: What is the use of discussing such a question ? The term
separate schools ought to be familiar to every one. Sir, if any one
were to make such an observation and to interpose such an objection, I would
tell him that never was objection taken with less ground. Mankind is
ever the same. New problems and new complications will always arise,
but new problems and complications, when they do arise, always
revolve within the same well beaten circle of man's
passions, man's prejudices and man's selfishness. History therefore should
be a safe guide, and it is generally by appealing to the pastm by
investigating the problems with which our fathers had to deal, that we
may find the solutions of the complications that face us. If we
look back to the history of our own country, if we find what is the
origin of the separate schools, perhaps history may be the pillar of cloud
by day and the pillar of fire by night to show us the way and give us
the light.
Separate schools, Sir, go back to the old days of the legislature of Lower
Canada. In these old days the system of schools in my province, in my
native province, was rudimentary; there was practically no system, but from year
to year allowances were made by the legislature for the
support and maintenance of schools. I need not say that the population
within the limits of the province of Lower Canada at that time was, as
it is to-day, divided in origin and in creed; it was largely Roman Catholic
with a small Protestant minority. I am glad to say, and perhaps it
would be permitted if, in this matter, being myself a son of
the province of Quebec I indulged in 1443 COMMONS what may be
not altogether unpardonable pride when I say, that I am not aware that
the Protestant minority ever had any cause of complaint of the treatment
they had received at the hands of the majority. One of the
most eminent men of that day, one of the most eminent colleagues of Sir John
Macdonald at the time of confederation, Sir John Rose, bore ample
testimony to what I have now stated. This is what he said speaking in
the confederation debate:
Now we, the English Protestant minority of
Lower Canada, cannot forget that whatever right of separate education we
have, was accorded to us in the most unrestricted way before
the union of the provinces, when we were in a minority and entirely in the
hands of the French population. We cannot forget that in no way was
there any attempt to prevent us educating our children in the
manner we saw fit and deemed best; and I would be untrue to what is
just if I forgot to state that the distribution of state funds for educational purposes
was made in such a way as to cause no complaint
on the part of the minority.
The system, as I said, was rudimentary; it became more effective, more
regulative, after the union of the two provinces, Upper and Lower
Canada in 1841.
Mr. SPROUL Would that not seem to he an argument in
favour of leaving it to the provinces ?
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I shall come to that presently and
I hope I will be able to satisfy my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) if he
will have an open car on this subject. In 1841 the parliament of United
Canada passed a law for the establishment of schools all over the
province. Section 11 of that statute provided that:
Whenever any number of the inhabitants of
any township or parish professing a religious faith different from that of
the majority of the inhabitants of such township or parish. shall
dissent from the regulations, arrangements, or proceedings of the
common school commissioners, with reference to any common school in
such township or parish it shall be lawful for the inhabitants so
dissenting, collectively to signify such dissent in writing to
the clerk of the district council . . . . and it shall be lawful for
such dissenting inhabitants . . . . to establish and maintain one
or more common schools in the manner and subject to the visitation,
conditions, rules and obligations in this Act provided, with reference to other
common schools.
Section 12 enacted that:
No common schools shall be entitled to any
apportionment of money out of the common school fund except on the terms and
conditions following :
And so forth. No exception was made, whether they were separate or common
schools. But it appears that some doubt arose in Upper Canada as to
whether or not separate schools were entitled to state aid.
1444
In 1855 a school law was adopted and this section was passed.
Every such separate school shall be entitled
to share in the fund annually granted by the legislature of the
province for the support of common schools according to the average
number of pupils attending such school during the twelve preceding months,
or during the number of months that may have elapsed from the
establishment of said such school as compared with the whole
number of pupils attending the schools in the said city, town or
village.
In 1863 a law was passed upon this same subject and that was the last
passed on the subject by the old legislature of Canada before
confederation, not to enact a new principle but simply to confirm the principle
of separate schools. I remember very well—I was a young
man in those days, a law student in Montreal—that the discussion of
that law created a great deal of passion, but it was passed by an
overwhelming majority in the parliament of Canada.
Before I proceed, let me make a few observations to show the
origin and object of all this legislation concerning separate schools.
You find in this legislation the terms constantly recurring of Protestant
or Catholic. I need not say that the Christian religion is
not only a religion founded on moral laws, prescribing moral duties.
but it is also a religion of dogmas. Dogmas from the earliest times have
occupied just as strong and commanding a position
in the faith of all Christians as morals themselves. The reformation created
a cleavage between Christians. The old section remained Roman
Catholics ; the new called themselves Protestants. Between the Roman
Catholics and Protestants there is a deep divergence in dogmas. Between the
various Protestant denominations there are but small differences in
dogmas : the differences are more matters of discipline than of
dogma. Therefore the old legislature of Canada, finding a population of
Catholics and different denominations of Protestants all mixed
together. finding only one cause of cleavage between them in Christian faith.
that is dogmas, allowed religious teaching to be had in all the
schools of our country. so that every man could give to his own child
the religious tenets which he held sometimes dearer than life. That is the
whole meaning of separate schools.
I have just stated that in 1863 a law was passed on this subject. At that
time, in 1863, there were two men in Canada who each within his own
circle and his own party, maintained a sovereign sway. One was Mr.
Macdonald, now known to history as Sir John Macdonald, and the other was Mr.
George Brown. Mr. Macdonald was a supporter of separate
schools. He gave to the law of 1863 his vote and his influence. Mr.
George BroWn, on the contrary, was a most determined opponent of separate
schools. He attacked the system relentless 1445 FEBRUARY 21, 1905 ly ;
he attacked it in his paper, on the floor of the House of Commons and upon
the hustings. He attacked it with all the vehemence of his
strongly impassioned nature. The arguments we hear today against
separate schools are not new ; they were heard 50 years ago. The arguments
we hear to-day are but the attenuated echo of the strong denunciations
of Mr. Brown, which were heard by our fathers two generations ago. But the views
of Mr. Brown did not prevail, and
notwithstanding his efforts, he was not in the House when the law of
1863 passed, which confirmed to the Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canaada the
privilege of separate schools. In View of the agitation then
maintained by Mr. Brown in favour of representation by population, it
is perhaps not inopportune to analyse that vote. The Bill of 1863 in
favour of separate schools was carried by a vote of 80 against a minority of
22. Of this minority of 22, 21 belonged to the province of Upper
Canada, and of the majority of 80. 33 belonged to that province,
so that, leaving the vote of Lower Canada aside, taking only the vote
of Upper Canada, we find that the law of 1863 was carried by a majority
of the representatives of Upper Canada at that time. This is significant.
Mr. Brown at that time was carrying on the strong agitation which he
had maintained for years, and which he continued to maintain
in favour, within the constitution of that day, of representation by
population.
Sir, if we review the events of that period of our history, we must all
admit that the constitution of 1841, which united Upper Canada and
Lower Canada, was radically faulty. It was so constructed that it, never
gave satisfaction to either province. Lower Canada from the first
looked upon it as an instrument of oppression, designed to de piive
her of some of those institutions whim she held dearer than life. Yet she it
was who in after years held to that constitution, and defended it
against reforms which she regarded as fraught with still greater dangers to herself.
Upper Canada accepted that constitution, not
with any enthusiasm. but because it relieved her for the time from
serious financial embarrassments. But Upper Canada, before many years had
elapsed commenced also to find herself oppressed by the
clumsy clauses which it contained, and sought relief in the
agitation of Mr. Brown in favour of representation
by population. The radical fault of the constitution of 1841 was that it
was neither federative nor legislative. It united two provinces, but
kept them as separate entities, gave them the same number of
members, provided against an increase of representation, and allowed only a
single executive. This equality in representation coupled
with a single executive was a defect which no expedients thereafter
could altogether overcome. As soon as Mr.
1446 Papineau had returned from
exile, he attacked that feature of the constitution. and demanded its
repeal. He was op. posed by Mr. Lafontaine, not on principle. but
simply from expediency. Mr. Lafontaine represented to him that
Upper Canada would grow in population faster than Lower Canada,
because as Upper Canada was getting an immigration which Lower
Canada did not, Upper Canada would soon be the stronger province and
therefore all the arguments which Mr. Papineau advanced for
the repeal of that portion of the constitution on behalf of Lower
Canada, would react against her. The predictions of Mr. Lafontaine as to the movement
of population were soon fulfilled.
Upper Canada became the more populous province. Then Mr.
Brown took up the agitation where Mr. Papineau had left it, and
carried it on for years, with never abating vigour. He opened a
current in the public opinion of Upper Canada, which yearly increased in
volume until it became well nigh irresistible ; successive and
short-lived administrations succeeded one another, and the
day came in 1864 when there were two hostile majorities. one from Lower
Canada and one from Upper Canada, facing each other and unyielding.
There was a deadlock, and the government of the Queen was
almost impossible if not actually impossible in the province of
Canada. That was Mr. Brown's opportunity, and he seized it. it must be
said, with alertness and courage; and whoever has to speak of
those events must admit that on that occasion Mr. Brown rose to the
highest stature of statesmanship. He was not satisfied to take
advantage of the occasion simply to obtain the realization of the
principle which he had at heart, but he made it the basis for a union
of all the British provinces on the continent of America. That is
his glory, and that is his chief title to fame—every Canadian acknowledges it. But,
Sir, the difficulties of the task
were simply enormous, greater in my judgment. at all events, than the
difficulties which arose in connection with the creation of the American
union. History has recorded how jealously, how tenacionsiy. the
thirteen colonies, after their joint efforts had wrought their independence, each
clung to its own individual life. History has
recorded how reluctantly each of the thirteen colonies at last consented to part
with those powers, the concession of which wal
necessary to form a strong central government. The incentive which
proved effective, and which forced a final consent, was the memory of dangers
which they had recently shared together, and the necessity of guarding
against a possible recurrence of such dangers. No such sentiment abode in the Canadian
colonies. The various Canadian colonies were
isolated from one another—isolated by distances
and by racial distinctions. The two groups which were ethnically connected,
1447 COMMONS
Ontario and maritime provinces, were separated by long distances.
The two groups which were geographically united, Ontario and Quebec,
were separated by the deeper cleavage of difference of origin. In all
there was a strong sense of local pride, in all there was a strong assertion
of self interest, and in all there were peculiar institutions as to
the security of which all dreaded to be launched into the unknown.
This was particularly true of education in Lower Canada and in
Upper Canada. In Lower Canada the Protestant minority had long enjoyed their own system
of separate schools. In Upper
Canada the Roman Catholic minority had just secured a
similar system. These two minorities feared that in the new constitution,
under the separation of legislative powers which must ensue,
the rights of each might be put in jeopardy by a hostile majority. The
minority of Lower Canada felt perfectly secure under the
then existing condition of things because those of their own creed and race
were in the majority in United Canada. The Roman Catholic minority in
Upper Canada feared also the constitution because it would be deprived
of the powerful alliance of those of their own origin in another
province. Under such circumstances, what was to be done? How could a
scheme of confederation be devised so as to ensure the support of all
parties and sections of the community ? It is useless to speculate as
to what might have been done. It is sufficient to say that means were found
to insure to the minority in each province, the free exercise of its
rights, and that means was to declare that in the provinces of Upper
and Lower Canada. the rights of the minority. which were to be entrusted to
the respective legislatures of these provinces. were to be
above the control of the majority. Let me recall to the House the
Quebec resolutions which were adopted and which were the basis and the
charter under which the Canadian parliament now lives and the Canadian
nation has been formed. Section 93 of the Quebec resolutions states as
follows, and I pray you, Sir, mark the language :-
The local legislatures shall have power to make laws respecting the
following subjects :-
1. Direct taxation, and in New Brunswick the imposition of duties on the
export of timber. logs, masts, spars. deals and sawn lumber ; and
in Nova. Scotia, of coals and other minerals.
2. Borrowing money on the credit of the province.
3. The establishment and tenure of local offices, and the
appointment and payment of local officers.
4. Agriculture.
5. Immigration.
6. Education; saving the rights and privileges which the
Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their
denominational schools at the time when the union goes
into operation.
Again I say, mark the language. The
1448 legislatures of
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario were given the power to
make laws for the following purposes:
Direct taxation.
Borrowing money.
The establishment and tenure of local office. Agriculture and
colonization.
Upon all these subjects their powers are unlimited and they can do as they
please, without any check, except their responsibility to
the people of their respective provinces. Then on the subject of
education the legislatures of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick can do as
they please and are not responsible to any one except to the people.
But when we come to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we find that the
powers of these two provinces are limited as regards education.
Neither the legislature of Ontario nor that of Quebec was given power
to pass any law which might prejudicially affect the rights of the
minority in either province. So long as this constitution endures the
schools of the minority in Quebec and Ontario must likewise endure. Yet,
remarkable as is this enactment. it is perhaps
still more remarkable, if we remember that one of the men who assented to
this limitation to the power of the province of Ontario was Mr. George
Brown himself- Mr. George Brown who said again and again that he was
opposed to separate schools. who had carried on a crusade of years
against separate schools in his province. If you look only at the
surface of things. without trying to find the inspiration, it is indeed
remarkable that Mr. Brown. who, with Sir John Macdonald was the
central figure. agreed that the powers of the legislature of his own
province should be limited in that respect. We need not marvel if Mr.
Brown was attacked and assailed for the action he then took. He was assailed
perhaps by some of his own disciples whom he had taught to object to
separate schools as strongly as he did himself. Mr. Brown defended his
course in the confederation debate. or rather he explained his
policy, because he was under no necessity to defend his
course: and I beg on this occasion to commend his language to those who
to-day have forgotten confederation, when he came to discuss the 43rd
resolution. He spoke as follow :-
The people of Upper Canada will have another legislature for their local
matters and will no longer have to betake themselves to Quebec for
leave to open a road, to select a. county town. or appoint a coroner. But
I am told that to this general principle of placing all local
matters under local control, an exception has been made in regard to the
common Schools. (Hear. hear.)
The clause complained of is as follows :-
6. Education, saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or
Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools
at the time when the union goes into
operation.
1449
FEBRUARY 21, 1905
Now, continued Mr. Brown:-
I need hardly remind the House that I have always opposed and continue to
oppose the system of sectarian education, so far as the public
chest is concerned. I have never had any hesitation on that point,
I have never been able to see why all the people in the province, to
whatever sect they may belong, should not send their children to
the same schools to receive the ordinary branches of instruction. I
regard the parent and the pastor as the best religious
instructors—and so long as the religious faith of the children is not
interfered With. and . ample opportunity afforded to the clergy to give
religious instruction to the children of their flocks, I cannot see
any sound objection to mixed schools. 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 a line 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 about a hundred separate schools in Upper Canada, out of some
4,000, 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 lays the great danger to our educational
fabric, lest 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 host
of teachers that so prodigal a system of public instruction must
inevitably entail. Now, it is known to every hon. member of this House
that an Act was passed in 1863 as a. final settlement of this
sectarian controversy. I was not. in Quebec at the time, but if I had
been here, I would have voted against that Bill because it extended the
facilities for establishing separate schools. It had,
however, this good feature, that it was accepted by the Roman
Catholic authorities and carried to 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 contract of 1863 and declare it a final
settlement, so that we should not be compelled, as, we
have been since 1849, to stand constantly to our arms, awaiting fresh
attacks upon our common school system, the proposition seemed
to me one that was not rashly to be rejected. (Hear, hear.) I
admit: that, from my point at view, this is a blot on the scheme before
the House ; it is confessedly, one of the concessions from our side
that had to be made to secure this great measure of reform. But
assuredly, I, for one have not the slightest hesitation in
accepting it as a necessary condition of the scheme of union, and doubly
acceptable must it be in the eyes of hon. gentlemen opposite, who
were the authors of the Bill of 1863. (Cheers) 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
amend
1450 ments 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.
Mr. T. C. WALLBRIDGE. That destroys the power of the
local legislature to legislate upon the subject.
Hon. Mr. BROWN. I would like to know how much power
the hon. gentleman has now to legislate upon it ? Let him introduce a
Bill today to annul the contract of 1863 and repeal all
the sectarian School Acts of Upper Canada. and how many votes would he
get for it? Would twenty members vote for it out of the 130 who
compose this House ? It the hon. gentleman had been struggling for
fifteen years, as I have been, to save the school system of Upper Canada from further
extension of the sectarian element, he
would have precious little diminution of power over it in this
very moderate compromise. And what says the hon. gentleman to
leaving the British population of Lower Canada in the
unrestricted powers of the local legislature? The common schools of Lower
Canada are not as in Upper Canada—they are almost entirely
non-sectarian, Roman Catholic schools. Does the hon. gentleman, then,
desire to compel the Protestants of Lower Canada to avail
themselves of Roman Catholic institutions or leave their children without
instruction ?
Let us pause a moment to consider this language. Mr. Brown did not believe
in separate schools. He had struggled all his life against that
system. But a great object had to be achieved, a noble conception had to be realized,
an inspiring idea had to be made a fact. and in
order to reach that supreme goal, differences of opinion had to be
reconciled, fears and apprehensions had to he removed, misgivings
had to be alleviated, and above all the rights of conscience, the
tender rights of conscience, had to be placed in as firm a position of
security as they previously enjoyed, so that no one could object.
and all. without regard to origin or creed, could give a cheerful and
enthusiastic support to the new constitution.
Sir, Mr. Brown told his friends that he did not believe in separate
schools; but there were fellow-citizens of his in Ontario
and in Quebec who believed in separate schools, and, in order to remove
their objections and win their cooperation in the scheme
which was the great work of his life, he agreed to make the sacrifice of his
own convictions. In order to achieve the great object he had at heart,
he agreed to fasten upon his own province in system in which he did
not believe, but in which others did believe. Sir, for more than twenty
years Mr. Brown has been in his grave; but his memory is not dead. And
if his teachings and his spirit be still alive. It is surely in the
hearts of that staunch yeomanry of Ontario who gave him such
constant support during the years of his political
struggles. They followed him devot 1451 COMMONS edly in his
crusade against separate schools. They followed him even more devotediy,
when he asked them to accept separate schools, to sacrifice their own
opinions, and his own, upon the altar of the new country which it was
his ambition to establish on this portion of the North American continent. If it
were my privilege that my poor words might reach that
staunch yeomanry of Ontario, I would remind them that the work of
confederation is not yet finished; I would tell them that we are now engaged
in advancing it; and I would ask them whether we are now to reverse
our course, or whether we are not to continue to work it out to
completion on the lines laid down by the great leader himself.
Now, Sir, such was the condition of things at the time of confederation.
But I shall be told that this exception applies to Ontario
and Quebec alone, and not to the other provinces. Sir, that is true. Amongst
the four provinces then united. Ontario and Quebec alone had a system
of separate schools. But I reminded the House a moment ago
that it was not the intention of the fathers of confederation, it was not
the intention of Sir John Macdonald or Mr. Brown to limit
confederation to the narrow bounds it had in 1867. They had made provision in the
very instrument of confederation, to
extend it over the northern part of the continent; they had made provision
to take in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island;
they had made provision to take in also the Northwest Territories, which were then
uninhabited, but which now have a teeming
population and are at our doors asking admission. Is it reasonable to
suppose, if the Confederation Act recognizes that other provinces were to come into
confederation similarly
situated to Ontario and Quebec, that the same privileges should not be given
to the minority as were given to the minority in Ontario and Quebec?
What would have been the value of the invitation to enter confederation,
if the provinces invited to enter, had been told that the security to
the minority given to Ontario and Quebec was a privilege which they need
not expect from us? Section 43 of the Quebec resolutions has become
section 93 of the British North America Act, and is no longer confined to
Quebec and Ontario. Here it is:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in
relation to education. subject and according to the following provision:-
1. 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.
So, Sir, now whenever a province comes here knocking at this door, asking to
be admitted into confederation, if in that province there exists a
system of seperate schools, the British North America Act has provided
that the sam guarantee we give
1452 to the minority in Quebec and Ontario shall also be given to the
minority in that province. Shortly after confederation had been
established, that is, in the year 1870, the parliament of Canada had
an opportunity of applying the doctrine contained in the British North
America Act in the creation of the province of Manitoba. Until its ad
mission into the Dominion, Manitoba had no regular government. It had been
loosely administered by the Hudson Bay Company. There had
been some schools in it, maintained by such authority as there was.
There had been separate schools maintained by Roman Catholic missionaries.
It was the intention of parliament to give the minority the system
that they had before confederation; and, so marked was their
intention, that instead of accepting without qualification the words of
section 93 of the British North America Act, 'right or privilege with respect to
denominational schools which any class of persons
have by law in the province at the union,' they made it read 'by law
or practice in the province at the union.' It turned out, as determined by
judicial authority, that the province of Manitoba, when it entered
confederation, had no system of schools either by law or practice. It
followed, as a consequence, that the power of the province of Manitoba with
regard to the subject of education was as complete as that of the
province of Nova Scotia or the province of New Brunswick. This is a
principle which was not understood at the time by hon. gentlemen opposite
when they were on this side of the House. There was the fact, the
positive fact-the power of the province of Manitoba with regard to
education was as unshackled as that of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
In 1875, as I stated a moment ago, Mr. Mackenzie introduced an Act for the
government of the Northwest Territories, and in this Act
the parliament of Canada, which, at that time, had among its members some
of the ablest men who ever sat in a Canadian parliament-Sir
John Macdonald, Mr. Mackenzie Mr. Blake, Sir Charles Tupper and a score of
others-unanimously, deliberately and with their eyes open,
introduced into the Northwest Territories the system of seperate
schools. And not only thatm but the parliament of Canada, four times successively-in
1880, in 1885, in 1886 and in 1898-deliberately
and with their eyes open, ratified the system of separate schools in the
Territories.
Mr. SPROULE. I would like to ask here one question, if
the right hon. gentleman will allow me ?
Mr. SPROULE. The right hon. gentleman gave
the House to understand that Hon. George Brown supported the principle
of separate schools. May I ask if it is not true that Mr. Brown, in 1875,
op
1453
FEBRUARY 21, 1905
posed the principle of authorizing separate schools
in the Territories, voted against it and gave his reasons ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I am delighted that my
hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has asked me that question. In 1875, when the
Bill to which I have referred went through parliament, Mr. Brown who
was a member of one branch of this parliament, opposed the
introduction of the new clause in that Bill providing for separate schools.
He opposed it with all his might. He told the House that he had not
changed his mind upon the subject, but he told the House also that it
the principle of separate schools was introduced. then. according to
the terms of the constitution. it was introduced for all time to
come. I am delighted that my hon. friend brought my attention to this.
because really the whole subject is contained in the question of my hon.
friend. We have to decide this problem upon the very terms of the
legislation which was introduced in 1875. Let me give to my hon.
friend all the information to which he is entitled, and which I fain would
hope will fall upon favourable ground; I will give him the whole
history of that matter. Mr. Mackenzie himself introduced the Bill in
1875. The Bill as first introduced made no mention of separate schools: but
after he had sat down and when Sir John A. Macdonald had spoken on the
subject, Mr. Blake rose and brought this very subject of separate
schools to the attention of the House. and he did it with a height and
breadth of thought which I hope will command the admiration of my
hon. friend. This is what Mr. Blake said :
The task which the ministry had 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 be entered upon by any
legislative body, and 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 for 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 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
Northwest Territories which he now asked the House to frame, and for the
same reason as he had given to-day—that it would he 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 Northwest that
we should tell the people beforehand what those rights were to be
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
1454 aggregate of population within a.
reasonable distance, that aggregation would have a voice in the
self-government of the territories, and he believed 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 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 he 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 the province 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 measure.
Now let me call renewed attention to these words of Mr. Blake: 'I regard it
as . essential under the circumstances of the country, and in view of
the deliberation of the last few days.' What were the deliberations of those last
few days in the House of Commons to which Mr. Blake
alluded ? Why, Sir. it was a resolution on that very subject of
separate schools, separate schools in the province of New Brunswick,
where at that time. and by the constitution,
the principle of separate schools was not adopted; the minority was asking
for separate schools. and came to this House for relief, but the House
would not grant the relief because they would not invade the
constitution. Mr. Blake said that instead of having such a state
of things in the Northwest Territories it would be better to give to
the people the religious instruction that all classes might want. Now what
was Mr. Mackenzie's answer to this ?
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 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 1455 COMMONS hoped would
meet the objection offered by the hon. member for South Bruce. There might
be some amendments found necessary in the Bill, but he thought it
would be found generally speaking to meet the requirements of the
country. However, the government would be very glad to avail themselves as
far as possible of such suggestions as might be made to them.
When the Bill was in committee Mr. Mackenzie proposed this
clause, which was inserted in the Bill, not one member objecting to it, neither Sir
John A. Macdonald, nor Sir Charles
Tupper, nor any member on the government side of the House:
When and so soon as any system of taxation
shall be adopted in any district or portion of the Northwest Territories,
the Lieutenant Governor 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 therefor, and further
that the minority of ratepayers therein whether Protestant or
Roman Catholics, may establish separate schools therein, and
that in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or
Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessment of such rates
as they impose upon themselves in respect
therof.
Now this Bill went over to the other branch of the legislature, and there
also I will give to my hon. friend who interrupted me a moment ago,
the whole history of the debate upon this Bill. Mr. Aikens, who was
then a prominent member of that body, moved to strike out the education
clause altogether. He was answered by my hon. friend and colleague of
to-day, the Secretary of State, who then as now was the
leader of the Senate:
Any gentleman would have to admit that it
was the greatest possible relief to the people of Ontario that this question
was settled for them, and was not, as in some of the other provinces,
a source of constant discord. He was one of those who maintained that
parents had a right to educate their children as they pleased, and
that they ought not to be taxed to maintain schools to which they could not
conscientiously send their children. Our whole system of government
was based upon that sound principle.
Now, Sir, I will give to my hon. friend the opinion of the Hon. Mr. Brown.
But, before doing so, let me give him the opinion of a
prominent member of his own party, Sir Alexander Campbell, who was
then leader of the Conservative party in the Senate. Sir Alexander Campbell
spoke as follows :-
It would be much to be regretted it the
amendment passed. The object of the Bill was to establish and perpetuate in
the Northwest Territories the same system as prevailed in Ontario and
Quebec and which had Worked so well in the interests of peace and harmony
with the different populations of those provinces. He thought the
fairer course, and the better
1456 one, for all races and creeds, was to
adopt the suggestion of the government and enable people to establish
separate schools in that territory and thus prevent the introduction of
evils from which Ontario and Quebec had suffered, but had judiciously
rid themselves.
I will now give to my hon. friend the language of Mr. Brown, this is it:
The safe way for us was to let each province
suit itself in such matters. This country was filled by people of all
classes and creeds, and there would be no end of confusion if each
class had to have its own peculiar school system. It had been said
this clause was put in for the protection of the Protestants against
the Catholics, the latter being the most numerous. But he,
speaking for the Protestants, was in a. position to say that We did not want
that protection.
Later on Mr. Brown spoke as follows:
Hon. Mr. Brown said he concurred with what had fallen from his hon.
friends on the treasury benches, and from hon. gentlemen who had
spoken on the amendment, with respect to the propriety of allowing
separate schools. But the question was not whether those schools were
right or wrong. good or bad, but as to whether it was wise for this
country to deal with this question. He quite admitted the importance or
the issue which had been raised—whether this matter should be
referred to the province interested for settlement, or be
brought to the Dominion legislature.
The moment-
——continued Mr. Brown-
——this Act passed and the Northwest became
part of the union, they came under the Union Act. and under the provisions
with regard to separate schools.
Sir, I. commend this language to my hon. friend. I commend this language to
every man in this House. There are to—day, as there were then, men in
this House and out of it who do not believe in separate schools, but,
as Mr. Brown said, the question is not whether that system is good or had;
that is not the question to—day, that is not the question of which
Senator Brown spoke, it is not the question with which we have to deal.
But we have another duty to perform. Mr. Brown, on the floor of the
other branch of the legislature, said that his opinions in regard to separate schools
had not changed. He said practically this to the
parliament of Canada : There is a new territory, there is virgin soil
where there is no population. Do not introduce separate schools into it, do
not introduce that burning question into it, but the moment you have
introduced separate schools you have solved the question for. ever, it
is part of the union and the minority will have its right to such schools.
1457
FEBRUARY 21, 1905
Mr. SPROULE. I am only desirous of making one
observation in regard to a part of Mr. Brown's speech which more
directly refers to this subject and which the hon. gentleman has not
quoted.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. If that is the interruption of my
hon. friend it was hardly worth while. I do not want to mislead the
House. Can he find anything else than that Mr. Brown submitted the opinion
that the moment separate schools were introduced they come under the Act
of union, under clause 93 and that they were there to be maintained
against the power of the legislature? Can he find anything else?
Let him quote anything to the contrary.
Mr. SPROULE. Mr. Brown was arguing against
the introduction of separate schools and he gives the following as his
reasons:
He spoke in the interest of good feeling and
harmony in the national councils. What else was the clause in the
constitution empowering the provinces to settle the school question
themselves inserted for, but to get quit of controversies like
this in the Dominion, and to leave the schools to be managed according
to the views of each locality? By this Bill they might raise the very
serious issues in the North- west which proved so troublesome to
Quebec and Ontario. No one would regret thi smore than he,
and for this reason he would support the motion of the hon. member for
Peel.
Which was that this clause should be dropped, thus leaving it to the
provinces.
Sir WILFRED LAURIER. It is ever the old
story- none so blind as those who will not see, none so deaf as those who
will not hear. I repeat again that Mr. Brown, on the floor of the Senate
did not want this clause providing for separate schools to be introduced in the Act.
He stated that it would be a mistake to
introduce separate schools, he said that he was opposed to separate
schools, but he said that if at the time separate schools were introduced the
came under the Act of Union and they were there for all time. I do not
want to be offensive, but if my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is not blind
he will understand the reasoning of Mr. Brown. That is the position that we
have before us to-day. I am not here to advocate separate schools as an
abstract proposition but we have introduced into this Bill the two
propositions, that the minority shall have the power to establish their own
schools and that they shall have the right to share in the public
moneys. It is the law to-day. It is in accord with the constitution, with the British
North America Act, and I commend it even to the
biasedjudgement of my hon. friend: If we were in the year 1867 and not in the
year 1905, and, if we had to introduce into this dominion the provinces
of Alberta and Sas
1458katchewan, would my hon. friend tell
me that these provinces would not have the same rights and privileges in
regard to separate schools as were granted to Ontario and
Quebec? Would he tell me that when you say to Ontario and Quebec: You
shall have your separate schools, Alberta and Saskatchewan should be
denied that privilege? The thing is preposterous. Let us rise
above such considerations. In everything that I have said I have
refrained from saying a single word upon the abstract
principle of separate schools. I approach the question upon
another and a broader ground, I approach the question not from the view
of separate schools, but I approach it on the higher ground of Canadian duty and
Canadian patriotism. Having obtained
the consent of the minority to this form of government , having obtained
their consent to the giving up of their valued privileges, and
their position of strength are we to tell them, now that confederation
is established, that the principle upon which they consented to this
arrangement is to be laid aside and that we are to ride roughshod over them? I do
no thing that is a proposition which will be
maintained in this House, nor do I believe it is the intention of the
House. I offer at this moment no opinion at all upon separate
schools as an abstract proposition, but I have no hesitation
in saying that if I were to speak my mind upon separate schools, I would say
that I never could understand what objection there could be to a system
of schools wherein, after secular matters have been attended to, the
tenets of the religion of Christ, even with the divisions which exist among
His followers, are allowed to be taught. We live in a country wherein
the seven provinces that constitute our nation, either by the will or by
the tolerance of the people, in every school, Christian morals and Christian
dogmas are taught to the youth of the country. We live by
the side of a nation, a great nation, a nation for which I have the greatest admiration,
but whose example I would not take in
everything, in whose schools for fear that Christian dogmas in which all
do not believe might be taught, Christian morals are not taught.
When I compare these two countries, when I compare Canada
with the United States, when I compare the status of the two nations,
when I think upon their future, when I observe the social
condition of civil society in each of them and when I observe in this
country of ours, a total absence of lynchings and an almost total
absence of divorces and murders, for my part, I thank heaven
that we are living in a country where the young children of the land are
taught Christian morals and Christian dogmas. Either the American
system is right or the Canadian system if wrong. For my part I say this
and I say it without hesitation. Time will show that we are in
the right and in this instance as in many others, I
1459
COMMONS
have an abiding faith in the institutions of my own
country.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.) Mr. Speaker, it is
obviously impossible for the House to discuss in an effective manner at
the present stage the Bill which has been introduced by the right hon.
gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I had hoped that I might have been
put in possession of the Bill which has just been introduced, at a
sufficiently early date to have enabled me to have made some remarks on it
this afternoon. and I realize that one of the colleagues of
the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the Minister of Justice (Hon.
Mr. Fitzpatrick) had the intention to give me a copy of that Bill last
evening. Owing doubtless. to circumstances over which he had no
control, I did not receive it until a few minutes before the opening of the
House this afternoon, and therefore I will not attempt any discussion
of it today. Let me say, however, in the very few remarks
that I propose to address to the House. that I congratulate the right
hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) upon the change of heart which he has
experienced during the past twelve months. Do I
understand my right hon. friend to deny that there has been such a change.
Let me say that I hold under my hand the 'Hansard' of
September 24, 1903. a little more than a year ago. when the right hon.
gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in debate on this House,
pressed upon the attention of the House many reasons. in his opinion
very conclusive, why the granting of a provincial status to the Northwest
Territories should be delayed for many years, and I am
bound to say that every one of those reasons which at that time presented
themselves to the right hon. gentleman as insuperable difficulties in
the way of immediately granting provincial autonomy, exist
to-day just as strongly as they did then. The view which I am presenting to
the House at this moment was suggested by my hon. friend from
Marquette (Mr. Roche) in these words :
But the Prime Minister adduced arguments
that were strong no doubt from this point of view that; the Northwest
Territories should not be granted local self-government for many years
to come.
What was the right hon. gentleman's response to that? Did he deny
that that was his opinion at that time? No, he responded to the
remarks of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) by
ejaculating across the floor of the House 'hear, hear.' So therefore I
have good reason to congratulate the right hon gentleman (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier upon his change of heart, because when I myselt on October
14, 1903. moved in this House a resolution declaring that in the
opinion of this House, the time had come when the government
1460 should
take this question into immediate consideration, not one member of the
government, not the right hon. gentleman himself,
nor one of his colleagues ventured to say one single word upon this
ail-important subject. They put up in their place two or three
gentlemen from the Northwest Territories of Canada to argue as
strenuously as they could that the granting of a provincial
status should not be accorded to these provinces in the immediate future.
The resolution which I moved at that time, after reciting the
unanimous resolutions passed by the legislature of the Northwust
Territories set forth:
That under the provisions of the British North America Act and amending
Acts, the people of the several provinces of Canada enjoy
large powers of local self-government committed to and
exercised by the executive and legislature of each province.
That the time has arrived when the same powers of local self-government
should be granted to the people of the Northwest Territories of Canada and to this
end the said representations and
prayers contained in the said humble addresses should be taken into
immediate consideration and acted upon forthwith.
The only answer from the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues
at that time was the answer of contemptuous silence and the putting
up. as I have said, of two or three gentlemen from the Northwest Territories
to argue that the time had not yet arrived. Well, the right hon.
gentleman Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his colleagues required a certain stimulus and
that came in due course. But one of the
arguments, and perhaps as strong an argument as any that was presented to the House
on that occasion. was the absence of the
Minister of the Interior. It was said that it would be an injustice to
the Northwest Territories of Canada to introduce or to attempt to
pass through this House a measure of so great importance as that which
has been introduced this afternoon unless the government and the
House had the benefit of the advice, the experience and the
intimate knowledge of that gentleman with regard to conditions in the
Northwest Territories of Canada. We all very much regret the indisposition
of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton). It has
unfortunately happened very often that he has been absent from sessions of
this parliament, and we have endeavoured to facilitate the passage of
his estimates through the House in his absence as much as possible. We
all regret his indisposition I am sure. and we trust that in the early
future and before any considerable progress is made with this Bill. we shall
have in this House the presence of the hon. the Minister of the
Interior and the benefit of his views with regard to the measure which has
been presented by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
But I said that it required a certain stimulus to the right hon.
gentleman to enable 1461 FEBRUARY 21, 1905 him
to appreciate the importance of this question. Letters were addressed to him
and to members of his government, over and over again, by the Prime
Minister of the Northwest Territories of Canada. To these letters an
answer was sometimes deigned and sometimes no answer was given for
months. Letters were written by the Prime Minister of the Northwest
Territories, to the right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier), on May 19, 1904, and on June 1, 1904. This matter
which has been presented to the House this afternoon as a matter of
transcendent importance. not only to the Northwest of Canada, but to the people of
this country from one end of it to the
other, was so little regarded by the right hon. gentleman and
his colleagues at that time, that the whole summer passed away without
any answer having been vouchsafed to the Prime Minister of
the Northwest Territories. It was only in the stress of an election campaign
that the right hon. gentleman awoke to the fact that he had not
answered those communications. They were written on May 19
and June 1; and it was on September 30, after parliament had been dissolved,
and when a campaign was actually in progress, that the right hon.
gentleman was good enough to remember that he had not given any answer
to the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories. Then the matter
seemed to him to possess a little more importance than he had
previously considered. I will not deal with his answer now; there will
be a better opportunity later on for dealing with the subjects with which it
is concerned. But he did say this
In reference to your letter of the let of June,
I do not think I need discuss at length the representations
which it contains further than to intimate my opinion that circumstances
have justified the wisdom of the course adopted by my government in
declining to deal finally two years ago with the many important questions
involved in the admission of the Northwest Territories into
confederation as a province or provinces.
Did not the right hon. gentleman realize, when he wrote that letter, that
it was not two years ago. but about 11 months before, that he himself
had stood up in this House and voted against the proposal even to consider the question
of the admission of the Northwest Territories
into the confederation on a provincial basis ? He went on :
Rapid development has taken place in the
Northwest Territories during the intervening period.
Does he not remember that in the course of the debate to which I have
referred, we pointed out that that development was not only going on,
but might be expected to continue in the near future at even a greater rate ? However,
I will not deal with that subject further
than to repeat that, in view of what I have brought to the attention of
the right hon. gentleman, and apparently
1462 what he himself had
forgotten, there is evident in his remarks to-day a marked change from
the opinion he expressed in this House on the occasion to which I have
referred, when he voted against the proposal that the request, the
unanimous request, of the representatives and the government of the Northwest Territories
should be taken into
immediate consideration. Now, I do not propose to discuss the proisions of this
Bill in detail to-day. Let me say, however, that
I regret very much that the government have not seen fit to give to the
people of the new provinces that control over the lands of the
Northwest Territories which is enjoyed by all the other
provinces of Canada. That is a subject which will bear fuller discussion
later on, and I do not propose to weary the House with any extended
remarks respecting it this afternoon. The only thing which could he
called an argument made by the right hon. gentleman against that proposition
was this: he said it might interfere with the operation of the policy
of the government with respect to immigration. So far as the
rest of his argument is concerned, it would have justified the retention by
the Imperial government up to the present time of every acre of Crown
lands in Canada; and I was somewhat astonished to hear from the right
hon. gentleman, the advocate, in the past at least, of responsible
government, the defender of the liberties of the people on some
occasions, according to his own view at least, I was astonished to
hear from him the views he put forth this afternoon as to the rights of: the
people of the Northwest Territories in respect of those
lands. He knows something of the history of this question. We remember
that there were statesmen in Great Britain not many years ago who thought
that the public lands not only of Canada but of all the dependencies
of the empire should be retained under the control of the home government, and administered
not so much for the benefit of the
dependency in which they were situate as for the benefit of the whole
empire at large. But it was soon found, when it was attempted to put that
view in practice, that it was absolutely impracticable—that
to the people living in and developing any dependency must be
entrusted, and might be safely entrusted, the entire control of the
public lands within the dependency. The right hon. gentleman spoke
of immigration. Does he not know that there is a new Quebec and a new
Ontario ? Does he not know that a tide of immigration may be
expected to flow, and indeed, I suppose it is now flowing into these portions of
eastern Canada ? Will he venture to say that there has
been any obstacle placed against the immigration policy of the
government by the governments which administer those provinces? Is that the
ground the right hon. gentleman takes? Does he speak from experience,
or does he 1463 COMMONS speak from
mere surmise? I venture to think that he spoke only from surmise this
afternoon, and that if he had looked at this question in the light of
experience, in the light of what is happening to-day in Quebec and Ontario, he might
very well have modified the provisions of this
Bill, and might very well have entrusted to the people of the
Northwest Territories exactly the same control over their lands as
is enjoyed by the people of the other pro« vinces. I venture to say
further that if he was not willing to trust the people, as I would be
willing to trust the people, in this regard—if he regarded them as possibly improvident,
as was suggested by the Minister of the
Interior last session or the session before—if he feared the result, he
might at least have given them the control of the public lands within
their respective provinces, subject to some such restriction as that
which he has proposed in regard to education. If the principle is good in
the one case, I do not see why it should not work out fairly well in
the other case. There are other features of the Bill which will
undoubtedly invite discussion. The subject which the right hon. gentleman
mentioned last, on which he spoke with great eloquence, and in a
spirit of forbearance and moderation. will undoubtedly invite discussion. I do not
propose to discuss it this
afternoon. There is just one. thing, however, that I would like to say
about it, and that is that I understand that up to the present time there
has been really no school question, to use the common expression, in the Northwest
Territories of Canada; and I sincerely trust
that on both sides of the House we will not seek to make this a
political question in any sense.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. But at the same time let us beware
lest any action of ours may create in the Northwest of Canada for all
time to come that question which happily has been entirely absent there in
the past. I am speaking in all sincerity in regard to this to my right
hon. friend. He has quoted the debates which took place in parliament
on this subject. He has laid special stress upon the opinion of Mr.
Brown. I will not go over his remarks except to say that of course when Mr.
Brown regarded this matter as having been settled for all time to
come, he did not speak in an absolutely legal sense. I do not
understand my right hon. friend to contend that he did. Does he
take the position that that is correct in the legal sense ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I take the position that the
constitution certainly makes it imperative for us to respect separate schools wherever
they exist.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not know that I yet quite seize
exactly the meaning of my
1464 right hon. friend, but there will be opportunities later and
better than the present to learn exactly his views on that point. Of
course the constitutional view of the question—without touching
for the moment the wisdom or propriety of what the right hon.
gentleman suggests—the constitutional View of the question is perfectly
plain. The parliament of Canada, so far as the Northwest
Territories are concerned, can absolutely repeal or deal with in
any way any provisions it makes.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The parliament of
Canada can repeal the Act regarding the Canadian Pacific Railway
with respect to taxation.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Of course it would be dealing there
with vested rights, and my right hon. friend is very conservative in that
respect. I am not discussing anything except the constitutional
aspect, and vested rights are not touched in the matter I am
presenting to the House at this moment. The right hon. gentleman knows that
while the parliament of Canada can amend in any way it sees fit an Act
with regard to the Territories, yet the position will be somewhat different after
an Act such as the one now proposed has been passed.
By the British North America Act of 1871 the parliament of
Canada may from time to time establish new provinces. Section 2 of that
Act provides :
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 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.
My right hon. friend has taken the ground, both in the letter to which I
have referred, and in his speech in parliament, that the parliamentary
representation of the new provinces under the Act I have mentioned, would be absolutely
the results of the last census. I take issue
with him on that point. I think he was mistaken absolutely when he
placed that view before the premier of the Territories and advocated
it in this House. The parliament of Canada may do what I have just referred
to and what is set out in section 2 of the British North America Act
of 1871. Then by section 3 of the same statue :
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the
legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise
alter the limits of such province,
upon such terms and conditions as may he agreed to by the said legislature.
Then by section 6 of the same Act it is provided :
Except as provided by the third section of
this Act, it shall not be competent for the par 1465 FEBRUARY 21, 1905 liament of Canada to alter the provisions of the last mentioned
Act of the said parliament, in so far as it relates to the province of
Manitoba, or of any other Act hereafter establishing new
provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of the
legislature of the province of Manitoba to alter from time to time the
provisions of any law respecting the qualification of electors and members of
the legislative assembly, and to make laws respecting
elections in the said province.
So that when we are framing this constitution for the new
provinces of Canada, we are framing a constitution which in the future
cannot be dealt with by this parliament except with the consent of
the provincial legislature.
Just one word more. This Bill of course will have to be printed and we
shall require some time to consider it and perhaps some further
information will require to be brought down. I have made a note of
what I think should be brought down for the information of the House before
this Bill is further discussed. I would like to direct the attention
of my right hon. friend to certain returns moved for on page 119 of the
Votes and Proceedings, of which some have not been brought down. I am
alluding of course only to those relating to the Northwest
Territories. I would like also to have from the right hon. gentleman
full information as to the centres of population in the new
provinces and the course and tendency of immigration since the census of 1901. This
is of importance in connection with
the establishment of electoral divisions and also with regard to the boundaries
of the two provinces. In the next place, I would like to
know if possible the quantity of lands which have been patented in the
two provinces for homestead purposes, the quantity granted to railway
companies or which railway companies. under the terms of their
charter, are entitled to select at present. Also what lands have been
granted to railway companies, but which have not been earned or patented.
And I would like a statement. if it is not already contained in the
Bill or the speech of my right hon. friend, of what lands yet remain
vested in the Crown. I would like also to know as to these lands, and
especially in connection with the proposed boundaries of the two provinces, what proportion
is more suitable
for the growing of grain, and where it is situated, what proportion is more suitable
for ranching or other description of farming and
where it is situated. and what proportion is supposed to
require irrigation and Where situated. All this information will be of value
to us in discussing the question of boundaries between the
proposed provinces. It would be desirable also that on the second reading
of the Bill some definite information should be given to us as to what
is the practical condition of education in the Territories at present.
I fully expected
1466 to have received that information this
afternoon but was disappointed. Also information as to the systems
of public schools which have been established there and under what
ordinances, management and inspection they are carried on. What
number of schools, public schools in the ordinary sense, are to be
found there and what number of separate schools ? I think that all this
information and other information of a kindred
character should he placed before the House. and I am sure that upon this
question, to which the right hon. gentleman has alluded with
so much feeling, we shall all endeavour to meet him in the same
spirit. I will not go over the past. I will not allude to the fact
that possibly a somewhat different spirit was manifested some eight or nine
years ago when a similar question arose. It has been asserted by
some—with what truth I know not—that that question was deliberately
brought into the political arena for the advantage it might give
to hon. gentlemen on the other side. I will not do more than allude to
that and express once more the hope that whatever may have been done in
the past by hon. gentlemen opposite. which, is not consistent with the
lofty ideals my hon. friend has expressed this afternoon, we on this
side at least shall not emulate that example, but shall deal with this
question in a spirit of Christian charity and forbearance,
realizing that on all such questions there are two sides and endeavouring
each one of us too realize that we must consider the question
presented to us not only from our own standpoint but also from the
standpoint of those who differ from us in opinion. It is above all things
desirable that these questions and considerations.
touching sometimes upon differences of races and dealing with matters of
dogma and creed, should not be introduced into the political arena
more than is absolutely necessary. I know that the House will
deal with this question in that spirit. and I trust and believe that
we may find some solution of what has been presented to us this
afternoon by the right hon. gentleman which will commend itself
generally to the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Mr. SPROULE. I do not rise to continue the debate but
merely to ask a couple of questions. Before doing so, however, I must
congratulate the right hon. gentleman as the accoucher who has assisted in
bringing into the family of the Dominion this healthy pair of
provincial twins. They have certainly given evidence of life and
activity, and I should hope he will not shackle their limbs in such a
way as to prevent their development. This is an important Bill,
and I only rise to ask thatalarge number of copies be printed as there
are many applications for it. I would suggest that the second reading
1467
COMMONS
might be delayed for some period until there has
been an opportunity to hear from those who are most interested, the people
of the Northwest. I think that the second reading should not take
place earlier than three weeks or a month later.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved for leave to introduce Bill
(No. 70) to establish and provide for the government of the province
of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
This individual participated in:
