THURSDAY, March 23, 1905.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three
o'clock.
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the
proposed motion of
Sir Wilfrid Laurier for
the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of
the
province of Alberta, and the amendment of
Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). Mr.
Speaker, in continuing the discussion on this
most important question, I do not propose
to endeavour to enlighten the House upon
any legal points involved in it, beyond a
passing reference to some views of the
British North America Act as they appear
to me and their relation to the Bill now
before us. Before commencing the discussion of the subject proper, I
would like to
refer to some remarks made by the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in closing the
debate last evening. His speech sounded to
me very much like a threat or a doleful
foreboding, and it occurred to me that it
was delivered for the purpose of holding his
own followers together rather than of foreshadowing what might be the result in the
event of this Bill being defeated. He used
3011
COMMONS
the following language, and he referred
to
it twice :
I say deliberately—and every hon.
gentleman
who listens to me knows it—that if this Bill
be not passed, if we should be unable to carry
a measure on this subject, then my right hon.
friend will be obliged to retire and no other
government can be formed which will command
the confidence of parliament.
All I can say is that he has a very poor
opinion of the people of Canada, that he has
not that confidence in the wisdom and sense,
good judgment and forbearance, generosity and enlightenment of the Canadian people
that, as a Canadian, he should have.
Mr. FIELDING. Will my hon. friend
permit me to insert in the quotation the
words 'this parliament'? I was alluding
to what might be done with the present
parliament.
Mr. SPROULE. ' This parliament. ' Parliaments are usually the result of appealing
to the country and the wisdom of the people, and I take it that the good sense, and
the good judgment, and the wisdom of the
people of Canada are quite equal to the
task of electing another parliament. I
would not so much discredit the intelligence and the right aims of either the
Roman Catholics or the French of this
country as to insinuate that they would not
be equal to the task of assisting to elect a
parliament. Parliaments come and parliaments go, and we have never yet been confronted
with that situation in Canada, and
I am quite sure we are not likely to in the
near future. The hon. minister said :
This is a religious question.
Well I can tell him that he was the first
one in this House who said so. We
thought it was a provincial autonomy Bill,
that had to do with the establishment of two
provinces in the Northwest. out of property
that belongs to us, that it was a Bill for the
purpose of giving them power to govern
themselves, to legislate with regard to their
own ends, to do the work which every province in the confederation that has provincial
autonomy is doing at the present time.
But the right hon. gentleman says it has
turned into a religious question. Well, Mr.
Speaker, if that be the case, who is responsible ? Is it this side of the House ?
Did
we introduce the element which would
arouse any feeling along religious or sectarian or national lines ? Not by any means.
We were silent spectators at the introduction of that Bill, which contains the elements
that have provoked the acrimonious feeling
existing in some parts of the country to-day.
It is, I submit, the right hon. gentleman himself who availed himself of the earliest
opportunity—I was going to say the improper
opportunity—of making, upon the introduction of this Bill, a very impassioned
speech along those lines. His speech on
that occasion was something very unusual,
3012
something very improper, something in my
judgment quite uncalled for ; for while it is
competent and proper for the member who
introduces a Bill to explain its provisions,
he is expected to confine himself to that
object and explain them as briefly as possible. But instead of an
explanation, we had
an exordium on other lines. We had raked
up the condition of things before confederation. The right hon. gentleman conjured
up
again recollections of the various fights on
religious issues that formerly prevailed between Upper and Lower Canada, when these
two provinces were united. All these bitter
recollections were pressed into service for
the purpose of impressing on this House the
wisdom and the necessity of passing this
Bill. If there be acrimonious feeling excited
in the country to-day, who is responsible ?
Certainly not the opposition but the government itself led by the right hon. gentleman,
whose appeal in favour of the obnoxious
features of the Bill was endorsed by the hon.
the Finance Minister. These are the men
who are responsible. It is they who have
created the feeling of distrust which exists
to-day. The right hon. gentleman declared
that the press which supports the opposition
has spared no effort to inflame the public
mind on a very delicate subject. But if
there were any such attempt, was it confined
to the Conservative press ? If there were
any efforts to inflame the public mind, is
that to be traced to the Conservative press
alone ? No, Sir, the criticisms of the press
throughout the country were not confined
to the newspapers supporting any political
party. We had these criticisms from religions papers, independent papers, and
political papers on both sides. And they all
were agreed in the main that the government is doing an improper thing, something
calculated to create a strong feeling of aversion throughout the country against the
measure and the government itself. Is not
that a fact, Mr. Speaker ? Need I point to
the very logical, moderate and fair criticisms
of the ' Globe '—the organ above all others
which ought to voice the sentiments of the
present government—and criticisms which,
I humbly submit, would do credit to any
newspaper in Canada. What is the press
of the country doing to-day ? The organs of
public opinion are, as a mirror, reflecting
public sentiment, calling on the government
to take warning, calling on parliament to
take warning, and not do to-day what afterwards they may not be able to undo. Is
the press to blame because it contains denunciations of the offensive features of
this
measure ? Is not the press in this respect
exercising a public duty, and can it be
charged with inflaming public passion and
arousing sectarian strife because it calls
attention to the dangers of this Bill ? Not
at all. It is not the press of the country but
the right hon. gentleman and his friends who
must be held responsible for the present
conditions.
3013 MARCH 23, 1905
The right hon. gentleman appealed to his
record dealing with these troublesome questions, and pleaded that he had given sufficient
evidence of his desire to conciliate and
treat the various elements and creeds in this
country upon lines that are broad, national
and humane. He referred to his refusal to
interfere in the New Brunswick agitation
with regard to separate schools and gave
that as an evidence of the spirit of fairness
and toleration which actuates him. In the
first speech he made on this measure he also
referred to that matter, and drew attention
to the fact that he had then advocated noninterference with the rights of the province.
Well, it struck me at the time that if that
be the record of the right hon. gentleman,
it is a great pity he did not embody the
spirit which then actuated him into the
measure now before parliament, because,
if I understand the English language, this
measure is above all things an interference
with provincial rights. The right hon. gentleman told us that he refused to interfere
in the agitation over the Jesuits Estate Bill
because it was the undoubted right of the
province to pass that Bill. Let me say that
the Jesuits Estate Bill was my first experience in parliamentary life with one of
these vexed questions, and I agreed with
the right hon. the First Minister
that as it
was dealing with lands belonging to the
province, which in my judgment the province had a perfect right to sell and do what
it liked with the proceeds, consequently we
as a federal parliament had no right to interfere. I held that it was a Bill dealing
with
education, which under the British North
America Act came within the exclusive right
of the province ; and therefore if the province chooses to sell those lands and use
the
proceeds for educational purposes, or throw
them into the sea, we had no right to interfere. Therefore although the question excited
a great deal of feeling in my section of
the country, I stood by that principle as
firmly as I stand by it to-day, and I did it
believing that the only guarantee for the
successful working out of confederation lay
in giving the provinces all the rights conferred on them by the constitution, and
only
exercising here those rights which belong to
the federal parliament. Then we had the
right hon. gentleman boasting that on the
question of the Manitoba school education
he had stood by provincial rights and endeavoured by conciliatory methods to adjust
the diferences between the two classes of
people in that province and finally succeeded. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was with the First
Minister on that question as well. I took
the same grounds that I did on the Jesuits
Estate question, namely, that it was undoubtedly the right of the province to deal
with education, and I opposed any proposal
to coerce or force Manitoba at that time.
Was I right then ? I submit that I was
consistent in the stand I took
upon those two
questions, which were at the very antipodes
3014
of each other, so far as popularity in my
riding was concerned. Am I then
to be
blamed if I take the same ground to-day ?
Am I to be blamed if I take my stand today on the question of provincial rights in
the matter before the House as firmly as I
did on the Jesuits Estate 'Bill
and the Remedial Bill, which sought to compel the province of Manitoba to do what
I thought she
had a perfect right to refuse to do ? Then,
I say, I am consistent with my record in
every particular. But the First Minister is
not consistent with his record. On other occasions he stood by provincial rights ;
to-day
he is abandoning the principle of provincia1
rights and forcing upon these unwilling provinces laws which compel them to do what
the constitution never intended they should
be compelled to do. The right hon. gentleman defends his conduct by saying : I am
doing this in obedience to the constitution.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said
last night that he did not understand the
Prime Minister to say that he was compelled
by the constitution to take the course he
does. But I have here the Prime Minister's
very words :
I stand again, as I believe, upon the rock of
the constitution of Canada when I say that this
parliament should, according to that constitution, give to the minority in the new
provinces
the same rights and privileges
that are given
to the minorities in the provinces of Quebec
and Ontario.
This is a plain a declaration as could
be made that he is obliged by the constitution to do what he is doing—that he must
take the course he does or otherwise he will
not be doing right. I leave the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to settle
this difference between themselves. But I
take the declaration of the Prime Minister.
I understand his reasoning to be that, as section 93 of the British North America
Act
provides that certain rights enjoyed before
confederation must be continued after coming into the union, he feels compelled to
take the course he does. He says, if I understand him correctly. The Northwest Territories
have a form of
government, and
under that form they have established separate schools ; and, now that We are establishing
the provinces by these
Autonomy
Bills, we must provide for the perpetuation
of the separate school privilege.
New section 93 provides :
In
and for each province the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education.
But the section further provides :
Nothing in any such law shall
prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the
union.
So, the Prime Minister argues that, because they have denominational schools by
law in the Northwest Territories at this
3015
COMMONS
particular time, which he calls—improperly
I think—the union, he is obliged under the
constitution to provide in the Bills now before us for the continuation of the system
of separate schools. Now, my understanding
of the constitution is that subsections 2 and
3 of clause 93 of the British North America
Act was intended to apply to provinces that
had provincial autonomy before entering
the union. Even at the time of confederation there were provinces, Prince Edward
Island and British Columbia, which did not
then enter the union, but which have entered
since. Had either of these had a system of
separate schools before entering the union,
these subsections of clause 93 would apply,
as it applied also to Ontario and Quebec.
But these subsections do not apply in
the case before us at all. Because, these
provinces are being carved out of territory
that is already in the union, and never had
provincial autonomy, but has had only such
legislative authority as was delegated by
this parliament under laws made in 1875
and later. The contention of the First
Minister, as I have said, is that because
they have separate schools we must perpetuate that system. But is that the contention
of the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) as well ?
Mr. FIELDING. I thought I had dealt
with that point in my remarks last night.
I know of no method whereby the word
'must' can be applied to the action of any
member of this parliament. But I said I
thought that the trend of the constitution
created conditions which amounted to a moral case of a very strong character in that
direction.
Mr. SPROULE. I understood the minister further to say that this is all based on
a moral claim.
Mr. FIELDING. I have said again and
again that my opinion was—if a layman
may presume to have an opinion in these
matters—that there is not and cannot be a
legally binding obligation upon this parliament, but that every member of this parliament
must vote according to the dictates
of his judgment and his conscience.
Mr. SPROULE I am speaking not with
reference to the votes, but with reference
to the provisions of the Bill. I would suggest
that the Minister of Finance and the First
Minister might hold a conference and
agree, in order that they may do as they
should do, speak on behalf of a united cabinet—
Mr. FIELDING If the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Sproule) will try to settle the differences among his own friends, I think he
will
have ample employment.
Mr. SPROULE. It is my duty to deal
with a government measure and with the
government behind that measure, and with
3016
the principles of constitutional government,
one of which is that a cabinet shall not
be divided in presenting a measure to the
House. Yet these hon. gentlemen are divided to-day. I need not ask the Minister of
Finance how long he has taken to analyze
this Bill and reach the conclusion he has
reached? We were told he did not see in the
light in which he now sees it until a short
time ago. He may claim to be excused on
that ground for not having a very definite
knowledge of the measure. But the
father of the Bill says, that the constitution
compels him to do what he now proposes.
Now, to satisfy myself I thought I would
apply to an authority whose opinion would
be respected in this House, one who I have
heard the right hon. Prime Minister and
other hon. members on the other side quote
approvingly more than once. I say this because the contention was set up that on
account of separate schools being there today, we were not free, in giving the provinces
provincial autonomy, to ignore those
schools and allow the provinces to legislate
according to their own judgment. I submitted the question to Mr. Christopher Robinson,
K.C., who is well known I think, as
high a constitutional lawyer as can be
found in this country. I submitted several
questions which were embraced in the speech
of the First Minister and I wish to lead
his opinion. because it is in my judgment
in accord with the opinion announced by
the leader of the opposition yesterday, and
buttressed by many citations of constitutional authorities. Mr. Robinson says :
The right of the Dominion parliament to impose restrictions upon the provinces about
to
be formed in dealing with the subject of education and separate schools, is, I think,
not
beyond question.
They have the right to do it.
This would require more consideration than
I have been able yet to give to it, and must
ultimately be settled by judicial decision.
Remember, it is not the question whether
we have any power to interfere with the
province at all, it is a question of whether
this parliament must do it, not whether
we have power to do it.
I am asked, however, whether parliament is
constitutionally bound—
The First, Minister says: I am constitutionally bound.
I am asked Whether parliament is constitutionally bound to impose any such restric—
tion, or whether it exists otherwise, and I am
of opinion in the negative.
Now I am not directing this to the Minister of Finance, because he does not hold
that opinion, but I am directing it to his
premier who does hold it, with a view to
getting the different members of the cabinet
in accord.
3017 MARCH 23, 1905
It must be borne in mind that I am concerned only with the question of legal obligation.
What the parliament ought to do or
should do in the exercise of any power which
they possess, is not within the province of
counsel.
He does not pretend to give advice on that
point.
Such a restriction, I apprehend, must exist
or may be imposed, if at all, under the provisions of section 93 of the British North
America
Act, 1867, and on the ground of their application to the provinces now to be formed.
If that
section applies—
He seems to be in doubt.
If that section applies, it would seem to require no enactment of our parliament to
give
give it effect—
Now is that not the contention of the
leader of the opposition? If that power
exists it does not require any enactment to
give it effect.
—and if not, no such enactment, so far as I
am aware, is otherwise made necessary. Upon
the whole I am of opinion that section 93 does
appear to me to be intended for, and confined
to, the then province, and to the union formed
in 1867.
Then if it does not apply, the responsibility rests with the right hon. gentleman
and
his friends forcing an educational system
on the people out there that they think
should not be forced upon them. If its
provisions are confined to the then provinces
and to the union formed in 1867, the authority given them in the Act of 1875, and
under
which by their ordinances they have established separate schools, could not apply
at all,
because that was not the date of the union.
The date of the union was antecedent, in
1867, according to Mr. Robinson's judgment;
therefore there was no power in the land
to give separate schools, and they had no
separate schools then.
There is not in any part of the Northwest
Territories as a province any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools
possessed by any class of persons, created by
the province, or existing at such union ; and
a right subsequently established by the Dominion in the part now about to be made
a province, does not appear to me to come within
the enactment.
Is that straight enough ? 'It does not
come within the enactment. But the whole
argument of the First Minister was : I am
doing something because I am compelled to
do it, if he had said : I am doing it because
there is some kind of moral obligation resting upon me,—he might have been justified
by his conscience. But he says : I am doing it because constitutionally I must do
it,
there is no other alternative, it is forced
upon me to act along that line, and therefore 1 am justified in acting as I have done.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Before my hon.
friend passes away from that point, will
3018
he be good enough to lay on the table the
questions that he put to Mr. Robinson along
with the answer ? Because we have had a
running comment on the answer.
Mr. SPROULE. I have just read the answer. I may say that I had already foreseen
this very reasonable request. I had the
questions drawn out and submitted to Mr.
Robinson, and I have been urging for a
reply, and it was only to-day at two o'clock
that I was able to get it. I have only the
telegram that was sent to me without the
question. Unfortunately I did not keep a
copy of them, otherwise I would be able to
hand them to the hon. gentleman. As soon
as they are available, I will present them to
the minister.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I would suggest that
the hon. gentleman read the telegram
through without comment.
The right of the Dominion parliament to
impose restrictions upon the provinces about
to be formed in dealing with the subject of
education and separate schools, is, I think, not
beyond question. This would require more
consideration than I have been able to give to
it, and must ultimately be settled by judicial
decision. I am asked, however, whether parliament is constitutionally bound to impose
any
such restriction, or whether it exists otherwise,
and I am of opinion in the negative. It must
be borne in mind that I am concerned only
with the question of legal obligation. What
the parliament ought to do or should do in the
exercise of any power which they may possess, is not within the province of counsel.
Such a restriction, I apprehend, must exist
or may be imposed, if at all, under the provisions of section 93 of the British North
America
Act, 1867. and on the ground of their application to the provinces now to be formed.
If that
section applies, it would seem to require no
enactment of our parliament to give it effect,
and if not, no such enactment, so far as I am
aware, is otherwise made necessary. Upon the
whole I am of opinion that section 93 does not
apply to the provinces now about to be established. Its provisions would appear to
me to
be intended for, and confined to, the then province, and to the union formed in 1867.
There
is not in any part of the Northwest Territories
as a province any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools possessed
by
any class of persons, created by the province,
or existing at such union ; and a right subsequently established by the Dominion in
the
part now about to be made a province, does
not appear to me to come within the enactment.
I may say that it is signed ' W. D. Macpherson ' who is acting for Mr. Christopher
Robinson.
Mr. FIELDING. Is that the opinion of
Mr. Robinson or Mr. Macpherson ?
Mr. SPROULE. It is the opinion of Mr.
Robinson, communicated by Mr. Macpherson.
3019 COMMONS
Mr. SPROULE. Yes, in a letter to me
and which I have in my possession. I do
not wish to take up the time of the House
longer on this subject, but I want to refer
to one or two quotations which may have
been used before but which I now want to
give for the benefit of my right hon. friend
the leader of the government. The present
Prime Minister, as will be found in 'Hansard' of March 3, 1896, said :
In a community with a free government, in a
free country like this, upon any question involving different conceptions of what
is right
or wrong, different standards of what is just or
unjust, it is the part of statesmanship not to
force the views of any section, but to endeavour to bring them all to a uniform standard
and a uniform conception of what is right.
Not to force the views of any section! I
ask him if he is doing that to-day in connection with this Bill. Is he not forcing
the
views of one section of the community up
there who do not think that it is right to
compel them to accept what they do not believe to be suitable to the conditions there?
Then, speaking on the same day of the
different agitations which have from time
to time arisen in Canada over provincial
rights and defending himself for having
stood up in support of provincial rights, he
said :
Sir, if the hon. gentleman, while he was tracing the history of confederation, had
recalled
that page—
Referring to the various disputes that
had taken place in Canada—
—it might, perhaps, have struck him and
those around him that coercive methods never
yet led any people to good and wise action.
Will he apply the coercive methods he is
adopting to-day to these new provinces ?
If he does to what wise action or good purpose will it lead ?
But I would recall the history to the hon.
gentleman, not only of his own province, but
of the Dominion of Canada at large.
Later on he said :
These frequent recurrences of agitations and
commotion are a severe strain, and a very severe strain upon the tie which binds these
provinces together ; and the danger is all the
more to be apprehended, if, searching further
on for the causes which have brought about this
commotion, you find that on every occasion
there was only one cause, always the same,
and that was the feature of our constitution
which abridges the independence, the sovereignty of the provincial legislatures. In
one
form or the other, such was the cause of these
agitations.
What is the cause of the agitation to-day?
Is it not exactly that very same thing, that
you are endeavouring to interfere with and
abridge the rights of these legislatures ?
The right hon. gentleman is to-day doing
3020
what he then declared it unwise to do when
he said that all these agitations were
traceable to one source and to one cause,
and when he advised parliament that it
would be wise to avoid such a danger. It
is wise therefore to avoid interference with
provincial rights. Then, speaking of the
right of the provinces to legislate in regard
to education he said :
This division of legislative powers is absolutely essential to the federal form of
government.
He was referring to the British North
America Act where it divides the powers
of the provincial legislatures from the powers of the federal parliament and he said
that this division of legislative powers is
absolutely essential to the federal form of
government. We gave the power to legislate in regard to education to the provincial
legislatures. Then, speaking as to the question: Who should rule ?—he made a further
statement. We heard it stated last
night that the Roman Catholics numbered
about 41 per cent of the population and
the Protestants 60 per cent and the question
was asked : Are we going to disregard the
rights of this large minority ? I say no,
we never intended to disregard them, nor
infringe upon them, nor do any injustice
to them, but I do hold that the principle
which I have stated before that the majority must govern applies as much to the
electors of a province as it does to the electors in Canada in an election to this
parliament. Then, in reply to the question : Who
should rule?— he said :
Indeed, it must be accepted, and accepted as
a truism, that under popular government the
majority must rule.
The majority of the people of Manitoba
desired a certain thing and the Remedial
Bill proposed to compel them to do something that they did not desire to do, and
therefore the right hon. gentleman held
that the majority must rule. It would be
a doubly improper thing, I think, to adopt
a measure which would not only interfere
with provincial rights, but which would prevent the majority from ruling in a country
in which the right hon. gentleman declared
it to be a truism that the majority must
rule. He continued :
I do not mean to say, Sir, that the majority
will always be right. No, Sir, the majority may
err, the majority may prevaricate. But I am
not prepared to say that the majority will
always do wrong, will always prevaricate and
will always wantonly and wickedly do injustice
to the minority.
I think you can safely trust to the intention of the majority to do what is right,
and the rule of the majority is the only
principle that we can apply to the government of the country. Then, he asks :
3021 MARCH 23, 1905
What is the remedy of the minority under
these circumstances ?
There was a very troublesome question
to be settled. There was a majority and
there was a minority. The majority wanted
one thing and the minority another. He declared that the principle must obtain that
the majority must rule. Let him apply
that to the new provinces he is creating as
he applied it to the province of Manitoba
in 1896 and if he does we will not have
this provision in the Bill which is creating
so much excitement and agitation in the
country to-day.
What is the remedy of the minority under
these circumstances ? The remedy of the minority under a free government is to agitate
and
endeavour to bring over the majority to their
way of thinking.
That is proper, that is correct ; I agree
with every word of it. Sir John Macdonald
said the same thing in almost exactly the
same words in reference to the New Brunswick case. The right hon. gentleman says
that the majority must rule and he says
that in case of difference the remedy of
the minority is to agitate and endeavour
to bring over the majority to their way of
thinking. That is the rule under a free
government and ours is a free government.
Why does he depart from that safe and
correct rule, that truism that he laid down
in 1896 ? Has he received new light on the
subject, have the scales fallen from his
eyes that he has propounded another doctrine to-day which is diametrically opposed
to the doctrine that he propounded then ?
As to the power under the constitution, under section 93 of the British North America
Act to supervise and control the legislation
of the provinces he says :
The lesson we should deduce is that if it was
a wise provision to establish this power in the
constitution for the supervision of the local
legislatures, perhaps it was not dictated by unmixed wisdom.
I agree with him that it was not dictated
by unmixed wisdom. Our experience of
the working out of our government since
confederation has demonstrated over and
over again that it is unfortunate that the
provision is there.
For, Sir, experience has taught us that this
remedy of interference with local legislation
has never been applied and probably never
can be applied without friction, disturbance
and discontent ; that you cannot apply that
remedy without causing as much dissatisfaction as satisfaction.
And yet he is endeavouring to do it today. He is applying it in the face of the
fact that he himself admits that it never
can be applied without friction, disturbance
and discontent, and to-day he adversely
criticises the press of the country because
there is friction and discontent.
3022
It must be evident that while you redress
the grievance of the minority by such an act
of interference, you run great risk of creating
a grievance on the part of the majority.
Therefore, by a parity of reasoning it
ought to be avoided. Why does he not follow that good advice to-day? Speaking with
regard to the power of the government to
grant remedial legislation, the right hon.
gentleman said :
Sir, the power is there, and being there, the
aid of the Dominion government will be sought
by the minority. What is the rule that ought
to be followed ? I shall be told by the hon.
gentleman (Sir Charles Tupper), in fact, he
has already told us, that the rule works mechanically, and that no judgment is to
be
exercised by this parliament in such matters.
Sir, that cannot be the rule. It cannot be
that this remedy is to apply mechanically.
This remedy must be granted or denied according as the circumstances of each case
require. And that, Sir, is the very language
of the statute that the hon. gentleman cited a
few moments ago. The remedy is to be sought
and applied as the circumstances of the case
require.
That was the contention in 1896—that the
federal parllament was not compelled to
legislate. He was advocating non-interference with provincial rights; he was questioning
the wisdom of a Remedial Bill on
the ground that it might create a grievance
for the majority that was quite equal to the
grievance under which the minority laboured.
Now, I want to say one word with regard
to the British North America Act as a layman. I suppose it will have not much
weight with the lawyers of this House, and
it may not have much weight with the laymen ; but I hope it will at least have some
weight with the common sense intelligence
of the people of this country. My understanding of the respective rights and duties
of the federal parliament and the provincial parliament is something like the following:
At confederation each was assigned
its rights; each was given the class of subjects upon which it had an exclusive right
to legislate. There were subjects on which
each had an exclusive right; there were
other subjects on which they had a joint
right, and there were other subjects not included in either on which both might properly
legislate. The British North America
Act puts the rights belonging to the provinces in one schedule, and the rights belonging
to the federal parliament in another.
Everything concerning local government is
given to the provincial parliament, and
everything concerning trade and commerce
and national undertakings is given to the
federal parliament. But it was never intended that the federal parliament should
infringe on any of the subjects which were
assigned exclusively to the provincial parliament, and education was one of these
subjects. I have before me a little work
3023 COMMONS
which I have read sometimes with interest. It is entitled "The Powers of Canadian
Par liaments.' by S. J. Watson, of Toronto, who has evidently given a good deal of
attention to the subject He first states the reserved rights that were given to the
federal parliament: regulation of trade and commerce, postal service, military and
naval service and defence, navigation and shipping, currently and coinage, banking
and the issue of paper money, insolvency. Then he deals with those rights reserved
exclusively to the provincial legislatures: amendments from time to time in their
constitutions, municipal institutions in the province, local works and undertakings
other than such as are excepted in subsection 10, the incorporation of companies with
provincial objects, properly and civil rights, education. Education is, therefore,
one of the exclusive rights of the provinces ; it is only the province which has the
right to legislate with regard to education. I hold that to be the correct principle,
and whenever this parliament is legislating in regard to be the correct principle,
and whenever this parliament is legislating in regard to education it is infringing
on the rights of the provinces.
But I am told there is a provision in section 93 of the British North America Act
that gives us power to legislate. In what regard? In one regard and one regard only,
that is, by remedial legislation. The Governor in Council, acting as a court, has
appellate jurisdiction in cases of the infringement of the rights that belong to minorities.
It may be appealed to by the minority for the restoration of those rights. Then the
Privy Counell becomes a court of appeal, not a legislative body, and if they think
those rights have been taken away, and they fail to persuade the provincial authority
to restore those rights, then, and not till then, their power as a court ceases, and
they the federal parliament steps in with its legislative right. That is the only
time we can interfere as a federal parliament. We can then pass a Remedial Bill,
but we can only do that, as the first minister said, if in our judgment it is good
public policy to do it, or we can leave it alone. That is the only provision in the
British North America Act, in my judgement, giving us any rights to legislate with
regard to education.
With regard to this measure, I want to
say that the government have at last undertaken to do what they should have done long
ago, and they are confronted with a great many difficulties which they have brought
upon themselves. These difficulties might have been very much minimized had they taken
the advice of this side of the House, and erected the Territories into a province
or provinces long ago. Had they given provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territories
years ago, before vested rights grew up to the extent to which they exist to-day,
and before the population had increased to the numbers it has reached to
3024
day, they would have had much less difficulty then they have at the present time.
Their difficulties have multipled in proportion to the delay that has occurred. The
disproportion in size between the province of Manitoba and the two provinces which
they contemplate creating now is very great. The one is very small and the others
are very large. What excuse can they give for being unable to extend the boundaries
of Manitoba? The existence of vested rights in the Northwest Territories, the growth
of settlement, and certain other things which did not exist years ago. There would
have been very little difficulty in extending the boundaries of Manitoba if the governemnt
had undertaken this question at an earlier date.
Because settlement has gone on there since,
and owing to that settlement, and owing to those vested rights, they find it difficult
to act to-day. The principle upon which the financial arrangements are based is almost
sure, in my judgment, to create dissatisfaction in the other provinces. I feel quite
satisfied that that will be the case. When the other provinces come to know and contains
for financial assistance to these two provinces, they will recognize at once that
it is much more liberal than the terms which they enjoy to-day, or which they have
had in the past, and this will create discontent, and will bring them knocking at
the doors of parliament for a rearrangement of provincial subsidies. It is very liberal,
I admit ; I am not complaining of that, so much as of the fact that it will give us
trouble in the future, perhaps in the very near future. In undertaking to do out duty
as a federal parliament and to create provinces in the Territories already in the
union, we are told that we must treat those Territories as though they were provinces
which are entering the union to-day. I need not refer to that again fully, because
I have already done so. We may properly erect provinces; and in giving them provincial
autonomy, we are bound to give them all the rights which the British North America
Act says they should have, and one of these is the right to legislate upon education.
Now, I say that, as a matter of policy, as a matter of duty, according to my understanding
of the constitution, when we erect these Territories into provinces, we are bound
to give them all the rights of legislation, all the provincial rights, that our constitution
provides they should have and enjoy ; and if we give less, we are likely to cause
friction and trouble. If we go beyond that, we are encroaching upon provincial rights.
I say we are now going beyond that, and therefore I object to that encroachment
on provincial rights. Have we, as a federal parliament, the right to go beyond that
? I have given my reasons for thinking that
3025 MARCH 23, 1905
we have not. It is for this House and for
the country to determine according to their
judgment whether these reasons are sound
or not.
The British North America Act, in assigning the rights and power to the parliament
of Canada and the provincial powers, distinctly provides how far we may go, but
nowhere does it contain a provision that
we may legislate with regard to what educational system a new province must have,
and when we do that we are doing what, in
my judgment, is improper. The right hon.
the premier seems to assume that the federal
parliament is a supreme body which is
over and above the provincial parliaments,
and which can, of its own will, exercise a
patronizing or paternal control to the extent of compelling the provincial parliaments
to do what they do not desire to do.
Talk about being a supreme body ! What
does Watson say in regard to it ? The
federal parliament is not a supreme body
at all, it has no over-towering powers, it
has no powers that are so much above or
beyond a provincial parliament that it can
exercise them over that provincial parliament. He goes into the history of how we
got our federal parliament, and says :
It must be borne in mind as regards the internal and material interests of each of
the
provinces, their municipal self-government,
their systems of education, their public lands
and their development, and the administration
of justice, the local legislatures are of much
greater importance than the federal parliament.
Much greater importance.
Over these vital and complex functions of a
free commonwealth which are known as civil
rights and which are the life and marrow of
local self-government and constitutional citizenship, the provincial parliament rules
supreme.
And the federal parliament cannot interfere. He says :
It must be borne in mind that the federal
parliament is the offspring of the provincial
legislatures ;—
Not the provincial parliament the offspring of the federal parliament.
—that it is not their progenitor ; and that
in confiding to it such of their powers as were
necessary to establish it as a greater institution than themselves there were yet
certain
powers which they reserved for their own behoof.
He argued that we had a federal parliament, why ? Because the provincial parliaments
gave up part of their powers to make
it, but that the provincial powers were
supreme, and must always be so within
their rights. We established the federal
parliament and the provinces gave it certain powers, and the federal parliament can
only exercise these powers ; when it attempts to go beyond that and interfere with
provincial rights, then it is doing what a
higher authority than it, that is the pro
3026
vincial parliament, says it cannot do. The
rights of the provincial parliament within
its sphere are supreme and brook no interference. I believe that is as true as the
truism given by the premier with regard
to the rights of majorities. It was not
the federal parliament, as I said, which
condescended to give rights to provincla1
parliaments ; the condescension was on the
part of the provincial parliaments, and
they established the federal parliament.
The rights of the provincial parliaments
were an inheritance belonging to them ;
they had inherited their rights and enjoyed
their rights, and any rights or powers which
the federal parliament has to-day are mere
hereditary rights given to it by the provincial parliaments ; therefore, the provincial
parliaments ought to be supreme and are
supreme within their own jurisdiction.
The educational clauses in this Bill are
purely an interference, in my judgment,
with provincial rights, and on this ground I
am opposed to them. I do not mean that I
am opposed to the whole Bill, but I am opposed to the educational clauses. The
struggles which have taken place in the past
with regard to provincial rights, and the
contention of the Reform party that provincial rights must be maintained at all
hazards, ought to be as strongly impressed
upon the minds of the Liberals as it was in
the past, and they ought to endeavour to
carry out that principle. They should
not neglect that principle. We have had
many fights of this nature. We had the
struggle over the Streams Bill, and very
strong feelings were created ; we had it
over the Boundary Award ; we had it over
the Hotel Licenses Bill, which was known
as the McCarthy Act ; we had it over the
timber and mineral rights of the provinces ;
we had it over the Manitoba Remedial Bill,
the New Brunswick School Bill ; and in
every one of these cases the Reform party
stood on the same ground, that is, in defence of provincial rights. Where are they
to-day ?
Mr. SPROULE. The Reform party carried
Ontario for the provincial government over
and over again on provincial rights, and
because they stood up in defence of provincial rights. Where are they to-day ? I
say they have drifted away from their
moorings.
Mr. SPROULE. Where was I ? I was
in this House at that time, and on many of
these measures I agreed with the hon. gentlemen, because I thought they were right.
I am opposed to them to-day, because I
think they are wrong. I am where I was
then, but they are not where they were
then. They remind me very much of
the story of the Indian who was hunt
3027
COMMONS
ing his wigwam and met a traveller in
the forest. He asked the traveller if he
could tell him where he was. 'Why,' the
traveller said, "you are an Indian. Are you
lost?' 'No,' said he, 'but the Wigwam is
lost.' In like manner, while the principle
remains, these hon. gentlemen opposite have
drifted away from their wigwam. They
have taken another track, and are advocating principles the very opposite of those
they formerly contended for. I would ask
the Reformers of Ontario how they will
justify their conduct of to-day before the
people of that province ? I remember when
a motion was made in this House calling on
the British authorities to grant home rule
to Ireland. Every Reformer. without a
single exception, voted for it.
Mr. SPROULE. I can tell him very well
if he would like to know.
Mr. SPROULE. They contended that
home rule for Ireland was the proper principle. They were advocating giving home
rule to a territory over which they had no
control, but when they have in their own
country a territory to which they are giving
provincial autonomy, they refuse to give
it home rule. Where they have the power
to give home rule they will not do it ; but
where they have no power they insist on its
being given. They are something like Mark
Twain who was willing to sacrifice all his
wife's relations on the alter of his country.
In like manner these hon. gentlemen are
willing to sacrifice every one of their principles in order to keep office. They are
evidently not in accord on the principle of
home rule because if they were they would
give the Territories the fullest measure of
self government and political autonomy but
in reality we are not. Can it be said that
we are granting them full provincial autonomy, when we interfere with their rights
to deal with education, although it is expressly laid down in the British North
America Act that the provinces shall exclusively make laws on that subject. If we
compel them to adopt an educational system
which we prescribe, though it may be quite
unsuited to their needs and conditions, are
we giving them home rule? But we are
told that the fathers of confederation accepted the principle of separate schools
rather than jeopardize confederation. Sir,
the great principle was not that of separate
schools. The great difficulty the fathers of
confederation had to confront was the deadlock between the different sides of the
House. It was not the question of separate
schools which was the disturbing element
between upper and lower Canada. Not at
all. But when the fathers of confederation
were enacting the British North America
3028
Act, they had to provide for the conditions
that existed in these two provinces and consequently had to provide for separate schools.
They acceptedthe conditions existing in
Ontario and Quebec and provided that
should other provinces come in with similar
rights in existence, these rights should continue. But there were four provinces entering
confederation which had not these
rights. If however the principle of separate
schools was established at confederation,
why do we not have it in these four provinces ?
This clause which is objected to, said the
right hon. gentleman, is the law to-day, it
is in accordance with the constitution, and
I commend it even to the biased judgment of
my hon. friend from East Grey. He referred to the hon. member from East Grey in
different lights that day. and I think in a
manner quite uncalled for and which did
not come with the best grace from one
occupying the dignified position of Premier
of this Dominion. It was a gratuitous assumption on his part that the member for
East Grey has a biased mind and is not
fair. No one, he said, is so blind as the one
who will not see, and of course the hon.
member for East Grey was in that category.
Well, I think that the hon. member for East
Grey ought to be credited with possessing
the ordinary intelligence which the average member of parliament is usually credited
with. If we were in 1867 instead of 1905
and if we had to introduce into the Dominion the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan,
would we not. asks the right hon. gentleman, have to give these provinces the
same rights and privileges with regard to
separate schools as we gave Ontario and
Quebec ? I say emphatically no, and I am
confirmed in that conclusion by the advice
of that high authority, Mr. Christopher
Robinson, whose opinion I have cited. In
my judgment the question we have to settle
is this. Is it proper to interfere with the
rights of these provinces in the matter of
education ? The Minister of Finance says
there is a moral obligation resting on us to
do it. But is that moral obligation sufficiently strong to justify our interfering
with
provincial rights and compelling the majority of the country to do what they say it
is
impossible to carry out successfully under
their present conditions. Would that be sound
policy? These are the questions that appeal to our judgment to-day. In the first
place is it right, as a question of principle ?
In the second place is it sound as a question
of policy? It might possibly be right in
principle and still not be sound as a matter
of policy. As a matter of policy is it wise
to compel the people to provide for separate
schools for all time whether suited to the
conditions out there or not ? I do not think
it is and am therefore opposed to any interference with provincial rights. If we grant
educational rights to one church. we must
logically grant them to every church. These
3029 MARCH 22, 1905
are practically church schools though called
separate schools. What kind of system
have they in France ?
Mr. LEMIEUX. A very bad system. I
stand for the British system.
Mr. SPROULE. They have a system of
national schools. France is a great country
and I admire it. How long is it since they
have taken the schools out of the hands of
the church? Only a short time.
Mr. SPROULE. That is your statement
not mine, and the hon. gentleman knows
more about it than I do. But here is the
question that appeals to my mind. If for
centuries past the education of the French
people has been under the wing of the
church and the church has directed it and
worked into it its religious tenets and dogma, and it has resulted in giving them
an
uneducated people. I was told by a
Frenchman a short time ago that France
is a nation of atheists today. I was
told that by a Frenchman who ought
to know. And, if that is what has been
accomplished with full control of education in the hands of the church—if it
means the turning out of a nation of illiterates and atheists, then surely, it is
not amiss
to place education wholly beyond the control of the church. Is not that one of the
strongest arguments that could be found in
favour of that course ? And that is the
very reason that France is following that
course to-day. President Loubet declares
that it is proper and right, and that France
must do it. And if we try to keep education
flee from the control of the same church,
is it to be said that we are fanatics? I cannot recall all the names that are applied
to
us—
Mr. SPROULE. That is one. And we are
told that we are bigoted. But there is another word—
Mr. SPROULE. Yes, we are told that
we are fanatics and prejudiced against the
church. But if we endeavour to do what
France declares is imperative for the maintenance of her national life, are we to
be
accused of being fanatics ?
Mr. LEMIEUX. Will the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Sproule) allow me to ask a question ?
Mr. LEMIEUX. Leaving aside the case
not France, let us, as a British colony, deal
with a case nearer home. Would the hon.
gentleman say that he is against the sys
3030
tem now in existence in Great Britain—
which is a denominational system?
Mr. SPROULE. There are many features
of it to which I am strongly opposed.
Mr. SPROULE. I am glad to know it.
I ask are we to be blamed for doing what
France has done ? Are we to be blamed for
doing what Belgium has done ? Are we to
be blamed for doing what Italy has done,—
the very home of the Pope ? In that country
the schools have been taken out of the
hands of the church. Are we to be blamed
for advancing a similar course here to
that which has been taken in Ireland, establishing and carrying on national schools
?
Are we to be blamed for doing what has
been done in the Australian colonies and in
the United States? Above all are we to
be blamed for doing what five out of the
seven provinces of the confederation are doing to-day, carrying out a national school
system ? When we take such a course, can
this be said to be proof of fanaticism on our
part ? I do not think it is fanaticism. I
do not wish to say a word that would be
offensive to our Roman Catholic fellow-
subjects. I admire their zeal, their piety
and their attachment to their church. No
one admires these things more than I do.
No one is less disposed to deprive them of
their rights than I am. But, because I
believe that, forty years ago we discarded
a bad system of education and adopted a
better one; and because I believe that we
ought to carry out in the interests of the
rising generation, keeping the system free
from the control of any church, am I to be
accused of fanaticism ? I have just said
if you grant church schools at all, to be
logical you cannot confine that privilege to
the Roman Catholic church; you must
grant them to every other denomination as
well.
Mr. SPROULE. Why should not the Presbyterians have the same right ?
Mr. SPROULE. And why should not the
Methodists have the same right ?
Mr. SPROULE. And the Mormons ?
Does the hon. gentleman say 'hear, hear'
to that ?
Mr. SPROULE. Well I am glad to know
that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) draws
the line somewhere. There are one hundred
3031
and thirty religions represented in the Northwest Territories. Are we to have that
many
kinds of schools there ? And, if not, is not
the only logical course to take the control
of education of the rising generation away
from the church—
Mr. SPROULE. That is the question I
asked. This Bill proposes to hand it over
to one church. My contention is that no
church should be allowed to control it. In
my opinion it is as improper to give the
control of education to the Methodist church
or the Presbyterian or the Baptist or the
Luthern or the Mormon as it would be to
give it to the Catholic Church—they are all
in the same category according to my judgment. The state should provide the means
of education and should control education.
We should have a state system of education as we have in some parts of the Dominion
to-day.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) tell us what is the difference between the
schools that are proposed to be established in the Northwest
Territories and that he calls separate schools
on the one hand, and the public schools on
the other hand ?
Mr. SPROULE. That is not relevant to
the purposes of my argument. I am not saying anything about the quality of the schools
as they are to-day, but I am talking about
the interference with the powers of the
provincial legislature, to give whatever system of schools they think best. Now we
can
find some countries where this particular
school system does prevail. Where does it
prevail ?
Mr. SPROULE. Not at all. You have
there what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armand
Lavergne) would call a national system.
But the peculiar system to which I have
referred is used in Newfoundland. Every
denomination has its own schools and the
public money devoted to education is divided
amongst them. And I have a letter from
a very intelligent gentleman there, who
says : God forbid that you should drift into
the educational methods that we have here.
Mr. SPROULE. He is a Scotchman like
the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Johnston), but
he does not come from South Cape Breton,
and his name is not Johnston. He tells me
that the public money devoted to education
is divided amongst these denominations,
and he adds : Our educational system is a
disgrace to the civilization of the twentieth
century. Are we desirous of going back to
that condition in the Northwest Territories ?
Yet, it is the only logical thing we can do
3032
if we follow out the principles of this Bill.
The separation of church and state is one of
the principles that we fought for long ago.
Are we desirous of throwing away to-day
all that we have gained in this respect ? I
say that this Bill which is a violation of that
principle, it is a re-union of the church and
the state by which education will be handed
over to church control.
Mr. BRODEUR. Will the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Sproule) tell me how these separate
schools of the Northwest will be under the
control of the church and not under the
control of the state ?
Mr. SPROULE. The minister refers to a
condition of things different from the ordinary separate schools. He has always
been defending the system in Quebec and
Ontario. I am speaking of the system in
Quebec and Ontario where schools are under the control of the church. Does the
hon. gentleman deny that in his own province ?
Mr. BRODEUR. I am speaking of the
system existing in the Northwest Territores.
Mr. SPROULE. I am speaking of the
desire to perpetuate a system which will
practically put the control of the schools
under the church, where the money for the
support of those schools must go to the
church indirectly. Then this is a union of
church and state.
Mr. BRODEUR. My hon. friend will admit that so far as the Northwest is concerned, there is no
provision in the Bill now
before the House by which the schools shall
be under the control of the church.
Mr. SPROULE. I do not say that the
church has any improper control over them
in the Northwest. I am talking about the
principle involved in taking away from the
provinces the right of control, and compelling them to establish a system they do
not
want. Remember I am not condemning the
educational system there to-day, nor am I
fighting to do away with that system; I am
fighting for the right of the provinces to
establish whatever system they choose.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. Did not my hon.
friend say a moment ago that the system
of separate schools was bad ?
Mr. SPROULE. Yes, the system that we
have in Ontario and Quebec is bad.
Mr. SPROULE. Now if the legislatures
of those provinces, in the exercise of their
undoubted right, see fit to establish separate schools to-morrow, I have not a word
of objection to it. It is their own business,
their own right. We are not fighting
3033 MARCH 23, 1905
against that, we are not proposing to give
them advice with regard to what they shall
do ; we are only fighting for their right to
establish such a system as suits their conditions. We are not condemning them for
what they may or may not do in the future,
we are not even advising them. Let them
do as they like. If they wish to re-enact
the present educational system, and reenact the ordinances relating to the separate
school system that they have there to-day,
we have not a word of complaint against
their doing so. But we say, Do not bind
them with a chain that prevents them from
doing what the constitution says they have
a right to do and ought to be allowed to
do.
Now the next question I shall consider
is, Who are asking for educational rights
for minorities in those provinces ? Are the
people in those provinces complaining, even
the Roman Catholics, who, according to the
census, number 30,000 ? So far as I know
we have not had a single petition presented
to this House from any of them asking that
the provisions of this Bill be put through.
Then why are we to be blamed if we say
that these provisions are not needed there ?
The people there do not think they are
needed, as otherwise I presume they would
ask for them. So far as I know we have
not yet received a single petition from that
country asking that the new provinces be
compelled to adopt that system ; so far as I
know not a single memorial of any descriptlon has come from that vast country
asking us to adopt that system, though there
are supposed to be 500,000 people in that
country. Who is asking for it ? Not the
legislature of those Territories, because the
Prime Minister of the Northwest legislature
has declared that these school provisions are
an improper interference with their rights,
and he is opposed to them. He is speaking
on behalf of that country , on behalf of all
the people. Neither the majority nor the
minority seems to be desirous of having this
provision in the Bill. They have not
asked their legislature for any change.
Then I say, why should we force it upon
them ? Are we not coercing them ? Then
who are asking for it ? It is not the
other provinces of the confederation who
have no separate schools. Five out of
the seven provinces of the confederation
have no separate schools ; British Columbia
has none, Manitoba has none, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have none, nor
has Prince Edward Island. They are
not asking for this measure, because they
won't have it at home. Then we may assume they do not want it. Is Ontario asking for
it ? Up to the present time I think
but one petition has come from Ontario recommending that the provisions in the Bill
be put through. Then who is asking for it ?
Not the provinces who do not enjoy that
system to-day. The only parties who are
3034
clamouring for it are the clergy and the
people of the province of Quebec.
Mr. SPROULE. That may be, that club
is composed of a portion of the people of
Quebec. But I am not denying them the
right to do so, it is perfectly proper for
them to do so. But I say this demand
comes only from the clergy and the people
of Quebec, who are asking us to force this
system on an unwilling people. What is
the situation to-day ? Quebec is thousands
of miles removed from that country. The
great bulk of the people of Quebec know
little about the conditions out there, and
know little about the school system.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. The people of Quebec have many relatives in the Northwest.
Mr. SPROULE. They have, and those
relatives have not even asked for it, they
are satisfied. Then why should Quebec,
that is thousands of miles away from that
country, force this Bill on an unwilling people ? Do they know anything about the
conditions out there ? Do they know anything about the possibility of keeping up
such a system there ? The people out
there know better than any others the conditions prevailing in that country. It does
not necessarily follow that because separate
schools can be carried out successfully in
the province of Quebec they can be carried
out with equal success in the Northwest
Territories. Why do I say so ? Because
the conditons are altogether different. How
wide is the average farm in Quebec? Fifteen
rods, I think.
Mr. SPROULE. Well, it cannot be more
than twenty rods, because I notice there
are four of them in a width of eighty rods
on the river with one settler on each in
Quebec. The houses are principally on the
river front, where there is a river, and there
is a family every twenty rods. The houses
are so thickly located along these rivers that
for miles and miles they look almost like
villages. There is therefore great community of interest among them, the population
is
numerous, and they can keep up schools
without any difficulty, it is not a heavy burden for them to do so. Now I have made
a
little calculation on this point. In the province of Quebec how many families have
you to the square mile ?
Mr. SPROULE. According to the way
their farms are laid out on the river front,
you have at least twenty-one and a third
families to the square mile, and every one
of them has about a quarter of a hundred
3035
children. They can fill the schools. I am
glad of it and they are entitled to great credit
for it ? How many families are there to the
mile square in the Northwest Territories ?
Taking the ordinary farm that is owned up
there you would have but four families.
How many miles square of that territory
will it require to provide children enough to
fill a school ? Do you not see if you divide
the people up according to religious belief
in one locality, part Protestant and part
Roman Catholic, you reduce the number
of available people to support a school
there, and therefore it may be quite
impossible to carry on such an educational system as would be quite suitable and easily
carried on in the province of Quebec. What do we find in regard
to the same inquiry in Manitoba and somewhat similar conditions exist up there ?
How many children have they in their
schools in the province of Manitoba ? I
have the list for 1894 : Woodlands nine,
Ossowo five, Oakland eight, White Haven
six, Silver Creek nine, West Oakland seven,
and I find that the average attendance is
about four. There is not one school in fifty
that has an average attendance of ten.
What is that caused by ? By the sparseness
of the population. The people have their
farms in the west larger than they have their
farms in Quebec and larger than they have
their farms in Ontario, and therefore there
are fewer settlers in the different school
sections. Why is it that separate schools
can never be worked out successfully in
Manitoba and the Northwest Territories unless it be in the villages and towns ? It
is
due to the fact that you have only four
families to the mile and when you divide
them, there are only two Catholic and two
Protestant families. They are thus separated and there is no support for the schools.
The burden becomes too great. It is too
onerous. If they get up schools at all they
must hire inferior teachers because the
salaries they pay must be very low and the
result of this is a poor school and injustice
to the children who get the only education
they will ever get in such schools. I draw
attention to this to show the conditions that
exist in the Northwest Territories and I ask
what justification there is for the people and
the clergy of the province of Quebec, where
the conditions are entirely different, where
the conditions are such as would enable them
to keep up separate schools, to insist that
separate schools shall be enforced upon these
people in the Northwest Territories ? In
my judgment there is none. Are the people
of Quebec capable of being the best judges ?
They are far removed from the country,
they know little about the conditions or
otherwise I am sure very many of them
would take a different view of the matter.
Mr. BRODEUR. Would my hon. friend
allow me to ask him a question ? He says
that the people of the province of Quebec
3036
are asking for this legislation. He has no
evidence of that. Is he able to explain to
us how it is that some years ago he voted
in favour of forcing the government of the
Northwest Territories to establish separate
schools in those territories ?
Mr. SPROULE. I never voted to my
knowledge on that question. If the question had been raised I would have voted
against it.
Mr. BRODEUR. A Bill was introduced
some years ago when my hon. friend was in
the House providing that separate schools
should be provided in the Northwest Territories and he did not say anything against
such a provision in the Bill.
Mr. SPROULE. That was in 1875 before
I was a member of this parliament. If it
had been proposed when I was here I certainly would have opposed it. It is true
that the Act has been amended once or
twice since but the question of schools has
never been raised.
Mr. BRODEUR. The hon. gentleman is
mistaken. When he was in the House in
1880 the same provision was introduced in
a Bill which was then placed before the
House. But it was introduced by a Tory
and he never said one word against it.
Mr. SPROULE. I was not aware of any
such provision having been introduced, but
if I had been I would have voted against it.
Mr. BRODEUR. In 1880 section 9 of the
Bill which was then introduced provided
that :
The Lieutenant Governor in Council or the
Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice
and consent of the legislative assembly, as the
case may be, shall have such powers to make
ordinances for the government of the Northwest
Territories as the Governor in Council may
from time to time confer upon him ; provided
always that such powers shall not at any time
be in excess of those conferred by the ninety-
second and ninety-third sections of the British
North America Act, 1867, upon the legislatures
of the several provinces of the Dominion.
Section 10 provides that :
When and so soon as any system of taxation
shall be adopted in any district or portion of
the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of the
council
or assembly, as the case may he, shall pass all
necessary ordinances in respect to education—
—but it shall therein be always provided that
a majority of the ratepayers of any district or
portion of the Northwest Territories, or any
lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by what
3037 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 23, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
ever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they may think
fit,
and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor ; and, further,
that the
minority of the ratepayers therein, whether
Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish
separate schools therein,—
And my hon. friend voted for that.
Mr. SPROULE. I can tell the hon. gentleman that he is astray. I never voted for
that.
Mr. SPROULE. It may have been introduced but it was not voted on to my knowledge. The school
question had never been
raised. The hon. gentleman has been reading a re-enactment of the old law passed in
1875. The question of separate schools was
never discussed in this House nor voted
upon during my time in it. I never heard a
word regarding it because if I had you may
be sure that I would have stood then just
where I stand to-day.
Mr. BRODEUR. If my hon. friend will
permit me ? I suppose he does not deny
that this clause was enacted in 1875, but
section 9 was not enacted in 1875. It was
enacted in 1880. By that section, section 93
of the British North America Act was incorporated in the Bill and I am sure my hon.
friend will not deny that he had not a word
to say against it.
Mr. SPROULE. Â I do not think I ever
heard a word about it.
Mr. BRODEUR. No, it was an Act concerning the Northwest Territories.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. That is not the question I asked. Was it a re-enactment or was it in any substantial
respect a new enactment ? That is a fair question.
Mr. BRODEUR. It was an Act presented
to the House by Sir John Macdonald.
Mr. BRODEUR. It was an Act presented
to the House by Sir John Macdonald concerning the Northwest Territories and
amongst the different clauses of this Act
were sections 9 and 10 which I have just
read and which forced the government of
the Northwest Territories always to maintain separate schools.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Surely the hon. gentleman understands if he has not some
reason for not answering my question. I
desire to know whether or not these provisions to which he has called attention were
the re-enactments of provisions previously
3038
pased or whether they were substantially
new enactments. Is that not a fair question ?
Mr. BRODEUR. I may say in regard to
section 9 that I did not say that it was a
re-enactment of any section contained in the
Act of 1875. As to the principle embodied
in section 10 it was a re-enactment of the
clause which appeared in the Act of 1875
but as to the embodiment in the Northwest
Territories Act of section 93 of the British
North America Act, I think it was the first
time it was incorporated in the Bill.
Mr. SPROULE. That might be and I
would pay no attention to it. I was not
familiar until later years with the British
North America Act. You might mention any
clause of the British North America Act and
I would not know what it did or did not
apply to. But, as I understand it that was
a simple re-enactment of the Act of 1875 and
if I had known of it then I would have stood
just where I stand to-day. It did not matter
who was in power or which party introduced it.
It is contended that immigrants coming
to settle in the Northwest Territories have
been influenced in favour of this country
by the knowledge that there were separate
schools here, in connection with the church
to which they belonged, and that if we do
not perpetuate these schools, we shall do a
great injustice to them and be likely to retard immigration. Now , I took the trouble
to look up the immigration literature issued
by the present government to ascertain if
there was anything to justify that statement, and I could not find anything at all.
Here is one of the important pamphlets distributed by the government, and what does
it say with regard to schools ? It says :
Schools are non-sectarian and are national in
character.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Might I ask the
hon. gentleman if that is a government issue
and, if so, under whose authority?
Mr. SPROULE. This is a government
issue, by authority of the Hon. Clifford
Sifton, Minister of the Interior. It is entitled 'Farms and Farmers in Western Canada,'
to be distributed in the United States,
the old country or anywhere else. It also
sets out that a certain proportion of land
is set apart for the support of national
schools, and that the state provides for their
support and maintenance. This is not an
evidence that immigrants come to that country because of the advantages offered to
them in the shape of separate schools. I
may draw attention to another fact, which
may not be known to many. There have
been presented to this House from all
parts of Canada a large number of petitions against the educational clause of this
Bill. Petitions have come from the Northwest Territories, with tens of thousands of
3039
signatures, and among them are the names
of many Roman Catholics, who are petitioning parliament to-day not to pass this clause
of the Bill. I have letters in my possession drawing attention to the fact that
the names of many Roman Catholics are on
those petitions. I have letters stating that
if petitions had been sent to the Doukhobors, translated into their language, seventy-
five per cent of them would sign those
petitions ; so would the Galicians, and so
would the Roman Catholics of this country.
The Galicians say : We left one country
because of the tyranny of the church, and we
were told that we were coming to a free
country, and we do not want it in Canada.
They do not want separate schools ; they
want national schools ; and the result is
that none of them are asking for this provision in the Bill, while hundreds of them
have deliberately petitioned against it. Roman Catholics in the province of Ontario
have also petitioned against it, very many
of them. I have had petitions sent to me
in large numbers, and my attention has
been drawn to the fact that Roman Catholic
names were on those petitions. In some
instances 1 have know them very well ;
I have known them for years ; and I assume that they knew what they were seeking.
So I say the Roman Catholics are
not a unit on this question. Many of them
are in favour of national schools, and we are
not to blame because we desire to give them
national schools. I have always understood that the sentiment of this Dominion
was in favour of national schools and
against interference with the rights of the
provinces. I presented one petition from
New Westminister, British Columbia with
300 names, another from Vancouver containing 2,097 names ; another containing over
300 names ; another containing 400 or 500.
I have presented petitions in large numbers
from the Northwest Territories from Manitoba, from Ontario, from Quebec, from
Nova Scotia, from New Brunswick, and
from Prince Edward Island. From all
over the country have come petitions
to the same effect, declaring that it is
improper for this parliament to interfere
with the rights of the province, and asking
that there be no interference with the rights
of provinces in regard to education. The
church unions all over the country are passing resolutions against it. The Orange
lodges all over the country are passing
resolutions against it.
Mr. SPROULE. Properly so. There is
no harm in that, any more than there is in
the Jacques Cartier Club petitioning for
it. It is the right of every British subject
under the Crown to petition parliament so
long as he does so courteously and in accordance with the provisions laid down.
We have Conservatives petitioning for this
3040
Bill, and others against it ; that is their
right and no one complains. Petitions are
coming in thousands in favour of non-interference with the rights of the provinces,
and from only one province are petitions
coming asking us to force the hands of the
new provinces and curtail their rights, and
that is the province of Quebec.
But we are told that we have separate
schools in Ontario and Quebec, and that
everybody is satisfied with them. Here is
what the Prime Minister said in introducing this Bill :
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 indulge in
what may be not altogether unpardonable
pride, when I say, that I am not aware that
the Protestant minority of Quebec ever had
any cause of complaint of the treatment they
had received at the hands of the majority.
According to this, everybody is satisfied
with the separate schools of Quebec, and
everybody is satisfied wth the separate
schools of Ontario. I know that is not a
fact ; I have heard it over and over again.
I know where a separate school has been
converted into a public school, within a few
miles of where I live, and the reason the
people gave for doing that was that with
their strength divided, the task of keeping
up separate schools was too onerous and
heavy either for the Protestants or for the
Roman Catholics. The Prime Minister says:
I have never heard of any dissatisfaction in
the province of Quebec. Now, I have here
a quotation from the Huntingdon ' Gleaner,'
and what does it say ? It says :
How does the premier reconcile this declaration of his with the fact that the English-
speaking people outside the island of Montreal have largely disappeared and are continuing
to disappear ? Whole townships, settled by them and which prospered under
them, are to-day French. Protestant churches
are to be found in which no service is held, and
the spot where Protestants were buried for
three generations and more are now to be
found in the corners of farms of French-Canadians. In only one of the counties that
composed the eastern townships have the Protestants a majority, yet once they had
absolute
control. Do men throw up their farms and
leave a province where they have no cause of
complaint ?
Let Sir Wilfrid explain this—the extraordinary spectacle of a people abandoning the
land of their birth, to which they are bound
by every tie of affection and patriotism, to seek
new homes in the United States, for the proportion has been trifling who have gone
to
our Northwest. What is it they find under
an alien flag they could not in the province of
Quebec ?
3041 MARCH 23, 1905
Mr. SPROULE. The Postmaster General
should be the last man in this country to
interrupt me. I do not complain of his doing so, because if time would permit I could
tell him a great deal of the feeling in his
own constituency that he may not be aware
of.
We want no rhetorical generalities, no vaporing about justice and toleration. Here
is a
plain problem—Why are the Protestant farmers
of the province of Quebec going away? Do
men flee a province where they have no cause
of complaint ?
And still the hon. minister says there is
no cause for complaint.
Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE. Does my
hon. friend think that the Protestants would
be more apt to stay in Quebec if there were
no schools?
Mr. SPROULE. I am only telling him
what the Huntingdon 'Gleaner' thinks has
been the result of their divided education.
I am not going to enumerate all their
causes of complaint : I select one and that the
one on which Sir Wilfrid makes his boast—
that of schools. Farmers have told the writer,
when he remonstrated with them for selling
out, that they had no choice, that when the
ratepayers were all of one mind in their district they had only strength enough to
keep
up a school, but when the cure interfered and
insisted on a separate school they could not
maintain one.
They could not maintain two. When they
divided their forces the Protestants were so
few that they could not maintain one.
The alternative was before them to see their
children grow up in ignorance or go to a country where there are no separate schools.
They
were doing well in the province of Quebec,
they did not expect to get farms of better
soil, it was a wrench to their feelings to
break old associations and part with old
neighbours, but for the sake of their children
they felt they must make the sacrifice. It is
a sad truth, and one I am ashamed to set
down, that in localities in the townships where
Protestant parents have not left under this
motive, they have become so few that they
have either no schools or are able to keep
one open for so short a term each year that
it is of nominal service. Their children can
neither read nor write, and a race of illiterates
are growing up who are a reproach to Protestantism. Analyze the reports of the inspectors
of schools and there are revelations of
ignorance among the scattered English-speaking communities in the eastern townships
and
adjoining counties which, if their wealthy,
compatriots in Montreal realized, or our
churches comprehended, would stir them to
action.
There is no more saddening aspect in the
condition of our province than the groups of
Protestant children to be found here and
there all over it destitute of the means of
acquiring the elements of education, and
3042
threatening us with a coming generation of
Protestant farmers as ignorant as Russian
moujiks. This is a fruit of separate schools. If we had national schools instead of
sectarian schools, no child in the province would
be without opportunity to learn to read and
write. Another consequence of these sectarian schools should never be lost sight of,
and
that is, where Protestant farmers are too few to
have a school, they are taxed to support Catholic schools, which, sometimes, have
as their
teachers nuns or Christian Brothers. There
are hundreds of Protestant farmers who are
forced to support Catholic schools or sell out.
And that is no hardship to the Protestants
of Quebec? Is it no cause of complaint?
Mr. O. E. TALBOT. Is the hon. gentleman aware of any instance in which an
English Protestant in the province of Quebec has been forced on account of the condition
of affairs to sell his farm at a sacrifice in order to permit a Roman Catholic to
take his place?
Mr. SPROULE. At a sacrifice? I have
never gone into that phase of the question
or perhaps I could give the information.
Mr. SPROULE. I can give the hon. gentleman some information in connection with
this. I can refer him to the fact that I
think in the second or third year I was in
this parliament the people of Quebec came
up here and petitioned the then government
to give them sufficient money to take them
to the maritime provinces or to the far west
and what was the reason? That where
there was a community of Protestants years
ago, there was then only an odd one, and
they had become so few and scattered that
they were neither able to support separate
schools nor churches, and their families
must go—
Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE. Would it
be any better if they were obliged to go to
a French system of national schools.
Mr. SPROULE. If it was of good standard quality I think they would be much
better off.
Mr. SPROULE. And these petitioners
brought a map along showing that where
there were Protestant communities years
ago there were scarcely a dozen families
then, and where 50 or 100 could keep up a
church years ago there were then only 10
or 12 families. They said that their farms
were bought out by Roman Catholics. Whenever a Protestant was willing to sell his
farm there was really a premium for a
Roman Catholic to purchase it.
Mr. SCOTT. Is there any compulsion in
the province of Quebec to exercise what are
called the minority rights ?
3043 COMMONS
Mr. SPROULE. I do not know anything
about it. The writer says there are hundreds of Protestant farmers who are forced
either to support Catholic schools or sell
out, yet the Prime Minister says they have
no cause of complaint :
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, as premier, ought to
be the guardian of the rights that pertain to
every British subject regardless of creed or
nationality, tells us it is no cause of complaint
to compel Protestants to pay taxes to support
a religious system against which their very
name indicates they protest, and that is the
system of schools he wants to fasten for all
time on our great Northwest. There is not a
Protestant farmer who has been under the
thrall in Quebec, who would want to buy land
in the proposed new provinces if he succeeds.
That is the answer I give to the statement of the First Minister, and that is why
I say we ought not to do the same thing in
a country which is, new and being rapidly
settled. In such a country we shoud avoid
the mistakes committed in the past. For
that reason I am supporting what I believe
to be a national school system. Forty years
ago we had church schools and pay schools
and we had no public or free schools. Our
educational system then was very poor,
and we adopted the national school system
because we believed it to be better than the
other, and upon trial we found it a great
improvement and extended it by degrees
until we have it practically enforced
throughout the province to-day. Shall we
ever go back to these church and parochial
schools ? Protestants never will because
they prefer the national system and because
they think it is the duty of the state to see
that every child is educated. They have no
desire to have religion taught in the schools
but are content to leave that to the churches.
The sentiment of the 19th and 20th century
is in favour of that system. The enlightened, intelligent civilization of to-day recognizes
that fact, and that policy is being carried out the world over. Are we going back
to what has been discarded in the past?
We are told to-day that public sentiment is
not against these clauses. Well, one of
the cabinet ministers, representing that
great western country, has resigned from
the cabinet because he could not support the
policy of the government, and the right
hon. gentleman will not consult the Premier
of the Northwest Territories. Dare he test
public opinion in the Territories by calling
on an election ? I challenge him to do it. Let
him do it and he will soon find out what the
deep seated sentiment of the people out
there is. But he dare not make the attempt.
If he were certain he could elect a member
to support his government in that country
and take the place in the cabinet rendered
vacant by the resignation of the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), he would
not
loose a moment in having that place filled.
Can he be said to be carrying out constitutional government on popular lines when
the
3044
people of the illimitable west have no one
to speak for them in the cabinet, especially
at a time when a Bill is being forced through
this House which will affect them for all
time in the future. He is certainly not, as
I understand constitutional government or
as the people of the west understand it. The
government dare not test public opinion today. There is a vacancy in the representation
of the city of Toronto. My hon. friend
the Postmaster General thinks he is in accord with public opinion. Well, I challenge
him to open up Centre Toronto to-morrow
with the best candidate he can get. Why
in that very constituency the reform party
had a meeting the other day and passed
resolutions declaring against these clauses
and protesting against their being forced
on the people. Surely that ought to be a
warning to the Postmaster General—a warning which he should take now, for later on
it
may be too late. The government dare not
test public opinion anywhere west of Lake
Superior or even in Ontario.
We are told that separate schools work
satisfactorily. I need hardly refer to that
question. The trend of the age is in favour
of national schools. The educational system
of Canada to-day is entirely different from
what it was when the schools were sectarian and pay schools. They are now national
and non-sectarian and we want to keep
them so. But a comparison is made with
regard to the prevalence of crime in countries where there are separate schools compared
with those where the national public
school flourishes. It seemed to me that was
a most unfortunate comparison. Can the
comparison be said to be a fair one between
Canada and the United States ? No. But
take the provinces that have no separate
schools and compare them with those that
have. Did the right hon. gentleman do that?
Not at all. I however have taken the troube
to look up the statistics and I find that there
is practically no difference. Take Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and Manitoba, and
I find practically there is no difference as
regards the prevalence of crime between
these provinces and the provinces of Ontario
and Quebec. But the right hon. gentleman
pointed to the United States and asked how
we were to account for the prevalence in
that country of divorces. Surely that is not
due to the absence of separate schools. Why
did he not show that the application for
divorces from these provinces which have
not separate schools are larger than those
which have. The reason is evident. I
looked into that question and I found no
evidence of any difference so that the comparison between Canada and the United
States is not a fair one. I have said that
the trend of the age is in favour of national
schools. They are to be found in Mexico,
Bolivia, in most of the South American
republics, Venezuela, Equador, France, Italy,
Germany and Ireland. Then are you going
3045 MARCH 23, 1905
to establish in these new provinces something else ? The enlightened advanced intelligence
of the twentieth century declares
in favour of national schools, are you going
back to something else ? Are you going
to clothe these new provinces with the
cast-off and tattered garments of those
nations which discarded church and sectarian schools years ago ? We shall be committing the greatest of follies if we do.
Our people out in the west are inured to a
freedom far in advance of any enjoyed in
almost any part of the world, and it is but
natural that they should feel sore at being
deprived of any of their undoubted rights.
Why should we interfere with those rights,
as we shall assuredly do if we establish
separate schools in that country and compel
these people to maintain such schools for
ever after. These people are inured to
western freedom and should continue to
enjoy it. These young giants have in themselves and their surroundings all the capabilities
of great development, if we will
only avoid binding them with chains and
shackles which will retard that development.
They have in themselves the elements of
great development. Surely we do not wish
to retard or prevent them developing the
highest capabilities of citizens in that great
western country. Let them breathe the
fresh air of heaven in their western freedom
which is their birthright, let them enjoy the
sunshine and the other exhilarating environments of western freedom which they enjoy
to-day and grow up under these favourable
conditions. Let their mental pabulum be the
unadulterated food supplied from the national storehouse of the little red schools,
and
we need have no fear for the future citizenship of these people. They will grow up
mental and colossal giants and be a source
of strength not only to this country in the
future but to the British empire. Our motto
to-day is ' hands off the twins ; do not interfere with their rights.' Provincial
rights are
sacred and inalienable. They must not be
interfered with, and therefore I shall vote
for the amendment to strike those clauses
from the Bill.
Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of
Customs). It has been rightly said, Mr. Speaker, by gentlemen who preceded me, that
we
have come to the consideration of two very
important Bills. From what has transpired
in this House and the country, there is evidently a good deal of diversity of opinion
on at least some of the points in those measures. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) who
has just taken his seat has emphasized his
objections strongly, those objections being
mainly to one portion of the Bill. If I
understood him aright, he objects also to
another section which deals with the public lands. I did not quite catch whether he
objected to those sections referring to the
boundaries.
3046
Mr. SPROULE. I have always been of
the opinion that the lands should go to the
provinces.
Mr. PATERSON. I understood that to be
the hon. gentleman's position. The hon.
gentleman, like others who preceded him,
seems to have been influenced by the interest aroused in the country by what are
known as the educational clauses. The
House has been petitioned in reference to
those clauses ; there have been petitions
for and petitions against. It is for parliament to come to the consideration of this
question, as I believe parliament has done
and will do, in a calm and dispassionate
spirit, and to endeavour to give due weight
to any argument that may be advanced
from any point of view. That is what this
discussion is for ; that is how we may be
benefited. In committee, of course, the
educational clauses will be discussed at
length. Still I may follow the example of
the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule),
and deal largely with that subject. The
government have proposed in this Bill certain provisions with reference to the matter.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L.
Borden), in his able speech, offered a legal
argument against that portion of the Bill
and submitted an amendment. Not only
was a legal argument presented by the
leader of the opposition, but the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) also directed
part
of his argument in the same line. And I
have no doubt that other gentlemen in the
House who are competent to do so will follow that line. But upon that portion of the
case I shall not trespass. Like the hon.
member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I do
not feel that I should be regarded as an
authority upon the subject, and I know it
would be hazardous for me—and even presumptious—for me to express an opinion ;
not that I abandon my judgment in this
matter, but simply that I do not argue the
matter before the House. My hon. friend
(Mr. Sproule) read an opinion from a very
able legal gentleman. Mr. Christopher Robinson, K.C. I believe that gentleman stands
almost, if not quite, at the head of his profession. The leader of the opposition
is
also admitted, I think, to be a gentleman of
legal attainments of no ordinary character.
And I think I am not saying more than I
am perfectly justified in saying when I
state that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is also one of the brightest
legal
minds we have in the country. But these
gentlemen do not agree. If I followed
aright the argument of the leader of the
opposition, he takes the ground that this
parliament has no power to pass the legislation now proposed. If I followed him
aright and was able to apprehend his argument, that is his position. But if I apprehend
aright the opinion expressed in the
telegram of Mr. Christopher Robinson, that
gentleman does not at all take the view
expressed by the leader of the opposition.
3047
If I understand him, Mr. Christopher Robinson argues that it is doubtful whether the
Premier's position in relation to section 93
would be borne out. If it is not, and if the
Territories do not come under that provision, Mr. Robinson says, it would be necessary
for parliament to supplement their action.
Then, if parliament can supplement that
action, it must be because parliament has
the power—
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Paterson) has misapprehended it. I
have read the telegram carefully.
Mr. PATERSON. Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden), when the telegram
was first read, understand it as I have just
stated ?
Mr. PATERSON. May I ask the hon. gentleman what it means with reference to the
action of parliament ?
The right of the Dominion parliament to impose restrictions upon the provinces about
to
be formed in dealing with the subject of education and separate schools, is, I think,
not beyond question.
I said that, in my humble opinion, parliament had no such powers.
This would require more consideration than
I have been able yet to give it, and must ultimately be settled by judicial decision.
I am
asked, however, whether parliament is constitutionally bound to impose any such restriction,
or whether it exists otherwise, and I am
of opinion in the negative.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The Prime Minister
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did not say that, but
said the very opposite—and I suppose the
hon. member (Mr. German) would say that
the Prime Minister is somebody.
It must be borne in mind that I am concerned
only with the question of legal obligation. What
the parliament ought to do or should do in the
exercise of any power which they may possess,—
—is not within the province of counsel.
' Any power which they may possess.'
Mr. Robinson says he is not advising as
to what parliament should do if it has the
power, but as to the power which parlia
ment has.
Such a restriction, I apprehend, must exist
or may be imposed, if at all, under the provisions of section 93 of the British North
America Act, 1867, and on the ground of their
3048
application to the provinces now to be formed.
If that section applies, it would seem to require no enactment of our parliament to
give
it effect,—
My hon. friend will remember that I said
that what we should do is to use simple
general words bringing into force in the
Northwest Territories the constitution which
we already possess. I understand this
opinion to go further even than what I
suggested yesterday.
—and if not, no such enactment, so far as I
am aware, is otherwise made necessary.
I must confess I do not exactly understand these words of the telegram. But
Mr. Robinson continues—and the telegram
is perfectly clear in this regard :
Upon the whole, I am of the opinion that section 93 does not apply to the provinces
now
about to be established.
The legislation before parliament not only
seeks to make it apply, but amends it in
making that application, and provides an
entirely new section, although in doing so
it is altering imperial legislation. Mr. Robinson continues :
Its provisions would appear—
That is, the provisions of section 93 of the
British North America Act—
Its provisions would appear to me to be intended for, and confined to the then provinces,
and to the union formed in 1867. There is not
in any part of the Northwest Territories, as a
province, any right or privilege with respect
to denominational schools possessed by any
class of persons, created by the province, or existing at such union ; and a right
subsequently
established by the Dominion in the part now
about to be made a province does not appear to
me to come within the enactment.
I had not seen or heard of this opinion
when I spoke yesterday. So far as I am.
able to understand it, as very briefly embodied in the telegram, it seems to me altogether
in accordance with the view which
I expressed, except that I expressed a
greater doubt than Mr. Robinson does about
the power of this parliament to deal with
this question.
Mr. PATERSON. Well, it is plain from
what we have heard that lawyers differ.
However, I still maintain my opinion, but
I do so with deference, because neither am
I able to make a legal argument myself,
nor have I a sufficiently sharp mind to understand the contradictory legal arguments
of others. Now I want to know what Sir
Christopher Robinson means. If section 93
does give certain powers, should parliament
exercise the power it possesses ? Now then
what power does parliament possess ? The
leader of the opposition says we have no
power. Sir Christopher Robinson, as I understand, believes that under the amendment
to the British North America Act of 1875, the right to make the constitution of
3049
MARCH 23, 1905
these new provinces is vested in this parliament, and if it be necessary to give effect
to that right. we must do so. But he is
not clear that section 93 does give that
right.
Mr. PATERSON. I am not arguing the
legal point with the hon. gentleman, I am
simply pointing out that the best legal
minds we have in the country do not agree.
Now there was a very large meeting held
in the city of Toronto last Monday, in Massey Hall. The multitude assembled were
evidently deeply moved by the subject of
discussion, namely, the educational clauses
of this Bill. There was present a legal
gentleman whose standing in the profession
I do not know ; I see he is a King's Counsel,
and I have no doubt he is a gentleman possessed of legal knowledge. Evidently he
felt warmly on this subject, for he moved
a resolution protesting against the passage
of the Bill. In the resolution which was
to be forwarded to the Prime Minister he
proposes one of three different courses in
dealing with this question. I am taking
now the report of the meeting published in
the Toronto 'World,' which I presume will
be accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite.
In speaking to his resolution he replied to
the arguments of the Prime Minister as to
the bearing of section 93 of the British
North America Act. He said that if what
the Prime Minister had contended was true,
then there was no necessity to do anything
further. Then he considered what Mr. Haultain had contended for, and could not agree
with that. The third view, and the one that
was likely, from his own opinion, to prevail
was that under the British North America
Amendment Act of 1871, power was vested in
the Dominion parliament to deal with this
educational question in the constitution of
the new provinces, as it saw fit; and, said
he, that is the supreme reason why we want
to speak out now. because that power is
in the hands of the Dominion parliament,
and if they exercise it now it is irrevocable
for all time to come. The legal gentleman
to whom I refer was Mr. Thomson, K.C., of
Toronto. Hon. gentlemen may read his
opinion for themselves. Now amidst all
these conflicting opinions as to whether we
have this power, the leader of the opposition proposes to leave this question unsettled,
no one knowing where they are,
nothing definite. the country to be left in
a turmoil in reference to this matter for a
long time to come. If there is such a division among the legal gentlemen, may not
the
same doubt exist in the Supreme Court, the
same doubt in the Privy Council ? And all
this time you have the delay. What shall
we do? What shall I as a layman do ?
Judging from the arguments I have heard,
and bringing to hear what common sense I
have on the subject. and what legal knowl
3050
edge as a layman I may have, it seems to
me we have power to deal with this matter. In dealing with this matter, I have
regard to the fact that in those Territories,
of "thirty years, by Act of this Dominion
parliament under which people have entered that country, knowing that the existing
school system had been established by
an Act of this parliament, knowing that under these conditions people have gone in
there and settled there under that system
of education, I say it is only just, and right,
and sensible, and the proper thing to do in
dealing with this matter on the basis of justice of law, to say that the advantages.
whatever they may be, that these people
have had for thirty years. shall not, by
this Dominion government, be taken away
from them now.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. PATERSON. Mr. Speaker, when you
left the chair at six o'clock I had alluded
to the fact that there were differences of
opinion as to the constitutionality of the
Act which has been submitted for the approval of the members of this House. I
gave, as far as I understood them, the differing views. Whether I interpreted them
aright or not it must be evident to every
hon. gentleman present that there is a diversity of opinion when a very able and eminent
lawyer whose words were read to us
from a telegram this afternoon, speaks of
doubts, speaks of the necessity for further
consideration and hints that it is possible
it may be necessary, in order to supplement section 93 of the British North America
Act, that we should have recourse to the
powers which parliament may possess to
make it plain. If I apprehended him aright
that shows that in his opinion it was contemplated that parliament had powers in
this matter and that view, in my humble
opinion, coincides with what I think to be
the facts in the case. But, as I said before I do not intend in any way to argue
the constitutional question. I point out this,
however, that there being such a conflict
of opinion and the authority to whom I have
alluded saying that it might be necessary to
get a judicial opinion that would require
time during which you would have excitement, during which you would have unrest
and during which you would not have that
peace that is conducive to the prosperity of
the Dominion and which would affect, I
think, injuriously, the provinces that we
are about to bring into the confederation. I
think it will be admitted by all who have
listened to the arguments that the view
which is taken by many is not the correct
view to take of the constitution of this Dominion in reference to educational matters.
3051
I have not received many personal communications in reference to this matter. I
have received, I think two letters from
political friends who are opposed to the
measure. I received one memorial from a
body of gentlemen whom I hold in the
highest respect. To each of these I returned the answer that I have received their
communications, that I would give them every
consideration, noting their views. As was
my bounden duty I have done so. I might
read to the House the terms of the resolution that was forwarded to me from that
body of whom, I again repeat, I entertain
the highest respect. It was that it—
Desires to enter a vigorous and
unqualified
protest against the educational clause in the
Acts constituting the provinces of Alberta and
Saskatchewan, and submits that the legislation
proposed to be enacted is contrary to the whole
spirit of confederation, which for the good of
the whole Dominion, leaves to the control of.
the provinces such domestic problems as education.
I do not want for one moment to seek
to state or insinuate that these gentlemen
have not given what they believe to be a correct interpretation according to their
contention. I simply say that in
obedience
to What I have stated I have given it every
consideration, I have paid more attention to
the British North America Act perhaps during the past few weeks than I had done in
many years and I am unable to see eye to
eye with these gentlemen when they say
that—
The whole spirit of confederation, which
for
the good of the whole Dominion, leaves to the
control of the provinces such domestic problems
as education.
And
that it is contrary to the whole spirit
of confederation to take another view. When
the constitution was framed under which we
exist there were certain subjects
which
were allotted to the local legislatures in
which they have absolute and independent
power, Others were reserved to the
Dominion parliament in which they have absolute
and unrestricted power. The question of
education, as rightly stated by these gentlemen, is remitted to the local legislatures,
but under the British North America Act,
that is not given to them. as many other subjects are given to them to be dealt by
them
exclusively without any reservation whatever. There is a reservation, but the reservation
is in the spirit of preserving to the
minorities in the various provinces in the
confederation the rights they
enjoy at the
time they enter confederation. Therefore,
I repeat again, while having the highest regard for the honesty, yes, and the intelligence
of that body of gentlemen who ad—
dressed that resolution to me, I am unable
honestly to agree with them. My view is
different. The whole spirit of confederation,
as I understand it in reference to the edu
3052
cational question, is that the local
governments may dea1—shall deal—with the education question, but they shall do that
subject to the restriction that secures the rights
of minorities as it is embodied in the constitution that was given to us. The whole
spirit of that, I say, is in the direction of securing the rights of the minorities.
It was
a confederacy of independent provinces that
was being formed. It was necessary to
secure unity in order that we might have
progress and harmony and in order that we
might become a nation. Therefore it was,
that, finding that there were deep feelings
on the subject in some of the provinces
which entered confederation at that time,
concessions in reference to the matter of
education were given and secured to two
of the provinces. More than that it was
enacted that as respects other provinces entering the union, minorities having had
educational privileges or rights prior to their
union should have these conserved to them. What has been the result of
that? Why,
Sir, the fathers of confederation, or some
of them, said it would be impossible to
form a confederation under any other conditions or stipulations. The Hon. George
Brown, who had always been a consistent
opponent of separate schools, waived his
objections in order to accomplish what he
considered the great good of uniting the
various provinces of British North America
into a grand confederacy which would become, as it has become, the brightest gem
in the British Crown; and it is proper to
consider the question before us now in the
light of promoting the unity, concord, harmony, peace, prosperity and progress of
these united provinces which form the Dominion of Canada. It has been said that the
position taken by the government in this matter is wholly contrary to the position
which they took in the year 1894 on the Manitoba school question—that then the Liberal
party stood for provincial rights. I think it was the hon. member for North Toronto
(Mr. Foster) who, the other night, in that aggressive speech of his. pointed out
that the Prime Minister, the Postmaster General, the Minister of Finance, had all
gone through the country proclaiming that—strong upon it; yes, and that the Minister
of Customs had thundered in that direction. Well. Mr. Speaker. just by way of passing,
I call to your attention how a noted orator like even my hon. friend from North
Toronto is apt to make an inapt illustration. The idea of treating the Minister
of Customs' usually placid, calm utterances as thunderings must seem to everybody
as very inappropriate indeed.
Mr. PATERSON. To suggest that the
Minister of Customs had pointed out, in his calm though forcible manner. certain
3053 MARCH 23, 1905
things, would have been correct. With the
other gentlemen to whom my hon. friend
has alluded, I was against the coercion of
Manitoba; I said it would be an infringement of provincial rights why? Because
I did not sympathize with the minority ?
No. Why. then ? For the same reason that
actuated the other gentlemen and actuated
the Liberal party. It had been declared
by the court of last resort, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that, as
it
seemed to the minority in that province,
their rights had been abrogated by the Bill
that had been passed by the Manitoba legislature, but that nevertheless the Manitoba
legislature had acted within its powers,
that, acting within its powers, it must be
the judge, and that therefore it was inexpedient and would be against provincial
rights, to pass a law in the Dominion
parliament which. would set aside, override,
super-cede, legislation passed by a provincial legislature which was entirely within
its competence. That, Sir, was the reason
we opposed interference. Now, I have not
read what I said on that occasion, if it is
recorded anywhere; I have not had time.
I have not even read the utterances of other
gentlemen, as some of the hon. gentlemen
opposite have done; but if there are any
recorded utterances of mine, I have no
doubt that they will be found to be in the
direction in which I have spoken. That
position I took, and for that position I contended; and in supporting this Bill, am
I
taking back anything I said at that time?
Am I in a position different from what I
was in at that time ? Am I now an opponent of provincial rights? Am I now supporting
the Bill to override an enactment
passed by a legislature having full competence to pass that enactment? Nothing of
the kind. There is no such proposition;
the cases are not parallel. Find the strongest utterance you can, made by any member
of the Liberal party in defence of the
provincial rights of Manitoba and the decision of the Privy Council, and you will
find
it none too strong, unless it was couched in
offensive language, as I trust none was.
But to claim, as we heard it claimed this
afternoon, that the present measure is an
invasion of provincial rights, is something
that I cannot understand. What law of the
Territories that are about to become provinces are we seeking to override ? It is
said : you are passing a law—which is true.
But what law of the Territories are we
passing a law to do away with?
Mr. LALOR.
A law to do away with provincial rights.
Mr. PATERSON. The answer of the
hon. gentleman is not a correct answer, and
therefore I must ask again. Suppose I try
the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F.
Maclean) ; he would give me a different answer to that, I think. What are we doing
?
We have submitted a Bill for the considera
3054
tion of this House-what for? To override
legislation enacted by the Territories? To
wipe out and do away with laws which
they have passed? Will any hon. gentleman say that we are ? Most undoubtedly
not. Do you say to me : but you are passing a law to continue an Act that is on the
statute-book of the Territories. I say, Yes,
but who passed that Act? This Dominion
parliament ? No; Premier Haultain, his
government, and the members of the Northwest assembly. It is their Act. There is
chapter 29, chapter 30, chapter 31, passed
of their own free motion by the representatives of the' people in the Territories.
And
what are we proposing to do ? What hon.
gentlemen opposite wanted us to do in the
Manitoba case—to repeal that, to abrogate
it ? No; simply to continue it. Talk about
Mr. Haultain not having been consulted.
He says he was consulted twice: but
if he had never been consulted, if no Northwest member had ever been consulted. I
ask, what better indication can you have
of the desires of. the people of the Northwest Territories than their own legislation
?
It may be said that Mr. Haultain has stated
that he thinks this question should be left
to the provincial legislature. But, if correctly reported, when asked : if it were
left
to the legislatures of the provinces when
constituted, would they change the law ?
His answer was, if I remember rightlyÂ
'If I were a dictator to-morrow, I would
not change it.' Yet these gentlemen talk
about provincial rights being invaded by
this Bill. Amid all the doubts and uncertainties that our constitutional lawyers in
this House and outside of this House present, in reference to ascertaining what are
the facts of the case, if, as I believe, from
advice which I have received from men in
whose legal knowledge I have confidence
we have the power under the amendment
to the British North. America Act of 1871 to
pass this law which we have submitted for
the approval of this House and if this Bill
simply provides for the continuance of the
law which was passed by the men who represented the Northwest Territories three
years ago, and which has been in existence
for three years without, so far as I am
aware, any man having lifted up his voice
against it, is it not better to deal with this
question now, to settle this question in this
way, rather than to leave it open to be â
very possible cause of discord, and a means
of holding back the prosperity and the progress of this Dominion ?
Objection is taken to this law by friends
in other provinces. Why ? Because they
say that the law passed by the Territories
provides for separate schools—and so it does.
And this Dominion parliament in 1875 said
that there should be privileges given to
minorities, whether Protestant or Catholic,
in the country to form separate schools if
they so desired. That Act, passed under
3055 COMMONS
the Mackenzie administration, a Liberal administration, was consolidated and re-enacted,
as the Minister of Inland Revenue
(Hon. Mr. Brodeur) read this afternoon, in
1880 under Sir John Macdonald's government. For thirty years, this legislation has
been enjoyed by these people. It was consolidated again and went into effect in
1902, three years ago. This is the law which
was embodied in the Bill which is now before the House and which if this Bill passes
will secure to the minorities in those provinces the rights that are given to them
in
the legislation contained in the laws which
the assembly of those Territories enacted.
Let us stop for a moment or two, to consider this question of separate schools. In
the School Act, which is the first Act in that
book, there are 180 sections and five sections out of that 180 deal with this question
of separate schools—five and five only. The
hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)
in his argument this afternoon based his
objection wholly on the fact that he objects
to church schools, or as he calls them, denominational schools under the direction
and
control of the church and he pictured to us
a condition of things-
Mr. SPROULE. I did not base my argument on any such contention. I based my
argument upon the rights of the provinces
to deal with education and said that I had
no concern with what they did, that I would
give them whatever types of schools they liked.
Mr. PATERSON. Quite so. And I do
not wish to misrepresent the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule), but when he was drawn
the House he had to admit that the schools
provided for in these Acts are not church
schools. But why did he picture to us all
the evils that had resulted from church
schools in other countries and in other
provinces ? Why was it that he complained
of what he was pleased to call separate
schools that were church schools in other
provinces when we were not discussing the
system of separate schools in other provinces, but were debating the condition of
the
schools in the Territories which are about
to become provinces ? That is the question.
I think it would be perhaps worth while
that I should hurriedly give to the House a
portion of the law, particularly the sections
to the Bill which the Bill now before us
will continue as the law of the Territories.
First as to the constitution of the Department of Education. Let there be no clouding
of this question. The Territories did
not enact church schools; they enacted
state schools, national schools in every
sense of the word.
There shall be a department of the public
service of the Territories called the Depart
3056
ment of Education over which the member of
the Executive Council appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, under the seal
of
the Territories to discharge the functions of
the Commissioner of Education for the time
being shall preside.
The department shall have the control and
management of all kindergarten schools, public and separate schools, normal schools,
teachers' institutes and the education of deaf, deaf
mute and blind persons.
A minister, one of the ministers of the
government shall have control of that and
that minister or commissioner as he is called, with the approval of the Lieutenant
Governor in Council, shall have power to
make regulations of the department.
The commissioner, with the approval of the
Lieutenant Governor in Council, shall have
power :
1. To make regulations of the department—
(a) For the classification, organization, government, examination and inspection of
all
schools hereinbefore mentioned;
(b) For the construction, furnishing and care
of school buildings and the arrangement of
school premises;
(c) For the examination, licensing and grading of teachers and for the examination
of persons who may desire to enter professions or
who may wish certificates of having completed
courses of study in any school ;
(d) For a. teachers' reading course and teachers' institutes and conventions;
2. To authorize text and reference books for
the use of the pupils and teachers in all schools
hereinbefore mentioned as Well as such maps,
globes, charts and other apparatus or equipment as may be required for giving proper
instruction in such schools ;
3. To prepare a list of books suitable for
school libraries and to make regulations for the
management of such libraries.
4. To make due provision for the training of
teachers.
The whole control of all these subjects
is under the direction of a responsible minister of the Crown. Gentlemen who have
these ordinances in their hands, on reading
them will, I have no doubt, come to the
conclusion that I have myself come to, that
these are national schools in every sense of
the word. I have said that there is provision for schools for the minority in accordance
with the rights which they have enjoyed for 30 years, the rights given them
by this very Dominion parliament under
a Liberal government. What are they?
They are set forth in sections 41 to 45. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, if I read them for
I
think they are worth reading. Again I
would remark that there are only five out of
180 sections that deal with this subject.
The minority of the ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic.
may establish a separate school therein; and
in such case the ratepayers establishing such
Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school
shall be liable only to assessments of such
rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
3057 MARCH 23, 1905
The petition for the erection of a separate
school district shall be signed by three resident ratepayers of the religious faith
indicated
in the name of the proposed district ; and shall
be in the form prescribed by the commissioner.
The persons qualified to vote for or against the
erection of a separate school district shall be
the ratepayers in the district of the same religious faith, Protestants or Roman Catholic
as
the petitioners.
The notice calling a meeting of the ratepayers
for the purpose of taking their votes on the
petition for the erection of a separate school
district shall be in the form prescribed by the
commissioner. and the proceedings subsequent
to the posting of such notice shall be the same
as prescribed in the formation of public school
districts.
After the establishment of a separate school
district under the provisions of this ordinance,
such separate school district and the board
thereof shall possess and exercise all rights,
powers, privileges and be subject to the same
liabilities and method of government as is
herein provided in respect of public school
districts.
Any person who is legally assessed or assessable for a public school will not be liable
to
assessment for any separate school established therein.
My right hon. colleague, the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill said its object
was to secure to the minority what they
now enjoy, namely, the right to have their
own schools, to assess themselves for the
cost of these schools, and to receive their
equitable and proportionate share of the
public grants for school purposes. My hon.
colleague, the Minister of Justice, also declared that to be the object and intent
of
the Bill. It was contended, however, by
some that there might be a broader construction placed upon the general Bill than
was intended, as explained by the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Justice, and to
meet that objection, the clauses were
amended so as to re-enact the existing provisions of the law and thus prevent any
dispute in the future. It must be borne in
mind that those separate schools are formed
precisely as every school district is formed.
Although the name separate school appears
to convey to the minds of some people the
impression that they are separate in the
sense in which they are established in some
other province, there is no distinction between these schools and the other public
schools as regards organization, or the qualification of teachers, or the text books,
or
the right of state to inspection, or in the reports they have to make. In every respect
they are under the commissioner of education in absolutely the same manner as is
every other public school in the Territories.
All they get is what? If they desire it, provided they have the requisite number of
children of school age, they may upon petitioning the commissioners be permitted by
them to erect a school district, pay for it
out of their own pockets, and get only their
share of the money they contribute. Is not
3058
that fair? Is there anything wrong or unjust in that? Point out to me if you can
anything more fair. Oh, but you tell me,
they may give religious instruction in these
schools. Very true, but let us read the
clauses. There are three sections dealing
with that subject and I shall read them:
137. No religious instruction except as hereinafter provided, shall be permitted in
the
school of any district from the opening of such
school until one-half hour previous to its closing in the afternoon, after which time
any such
instruction permitted or desired by the board
may be given.
138. Any child shall have the privilege of
leaving the school-room at the time at which
religious instruction is commenced as provided
in the next preceding section or of remaining
without taking part, in any religious instruction
may be given, it the parent or guardians so
desire.
139. No teacher, school trustee or inspector.
shall in any way attempt to deprive such child
of any advantage that it may derive from the
ordinary education given in such school, and any
such action on the part of any school trustee,
inspector or teacher shall be held to be a disqualification for and avoidance of the
office
held by him.
These are all the sections of the Act, as
far as I am aware, that relate to public instruction. In the separate schools from
nine o'clock in the morning until noon and
from 1.30 until 3.30 pm. no religious instruction is to be given to the children.
Precisely the same course of study that is followed in the public schools is to be
followed
in these schools ; but when the hour of 3.30
p.m. arrives, if the trustees of the separate
school desire, religious instruction may
then be given to the youth therein. Is that
a concession made particularly to our Roman Catholic brethren ? Why, the same
clauses apply to every school, Protestant,
public and every other. No special right,
no special permission is given the separate
schools which is Withheld from the other.
Shall it be made a reproach to our Roman
Catholic brethren that it be a matter of conscience With them, that they instill into
the minds of their youth the principles
of the Christian religion? Is that something
to be deplored? The trustees of any school
may avail themselves of those clauses and
have religious instruction given to the pupils. I do not wish to intrude my personal
views upon this House, but speaking for
myself alone, I would desire if it could be
accomplished—and it seems to me that it
ought not to be impossible in these days of
broad-minded charity among the various
denominations—that some agreement might
be come to under which certain portions of
the Bible might be read and studied in the
public schools of these Territories, if the
trustees so desire. I am very sure that no
child would be injured thereby. I am quite
sure that no harm would thereby be caused
any of the thousands of people now going
into that country, many more or less indif
3059
COMMONS
ferent with regard to these
matters—indifferent. not hostile—and who possibly do not
read to their children from that Book which
I think we all agree will make any man
that studies it and follows its precepts a
good citizen. I am sure we all agree that
any one who studies that Book cannot be
an ignorant man, and that if he follows its
precepts he cannot be a bad citizen. If we
believe, as I think we do, that it is rightousness which exalts a nation,
who will say
that it is wrong to have during the half hour
at the closing of the school portions of that
Book taught and read to the children?
Will it be worse for them if they know
the Ten Commandments ? Will it be worse
for them if they know the sermon on the
mount in which is contained the golden rule?
Or the fifteenth psalm that describes what
a citizen ought to be. If it be desirable—as
it is—that during the Sabbath afternoon,
the children should be brought together in
order to teach them these things, can it be
wrong—if it can be agreed upon—that during half an hour in the afternoon of five
other days of the week they should have
the same instruction? I do not seek to
obtrude my own personal views, I speak for
myself alone. But I trust that that spirit
will take possession of the men in the western country, and that, instead of repining
or complaining if our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, in obedience to their conscience,
give religious instruction to their youth,
they also will devise means whereby religious instruction may be given in the schools.
As I have said, I am aware of the difficulties that in the past, have prevented this
being accomplished. But I do think that,
with the spirit of charity that is abroad,
and with many Protestants seeking means
for a concerted movement in this direction,
it would be well worth their while at any
rate to give the matter some consideration.
There have been noble men, Canadians of
French extraction, who have laboured in
the Northwest as missionaries in days gone
by ; and there have been grand Protestant
clergymen who have engaged in the same
work, believing that it is the duty of Canadians to establish the Christian religion
in
that country as the foundation of its institutions. Many a time have I heard such
a view expressed publicly and at least once
in my own home by one who has passed
away, but whose memory is revered, one
who was a noble patriot it ever there was
one—that the great object to be sought in
the Northwest Territories was to follow
with religious ordinances the population
pouring in there, so that they might become
a great people and enduring power in the
state. I say that I for one have no
objections; nay more, I am glad to find,
that it is proposed to continue such a
law in the Northwest to give permission to the trustees of each school, pub
3060
lic or separate, to have such religious
in—
struction as may be desired given during.
that half hour. Yet, it is
provided that
the children of parents—if such there be—
who cannot approve of the teaching given
have the privilege of withdrawing their
children while that instruction is in progress. No man's conscience can be offended
in the least. And the further provision
is made, lest, perchance the possible case
might arise of an inspector, or school trustee or teacher seeking to place the child
so withdrawn by his parents during that
half hour at a disadvantage because of that
withdrawal, that such an Act would be an
offense subjecting the one guilty of it to
summary loss of his office. So, there. is
eminently safe provision made. In these
provisions I find that which not only I do
not disapprove but that which meets my
cordial approval.
I was pleased to receive the resolution
forwarded to me by the gentleman who
acted as secretary on the occasion when it
was adopted. He accompanied it
with a
personal letter to myself. The writer is a
reverend gentleman whose personal friend
I should deem it an honour to be considered.
I believe he is also a political friend of the
party in power. I cannot give the exact
words, but he said in effect that he was not
disposed to blame the Prime Minister (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier)—though he did not approve
of this measure, of course—as some were
disposed to do; but he was disposed to
blame the members of the cabinet from Ontario. What are they doing? he
said. I
find Mr. Stapleton Caldecott, who presided
at the meeting at Toronto in his opening
remarks wanted to know where the Ontario members of the cabinet were on this
question; were they favourable, or were
they unfavourable ? Well, I had supposed
that Mr. Stapleton Caldecott knew enough
of constitutional procedure to know that
when the Ontario members of the cabinet
remained in the cabinet after the measure
had been proposed, he could pretty well:
know, or at least guess, Where they were
on that question.
Mr. PATTERSON.
Mr. Caldecott stated
that, while he had been a great admirer
of the Prime Minister and his supporter,
he must confess that he had lost respect
for his judgment. When a gentleman like
that did not know that the presence in the
cabinet of the ministers of Ontario was
an indication that they approved the
measure, perhaps the loss of his respect
for the Prime Minister's judgment on a
constitutional question was not so serious a
matter that it ought to break my right hon.
friend's heart ? Mr. Caldecott is a friend
of ours, no doubt. But that leads me to
remark upon something that has been more
3061 MARCH 23, 1905
than once hinted at rather forcibly by my
hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster).
There is and has been an attempt in this
House to weaken the influence and disparage the judgment of the leader of the
government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). In days
gone by we were accustomed to hear from
the other side of the House at times, and
in the press, descriptions of the right hon.
leader of this government being little more
than clay that was moulded in the hands
of some stronger man or men in his cabinet.
Now the tune is entirely changed. My hon.
friend from North Toronto, describing him
the other day, and he was very indignant
about it, said that that his conduct was like
that of a Czar, who introduced-a measure
without consulting his colleagues, and who
does whatever he pleases.
Mr. PATERSON. Very well. I am dealing with the hon. gentlemen's estimate of
the Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman
complains that the Prime Minister alone is
responsible for that Bill, and that his colleagues had, you might infer that from
his
statement, to accept it. Is it a fault in
the eyes of the hon. member for North
Toronto that we have a strong man at the
head of the government ? Does the hon.
gentleman remember that a few years ago
there was a government with which he was
in perfect accord on all questions of policy,
and on all intended measures that were to
be introduced—thoroughly in accord, a
united and happy party ? But unfortunately the strong leader was not at their
head. and the hon. gentleman and six others
withdrew. Well, now. if we have got a
strong man at the head of the government,
and we have—
Mr. PATERSON—he ought to be very
glad that such is the case. It is true that
we have a strong man at the head of the
government. but he never forgets to avail
himself of the counsel of his colleagues. and
to treat them with the utmost courtesy.
We have a strong man, he has his views,
and the very fact that he is known to be a
strong man is the reason why his political
opponents desire his overthrow and the
overthrow of his government. If they can
weaken the man that is a tower of strength
to the party, then they weaken the party,
and they hope to be able by that means to
attain power. They say that he has lost
the confidence of the Liberal party, that
the Liberal party have lost the confidence
of thousands and tens of thousands of their
supporters on account of the introduction of
this measure. It is true that many staunch
and sterling men of character, integrity and
3062
honour in the Liberal party, who, I
believe,
desire well for the Liberal party, have not
been able to see eye to eye With us on this
question. That has been a source of sorrow
and of grief to us, as it must be to any
one,Â
for we value the esteem and friendship of
our fellow citizens, especially of those who
have given us their confidence in times gone
by. If the prediction made by a
gentleman
at the Toronto meeting comes true that if
this Bill is put through it should consign to
political extinction the Prime Minister and
his government and of every member of parliament that votes for it—if that be true——
and the gentleman who made the prediction
at this meeting no doubt thought he was
speaking the truth, then are we not entitled
to credit in voting for this Bill, believing
in our conscience that it is our duty to do so,
even in face of this threatened extinction ?
It seems to me there is nothing for us to be
ashamed of in that.
Mr. KEMP. May I ask the hon. gentleman who said that at the Toronto meeting
?
Mr. PATERSON. Will you take the
'World's' report for it? It says that in
speaking to his motion, Mr. E. E. Thomson,
K.C., said so and so, and wound up with
these words :
If this thing were to be consummated, the
righteous judgment of an outraged people should
be the total and irrevocable political extinction of the government, and of every
member of
the parliament guilty of this betrayal of the
public confidence.
And he concluded amid loud cheers. Well,
he may be right, that may be so.
But surely
it must be admitted that if we proceed in
face of warnings of that kind, we ought to
be given credit, at any rate, for believing
that we are doing what is right. Another
gentleman spoke at that meeting, and he
uttered a sentiment that I think was hardly
proper and which I regretted to see coming
from him. He said that the introduction of
this Bill tended to promote racial and religious strife. According to this gentleman,
that could only be averted by withdrawing
this Bill and then this vexed question of
race and religion would be eliminated altogether. He said :
Our one great national problem is to
unite
our various creeds and nationalities in one
common patriotism. If we fail now to do our
utmost to insure the unity of race and creed in
the new provinces, we shall be guilty of deliberate treason to the commonwealth. We
are
here to-night to ask the Ottawa politicians and
the Quebec ecclesiastics to mind their own
business.
Mr. KEMP. Who said that, may I inquire ?
Mr. PATERSON. I did not wish to give
his name, but I find this in the ' Mail ' report
of Mr. Willison's speech at Toronto.
3063
COMMONS
Mr. FOSTER. He is the writer of the
life of your leader.
Mr. PATERSON. And could my hon.
friend who has interrupted me desire a
greater honour to be conferred upon him
than that Mr. Willison should be able to
write such a life of him ? But I call your
attention to that extract for the reason that
the hon. gentleman who became so indignant last night with my hon. friend the
Minister of Finance when he pointed out.
to them what their course meant and what,
in his judgment, it was leading to, were rebuked. These things should not be said.
Here is a gentleman who takes the view,
or who states, that if we fail now to do
our utmost to ensure the unity of the races
who are crowding into those new provinces,
we shall be guilty of treason to the commonwealth, and yet who proposes, as a means
of cementing that unity between these dif—
ferent peoples of the Northwest, to take
away from the minority the rights which
they have had for thirty years. Sir, I care
not what these men say.
Mr. PATERSON. I will speak loud
enough. I am not like the hon. gentleman ;
when I have anything to say I am not afraid
to speak it out. There are men in the Liberal party, grand men, excellent men, who
have my esteem, and who will have my
esteem even if they leave the party and
feel that they cannot continue longer with
us, because they think that we are wrong
in this matter. I think when they thoroughly
understand this Bill, when the past is past,
when we enjoy that peace and unity that
will prevail, and that progress and prosperity which will result, as we believe they
will revise their opinions.
But, whether they are able to do so
or not, their views will be respected
by me. I will give them credit for conscientiousness ; but I do think this, that if
they had calmly considered the question,
some of them, limited in their number,
grand men, who, in the heat of their feelings on this question and viewing it from
their standpoint, have uttered certain
things against the right hon. Prime Minister
of this Dominion, will regret themselves
having said, for instance, that he has departed from the principles that he advocated
in days gone by, that he has sacrificed
the principles that he declared to be good
and that he would ever stand by. While
I regret that it is the case that such statements have been made, I only wish, in
conclusion, to say this, if my words will carry
any weight and my judgment is worth anything in this country, where for two and
thirty years I have had the honour, which
I value, of a constituency returning me as
their representative, if, speaking from the
knowledge I have of thirty of these years
spent as a fellow—member in this House
with the Prime Minister of Canada, eighteen
years with him in opposition, eight years
honoured by him as a colleague. necessarily
3064
brought into the most intimate relations
with him—I say, if my words will carry
weight, if my words will influence men who
may for the time being, perhaps in the heat
of their feelings, have uttered the ungenerous words, that, speaking out of the knowledge
of the man that I have, Sir Wilfrid
Laurier is, in my opinion, as he long has
been, the one man pre-eminent above all
other men that this Dominion has produced
in cementing the nationality of the people
of Canada.
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier). Mr.
Speaker, it is hardly necessary for one who
speaks in this House after my good friend
the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) to
assure the House that he will be moderate.
because there is something in the tone of
my hon. friend, even when he gives utterance to the mildest thoughts, which leads
one to believe that he is a man of such violent type that it is impossible to reach
the
the high vocal pitch he has done himself
in propounding his opinions. But I
notice that my good friend the Minister of Customs, although he
spoke
in a very deep voice, spoke somewhat
low when he assured the House that this
measure, which is being introduced to protect the minority in the Northwest Territories,
was absolutely harmless, contained
nothing which would in any way trench
upon the rights of the majority, and that
the importance of that enactment had been
very much exaggerated, because it contained very little. My hon. friend's voice was
very deep, but it was hardly lower
than that of the hon. Minister of Finance
(Mr. Fielding) last night when he made the
startling announcement that so trifling were
the concessions we gave that the schools
which this Bill was intended to create would
almost infallibly disappear before long. My
attention has been drawn, Mr. Speaker, to
a caricature in to-day's Montreal 'Herald.'
at which I feel very much offended. My
hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden) is represented as sitting on a
wharf with a fish basket. At one side of
him is the hon. member for East Grey (Mr.
Sproule) with a fish on the end of his line,
and on the other side myself with another
fish. We are both supposed to be fishing
on each side of the wharf different kinds
of fish that are called petitions, in order to
put them into the basket held by my hon.
friend the leader of the opposition. The
only difference between myself and my hon.
friend from East Grey is that I have a tall
hat on and he has a Christy stiff. It will be
for the hon. member for East Grey to clear
himself of this imputation, but for my part
I can say positively that during the course
of the present discussion I have fished for
no petitions in the province of Quebec, and
indeed I may say that I think this caricature
would perhaps be more properly applied to
my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and
my hon. friend the Minister of Customs,
from what they have said in their speeches
in explanation of the measure which is now
3065
MARCH 23, 1905
before the House.
for me to explain, as briefly as possible, the
reasons which have led me to oppose the
amendment which has been offered
to the
main motion for the second reading of this
Bill. I Will do so as briefly as I possibly
can. I feel very little guilt in connection
with what, to my mind, has been a very
needless agitation over this question. After
the general election of 1896 the Conservative party held a meeting in the city of
Montreal, of which some notice
was taken
in the Montreal 'Gazette' on the following
morning. At that meeting, held subsequent
to the general election, I declared for my
part I would not in the future discuss the
school question. I have adhered to that
resolution, and on no occasion, at any meeting which I have attended, and I have attended
a great many in the province of
Quebec and elsewhere, have I
ventured to
mention that much vexed question.
It has been discussed in my presence by
representatives of both parties, but I have
stood firm to my resolution. I have not
discussed it on any occasion; and if, indeed, it were not necessary that I should
state What are the reasons which have separated me on some points from the majority
of those who sit on this side of the
House, I would be perfectly satisfied to
give a silent vote on this question ; because,
Sir, I consider that it is an unfortunate
thing that, this question has been discussed
with so much passion in public. I believe
that many of the mischievous—I cannot
call them by any other term—mischievous
utterances which have been made on the
subject of these Bills, have been the result
of ignorance as to the real state of affairs
in connection with the proposed
legislation;
and I sincerely believe that when the question has been fully looked into—I agree
to
that extent with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance—and all sides of it properly
weighed, at any rate as regards the educational aspect of the question, the people
of Canada will come to the conclusion that
in the concessions granted, and
the efiort
made by this parliament to
create condi—
tions of justice and equity in the Northwest, the practical result is not one of very
great importance. That, at any rate, is my
view of the subject. It is, I admit, an important subject in the principles which
are
to govern us in our decision of the question.
It is important, no doubt, that one,
should
state for what reason one gives a vote
which may appear strange ; but at the same
time I think a great deal too much has been
made of the extent to which parliament has
been asked to go in connection with this
legislation. Let me at once call the attention of the House to the seriousness of
a
statement made last night by the Minister
of Finance. To my mind this is a question
upon which every man can have a free and
independent opinion without in any way
alienating his co-religionists of different
3066
creed. I am pleased to say, and I desire
to acknowledge, that in the words that fell
from the hon. leader of the opposition last
night—and I followed him very attentively
—there was not one word which it seems
to me could shock any man of any creed in
the province of Quebec or elsewhere. He
was led by logical deductions to the conclusions at which he arrived; and, Sir, I
am
proud to say, so far as I may represent
public opinion in my own province, that
there is one thing which we learn early in
our schools, and that is, to respect absolutely the convictions of all of our fellow
citizens. I am sorry to say that I do not
think that part of our curriculum is to be
found in all the other schools of the country. But when the Minister of Finance
went so far as to say that in the event of
the Prime Minister not being able to carry
this measure through the House, and of my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition
being called upon to form a cabinet, the
cabinet which he would form would necessarily have a purely religious colour, and
would be a Protestant administration, I do
think my hon. friend the Minister of Finance went quite beyond the bounds which
anything which my hon. friend the leader
of the opposition said could in any sense
justify.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING. Will my hon.
friend permit me to say that I did not attribute any remark of any kind to the hon.
leader of the opposition in that relation. I
expressed my own opinion as to the circumstances surrounding the whole case.
Mr. MONK. My hon. friend spoke of
that conclusion to which he himself had
arrived as being the legitimate conclusion
of the observations made by the hon. leader of the opposition.
Mr. FIELDING. If my hon. friend will
allow me, I will at once say that I
certainly did not mean to do so, and I am satisfied that I did not do so. I had no
such
thought, for I was not referring to anything
the leader of the opposition said in any
way. I am sorry to interrupt my hon.
friend.
Mr. MONK. I am glad to hear my hon.
friend say so. My hon. friend no doubt
sympathizes with those who, perhaps not
very readily, have arrived at the conclusion to which he arrived yesterday, to support
this educational measure; because, if
rumours are well founded, my hon. friend
him-self experienced very great
difficulty in
arriving at that conclusion before he spoke.
Mr. MONK. There was nothing in what
my hon. friend said which indicated that
state of mind; but my hon. friend knows
what has been the public rumour. One
of my hon. friend's friends stated to me
3067
COMMONS
yesterday that the Minister of Finance
was
a wonderful swimmer, but that he had to
be thrown into the water. I realize, with
some degree of fear, that this debate may
be protracted to a considerable length. and
I wish to indicate as briefly as possible to
the House through what mental process I
have passed, it I may use that expression,
in order to arrive at the conclusion at which
I have arrived in respect to this measure.
The question has been treated from a constitutional standpoint, and certainly it ought
to be treated from that standpoint. since
the very grounds on which we are legislating
in this affair are constitutional
grounds. I submit. in addition. that it
must
be looked at from a political standpoint—
I say political in altogether the highest
sense of the word. But, taking the constitutional standpoint, the House will permit
me to say in what sense I understand
that we are called upon to act. and how I
interpret the three constitutional Acts
which serve as the foundation for our legislation, and which must be
read together.
We have the Confederation Act of 1867.
the Act of 1871 and the Act of 1886— all
imperial Acts without which we have no
jurisdiction whatever. Under section 3 of
the last imperial Act, the amendment of
1886, these three Acts must be read together. I will not quote the sections; it
would be imposing upon the attention of
the H<,)rlse. But according
to the Constitutional Act of 1867, from the very
first section. it is evident that the scheme
of the framers of our constitution was that
the provinces should be associated together
with an absolutely equal division of powers.
It never entered into the minds of the framers of those Acts, particularly the Act
of
1867, nor even into the minds of those who
laid the foundations of that Act in the Quebec conference, that there should be the
slightest inequality between the provinces.
You will see that if you look at the Act of
1867, from section 58 to section 91.
Read section 91 and section 92 (which are
the two most important sections in regard
to the definition of the field of legislation),
read section 93, section 109, section 146, and
section 147 and you will come to the conclusion that the main object of
the imperial legislature was to unite the varied
provinces together and to distribute among
those provinces, with the most absolute
measure of equality, the different powers
which were assigned to each. It is impossible to read these Acts and not arrive
at the conclusion that this is the proposition
which is the outcome of the efforts made by
the imperial legislature in the direction of
confederation. The plan of confederation
itself rests upon the absolute equality, the
equal division of powers between all the
provinces, parties to
confederation. Any
variation, however small, from this rule is
3068
destructive
of the fundamental principle
of our constitution.
Section 146
which provides for the admission of other provinces into the Dominion upon the Order
in Council
of the home
government, especially declares that the
admission of those other provinces of Prince
Edward Island and British Columbia and
Newfoundland is to be done by the mere
operation of an imperial Order in Council
which shall bring those
provinces into
confederation, subject to all the dispositions
of the Confederation Act. This was so very
well understood at the very inception that
we find British Columbia first of all entering into confederation by the operation
of
section 1-16 by the mere passage
of an
Order in Council bringing the province into
confederation and touching in no respect
whatever upon any of the powers which are
to be attributed to the new provinces or
upon any of those powers then lying in the
lap of the new province and which were by
necessary implication to be transferred to
the Dominion. It is undeniable that when
British Columbia and Prince Edward Island
were brought into confederation. no other
mention was made of the Order in Council
which brought these provinces into confederation but this that they came in with
a certain representation in parliament, stipulated and agreed upon between the Dominion
government and the
provincial powers,
but as to a distribution of powers nothing
whatever is said ; reference is simply made
to section 146 of the Confederation Act.
It is there declared that these
provinces
come into the Dominion subject to that distribution of powers which, according to
my
interpretation of our constitution, acts automatically the moment the province enters
the Dominion.
In the case of Manitoba there were
special
circumstances. Manitoba did not enter confederation under the ordinary rule. It was
an exceptional case, and the terms upon
which that province entered the Dominion
were the subject of a special agreement
between the representatives of that then
part of the Northwest Territories and the
Dominion government. An Act was passed
beforehand by this parliament in order to
create that province with certain rights,
certain broad possibilities, and the charter
of Manitoba is so little founded upon that
Act of our own parliament and that Act
was so clearly, in the judgment of competent
lawyers, ultra vires, that it became necessary to pass in England the Imperial Act
of 1871 which is really the charter of Manitoba, so that Manitoba did not enter the
confederation under the same machinery
as that provided for other parts of British
North America. Its charter is a special
one, and it is taken altogether out of the
ordinary rule with regard to its entering
3069 MARCH 23, 1905
into confederation. These provinces, Sir,
are to be created under a section-of that
Act of 1871, passed mainly in order to validate our own Manitoba legislation, and
to
the second section of which Act I wish to
call your attention particularly. The second section of the Imperial Statutes of 1871
amending the Confederation Act says:
The parliament of Canada may from time to
time establish new provinces in any territories
forming for the time being part
of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province
thereof, and may, at time of establishment,
make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for
the
passing of laws for the peace, order and good
government of such province, and for its representation in the said parliament.
Now,
that section is of some length. It
is the only section under which we are empowered to act. It is in virtue of the powers
conferred upon us by the imperial parliament by this section that we are creating
this province. It is known, Mr. Speaker, to
many members of this House that a popular
impression exists to the effect that this
parliament has the power of creating provinces and that at the time of the creation
of provinces it can give those provinces such
a constitution as it thinks fit. That is
the popular impression and that impression
is created no doubt in the minds of many
by the reading of this section. But is that
proposition well founded ? I think not; I
do not think there is anything in this section which authorizes us, in creating a
province, to give any constitutional aspect to
that province. We are not called
upon to
give it a constitution, we simply perform, if
I may use that expression. a creative Act;
we create the province, the constitutional
Act of 1867 provides the rest.
That is how
I read this section. It is true that in this
section the words 'establish' and then 'constitute.' and then 'administer' are used.
But what do these words mean? There is
one thing it seems to me that they do not
mean. It is this, that in creating a province
we can in any way vary the terms relating
to the powers of that province that have been
laid down in a uniform and definite manner by our Constitutional Act of 1867, and
that is the reason which no doubt has led
many and has induced probably the leader
of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) to arrive at the conclusion that we have no power
in creating a province to make any disposition in regard to that province as far as
educational matters are concerned, because if
when creating a province we can give to that
province a particular educational system we
can equally confer upon this province other
powers, for instance. those
which are mentioned in section 92 of the Constitutional
Act. We could deprive the province of a
part of these powers. We can
confer upon
the province powers which it has not under
3070
the Confederation Act, which are enumerated under section 91 as belonging to the Dominion
parliament alone,
and that is, no doubt, the reason
which has led many to conclude
that
we have no power under section 2 which I
have just read to the House but that of
creating a province, automatically come into force and are applied the dispositions
of
the Confederation Act limiting strictly the
powers of the province and on the other
side defining the extent of the powers of
the Dominion parliament.
What is the sense which one must attribute to the words ' establish, constitute and
administer.' To my mind it is clear that
these words were used by the draughtsman
for the purpose of giving to the Dominion parliament, when carving provinces
out of the Northwest Territories. the powers
necessary to perform fully all the functions
of the creative act. We decree for instance
that a province will be established. The
word 'constitute ' means that we define the
limits of the province, that we declare what
it will comprise. when it will come into existence and other details which are all
comprised in the word ' constitute,' and we further have the power to administer that
province until these automatic provisions of
the Confederation Act come into operation,
by which a power superior to our own has
provided what will be the political constitution of the province. Otherwise if you
once
pretend that the words of the statute confer upon this parliament the power
to modify in any way, what will be
the political constitution and
the atttribution of the new provinces, where
will you end ? Suppose to-morrow we
should carve a province out of the Yukon. could we, in creating that province,
declare that the minerals shall remain the
property of the Dominion power? Could
we declare that the lands would remain in
our possession ? I hold we could not, and
that the only power we have is to create the
province ? That however is my own individual opinion. It is the opinion of a lawyer,
and we all know that lawyers differ
very considerably, particularly on consitutional points. For instance my hon. friend
the leader of the opposition, in defining the
constitutional position he takes with regard
to this Bill, gave it as his opinion. if I mistake not. that section 3 of the Confederation
Act does not apply to the new provinces
coming into the Dominion without any previous provincial organization, and consequently
did not apply to provinces created
by ourselves under the Imperial Act of 1871
and carved out of the Northwest Territories.
I cannot, after a careful examination of
section 93, agree in that conclusion, although
I believe it is shared by gentlemen eminent
in the legal profession. I believe that at
the moment a province is created, even if
it did not possess beforehand full legis
3071 COMMONS
lative autonomy, even if it did not enter
confederation as an independent province,
it falls ipso facto under the provision
of
section 93, and whatever rights in school
matters the minority in that province may
possess at the moment of its creation are
preserved by virtue of that section. That
is the way I read section 93 and I think
the terms are extremely general. Subsection 1 of section 93—Which is a section of
very great importance in the determination
of this question says:
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
time of
the union.
Doubt might exist if instead of those
very
general words, the words used were ' which
any class of persons possess by virtue of a
provincial law or a law passed by the legislature of the province' or other such words
clearly indicating that the legislators had in
view exclusively the case of the entry into
confederation of a province having full possession, previous to such entry, of its
entire
autonomy. But the words are extremely
general. They speak of the rights with respect to denominational schools which any
persons have by law within the limits of
the province at the union. I therefore arrive at the conclusion that the moment a
province is erected in the Northwest and
that within the territorial limits of that province there exists a law passed by competent
authority securing certain rights to any
class of persons with regard to denominational schools, those rights are preserved
by the mere fact of that territory coming
as a province within the limits of the Dominion. That is the opinion I have, and much
of the conclusions at which I have arrived
in respect of this question is the result of
that opinion. My hon. friend from East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) asks me if I consider
the words 'establish, constitute. coming in,'
to be all synonymous. My interpretation of
section 2 of the Imperial Act of 1871 is that
that Act clearly gives us the creative power.
it enables us to decree the establishment of
a province, to constitute it by defining its
limits and entering into other details which
are absolutely necessary for the purpose of
such creation, but the moment that act has
been performed our power is exhausted and
the new province comes under the control
of the different clauses of the Act of 1867,
and these clauses apply in their entirety to
it. Will the House permit me to give an
example in another field. Take the question of the lands. It seems to me that in
the new Bill now submitted for second reading, we have gone entirely beyond our power
as regards the lands. Why? Because
under section 109 of the Confederation Act
all lands, minerals, and royalties of every
kind in every province are absolutely the property of the province and not of the
Dom
3072
inion. And
in legislating as we, have done
with regard to these lands, in withholding
from these new provinces the whole
of their lands, for a consideration it is true,
but keeping the lands entirely in our possession we are legislating ultra vires, we
are
decreeing what we have no right to do ; and
not only as an act of policy, as a political
act, but as a constitutional act, those Bills
are absolutely in violation of the constitution.
Mr. BELCOURT. Are we to assume then
that the Manitoba Act, which was in terms
practically the same as this Act, which declared the ungranted lands of that province
to remain subject to the control of the
Dominion government, was ultra vires ?
Mr. MONK. As I stated a moment ago,
the Manitoba Act itself was ultra vires—
was so considered by the legal advisers
of the Crown in England—and in order
to make it valid it was necessary to pass
the Imperial Act of 1871.
Mr. MONK. That is the preamble that
my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) is citing.
But, if he will go to the sources. he will
find that there was a very strong opinion
in England and also here—I believe it was
shared by Mr. Blake—that we had no right.
It validated the section to which my hon.
friend from Ottawa (Mr.
Belcourt) has referred.
Mr. BELCOURT. My hon. friend (Mr.
Monk) will not contend that any one questioned at that time or since that the Act
was ultra vires in respect of the lands.
The necessity of the Imperial Act, as I understand, was in reference to other matters,
to remove doubts in reference to other matters than the lands.
Mr. MONK. It did not arise in that case.
There was, as I stated, an
agreement between Manitoba that was to be and the
Dominion, and the lands clause to Which
my hon. friend has just referred was the
outcome of that agreement. At any rate,
it was never questioned before the courts.
As my hon. friend, no doubt, is aware, this
question has come before the courts in many
instances and the interpretation given by
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
upon section 199, to which I have referred,
has always been favourable to the provinces, and has gone very far in the direction
of maintaining that all public lands,
whatever may be the source of the ownership of the public lands, once the province
is created. fall under provincial control.
A case arose in the province of
Quebec, the
case of Fraser who died without leaving
a will. and without heirs. My hon. friend
(Mr. Belcourt) is familiar with
that case.
3073
MARCH 23, 1905
It was the case of the Attorney General
of
Quebec against the Attorney General of the
Dominion. It was held in the province of
Quebec, that, under section 109, the lands
in dispute reverted to the Crown in right
of the province. In the courts of the province of Quebec they held that upon the
ground that, as the province had the exclusive right to legislate in regard to property
and civil rights, it followed as a consequence that it might have legislated
equally in regard to these lands, and consequently that these lands were the property
of the province. And that judgment
went through the courts and was maintained in the Privy Council. Then there
was the Mercer case in Ontario. I speak
of that frmi memory only and under correction. The last court of appeal in Ontario
held that escheated lands
fell to the
Dominion, if I mistake not—the contrary
of what our own Court of Appeals held.
But the matter went to the Privy Council,
and the Privy Council held that in the case
of an escheat, the province had the right to
the land under section 109. And, in the case
of the St. Catharines Milling Company vs.
the Queen, a case that lawyers will remember, the question involved was as to an Indian
reservation which had been abandoned
by the Indians. The Privy Council held
that, under section 109 of the Confederation
Act, these lands, abandoned by the Indians
who were under control of the Dominion
government and under the legislative control of the Dominion parliament, fell into
the provincial domain under section 109.
The latest case I have is the case of the
Attorney General of British Columbia vs.
the Attorney General of Canada, in which
the question arose in a still more pointed
manner and in which, I think, the Privy
Council went even further. In that case,
as hon. members will remember, British
Columbia had conceded to the Dominion
government a forty-mile strip upon the line
of the Canadian Pacific Railway for a consideration, I believe, of $100,000 a year.
That was an absolute cession of the lands.
Gold was found in that forty-mile strip,
and the question arose as to whether the
Dominion power or the provincial power
had a right to that gold and the royalties
upon it—which of the Powers owned the
mineral wealth. In that case, if I remember
aright, the Lords of the Privy Council held
that the words ' British Columbia ' must be
read into section 109 of the Confederation
Act—that not only the four provinces then
parties to the confederation compact, but,
said the Lords of the Privy Council you
must read into section 109 the names of
British Columbia and all the provinces that
have since been added to the Dominion, and the right to this gold and
the royalties upon it is in the Crown
in right of the province. So I am
3074
correct, I think, in saying that
jurisprudence seems to favour the view that section
109 is of a most general character, and
that all lands belonging to the Crown, fall
to the Crown in right of the province the
moment that province is created. It was
so understood in regard to the provinces
that entered the Dominion since confederation. It was so understood in regard to
British Columbia. There was no special
mention of the lands in the Order in Council by which the gates were opened to that
province for its entry into confederation.
There was no mention of lands in the Order
in Council under which Prince Edward Island came into confederation. But, in the
case of British Columbia these lands, by
the very vigour of the Confederation Act
were supposed to remain the property of
the province, and, in the case of Prince Edward Island, where there were no public
lands, the Dominion had to agree to a certain sum to be given to the province in
lieu of public lands. So. I say, by common understanding of section 109 and the
interpretation put upon that section since
our constitutional questions have arisen, it
would seem to be evident that public lands,
by the very terms of the constitution belonged to the province the moment they
enter confederation. And I see no reason
for departing from that rule in regard to
the province created out of a portion of the
Northwest Territories.
Mr. BELCOURT. Are we not proprietors
of the land in Manitoba, and proprietors
of
the lands in these provinces?
Mr. MONK. I do not know that that
makes any difference. And as regards the
observation of the Solicitor General (Mr.
Lemieux) that we purchased the lands, I
do not think that that proposition is well
founded. Even had we purchased the
lands, they are not vested in the Dominion
government, they are the property of the
Crown, the property of the King. And under our confederation scheme, all public
lands situated within the province continue
to belong to the King in right of the province. As a matter of fact, We did not
purchase the landed rights. There was an
amount given to the Hudson Bay Company in consideration of the abandonment
of its rights in that territory. But those
rights were not rights in the lands, but
hunting rights and commercial rights under
charters obtained long ago under Charles
II. But I do not think that those charters
conferred any special title in the lands. So
I do not think the hon. gentleman is right
in saying what he does as to the purchase
of the lands. The same remarks apply to
that section of the Act in which we enjoin
upon the province that it shall not interfere
with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I venture the opinion that that is not intra vires.
We can create a province, but we have no
3075
COMMONS
right to formulate an enactment in the
creating statue to say that the province or
its municipalities that may in future exist
shall not tax the Canadian Pacific Railway
Company. That is an interference with
that provision of the Confederation Act contained in section 92 which gives the provinces
absolute and exclusive control over
municipalities. It is an interference with
section 92 which says that the province shall
have the right to raise money by direct taxation within its limits. I do not say for
instance that the Canadian Paciflc Railway
has not any valid defence to offer to any exactions that may be made by the province
or by municipalities within that province.
There may be a defence, although the question is certainly one that admits of much
doubt. But in my understanding of the
constitution, we have no power by positive
enactment to say to the new province:
Here are two powers which you have under
section 92, the power of taxing directly, and
the absolute control over municipalities,
but you shall not exercise these powers in
either case with respect to this particular
company.
Mr. BELCOURT.
It seems to me the
point to decide is the jurisdiction of this
parliament concerning lands contained in
the Bills now under consideration. I would
like to know from my hon. friend exactly
what his legal view is. I understood him
to say, in reply to my question, that the
provision in the Manitoba Act with reference
to lands, by which the control of these lands
was retained in the Dominion government,
was ultra vires, but that that defect was
cured by the Confederation Act. of 1871,
section 1 which he read to the House. I
would like to know whether, in the opinion
of my hon. friend, the amendment of 1871
has had the effect of amending the British
North America Act of 1867 generally or
only with reference to Manitoba, particularly as regards lands?
Mr. MONK. Well,
it has amended the
Confederation Act, no doubt; it has added
powers in order to define more clearly our
power to create provinces. But
the question has never arisen before the courts as
to the validity of our enactment with regard
to lands in Manitoba.
Mr. BELCOURT. I want to know
whether, in the opinion of the hon. gentleman. our powers given in the
British North
America Act of 1867 have been extended by
the provisions of 1871. not only with reference to Manitoba. but with reference to
any new province coming into the
Dominion ?
Mr. MONK. I think section 2, which is
the basis of our powers under which we
are acting now, is an addition. a further extension of what is contained in section
148
of the Confederation Act. There is an increase of powers—if that is what my hon.
3076
friend means. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to
be brief, and I find it is very difficult. I
am arriving at the point I wish to make
with reference to the Educational Act. I
have wandered away from it in order to
give the House a better understanding of
my opinion of these Acts, since we are on
the second reading. and it will save me the
trouble of explaining my views at a later
stage. I hope that is the view which will
prevail. I would like to point out, as a member from the province of Quebec, that
it
would be a great calamity indeed if the
Minister of Justice and the government did
not arrive at a conclusion that it is necessary to modify that section which has regard.
for instance, to the lands. I do not
see, looking upon it as a question of policy.
what we have gained in the province of Quebec, and in the older provinces generally,
by this enormous indemnity we are undertaking to pay the new provinces
of the
Northwest for their lands. As I understand
it they have a legal claim to these lands.
They are better able to administer them
than we are here in Ottawa. They are on
the spot, they know the necessities of their
province, they have every interest in administering them with care, because these
lands are their principal asset.
and they are
the best judges of the requirements of their
province in respect to the lands. As to us
in the province of Quebec, why, Sir. we have
over 25.000000 acres of good land for settlement, which we are trying to settle, which
we are doing our best to settle. Instead
of devoting all our energies and all our
moneys and public resources to settle the
lands in our own province, under the terms
of the constitution. we are going to pay
millions of dollars to keep a hold on the
lands of the Northwest, which properly belong to our sister provinces. That is the
way I understand this clause, and I hope it
will be reconsidered.
Now, Sir, taking the views which I have
offered to the House, being my own humble
interpretation of the constitutional Act, I
have entertained no doubt at any time that
section 93 of the Act applies to this territory
which we are to-day erecting into provinces.
In section 93. as we all know, there was a
protection for the rights of the minority in
those new provinces. I assume that. but
is it the case? Eminent lawyers, men
whose authority on constitutional matters
is far greater than my own, do not assent
to this view. They do not think that section 03 applies to these new provinces. which
is a proof, if proof was required at all, that
lawyers, like doctors, will disagree on constitutional points particularly. There
is no
set of cases coming before our courts where
we have had a more uniform spectacle of
disagreement among our judges than constitutional cases. Therefore, I say there is
a grave doubt in my own mind as to whether
section 93 applies. If it does not apply, then
what guarantee. what security
has the
minority of these two provinces on entering confederation ? If it applies. if that
3077 MARCH 23, 1905
was certain and was admitted by
everybody.
you could-not say more of this amendment
which is before the House at the present
time than that it duplicates what the constitution provides, and duplicates it uselessly.
But if, as is pretended by
some. section
98, the protecting section of the Confederation Act. does not apply. then they have
no
protection. Then I say, if that claim is well
founded in equity, there is a moral obligation on the part of this parliament; if
the
claim of the minority is well founded, and
if they do not find that protection which it
would seem they have in section 93, then
should we not provide it ourselves? Is
there a man in this House, be he from the
west or from the east, who will deny that
at this very moment when we are creating
two new provinces, we particularly of this
parliament, who have for more than thirty
years maintained, rightly or wrongly, the
minority in that immense territory in the
possession of their educational rights, we
who have been the guardians of those rights.
and on two occasions have solemnly affirmed that those rights exist—is there any man
who will deny that we should at the present
moment, when we are creating these provinces, when doubts are expressed as to
our right to legislate in regard to this important point, is there a man who will
pretend that we ought not, in the preservation
of our own honour, to maintain those rights
as far as we can ? If the enactment is unconstitutional, it will be so declared by
the
courts. If the minority, under section 93
of the British North America Act, have full
protection, this Act is surplusage. The same
question would arise if we went beyond
what section 93 assures, if we gave more
than they have at the present time, or if we
took from them something which has always
been secured. But we are merely assuring
to them the rights which they possess at
the present time. In this connection, let me
say that we have before us three drafts of
proposed legislation. In the very able communication made by Mr. Haultain to the
government, which has been brought down
in this House is one of these
drafts. That
is a draft which, at first sight,
seemed to
me to go even farther than did
the first
educational clause of my right hon. friend,
[and farther than this last one,
and that
clause is to be found in Mr. Haultain's
draft, at page 14 of the papers
produced before the Northwest Territories
assembly.
Section 2 of the draft is as follows :
On, from and after the said first day of
January, 1903, the provisions of the British North
America Act, 1867, except those parts thereof
which are in terms made or by reasonable
intendment may be held to be specially applicable to or to affect only one or more
but not the
whole of the provinces under that Act composing the Dominion, and except so far as
the
same may be varied by this Act, shall be applicable to the province of in the same
way and to the same extent as they apply to
the several provinces of Canada, and as it the
province of had been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.
3078
As I at first felt under my interpretation
of our Constitutional Act, I assumed that in
regard to all school legislation the Act of
union drafted by Mr. Haultain brought us
back to the 1st of July, 1867, and I say that
that disposition of law went even farther
than the two other enactments that are before the House, because, if we went back
to the date of the Union in 1867, the minority in these new provinces might properly
urge the claim that Since legislative autonomy has been conferred on the Northwest
Territories they have had their educational
committee. They have had their own administration of their own schools conferred to
a greater extent than they have at
the present time and therefore under that
enactment and under section 93 of the Constitutional Act they may claim to be fully
restored to all their privileges. I think
they might urge that at any rate. As to
the first educational clause that was brought
down 'I must say that it did not seem to me
to have any other effect than to create in
the public mind an extremely erroneous
impression as to what we were doing for
the new provinces. Any man who takes
the trouble to inquire will be able to ascertain that by the clause relating to
education which was first submitted to the
attention of the House we were not breaking in upon the educational system of the
Northwest Territories, not introducing a
separate school system exactly as it existed
in the province of Quebec, but that we
were following the established order of
things in the Northwest Territories, and it
is probably due to the haste with which
that clause was drawn that all the agitation that subsequently arose is to be attributed,
because, in reality, what did that
clause give to the Northwest Territories?
It gave separate schools. They have them.
They have had them since 1875, but it
gave
nothing more. It is true it made a provision as regards the distribution of moneys
resulting from the Northwest Territories
Trust School Fund, but, as I understand
that part of the question, I think there is
no doubt whatever that under section 93 of
our Confederation Act the words 'public
schools' in the Northwest Lands Act is understood as applying to the schools of the
Northwest Territories as they exist today.
They are called separate schools but they
are in reality public schools and will be
so
interpreted by any tribunal. We have this
amendment in which it has been suggested
that concessions have been made -
Mr. BOURASSA. Before my hon. friend
leaves that subject of the Trust Fund may
I just remind him that in the appropriations which have been made by the legislature
of the Northwest Territories since
their existence of the moneys coming from
the Trust Fund supplied by the federal government the separate schools have always
participated and not only have they parti
3079
COMMONS
cipated in the Trust Fund but in the
money
voted by the legislature.
Mr. MONK. I did not know that, but it
goes to prove that interpretation and there
is no other interpretation possible because
anybody who takes the trouble to read
from end to end the ordinances of the
Northwest Territories in respect to schools
must arrive necessarily at that- conviction.
I do not know what distinction there
would be between what are called separate
schools and public schools. They are not
separate schools in the sense that we ordinarily understand the term.
Mr. LEMIEUX. They are separate
schools but not denominational schools.
Mr. MONK. They are not denominational schools; certainly not. So, I do not see
in the last enactment that there is any concession—very far from it. I think the last
amendment goes perhaps a little farther
than the original enactment which caused
so much excitement because it defines more
clearly what the privileges of the separate
schools are. They were not defined at all
in the original enactment. It defines them
by reference to the chapters of the Northwest Ordinances where they are fully explained
so that it defines more clearly these
privileges and it may be argued that it secures to the separate schools the right
of
religious instruction. I am not just sure
under the first enactment it would not have
been possible to say in the Northwest Territories: You have the right to separate
schools, that is granted, you will have them
but you have no right even to the half hour
of religious instruction because it is not
laid down in the bond. It is not in the
Dominion enactment and we will withdraw
that right from you. This enactment goes
a little farther because it refers to the ordinance which secures the right of religious
instruction.
Will you just allow me to say one word
in regard to What has been referred to by
my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) ? Is it a fact that we are by this
Bill
establishing denominational schools in the
Northwest Territories ? Before I
touch
upon that let me say this to the House.
The fact that a very great difference of
opinion has existed among lawyers led me
to the conclusion that there is
certainly no
harm, holding as I do that the minority
is
entitled to the preservation of its rights, in
repeating in the form of an enactment, as
we do by this Bill, what is already assured
constitutionally to the minority by section
93 of the British North America Act. And,
I may go a step farther. That section forms
part of the constitution, it is true, but I
think one, who has at heart, as I have, I
must admit, the maintenance of the very
limited privileges that the minority are
going to enjoy under this enactment might
say in addition that we have had the ex
3080
perience of Manitoba. Surely no case of
any province could be presented in which
greater precautions had been taken than
were taken at the time of the creation or
Manitoba for the maintenance of the
rights of the minority. Everybody
knows what happened. I will not repeat the story of that unfortunate affair,
but, as a matter of fact, by legislation of
the province, the rights of the minority were
taken away. They were taken away after
every assurance had been given to that
minority that their rights would be preserved. There never was anything to my mind
more unworthy than the action of the Manitoba legislature in abolishing its legislative
council, and at the time of that abolition
giving the minority who helped to put
through that abolition, every possible assurance that honourable men could give that
at no time would their privileges be interfered with. They were taken away. The
minority carried their claims before the
courts. Ultimately, after an endless litigation, the highest court in the realm declared
that they had a right to redress.
That judgment of the Privy Council rendered years ago remains, as the members of
this House know, unsatisfied to this day.
Does that not give to those whose mission
perhaps more particularly it is
to secure
the rights of the minority in these new
provinces, the right to take every imaginable precaution in order that those rights
should be maintained even in the Northwest? And I say this with due regard
ts the people of the Northwest, because I
have implicit confidence in that population.
I hope on this occasion at any rate that
confidence will not be misplaced. I know
the disposition of the people who inhabit
that large territory. They are generous,
they are broad-minded, and I have every
confidence—because, as any educationist
knows, everything depends on the way in
which an education law is administered—
that they will treat that minority with
justice. But we must admit that after the
Act of 1875 had been passed, and after the
Act of 1880 had been passed, the Northwest legislature did confer rights upon
the minority—gave them a council of public
instruction, gave them certain rights without which up to the present it has been
considered impossible, by the minority, to
carry on Catholic education, and they had
the use of the French language. These
things have been taken away, and, in reality
as was said yesterday, what we are endeavouring to preserve for them is merely the
right to the material separation of schools,
the right to be exempt from double taxation in educational matters, to which Catholics
are subject all over the United States,
and the right to that half-hour of religious
instruction at the end of the day which
exists in the Northwest for all denominations alike, I am happy to say, because I
am
3081
MARCH 23, 1905
not a believer in any sense in those
schools
where the name of God is never mentioned. But is this education, Mr. Speaker—
denominational education? So much has
been said that is displeasing, that is hurtful,
we have heard so much about the hierarchy,
about priestly control, about endowing the
Catholic Church in the Northwest. I have
met men who have told me this: We are
ready to give every facility to our Catholic
fellow-countrymen in the Northwest, but
we are not prepared to endow a church.
This is the way they understood this enactment. Well, it is reasonable, it seems
to me, to ask ourselves what is in reality
the effect of this enactment? Is it the
endowment of a church ? Is it even denominational education, as they have it freely
all over England? It is not denominational
education at all, because that supposes
that the education in denominational schools
is entirely under the control of men of a
particular denomination. It supposes that
the particular creed of that denomination
is taught with the same care as other
branches of knowledge. It supposes that the
education in the schools, the text books,
the qualifications of teachers, all that goes
to make up denominational education, is
under the control, not of clerics, not of
priests or bishops, but of men who belong
to that denomination. This is not at all
the character of the education that is being
provided for in these new provinces. Let
me just indicate to you what has already
been indicated, but what cannot be repeated too often in view of what has been
said, that under the new regime in the
Northwest Territories there is no Council of
Public Instruction. There is a commissioner
of education who with his department controls everything that is important in education—controls
absolutely the formation
of school districts, controls everything connected with normal schools for forming
teachers; regulates the qualifications of
those teachers, and can revoke them at
any moment ; controls the books, the courses
of study, the hours, the holidays, compulsory
attendance of pupils, the requirements of
the schools in regard to sites and buildings.
All these matters remain absolutely under
the control of the government, at present a
government entirely Protestant. It is true,
there is an educational advisory board composed of five members, two of whom are
Catholics, to whom these matters are referred. But that board can only advise; it
has no power of deciding; and, as a matter of fact, the control of education in
what are called separate schools, though
they are really not so, is absolutely in the
hands of the government. What, then, is
the power of the Catholics under this legislation which we are called upon to sanction
? Well, they engage teachers, but these
teachers must have the qualifications which
3082
have been settled beforehand by the
government, and those teachers may be revoked; they provide for the half-hour of
religious instruction, and they levy the rate
of taxation; and even in regard to these
matters they are absolutely accountable to
the government, are inspected by an inspector named by the government and having instructions
from the government, and
who may be and in most cases is not of
their own creed. Under these circumstances
I do not think we are imposing a great deal
on the Northwest Territories, nor introducing a very revolutionary measure. The
best proof of that may be found in the
appreciation given by Archbishop Taché of
the legislation which at present exists, and
we are anxious to preserve, because it keeps
for the minority some shred of what they
had before. Archbishop Taché, speaking of
the schools in the Northwest, said :
The Catholic schools are under the
control
and direction of a council of public instruction
(now it is a commissioner) in which there is
not a Catholic who has a right to vote. The
choice of all the books, both for teachers and
for pupils, is entirely in the hands of Protestants, as well as the final formation
of teachers
and the right to give them permission to teach.
The inspectors may all be Protestants, and
in any case the inspection is made apart from
any consideration for Catholic ideas. The ordinance destroys the Catholic character
of
the
schools which formerly distinguished those
schools, and leaves them no point whatever
upon which the faith of parents
can rest with
any degree of confidence.
Further on, Archbishop Taché appreciating the system of education condemns the
system and as a matter of fact those who
have seen that system of schools in operation in the Northwest Territories, who have
been called upon as Catholics to take part
in it, have time and again been obliged to
apply to the authorities for the redress of
grievances which must necessarily take
place under such a system of law. I shall
give as an example the case of religious
orders going up there to teach, nuns and
Christian brothers. They are obliged to
qualify under the ordinance of the Northwest Territories and Without this qualification
on certain occasions they have not been
allowed to teach. This has given rise to a
great deal of difficulty. As I
said before
everything depends in an educational law on
the manner in which it is administered and
what we are claiming by this enactment is
little enough. The Catholics in the Northwest will have to a very large extent to
depend on the generosity and broadmindedness of the majority there in order to be
able to carry into effect the legal privileges
which they have kept up to this day. These
are the reasons which have led me to the
conclusion that the very least we can do,
taking my interpretation of the constitution,
is to support that part of the Bill which
relatcs to the maintenance of separate
3083
COMMONS
schools. Of course it would be useless at
this stage to point to the great differences
which
exist between our own country and
England in respect to broadness of
concession in regard to education, but in connection with this very important subject
I
have had occasion to look over the English
educational law and the debates which have
taken place on the Bill of 1902, and it is
amazing, it is edifying to see to what extent
they have gone in England in order to maintain the principle of religious liberty
in connection with schools. of course
as every
one knows, denominational education exists
in England ; there are there denominational
schools such as exist here, but denominational schools helped by the state, supported
by the state, and in the educational Bill of
1902 they have gone to a great length, they
have improved the system in every way but.
they have stuck with admirable tenacity to
the principle that there shall be no schools
without some kind of religion. There are
board schools in England. where secular
matters are taught. subject to what
is known as the Cowper-Temple clause
which provides that there will be religious education but not of any particular denominational
character. They
have not wished even in the board
schools to exclude the religious principle.
In the voluntary schools denominational
education is provided and encouraged by the
state, and, always faithful to the principle
of liberty of conscience, there is in the voluntary schools a conscience. clause which
exists since the educational law of 1870 and
which provides that any pupil attending a
school, may, if his conscience or the conscience of his parents require it, absent
himself during religious instruction. In
England they have stood firm throughout
all educational changes to the principles of
absolute religious equality in the schools
and true to the principle of religious teaching.
There is in this country, for some reason
which I am unable to understand, a servile
desire to imitate the United States.
Mr. MONK. We are very proud of English traditions, of constitutional liberty, of
all that the British flag, and the British constitution represent in the way of freedom;
but. for a reason which I do not know, when
we come to schools, amongst a certain set of
people we have a desire to do exactly as
they do in the United States.
Mr. MONK. But as a matter of fact, Mr,
Speaker. that system is on trial, it is on
trial. It has only existed for some fifty
years. Up to 1812. the primary
education
provided in the United States was exactly
the same as that provided in England and
out of those schools which existed in the
United States and which were similar to
3084
the schools that we have in Quebec, and
that exist in Ontario, have come the most
famous men whom we have had in the world
during the last century. These schools have
produced men like Washington, Jefferson,
Colquhoun and Webster, and many others
who have not been followed by men of equal
value in the public life of the United States.
And even those state schools which originated in New York in 1842 and
have since
spread over the whole republic, are in a tentative state; they are on trial. Have
they
given absolute satisfaction? Far from it,
they are only on trial and many people have
condemned that system of schools, have
found it insufficient, inadequate to meet the
wants of the nation. I have taken the
trouble to find out What the judgment in the
United States upon that system of schools
has been, the judgment of men whose opinion is worth considering. not men of my
own creed, but men of other creeds, and I
find that opinion is very much divided as
to the value of these schools. If anybody
has any doubt as to the matter, he should
read the ' New York Herald' of October 20,
1871, in which are given the results of an
inquiry made by no less a person than Professor Agassiz of the value in 1871 of the
new educational system established in the
United States. Speaking of the New York
Act of 1842 which was the
beginning of the
new system, an eminent American publicist, Richard Grant White said:
It was a misfortune, not only for the
city of
New York, but for the state and for the whole
country.
In the 'Popular Science Monthly.' March
1871, H. M. H. Wilson said:
Of all the acquisitions of American
liberty,
our educational system is the most vaunted,
and as usual the most spoiled.
However bitter it may be, the inevitable
conclusion is this: the development of our
present system of. education carries with it the
destruction of individuality, and that destruction means political, intellectual and
social
stagnation.
In the 'Journal of Education,' March 17,
1881, Mr. Hazen said:
The moral aspect of our schools is
distressing. It is no more a question of the Bible to
be kept or excluded, of Catholic or Protestant
influence, but rather of such immoral tendencies that our public schools are a menace
to
the family, the state and the nation.
The Rev. John Donne, at the ministerial
meeting at Cleveland, Ohio, in June, 1888,
said :
I believe that immorality and drunkenness
often are the work of that American God, the
public school.
The Rev. Thomas Green, pastor of the St.
Andrew's church, in Chicago, said in November, 1886 :
There is a
great evil in the public schools
as directed.
3085
MARCH 23, 1905
Mr. Green's opinion was that the
secularization of the schools is largely
responsible of the
evils to be found in the business and social
world. Without the Bible, without Christ,
Without religion. almost without morals, they
can only engender atheism and infidelity, and
he desired the establishment of parochial
schools to counteract to a certain extent the
evil influence of the public schools.
The New York 'Methodist,' some years
ago, declared the public schools to be ' hot
beds of infidelity.'
At the beginning of the year 1889, the
Boston 'Pilot' said :—
Let us be just and honest, It is a
notorious
fact which we should not forget that thousands
of children or both sexes, born of Protestant
and American parents, do not receive in this
country any religious or moral education.
Dr. Shearer, president of Dawson College
in North Carolina. declared in December,
1889, that the non-sectarian character of the
schools impeded the religious education of
Presbyterian youths. He strongly
recomended the establishment of schools to be
maintained by the church for this purpose.
The Presbyterian synod of
California in
1881, adopted a report of the education
committee presented by the Reverend Dr.
Scott, recommending the opening of denominational schools. 111 1862. the superintendent
of public instruction for the State
of New York reported that the teachers
were so lacking in knowledge that the matter had become a source of great embarrassment.
In 1873, Charles Francis Adams,
Jr., speaking of the Quincy schools says :—
In other words, it was evident that after
eight years at school, children in general could
neither write nor read with facility.
In 1877, a member of the Cleveland,
Ohio. Board of Education complains of the
system of schools and says :—
There is a positive delusion in the
development of our schools.
In his report of 1878-1879. Mr. Ezra Carr
quotes approvingly, the following from the
'Atlantic Monthly ':—
Two things are particularly noticeable in
our
system of popular education :
It tends to stifle the taste for
literature and
the sense of the value of modern history. It is
a serious defect. However its most characteristic and common result is a. distaste
for manual
labour.
The Boston correspondent of the San
Francisco ' Call ' wrote in his paper in 1877 :
A great many people concerned in the administration of our public schools have come
to
the conclusion that the system in our city il
a complete failure.
According to Mr. Richard Grant White, it
was established officially in 1875, that the
examination for matriculation of candidates
for West Point during the preceding twenty-
five years had shown a gradual
falling off
3086
as far as elementary knowledge was concerned.
In 1880, Reverend Dr. McLean,
Congregational church, said :—
Throughout the United States there is a continually increasing number of people who
are
dissatisfied with our present school system.
In 1881, the Boston Journal of Education' said :
In many of our
large and small cities, the
painful conviction is gaining ground that our
public schools are not giving us our money's
worth and are not realizing our expectations.
Mr. Z. Montgomery, formerly of Oakland,
California, and a high official of the Department of Justice in Washington, made a
campaign against public schools. He was
a Catholic. Yet during his campaign he received many Protestant approvals. Rev. W.
D. Blackwell, of Trenton, New
Jersey, wrote him :
I am a Presbyterian, but in perfect
accord
with you on this question of the schools.
In February, 1882, the San Francisco
' Examiner,' in an article on education,
said :
One of the most serious questions we have
to
examine in this regard, has reference to the
value of our public school system; the conclusion to which an impartial and intelligent
observer is driven, is far from recognizing the
wisdom and efficacy of the school organization
maintained by the public.
Dr. Boyce, in his work entitled ' Deterioration and Race Education,' says :
Our present school system kills in the
child
every natural inclination for physical labour;
it fills the country with place hunters and the
working classes feel that the children who are
called to succeed them derive no benefit from
such schools.
Richard Grant White, in an article in the
' North American Review,' in 1880, gave statistics as to criminality in states where
public schools system has been in existence for
the longest time. Finally, the National
Christian Association, composed of over
fifteen Protestant denominations, protested
in 1880 against secular schools as follows :
To cultivate the intelligence without
improving the moral character is to develop clever
men only. The Bible must therefore be associated with books of science and education
in
all our institutions.
I do not wish to multiply these
citations.
There are a great number, and they all go
to prove, not that the system is to be condemned, for you cannot condemn a national
system which is untested. but that outside
of Catholics themselves, there are in the
United States a very large number of thinking men who perceive in these schools, from
which religion is absolutely banished, a
grave danger to the state. That is all I
want to prove. I am not passing judgment
on the system. I am not in a position to
do it. But I say that all people are not
3087 COMMONS
unanimous as to its merits. Under those
circumstances, it seems strange that we
should wander away from British traditions
and be seduced into favouring a system
which, to my mind at any rate, presents
some very serious objections.
I did not wish to take up more time than
I should, but I wished to give fully
my
views to the House. I regret to have to
say it, but there has been in the public discussion of this question an endeavour
to
convey to the public that outside of all other
considerations, outside of the constitutional
question, which is a very grave one, it
would be, from the point of view of expediency and policy, a great misfortune to see
established in these provinces the schools
of the Catholic minority. Are they then
so inferior ? Are these schools productive
of nothing but ignorance ? One is entitled
to ask that question in view of what one
reads and hears every day. Is that the
fact? Well, in the United States where
the natural rights of the parent to educate
his child, the natural right of the citizen
not to pay taxes for the support of schools
to which he cannot send his children, is
disregarded, what do we find? The calculation has been made and the statistics
are there to prove it. We find that the
Catholics, who cannot conscientiously send
their children to these public schools, are
obliged to expend, and do expend annually
—what amount do you think ? Over $50,000,000 a year in order to provide that adequate
education for their children which
their consciences oblige them to provide. I
forget how many millions they expend in
the city of New York alone. And they
expend those millions to provide schools of
their own with Catholic teachers. These
schools are sometimes visited by impartial
judges, and the education given in them is
found just as good, and often better, than
that given in the public schools. So that
we have this spectacle in the United States,
of a large portion of the people being obliged
to pay taxes for schools to which they cannot send their children, and having to tax
themselves further in order to provide
schools which will satisfy the dictates of
their conscience and enable them to exercise that right which is the natural undeniable
right of every parent, the right to
educate his own children in the manner
he thinks best. But under this tyranny
exercised under the American constitution,
they are obliged, in order to exercise that
right, to pay double taxation. Is that what
we want to see under the British flag in
Canada? I say it is not desirable that
anything of the kind should exist in this
country. And outside, of constitutional considerations—the value of which I acknowledge
and to the opinions of those who hold
them I pay every deference—I will always
uphold the principle in discussion under the present Bill,namely, the
right of a parent
3088
to educate his child as he thinks best.
And
at the risk of being a little lengthy, will
you allow me just to quote what the First
Minister of England had to say with reference to that phase of the question in discussing
the Educational Bill. Speaking of
the religious question, Mr. Balfour said :—
I cannot leave this topic of the
necessity of
the voluntary schools without saying that in
my opinion they are necessary
also for another
and a very different reason. What is the theory
which, on both sides of the House as I think—
I do not recognize any difference of principles
between us—we ought to adopt with regard to
denominational education in public schools. We
do not insist, as everybody knows, upon teaching the children of this country any
particular
religion. We do insist upon teaching them a
recognized arithmetic, a recognized geography,
history, &c. In the one case we decline the
responsibility, leaving the responsibility to the
parents, and in the other we are agreed that
the state may properly take the responsibility
of saying to every parent, so far as secular
education is concerned, your child shall learn
what we think fit to teach it. Of course the
reason of this difference is known to all. We
are agreed about secular education. We are not
agreed about religious education. Whatever be
the historic origin or the present state of
things, we have, as a community, repudiated responsibility for teaching the particular
form
of religion. We maintain the responsibility, we
gladly assume the responsibility for teaching
secular learning. As we have thus left to the
parents the responsibility for choosing what
religion their children are to learn surely we
ought, as far as we can consistently with the
inevitable limitations which the practical necessity of the case put upon us, make
our system
as elastic as we can in order to meet their
wishes.
And he goes on to explain exactly the
position they take in England in regard to
this difficult matter and how they have
solved it. I have read many of the speeches
of English statesmen upon this Education
Bill, a Bill which has afforded ground for
so much discussion in England. I venture
to say that there is not a word in those
speeches that could not be uttered from the
pulpit of any Catholic Church in my province and to every sentence of which every
member of the congregation would not be
prepared to say, 'Amen.' Which
shows
how far they go in regard to religious liberty
in educational matters on the other side
oi the water.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have
sufficiently made known my opinions in
regard to this matter. I wish before resuming
my seat, to make a very brief allusion
to the character of the discussion of
this
matter in the public press. We have heard
a great deal about freedom of the Northwest and about common schools ; we have
seen in some papers a clear indication that,
were opportunity offered, there
exists a
great desire to deprive this minority, once
for all
of even a shred of the rights which
they
preserve at the present moment in the
3089
MARCH 24, 1905
Northwest Territories. The discussion has
gone even farther, and it has been time and
again written and said that those in this
House who defend the rights of the minority are under clerical influence, are acting
under the dictation of the hierarchy, whatever that may mean. What is the meaning
of these insinuations ? If they were uttered once or twice. if they appeared, so to
speak, by accident, one would be prepared to
treat them with the tolerance
which must
necessarily be the quality of a public man
if he wishes to live. But it has been so
often stated that those who in this House
adopt the view which I adopt are under
the domination of the clergy, that I wish at
any rate for my part, to enter my protest
against that insinuation. There is no foundation for that accusation, and those who
make it know not of what they speak. I
say, I come to this House to fulfil my
duty to my country without any control over
me of priest or bishop or anybody else. That
control I have never admitted, and that
control never existed. As a matter of fact,
I venture to say, the clergy in my province
"do not exercise any control upon
the decision of public questions and the votes
which we give in this House. That control
does not exist ; it is a figment of the mind.
And, when men take the trouble to write
in newspapers—not to speak in the irritation of the moment, but to write deliberately
—that those who are in my position in
this House are under outside control, are,
so to speak, led by extraneous influences,
they are casting upon us a libel which we
do not deserve. I venture to say there is
not a voter in the Dominion of Canada who
would be more free from clerical influence
than the average voter of the province of
Quebec. Priests exercise no influence in
these matters. They refrain from action in
them. And they could not interfere with the
exercise of the franchise. Take the case
of my own county; I verily believe that
if the parish priests of my county—and
they are respectable men—were to unite to
secure my election, I would lose my deposit.
They do not interfere in elections; they
scarcely vote. I am prepared to admit
that there are isolated cases where a clergyman, not of my own denomination only,
but
of other denominations as well, has interfered. What has been the consequence in
Quebec Where these isolated cases have occurred ? They have led to lawsuits and to
the final departure of the parish priest from
the charge of the parish—that has been the
history of such cases. As a matter of
fact I repeat there is no man who would
resent more promptly (and I could give
numberless examples of it) any interference by the priest with the exercise of the
franchise than would the average voter of
the province of Quebec. And, as a public
man, I believe that everybody is in the same
3090
position of independence that I am in myself. I would like to see anybody be he
priest or bishop, interfere with me in the
exercise of my functions in this House. I
thought it necessary to make this declaration, because, these things being so often
repeated it becomes essential that they
should be denied. As to the boring underground of the black-robed men who are all
the time acting by hidden, obscure, mysterious conspiracies upon members of parliament,
upon the electors in general—all this
is nothing but a chimera.
Mr. Speaker, I have finished. I do not
wish to go one step farther, but you will
allow me in closing to quote the last sentence of Mr. Balfour's speech upon the Education
Bill :
No other scheme—be it what you like—will
give to the educational evils of this country the
complete, radical, and final cure which this Bill
will give. I count upon the support of our
countrymen to enable us to close for ever these
barren controversies which for too long have
occupied our time, and in the interests alike
of parental liberty and of educational efficiency
to terminate the present system of costly confusion.
If I quote these sentences it is because
they express in far better, far
loftier language than I can command my own view in
regard to these questions in general. If I
could have my wish in the forming of these
two new provinces, it would be that in the
conduct of public affairs, particularly in
the treatment of the minority—which, practically whatever we may enact, is entirely
confided to the generosity of the majority—
they may have men to lead the destinies
of these two great provinces according to
the example of these great
statesmen of
England.
Motion agreed to.
This individual participated in:
